Lesbian Paladins?
Paul Zoski
One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
couple of ways:
1) The character is a lesbian, but cannot admit it to herself. She
views her lesbian impulses as "impure thoughts" and so takes her
actions to the opposite extreme, to prove to herself that she's not
evil, wicked, deranged, or whatever her lawful good religion tells her
she is.
2) The character is a lesbian, but has been "converted/saved" by her
religion. Now she is just so full of the religion that she's become a
Paladin.
Can anyone give me any feedback on these ideas or perhaps give some
alternative ways to play a lesbian paladin?
Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
Let me further add that I'm not interested in "hmosexuality is wrong"
or "Homosexuality has no place in D&D" discussions. I've already made
up my mind that homosexuality is allowed at my gaming table, and
that the player is allowed to play a lesbian paladin. I'm only interested
on a discussion of how to play this character.
--
Paul J. Zoski e-mail: pj...@ms.uky.edu
718 Patterson Office Tower WWW: http://www.ms.uky.edu/~pjz1
Office Phone: (606)-257-6806 Fax: (606)-257-4078
"Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western
religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of
Western science."
-- Gary Zukav, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"
verkuilen john v
pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu (Paul Zoski) writes:
>One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
>to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
>changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
>couple of ways:
>1) The character is a lesbian, but cannot admit it to herself. She
>views her lesbian impulses as "impure thoughts" and so takes her
>actions to the opposite extreme, to prove to herself that she's not
>evil, wicked, deranged, or whatever her lawful good religion tells her
>she is.
Well, you've got all sorts of potential here. There are lots of precedents
for people who have tried to deal with their own shortcomings (real or
otherwise) by getting religion. The Catholic Church has a real problem with
that right now, as evidenced by the many sex scandals involving priests that
keep showing up in the press (with evidence of such abuse going back many,
many years, too). Temptations have to play a role, eventually if the
background is to make any difference. Otherwise, why bother?
Side note: I had an idea for a paladin character (the vast majority of which
I utterly hate) who was "touched" in the same way as Ste. Theresa (you
know, the one who was "pierced by God's Holy Arrow"). The character would be,
oh, a late teens female of noble ancestry who has had lots of visions and
_knows_ she is the bride of her god. She would take off, fleeing from an
arranged marriage, to do good deeds until the god was ready to take her into
his house. This would all be, of course, heavily opposed by her family
and the authorities, all (or at least most of whom) think she is absolutely
nuts. As time went on, she would manifest her miracles more and more,
although I think it would be important to make sure that there was always
a severe kernel of doubt about it all until fairly high level. This character
would not be reflective enough (in my mind) to be a good priest, and the
high charisma seemed to fit, ergo, a paladin.
>2) The character is a lesbian, but has been "converted/saved" by her
>religion. Now she is just so full of the religion that she's become a
>Paladin.
Sounds fine, but I refer you to my discussion above. In order for this
character to really be interesting _and_ for the lesbian background to
make any difference, there has to be some temptation down the road....
>Can anyone give me any feedback on these ideas or perhaps give some
>alternative ways to play a lesbian paladin?
>Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
>lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
>exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
OK, how about Ancient Greek philosophy, in which homosexuality--properly
controlled and guided--was considered acceptable and even encouraged?
The Spartans were certainly a Lawful society, and homosexuality between
battle partners was encouraged. If one takes Plato's Republic seriously as
an example of the idealized Polis and that he based it off the Spartans,
one would have to conclude they were Lawful. (Remember, the society doesn't
have to always live up to the ideal.) I don't see any reason that homosexuality
needs to be considered exclusive of a lawful good society (whatever _that_
is). There are real world societies premised on "lawful" philosophy
in which it was not proscribed in the way that the Judeo-Christian tradition
has done. Ancient China, Ancient Japan, and Ancient Greece come to mind.
One thing to remember is not to export the modern view of marriage and the
family or of homosexuality onto one's fantasy society. The notion of the
romantic marriage was not exactly accepted until quite recently. A man
could be married and carry out his obligations to prrocreate without loving
his wife, for instance. Marriage wasn't just a binding of a man and a woman
but also of his family to hers, and was a lot like a contract. Love was for
your lover, children were for your wife. This, of course, leaves a huge door
open for homosexuality.
>Let me further add that I'm not interested in "hmosexuality is wrong"
>or "Homosexuality has no place in D&D" discussions. I've already made
>up my mind that homosexuality is allowed at my gaming table, and
>that the player is allowed to play a lesbian paladin. I'm only interested
>on a discussion of how to play this character.
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"No general method will fail to give bad results if conjoined with universal
idiocy." --John Stuart Mill
The Unsinkable Camille Klein
Aliens and the Trilateral Commission used Orbital Mind Control Lasers to
make Paul Zoski (pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu) say:
# One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
# to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
# changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
# couple of ways:
# 1) The character is a lesbian, but cannot admit it to herself. She
# views her lesbian impulses as "impure thoughts" and so takes her
# actions to the opposite extreme, to prove to herself that she's not
# evil, wicked, deranged, or whatever her lawful good religion tells her
# she is.
I really do hope you don't get too many flames for this. But think about
this for a moment: Why should a LG religion outlaw sexual relations
between two members of the same sex? If the Paladin were a Paladin of
Yahweh or the Christian god, then *maybe* I can see it. But for any other
religion? Why should love between two people be bad? Look at it that
way.
# 2) The character is a lesbian, but has been "converted/saved" by her
# religion. Now she is just so full of the religion that she's become a
# Paladin.
Again--why should it matter to her deity whether or not she's a dyke? My
Cleric of Ukko is bisexual, and Ukko certainly doesn't seem to mind that
she finds women as well as men attractive. The only thing stopping the
Cleric is the fact that she just hasn't found the right Cleric/Paladin/Lay
Preacher of Ukko yet, and prefers not to mess around with anyone.
# Can anyone give me any feedback on these ideas or perhaps give some
# alternative ways to play a lesbian paladin?
# Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
# lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
# exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
Hopefully, this will head off flames--but I am guessing that not even this
will stop some of the zealots. :/ Look at it this way: Can you think of
any reason why being lesbian or gay would be against the tenets of the
Paladin's religion? If it doesn't violate any laws, then why worry about
it? Very few societies really outlaw homosexuality--it's a non-issue for
some, and for others it's so minor as to not really be worth legislating
about.
--Camille.
--
I said it. You read it. I'm not taking it back.--Drew Lanz.
All unsolicited commercial e-mail coming to this account is subject to a
service charge of $250 per piece of mail.
To subscribe to the Ministry of BattleTech mailing list, send e-mail to
majo...@polarnet.com with the words 'subscribe tmobml' in the body.
Unco Duck
The Unsinkable Camille Klein wrote:
>
> Aliens and the Trilateral Commission used Orbital Mind Control Lasers to
> make Paul Zoski (pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu) say:
>
> # One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
> # to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
> # changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
> # couple of ways:
>
> # 1) The character is a lesbian, but cannot admit it to herself. She
> # views her lesbian impulses as "impure thoughts" and so takes her
> # actions to the opposite extreme, to prove to herself that she's not
> # evil, wicked, deranged, or whatever her lawful good religion tells her
> # she is.
>
> I really do hope you don't get too many flames for this. But think about
> this for a moment: Why should a LG religion outlaw sexual relations
> between two members of the same sex? If the Paladin were a Paladin of
> Yahweh or the Christian god, then *maybe* I can see it. But for any other
> religion? Why should love between two people be bad? Look at it that
> way.
Think about this. If a religion that is popular says it's okay for
people to get it on with members of the same sex, some people will do
that. This means they wont be reproducing, a problem for times of old.
Now I see no reason that the character can't be a lesbian if the god
allows, which I don't think TSR will talk about because of it's
touchiness. What it really comes down to is the god. Which god and why
would he care?
>
> # 2) The character is a lesbian, but has been "converted/saved" by her
> # religion. Now she is just so full of the religion that she's become a
> # Paladin.
>
> Again--why should it matter to her deity whether or not she's a dyke? My
> Cleric of Ukko is bisexual, and Ukko certainly doesn't seem to mind that
> she finds women as well as men attractive. The only thing stopping the
> Cleric is the fact that she just hasn't found the right Cleric/Paladin/Lay
> Preacher of Ukko yet, and prefers not to mess around with anyone.
>
> # Can anyone give me any feedback on these ideas or perhaps give some
> # alternative ways to play a lesbian paladin?
>
> # Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
> # lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
> # exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
>
> Hopefully, this will head off flames--but I am guessing that not even this
> will stop some of the zealots. :/ Look at it this way: Can you think of
> any reason why being lesbian or gay would be against the tenets of the
> Paladin's religion? If it doesn't violate any laws, then why worry about
> it? Very few societies really outlaw homosexuality--it's a non-issue for
> some, and for others it's so minor as to not really be worth legislating
> about.
As I said earlier, it cuts down population growth. This is a valid
reason when the nation is less than 50,000 people and lack of food
production isn't killing the citizens off already. While violating laws
or not is up to the DM through the predominant religions, what about the
good part of that alignment? Again, what is and isn't good goes back to
the god. I really can't help you here.
>
> --Camille.
>
> --
> I said it. You read it. I'm not taking it back.--Drew Lanz.
> All unsolicited commercial e-mail coming to this account is subject to a
> service charge of $250 per piece of mail.
> To subscribe to the Ministry of BattleTech mailing list, send e-mail to
> majo...@polarnet.com with the words 'subscribe tmobml' in the body.
--
...Of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: "It might have been!"
-John Greenleaf Whittier
Come to the Generation Y page and "Question everything!"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3475/genyhome.htm
Steve Gilham
du...@broadwaynet.com wrote:
> Think about this. If a religion that is popular says it's okay for
> people to get it on with members of the same sex, some people will do
> that. This means they wont be reproducing, a problem for times of old.
Don't forget vows of chastity (entirely in period for a
quasi-mediaeval setting) have much the same end result, if honoured.
-- Personal mail to steve*windsong.demon.co.uk (for which PGP is preferred) --
Steve Gilham |GDS Ltd.,Wellington Ho. |My opinions, not those of GDS
Software Specialist|East Road, Cambridge |Corporation or its affiliates.
steveg@ |CB1 1BH, UK |---------------------------------
uk.gdscorp.com |Tel:(44)1223-300111x2904|http://www.windsong.demon.co.uk/
dave...@hooked.net
In article <592bmf$f...@t3.mscf.uky.edu>,
pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu (Paul Zoski) wrote:
>
> One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
...
>
> Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
> lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
> exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
>
> Let me further add that I'm not interested in "hmosexuality is wrong"
> or "Homosexuality has no place in D&D" discussions. I've already made
> up my mind that homosexuality is allowed at my gaming table, and
> that the player is allowed to play a lesbian paladin. I'm only interested
> on a discussion of how to play this character.
>
Well basically, this comes down to whether the deity granting paladinhood to the
character in question disapproves of homosexuality, and whether said deity views
it as a behavior or a disposition.
I don't see how sexual orientation would be at all relevant to characters
alignment, which deals with treatment of others, views on how power should be
distributed in society, individual vs group, etc. In fact, I can easily imagine
a LG deity who insists that all followers be exclusively gay or lesbian. You
could do it that way or just make the character's sexuality irrelevant to the
god granting palladinhood.
Dave
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
fabio milito pagliara
pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu (Paul Zoski) wrote:
>Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
>lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
>exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
Why LG and lesbianesim (or homosexuality) are exclusive? I think that
your problem is considering what the Cattolic Church consider wrong is
wrong for LG religion. I don't think this should be a general rule,
different cultures have different taboo.
Anyway she could be the Paladin of the Loving Mother and so love every
living creature w/out caring about their sexual tendencies.
or there could be the Sorority of Justice which are paladin who can
marry only between themselves (all woman, cause only women can be true
to the ideal of justice) to not lose their paladinhook
So unless her order ask a vow of chastity she can be an active lesbian
w/out problems.
To sum all up it's a problem of what order you create for her (or the
player came up with) than anything else
have fun
fabio
lmo...@stutz.iupui.edu
Paul Zoski (pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu) wrote:
: One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
: to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
: changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
: couple of ways:
: 1) The character is a lesbian, but cannot admit it to herself. She
: views her lesbian impulses as "impure thoughts" and so takes her
: actions to the opposite extreme, to prove to herself that she's not
: evil, wicked, deranged, or whatever her lawful good religion tells her
: she is.
: 2) The character is a lesbian, but has been "converted/saved" by her
: religion. Now she is just so full of the religion that she's become a
: Paladin.
: Can anyone give me any feedback on these ideas or perhaps give some
: alternative ways to play a lesbian paladin?
: Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
: lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
: exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
: Let me further add that I'm not interested in "hmosexuality is wrong"
: or "Homosexuality has no place in D&D" discussions. I've already made
: up my mind that homosexuality is allowed at my gaming table, and
: that the player is allowed to play a lesbian paladin. I'm only interested
: on a discussion of how to play this character.
I agree with the others in saying why do sexuallity and religiousity have
to be exclusive. The lawful good god doesn't necessarily have to
consider homosexuality a bad thing. Maybe the god would approve 2
persons being in a loving relationship no matter the sex of the persons.
Leeanna Moore
lmo...@cord.iupui.edu
rem...@mindspring.com
Paul Zoski wrote:
>
> One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
> to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
> changed my mind.
>
> alternative ways to play a lesbian paladin?
>
> Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
> lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
> exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
Why do you assume that a lesbian can't be lawful good? Unless the
player has chosen a strict, regimented rleigion like modern-day cChristianity
with its nuts and flakes who want homosexuals to burn in the Abyss, you should
have no problem finding a religion where your PC can drink the sacred wine
while she eats... whatever. Anyway, just give it a thought.
E. Filson
pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu (Paul Zoski) writes:
>One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
>to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
>changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
>couple of ways:
>1) The character is a lesbian, but cannot admit it to herself. She
>views her lesbian impulses as "impure thoughts" and so takes her
>actions to the opposite extreme, to prove to herself that she's not
>evil, wicked, deranged, or whatever her lawful good religion tells her
>she is.
Well, I get the impression that this will devolve into an alignment
discussion, but here are my thoughts:
A.) Ask yourself, what is unlawful about being a lesbian. In my campaign
world, nothing at all if you're religion/philosophy does not forbid it.
B.) Ask yourself, what is not 'good' (in an alignment sense) about being
a lesbian. In my campaign, nothing. In fact, in my campaign, I have
defined evil as a promotion of self interest at the expense of other
groups/individuals (weighted more in the group direction) based on
arbitrary value judgements. So, being a homophobe is evil (when acted
upon) as is running around killing orcs if they have ears.
>2) The character is a lesbian, but has been "converted/saved" by her
>religion. Now she is just so full of the religion that she's become a
>Paladin.
>Can anyone give me any feedback on these ideas or perhaps give some
>alternative ways to play a lesbian paladin?
It sounds to me as though you're basing this on the Xtian religion (or
rather, a more cnoservative reading thereof), which is fine. The GM must
draw lines on alignment (or not use it, or whatever). It sounds like
this player, with morality as you have defined it, has some interesting
role playing opportunities ahead.
I would, however, seek to define her deity's views on such things in a
more concrete manner, developing a philosophy behind the deity's
behavioral tenets.
>Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
>lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
>exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
See the above comments.
dek
verkuilen john v
ste...@uk.gdscorp.com (Steve Gilham) writes:
>du...@broadwaynet.com wrote:
>> Think about this. If a religion that is popular says it's okay for
>> people to get it on with members of the same sex, some people will do
>> that. This means they wont be reproducing, a problem for times of old.
>Don't forget vows of chastity (entirely in period for a
>quasi-mediaeval setting) have much the same end result, if honoured.
If anything, the Middle Ages had an _over_population problem, not an
underpopulation problem. The main distinction was between otherwise
childless working couples--who were headed for economic disaster--and those
with children. Children were an important economic asset. For younger sons/
daughters of the upper classes things were exactly, as it made sense
to encourage them _not_ to breed and also keep the numbers down so as to prevent
familial strife due to primogeniture. One wanted enough children so as
to ensure succession but not so many that they started fighting amongst
themselves for position. The sheer number of people taking holy orders then,
the significant exportation of population due to the Crusades, Exploration,
etc., as well as Church records from the time suggest that the upper classes
were massively overpopulated relative to their social structure. Certainly
this was the case in Normandy in the 11th century. This situation was not
alleviated until the Black Death, which resulted in massive changes in the
social structure of the Middle Ages.
(President Thomas Jefferson did an analysis of primogeniture laws in his
writings on the Virgina Commonwealth; the above discussion is influenced
by that. See also the section in William McNeill, _Pursuit of Power_, on
the Napoleonic period.)
A paladin would probably be from the warrior class and it is quite conceivable
that such a character would be a younger son/daughter (older children
were guided into their duties relatively quickly). Homosexuality might
very well be a good way to reduce the birth rates here and holy orders
might very well _encourage_ it as a way to (a) bind members together, (b)
prevent childbearing (which could be distracting from one's obligations), and
(c) keep people in the holy order and not be tempted by the outside.
As others on this thread have said, it really depends on the view of the
diety towards sexuality. Those orders that must be celibate will obviously
not condone it. Those that must be chaste might be provided same-sex unions
were sanctioned. Others might well be quite indifferent on the matter, but
I would suspect that the totalitarian leanings of lawful good would require
that _some_ rule be in place.
Michael Sandy
In article <592bmf$f...@t3.mscf.uky.edu>, Paul Zoski <pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu> wrote:
>One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
>to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
>changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
>couple of ways:
3) The character was raised listening to tales of heroes protecting
the purity of women, and was so impressed with the qualities of
these women that _she_ wanted to save/protect them, cherish them.
4) She is celibate, like a true Paladin, controlling her urges and
escaping societal pressure to bear and raise children.
5) She sublimates erotic love into sisterly, altruistic affection.
My question is, does she disguise herself as a man, when helmeted
and armored up on the battlefield, or just not correct peoples'
misapprehensions? I can easily see why a truly charismatic woman
might seek some role other than marrying and bearing children,
why not Defender of the Weak?
Michael Sandy
Robert Harper
It seems to me the issue isn't can she be a lesbian (design a religion
and that decides it) but can she be active. This is a question of
chastity etc. Can paladins marry, can they be sexually active outside of
marriage. She could well end up being a lesbian who has no sexual
relations (just like all her male paladin buddies).
Brian James Green
pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu (Paul Zoski) writes:
[lesbian paladin description deleted]
>Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
>lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
>exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
Let's look at the two parts of the alignment:
Lawful: Are there laws against homosexuality? Is society as a whole
against homosexuality? More specifically, is the Paladin's religion
accepting of homosexuals? Remember, the Paladin is the example of the
religion in human form. If she were a paladin of Fertility or
Childbirth, then there might be a problem. :) Being lawful would
require that the paladin follow any restrictions the religion or society
put on her.
Good: Now, you can argue all you want, but this is a deep, probing,
personal question: Does homosexuality harm anyone? I feel the answer
is a resounding "NO!" (straight but not narrow ;). But, it should be a
reminder that relationships are rare for paladins. If she does enter a
relationship, it should be something deep and meaningful. Anything
shallow or "one-night-standish" wouldn't be very paladin-like. Being
good would require that the paladin help people, not use them for
selfish purposes.
In my opinion, assuming the society is open-minded, and the paladin's
religion isn't against homosexuality, then there should be no problem
with the paladin being homosexual.
Comments welcomed. Flames ignored.
"And I now wait / to shake the hand of fate...." -"Defender", Manowar
Brian Green, pch...@iastate.edu aka Psychochild
|\ _,,,---,,_ *=* Morpheus, my kitten, says "Hi!" *=*
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ "If you two are so evil, then why don't
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' you just...EAT THIS KITTEN!"
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) - "The Tick", Saturday morning cartoon.
Check out: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~pchild to find out more 'bout me!
verkuilen john v
be...@eskimo.com (Berg) writes:
>verkuilen john v (ja...@ux6.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>[Snip]
>: diety towards sexuality. Those orders that must be celibate will obviously
>: not condone it. Those that must be chaste might be provided same-sex unions
>: were sanctioned. Others might well be quite indifferent on the matter, but
>: I would suspect that the totalitarian leanings of lawful good would require
>: that _some_ rule be in place.
> Uhm, sorry, you're wrong. Celibacy is a ban on being *married*.
>I believe the word you want is *chastity*.
From Webster's New World Dictionary:
Celibate: n. 1., an unmarried person, esp. one under a vow to remain unmarried,
2., one who abstains from sexual intercourse.
Chaste: adj. 1., not indulging in unlawful sexual activity, 2., sexually
abstinent; celibate, 3., pure, decent or modest in nature, behavior, etc.
Um, I'm sorry but I am not wrong as I was using definition 2 for celibate
(which is a common usage here in the States, anyway) and definition 1 for
chaste. The real problem is that both words are so similar that it gets
into nitpicking to try to tease them apart. My remembrance of the usage of
the term celibate always took it to mean "abstinent" while chaste always
meant "not engaging in unlawful sexual activity." The dictionary seems to
support this distinction, but one could go the other way pretty easily, too.
The dictionary does not support your usage of chaste so far as I can tell,
however.
As William James says, "A difference that makes no difference isn't one."
If you substitute the term "abstinent" for the term "celibate" in the
original statement, my meaning will be clear.
Berg
verkuilen john v (ja...@ux6.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
[Snip]
: diety towards sexuality. Those orders that must be celibate will obviously
: not condone it. Those that must be chaste might be provided same-sex unions
: were sanctioned. Others might well be quite indifferent on the matter, but
: I would suspect that the totalitarian leanings of lawful good would require
: that _some_ rule be in place.
Uhm, sorry, you're wrong. Celibacy is a ban on being *married*.
I believe the word you want is *chastity*.
--
Berg Oswell, SP3 with Clam Cluster, KoX
Member: ARSCC, DNRC, Pope of Sector6
Email: be...@eskimo.com
"FUCK THE CDA!!!!!"
JL
Okay, in this case, WHY would they have to be chaste?
A Paladin of Odin or (especially) Freya would not be, because it is
not part of the religous context of these belief systems.
The confusion still seems to be that Lawful Good = Judeo-Christian
morals.
It doesn't, and doesn't have to.
-Oarim
Your mind exists within the Universe,
The universe exists within your Mind.
Timothy P. Coyle
On 16 Dec 1996 02:21:03 GMT, pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu (Paul Zoski) wrote:
>One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
>to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
>changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
>couple of ways:
>
>1) The character is a lesbian, but cannot admit it to herself. She
>views her lesbian impulses as "impure thoughts" and so takes her
>actions to the opposite extreme, to prove to herself that she's not
>evil, wicked, deranged, or whatever her lawful good religion tells her
>she is.
>
>2) The character is a lesbian, but has been "converted/saved" by her
>religion. Now she is just so full of the religion that she's become a
>Paladin.
>
>Can anyone give me any feedback on these ideas or perhaps give some
>alternative ways to play a lesbian paladin?
>
>Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
>lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
>exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
>
>Let me further add that I'm not interested in "hmosexuality is wrong"
>or "Homosexuality has no place in D&D" discussions. I've already made
>up my mind that homosexuality is allowed at my gaming table, and
>that the player is allowed to play a lesbian paladin. I'm only interested
>on a discussion of how to play this character.
The sexual orientation of a PC as regards to her class is utterly
irrelevant. The question should be: how devoted is the PC to their calling
or profession? Is she a credit to her profession? Has she earned the
respect of her peers and subordinates, and the trust of her superiors?
Paladinhood is at its core a state of grace, faith, and spirit,
_not_ of who turns the Paladin's head at the ball. To prevent some
potentially nasty (and IMHO, unnecessary) headaches, I'd keep the PC's
professional and private lives separate.
FRPGs are no place for political correctness.
TPC
Martin Rheaume
Paul Zoski wrote:
>
> One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
> to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
> changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
> couple of ways:
>
> 1) The character is a lesbian, but cannot admit it to herself. She
> views her lesbian impulses as "impure thoughts" and so takes her
> actions to the opposite extreme, to prove to herself that she's not
> evil, wicked, deranged, or whatever her lawful good religion tells her
> she is.
>
> 2) The character is a lesbian, but has been "converted/saved" by her
> religion. Now she is just so full of the religion that she's become a
> Paladin.
>
> Can anyone give me any feedback on these ideas or perhaps give some
> alternative ways to play a lesbian paladin?
>
> Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
> lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
> exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
>
> Let me further add that I'm not interested in "hmosexuality is wrong"
> or "Homosexuality has no place in D&D" discussions. I've already made
> up my mind that homosexuality is allowed at my gaming table, and
> that the player is allowed to play a lesbian paladin. I'm only interested
> on a discussion of how to play this character.
>
> Paul J. Zoski e-mail: pj...@ms.uky.edu
> 718 Patterson Office Tower WWW: http://www.ms.uky.edu/~pjz1
> Office Phone: (606)-257-6806 Fax: (606)-257-4078
>
> "Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western
> religion, Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of
> Western science."
> -- Gary Zukav, "The Dancing Wu Li Masters"
You should think about why you considered Homosexuality wrong for that
religion. In my mind some Religion should not care about sexuality:
Why should a God of War or Duty find homosexuality wrong ?
Think about it
Chow
Atalanta
Martin Rheaume wrote:
>
> Paul Zoski wrote:
> >
> > One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
> > to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
> > changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
> > couple of ways:
> >
> > 1) The character is a lesbian, but cannot admit it to herself. She
> > views her lesbian impulses as "impure thoughts" and so takes her
> > actions to the opposite extreme, to prove to herself that she's not
> > evil, wicked, deranged, or whatever her lawful good religion tells her
> > she is.
> >
> > 2) The character is a lesbian, but has been "converted/saved" by her
> > religion. Now she is just so full of the religion that she's become a
> > Paladin.
> >
> > Can anyone give me any feedback on these ideas or perhaps give some
> > alternative ways to play a lesbian paladin?
> >
> > Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
> > lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
> > exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
> >
> > Let me further add that I'm not interested in "hmosexuality is wrong"
> > or "Homosexuality has no place in D&D" discussions. I've already made
> > up my mind that homosexuality is allowed at my gaming table, and
> > that the player is allowed to play a lesbian paladin. I'm only interested
> > on a discussion of how to play this character.
> >
> religion. In my mind some Religion should not care about sexuality:
> Why should a God of War or Duty find homosexuality wrong ?
>
> Think about it
>
> Chow
Ares must not have... I've read about Greek soldiers! Wasn't it them who
had an entire (don't know the military terminology, but a bunch)
composed exclusively of commited male couples, on the grounds that
they'd fight for each other better than anyone else?
Atalanta Pendragonne
atal...@hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/2273/
T.G.
Robert Harper <rob.h...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>It seems to me the issue isn't can she be a lesbian (design a religion
>and that decides it) but can she be active. This is a question of
>chastity etc. Can paladins marry, can they be sexually active outside of
>marriage. She could well end up being a lesbian who has no sexual
>relations (just like all her male paladin buddies).
>
HMMM... Why does it feel like this topic might degenerate into
tabloidesque sensationalism ?
(" Lesbian Paladins and the Clerics who love them...... On the next
episode of Geraldo!")
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
T. Galioto
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--- Benjamin Franklin
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xavier Gallagher
fabio milito pagliara wrote:
> I think that
> your problem is considering what the Cattolic Church consider wrong is
> wrong for LG religion.
Mistaking the Catholic Church for a Lawful Good religeon is
a mistake that anyone could make.
Xavier
--
Xavier Gallagher-...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk.
The world won't end in darkness, it'll end in family fun
With Coca Cola clouds behind a Big Mac sun.
Steve Gilham
Atal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Ares must not have... I've read about Greek soldiers! Wasn't it them who
> had an entire (don't know the military terminology, but a bunch)
> composed exclusively of commited male couples, on the grounds that
> they'd fight for each other better than anyone else?
IIRC, that was the Persians, the so-called Immortals (one of the elite
units under Darius)
David Long
>> # 1) The character is a lesbian, but cannot admit it to herself. She
>> # views her lesbian impulses as "impure thoughts" and so takes her
>> # actions to the opposite extreme, to prove to herself that she's not
>> # evil, wicked, deranged, or whatever her lawful good religion tells her
>> # she is.
I hope this doesn't start flames either, but there are news accounts
of priests going into the clergy /specifically/ for that reason. IOW
- they're tyring to purge themselves of guilt feelings. The worst one
was the account of a local (New England) child rapist. It was to get
away from his pedophilic leaning that drove him to the Church in the
first place. Very tragic story.
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| dj djl...@magic.mv.com djl...@msn.com|
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Michael Sandy
In article <32B6D3...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk>,
Xavier Gallagher <xga...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>fabio milito pagliara wrote:
>> I think that
>> your problem is considering what the Cattolic Church consider wrong is
>> wrong for LG religion.
>
>Mistaking the Catholic Church for a Lawful Good religeon is
>a mistake that anyone could make.
I beg to differ. It is _not_ a mistake that I would make.
>Xavier Gallagher-...@nimr.mrc.ac.uk.
What John Verkuilen said about how the expectations of marriage were
different in the Middle Ages was important. A married man with kids
is not the best person to choose for military service that can last
through the harvest season. While having kids may be considered
a societal good, devoting one's life to the protection of the King or
the Church was also considered a societal good, (especially by the
King and Church).
In fact, at many periods in time the Church exalted the filial love
of Man over desire for children, the duty which would drive men to
work for the Church was "obviously" of greater importance than
continuing a family line, especially if the family line was being
continued through siblings anyway.
Michael Sandy
Moiner
In article <5970fs$e...@kira.peak.org>, meh...@kira.peak.org (Michael Sandy)
wrote:
>What John Verkuilen said about how the expectations of marriage were
>different in the Middle Ages was important. A married man with kids
>is not the best person to choose for military service that can last
>through the harvest season. While having kids may be considered
>a societal good, devoting one's life to the protection of the King or
>the Church was also considered a societal good, (especially by the
>King and Church).
>
>In fact, at many periods in time the Church exalted the filial love
>of Man over desire for children, the duty which would drive men to
>work for the Church was "obviously" of greater importance than
>continuing a family line, especially if the family line was being
>continued through siblings anyway.
Of course, we're even glossing over the error that would have us
believe that gay people are infertile... and the idea that orientation
imposes an either/or choice is not one that was current even in the
west until the last century.
--
Moiner
"ubbardus delendus est"
Michael Sandy
In article <597e1t$5...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>,
ThresholdMUD <mac...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Good lord. Is this thread someone trolling for flames?
>
>SHEESH! This shouldnt be an issue of discussion at all.
>
>
Actually, if you actually _read_ the thread instead of just commenting
on the subject line you would have found that most of the responses
were intelligent and polite and even useful.
(Although I admit a little sarcasm about the proposition that someone
could consider the Catholic Church Lawful Good!)
Michael Sandy
ThresholdMUD
Good lord. Is this thread someone trolling for flames?
SHEESH! This shouldnt be an issue of discussion at all.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD MUD! Online High Fantasy RPG!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Guilds: fighter, mage, thief, cleric, psion, alchemist,
shapeshifter
Player run clans, businesses, legal system, nobility
system, highly developed religions, missile combat,
tons of quests and areas, intense Role Playing!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Telnet: mud.chelmsford.com
Telnet: mud.chelmsford.com 23
WWW: www.counseltech.com/~threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Aristotle@ThresholdMUD - mac...@ix.netcom.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jason Hatter
ThresholdMUD (mac...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Good lord. Is this thread someone trolling for flames?
I don't know. Is it? Why don't you read it and find out...
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
RPG stuff at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/rpg.html
featuring Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.html
Jeff R.
--
> Lawful: Are there laws against homosexuality? Is society as a whole
> against homosexuality? More specifically, is the Paladin's religion
> accepting of homosexuals? Remember, the Paladin is the example of the
> religion in human form. If she were a paladin of Fertility or
> Childbirth, then there might be a problem. :) Being lawful would
> require that the paladin follow any restrictions the religion or society
> put on her.
I appreciate your comments. I feel you are correct!
It is obvious that there are many Gods in this game and some would
have a place for homosexuals others not. What I can't believe is that
there are so many people arguing about such a stupid topic.
If the area they are raised in and the church they belong to is homophobic
then
there would be a problem. If not then probably not. Bottom line is..
In AD&D WHO CARES!! I have never had it be an issue in my campaigns
or any campaign that I have been in. It has never been relevent and in all
honesty
I hate these 'are homosexuals good people' discussions in real life do we
have to
drag this SH*T into a game we use to get away from reality for a while?
What about women getting lower strength scores? Why don't we start a flame
fest about that. Or why are black elves evil? Isn't that an issue we
could flame to
death!!
Please give it a rest, it is getting pathetic.
Well that's my 2 cents worth.
If you don't like it, bummer. I don't really care to hear it.
Thanks.
Jeff R.
***************************************
* A Closed Mind Never Learns, *
* and an Open mouth tends to *
* attract feet. *
***************************************
Afotos
> One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was
> going to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it
> and changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in
> a couple of ways:
(snipped options)
> Can anyone give me any feedback on these ideas or perhaps give some
> alternative ways to play a lesbian paladin?
>
> Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
> lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they
> aren't exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful
> good.
There are ways, but most of them require you to build it into the society.
If you don't build it into the society, it becomes VERY hard for the
character to pull it off (leaning toward the two options you gave). A
lesbian Paladin who does not have societal sanction for being a Paladin
will NOT be public with her lesbianism (don't ask, don't tell ... if she's
ever asked, she'll be compelled to the truth, which will hurt the char a
ton, or lose Paladin status for lying). But lesbianism, in and of itself,
need not prevent lawful good status.
Lawfulness does not preclude lesbianism. It DOES preclude chaotic behavior
- orgies of pleasure seeking, self-fulfillment as more important than the
laws/needs of others, etcetera. But you can be a law-abiding, orderly,
monogamous woman who happens to love another woman (and if you were
married, your faith would force you to love ONLY that woman or lose
paladin status (unless polygamy is ok by the religion)).
In some countries, lesbian _behavior_ may be against the law, and a true
law-even-if-I-disagree-with-it Paladin would avoid sex in such
circumstances, but no country, to my knowledge, has ever ruled 'feeling
attracted to the same sex is illegal, even if nothing ever comes of it',
which is what defines lesbian desire. This actually could create a
troubled char ... lesbian feeling is ok, but acting on it is illegal ...
and the char falls in love ... if she has sex, she loses Paladin status,
unless she can find a way where the act is legal (travel to another
country?).
However, if the religion states that lesbian feeling is forbidden, then
you cannot have a lesbian Paladin ... the god will know and won't make the
char a Paladin. If her god instead rules that lesbian feeling is ok but
lesbian sex is not, the char can NEVER consummate her feelings. If the God
doesn't care about orientation at all, the char can have sex so long as it
is legal to do so where she is.
Goodness does not preclude lesbianism. Lesbian orientation/desire, in and
of itself, is neutral (unless, in your campaign world, all same-sex desire
flows from a god of evil ... but I'm NOT going there :) ). A lesbian can
be evil and manipulative, evil and bloodthirsty, neutral and spiritual,
neutral and introspective, good and nurturing, or good and championing
(the Paladin). The char can be a lawful good lesbian (think Joan of Arc,
but add the proviso, 'Joan was only attracted to women' ... it doesn't
change ANYTHING Joan of Arc did, because intercourse and sexual attraction
were never an issue ... heck, Joan could have been a lesbian and no one
knows ... it just doesn't matter to what she did).
Since LG lesbians are ok, the real issue is how you portray Paladinship
... do the LG gods who have Paladins care? Is there more than one LG god
with Paladins? Do any of them permit lesbianism in their faith? Do some
advocate it, others hate it, and the rest don't care? If there is NO faith
where lesbian desire (even if not action) is ok, she can't be a Paladin.
But how different faiths feel about it will matter a TON to how she acts
and how she gets treated, and especially about whether she is public about
her desires.
Pick her god and her religion. Must she remain virginal til marriage? Is
lesbian marriage possible (if not, no sex til it is possible, or she
loses Paladinhood)? Must she be monogamous? Must she be polygamous and
NEVER marry (a LG love goddess might have Paladins who defend those in
love, but who must never marry and always spread love - yes it's a weird
idea ... but it's YOUR campaign world)? Define how her religion affects
what she can do.
After you get your gods clear, you have to define your societies. Is it
not an issue? Is homosexuality favored in some places (population control
or whatever) ? Is homosexuality hated universally? Only by some? It's your
fantasy world, and you can do anything you want with it. Everyone can be
gay. The lesbian Paladin can be the ONLY gay person on the planet (it's
not illegal, because no one ever felt that way before. Of course, NO ONE
is interested in her but men, and she is all alone and will never have a
soul mate, nor sex, because she will not, as a LG, ever push anyone to
love her outside of their own desire).
--------------------------------------------------------------
Here are five possible templates, going from least to most permissive:
1. Tragic Hero
The god tolerates lesbian desire, but NEVER intercourse.
Only this woman's belief has permitted her to be a
Paladin. If she ever falls in love, she is doomed: she
cannot both love and champion ... if her love wins out,
she becomes a mere fighter. If she remains a champion, she
may never have the one she eternally cherishes.
Story idea: Paladin falls in love, and must make the
ultimate decision: faith or love. (Potential whacky
resolution: god/item sex-changes her to male)
2. Religious Queen (what you described):
Joan of Arc, but happens to be gay. Fights for truth and
justice and also loves women, but the latter never comes
up in her life because evil never rests and so she never
does either. The god doesn't care if she's lesbian, and
she can have sex as far as the religion is concerned
(virgin til marriage, monogamous thereafter), but society
would be shocked to find out, and she would be a social
pariah (some priests would be 'well, yes you CAN be a
lesbian, but you shouldn't be'). She is likely to remain
closeted if she ever falls in love (don't ask, don't
tell).
Story idea: Paladin falls in love, and must decide whether
to risk social disdain to be with her love forever.
3. Normal Paladin:
God doesn't care, nor do most societies. Lesbianism
happens, and no one thinks much about it. It is no
different than any other love, and is treated the same
(with all the limitations placed on love that the
religion requires). Foreign societies might care a LOT
tho, and there sex would be illegal, so she could not
consummate there.
Story idea: Lawful neutral society attacks ... that
society forbids intercourse of same sex, but is not evil.
If they win, Paladin will have to abide by new law ... so
Paladin fights in to defend the culture she cherishes.
4. Amazon Defender (society and god LIKE lesbianism):
Worships female lawful good god of protection (think of a
nice version of Hera - strong and defensive, but not
jealous and hateful), a god which supports Amazon society.
Amazons are mostly lesbian, although some are
heterosexual. Men do not live in the society, and are
brought in only to breed (love isn't usually an issue, and
the men often feel like stud cattle who are selected for
health and strength and intelligence), although the rare
straight amazon sometimes marries a man despite social
pressure and the resulting loss of status.
The Paladin is openly lesbian, and will woo fellow amazons
as much as any chivalrous Paladin woo'd a fine lady. She
will remain virginal til marriage, and eternally
monogamous afterward. Should she waver, she loses Paladin
status. She will be openly lesbian in other societies,
even if this earns her hatred (it's her culture, and she
is proud of it). She won't have sex if it's illegal where
she is.
Story idea: Falls in love with someone from a nation where
gay sex is illegal, and the person cannot leave the place
they live (obligations, family, etc). Must try to change
law or get an exception so that marriage can take place.
5. Paladin of Love
LG love goddess made her a paladin (think Ishtar). She
MUST have sex once a month, and may never marry, nor
remain strictly monogamous. Warrior duties are as usual,
tho she is expected to woo those of other societies, and
spread the bounty of love. Uninhibited sex is the standard
almost everywhere, so this isn't much of an issue.
Story idea: Falls in love with woman from one of the few
rare, prudish societies where monogamy is the rule. She
won't have sex until she marries this love, and then she
must remain monogamous (by her vows, which a Paladin
wouldn't break). But if she remains monogamous more than a
month or so, she loses Paladinship for not spreading love
to new people, as required by her religion. (Potential
whacky ending: her god kills this love interest a month
into the marriage, letting her marry without losing
Paladinship, while also making it DANG clear the god is in
control).
There are obviously many other ways you can take this. Do whatever works
for you. There really are an infinite number of options (it's fantasy,
after all).
Hope this has helped
Paul Hlavacek
sings! 'On the twelfth day of Solstice, the elder gods gave me:
Twelve nipples dripping,
Eleven polyps oozing,
Ten imps-a-pimping,
Nine demons prancing,
Eight hags-a-hexing,
Seven snakes-a-slinking,
Six rats-a-crawling,
FIVE MOLDY THINGS!
Four quarts of pus,
Three newt eyes,
Two rabid bats,
And a tapeworm that wriggled with glee'
Leonard P. Zaikoski
In article <596nrl$g...@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>, ste...@uk.gdscorp.com (Steve Gilham) wrote:
>Atal...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Ares must not have... I've read about Greek soldiers! Wasn't it them who
>> had an entire (don't know the military terminology, but a bunch)
>> composed exclusively of commited male couples, on the grounds that
>> they'd fight for each other better than anyone else?
>
>IIRC, that was the Persians, the so-called Immortals (one of the elite
>units under Darius)
There was also the Sacred Band of Thebes of about Alexander's time. The men
of the elite unit were encouraged to become rather closer than you would
expect modern soldiers to be. However, I don't believe that they were
all homosexual. Also, I've read that bisexuality was far more common and
accepted in Greece at that time than it is in the USA, now.
======================================================================
Leonard P. Zaikoski | "Tarim doesn't love you,
e-mail: len.za...@paonline.com | He just wants all your
WWW: http://www.paonline.com/zaikoski | money." -- Most Holy
======================================================================
T & T Borton
If you want to know all about playing difficult paladin 'morals', drop us a
line. Have been playing one for 8 years and my fiancée for about 1. I wont
reply in full here as it would most likely look like a mini-series.
Charles Brouillette
Jeff R. wrote:
Well said, well spoken. I see that great minds do think alike. ;-)
Chuck Brouillette
The older I get the better I was.
Christopher Beattie
Michael Sandy wrote:
>
> (Although I admit a little sarcasm about the proposition that someone
> could consider the Catholic Church Lawful Good!)
OK, perhaps it is Lawfull Good with some Neutural tendencies.
After all, the Church goes out of its way to condemn the sin,
but never condemn the sinner.
Now the popular image of the Catholic Church in the press and
in the eyes of many fundamentalists is definitely Lawful Evil
to both extreemes. <G>
--
| _______ |Christopher Beattie | P.O. Box 2310|
| /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33045|
| / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
| |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |
Paul Zoski
OK, the general word seems to be that there's no reason that a Lawful good
person can't be a Lesbian. I agree. Maybe I should change my question
around a little.
I can imagine playing a LN lesbian. I can visualise the character and
what type of personality she might have. The same with every other
alignment, EXCEPT LG. The problem I'm having is not "Lawful good
people cannot be Lesbians." By allowing the player to play the
character, I am already conceding that the two are not exclusive.
The problem I'm having is visualizing what such a combination would
be like.
So let me change the question a little.
How would you play a lesbian Paladin? What personality would she
have? What motivations? What makes her tick? In short: describe
such a character.
I have a few ideas, but would appreciate everyone elses input.
The Amorphous Mass
Paul Zoski (pj...@t4.ms.uky.edu) wrote:
>
>How would you play a lesbian Paladin? What personality would she
>have? What motivations? What makes her tick? In short: describe
>such a character.
Uhhh, geez. The simplest way is to design a heterosexual paladin and
then write "Sexual inclination: lesbian" at the top. You seem to think
that some fundamental personality shift (that is somehow incompatible
with Good?) is necessary for the character to be lesbian. If you can
imagine a person who favors a strong social structure, has an invariant
code of ethics and behavior, and who metes out justice tempered with grace
and altruism, and you can find an appropriate Power, then you have yourself
a Paladin. Note that the Paladin doesn't have to be from a society where
lesbianism is common or even accepted -- what is important is a strong
social impulse (even if the character isn't extroverted -- an introverted
Lawful is still comforted by the presence of civilization), a belief
that laws and mores are meet and right, and a belief that justice of a
firm but merciful sort is the glue that holds civilization together.
As long as lesbianism is not disruptive or subversive (as it might be in
a society that was ordered heavily around the Traditional Nuclear Family)
it is not Chaotic -- if it is then the Paladin might find herself struggling
hard to stay in the closet; as long as it does not result in cruelty,
greed or selfishness it is not Evil.
--
The Amorphous Mass If I knew what I was doing,
amo...@avalon.net it wouldn't be research.
The Unsinkable Camille Klein
Aliens and the Trilateral Commission used Orbital Mind Control Lasers to
make Paul Zoski (pj...@t4.ms.uky.edu) say:
# I can imagine playing a LN lesbian. I can visualise the character and
# what type of personality she might have. The same with every other
# alignment, EXCEPT LG. The problem I'm having is not "Lawful good
Just a second. *gets out Nerfbat* Hold still. *beats you liberally with
it*
You're limiting yourself--stop that. This again gets back to a question I
brought up when I replied to your original post--why should "Lawful Good"
and homosexuality be exclusive? She's a Paladin, period. She just
happens to love women instead of men.
Stop limiting yourself, please. Just let the player be a Paladin, and
don't worry about her sexuality. It's NOT a big deal.
--Camille.
--
I said it. You read it. I'm not taking it back.--Drew Lanz.
All unsolicited commercial e-mail coming to this account is subject to a
service charge of $250 per piece of mail.
To subscribe to the Ministry of BattleTech mailing list, send e-mail to
majo...@polarnet.com with the words 'subscribe tmobml' in the body.
dave...@hooked.net
In article <599urm$1...@t3.mscf.uky.edu>,
> have? What motivations? What makes her tick? In short: describe
> such a character.
>
>
Maybe it will help if you approach the situation by asking yourself "how would
I play a straight paladin?" Does this question sound silly to you? It should.
You would have to conceive of the character based entirely on the fact that
they are attracted to people of the opposite sex. What does this have to do
with palladinhood?
Now take your response to the "straight paladin" question and apply it to the
lesbian or gay paladin question and we can all pray to our respective deities
that this thread will end before the new year.
The general consensus here seems to be that while chastity and/or moderation may
be issues for palladins of specific deities (not specific alignments per se),
sexual orientation is irrelevent to choice of character class.
Dave
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
verkuilen john v
be...@eskimo.com (Berg) writes:
>verkuilen john v (ja...@ux6.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>: be...@eskimo.com (Berg) writes:
[snip]
> But bear in mind that in all likelihood, Websters is using the
>Christian religion(s) as a basis. Since many sects of Christianity
>believe that sex outside of marriage is unlawful, then celibate and chaste
>are the same thing. But if you consider that chastity refers to sex, and
>that celibacy refers to marriage, they are quite a bit different).
OK, I'll concede things here. (Arguments over words are rarely useful.)
I always thought that chastity refers to marriage and celibacy refers to
sex and thought the dictionary supported that. Certainly the definition
of the old standby the chastity belt would support this (it prevented
unsanctioned sex with anyone without the key--namely the husband).
If you feel this definition is somehow "tainted" by Christianity and that
Websters cannot be trusted on this one, fine. Anyway, if you substitute
"abstinent" for "celibacy" and "not engaging in unsanctioned sex" for
"chastity" I think my argument stands.
Berg
: >verkuilen john v (ja...@ux6.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: >[Snip]
: >: diety towards sexuality. Those orders that must be celibate will obviously
: >: not condone it. Those that must be chaste might be provided same-sex unions
: >: were sanctioned. Others might well be quite indifferent on the matter, but
: >: I would suspect that the totalitarian leanings of lawful good would require
: >: that _some_ rule be in place.
: > Uhm, sorry, you're wrong. Celibacy is a ban on being *married*.
: >I believe the word you want is *chastity*.
: From Webster's New World Dictionary:
: Celibate: n. 1., an unmarried person, esp. one under a vow to remain unmarried,
: 2., one who abstains from sexual intercourse.
: Chaste: adj. 1., not indulging in unlawful sexual activity, 2., sexually
: abstinent; celibate, 3., pure, decent or modest in nature, behavior, etc.
: Um, I'm sorry but I am not wrong as I was using definition 2 for celibate
: (which is a common usage here in the States, anyway) and definition 1 for
: chaste. The real problem is that both words are so similar that it gets
: into nitpicking to try to tease them apart. My remembrance of the usage of
: the term celibate always took it to mean "abstinent" while chaste always
: meant "not engaging in unlawful sexual activity." The dictionary seems to
: support this distinction, but one could go the other way pretty easily, too.
: The dictionary does not support your usage of chaste so far as I can tell,
: however.
But bear in mind that in all likelihood, Websters is using the
Christian religion(s) as a basis. Since many sects of Christianity
believe that sex outside of marriage is unlawful, then celibate and chaste
are the same thing. But if you consider that chastity refers to sex, and
that celibacy refers to marriage, they are quite a bit different).
Taro Sumitomo
Paul Zoski (pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu) wrote:
: 1) The character is a lesbian, but cannot admit it to herself. She
: views her lesbian impulses as "impure thoughts" and so takes her
: actions to the opposite extreme, to prove to herself that she's not
: evil, wicked, deranged, or whatever her lawful good religion tells her
: she is.
So homosexuality is seen as being wrong by the religion right?
: Also, both of my ideas a based upon the premise that lawful good and
: lesbian are somewhat exclusive. Can anyone think of a reason they aren't
: exclusive, or other ways a person can be both lesbian and lawful good.
Ok, let's compare lesbianism and LG. They would only be mutually exclusive
if:
1. homosexuality is illegal in the campaign society, hence not lawful; or
2. homosexuality is evil/neutral, hence not good.
From your description, I take it that both of these are true. Therefore
to take a simplistic view, the character is neither lawful nor good, so
she can't be a paladin. But this conclusion really doesn't help, so:
1. She becomes celibate. However, which is wrong- thoughts or actions?
2. Sex change! Although I don't know enough about homosexuality to know
whether this will work.
3. She undertakes a quest to change social attitudes. You go girl!
ts
Steve
In article <592bmf$f...@t3.mscf.uky.edu>, pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu says...
>
>One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
>to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
>changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
>couple of ways:
>
What in the world could possible make you think that anyone cares about such a
completely stupid topic.
No, I'm not homo-phobic, what you do in your game is your business, in the
future, keep it there.
J. McGuire
Steve wrote:
> What in the world could possible make you think that anyone cares about such a
> completely stupid topic.
Perhaps the large number of people who have been discussing it?
> No, I'm not homo-phobic, what you do in your game is your business, in the
> future, keep it there.
Who died and made you moderator?
Clue: Discussions of lesbian paladins are on-topic for this newsgroup.
Another clue: Advertisements for PBEM games are off-topic.
Pot. Snowflake. Black.
-- Jean
Maron
Steve wrote:
>
> In article <592bmf$f...@t3.mscf.uky.edu>, pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu says...
> >
> >One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
> >to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
> >changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
> >couple of ways:
> >
>
> completely stupid topic.
>
> future, keep it there.
Well, I do not know who posted it hear, but it has to do with AD&D. If
no one posted about anything they did in their game, was done to them, or
what they should do, then we'd have pretty fucking few psots and shit,
wouldn't we then? Try to think before you post.
Steve Kaser
>In article <592bmf$f...@t3.mscf.uky.edu>, pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu says...
>>
>>One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
>>to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
>>changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
>>couple of ways:
>>
>What in the world could possible make you think that anyone cares about such
>a completely stupid topic.
>No, I'm not homo-phobic, what you do in your game is your business, in the
>future, keep it there.
Hello! One of the main reason for this newsgroup is to discuss and
diseminate new ideas and questions. This topic is a valid topic. Your
response is out of line here and does smack of homophobia, your last line
of your post is very indicative of such an attitude and completely off-base
for the newsgroup as well, for what do we do here most of the time? We
discuss things that happen IN OUR OWN GAMES!
Now as to the topic. Yes, it is possible to have a lesbian paladin,
however, due to the restriction of most codes of paladins she would have to
remain chaste unless the diety of the paladin encourage sexual relations. I
have created a lesbian beast-rider paladin before (guess what her mount
was? A unicorn ;) Though I personally rarely play paladins. I prefer Bards
as they are much less restrictive on behavioral codes.
Kilroy Was Here!
Michael Sandy
In article <59e5dr$p...@news3.alpha.net>, Steve <ste...@relation.com> wrote:
>In article <592bmf$f...@t3.mscf.uky.edu>, pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu says...
>>
>>One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
>>to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
>>changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
>>couple of ways:
>>
>
>What in the world could possible make you think that anyone cares about
such a
>completely stupid topic.
Hint, read all the articles in a thread before you flame it. If you had
*read* the articles in the thread you would've seen that people indeed
care about the topic and offered many interesting ideas as to how a
lesbian Paladin could be played.
>
>No, I'm not homo-phobic, what you do in your game is your business, in the
>future, keep it there.
>
This is _precisely_ the place to talk about what happens in his game. What
is this newsgroup except a place to discuss what happens in peoples'
campaigns? Obvious we shouldn't try to set policy for _everybody's_ game,
so yes, what he does in his game is his business, but when someone asks
for the Net Community's input, the presumption is that a response is
expected and will be listened to.
Michael Sandy
Neil Barnes
The Unsinkable Camille Klein (cap...@primenet.com) wrote:
: Aliens and the Trilateral Commission used Orbital Mind Control Lasers to
: make Paul Zoski (pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu) say:
:
: # One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was going
: # to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
: # changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
: # couple of ways:
I had a paladin character once who had a very strong crush on her god (Tyr in the Realms). This
could be an interesting variation on the theme for a paladin who followed a female goddess.
Depending on the way the DM uses Gods in the campaign there's the potential for the goddess to meet
the paladin and be a bit embarrassed at the character's crush (assuming the the deity is mainly
straight).
(Sorry, random suggestions)
neil
rayzer
In article <598r5c$6...@news.paonline.com>, len.za...@paonline.com
(Leonard P. Zaikoski) wrote:
> In article <596nrl$g...@topcat.uk.gdscorp.com>, ste...@uk.gdscorp.com
(Steve Gilham) wrote:
> >Atal...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Ares must not have... I've read about Greek soldiers! Wasn't it them who
> >> had an entire (don't know the military terminology, but a bunch)
> >> composed exclusively of commited male couples, on the grounds that
> >> they'd fight for each other better than anyone else?
> >
> >IIRC, that was the Persians, the so-called Immortals (one of the elite
> >units under Darius)
>
If I'm not mistaken, which I might very well be, I think you are refering
to the Greeks who held off the Persians (Immortals) and were destroyed
to the last man.
=====================================================================
Ray A. Reaux http://csgrad.cs.vt.edu/~reaux/
Cottleston, Cottleston, Cottleston Pie,
A fly can't bird, but a bird can fly.
=====================================================================
AJPound
Paul Zoski (pj...@t1.ms.uky.edu) said:
:
: # One of my players wants to play a lesbian Paladin. At first I was
going
: # to disallow it, considering it impossible, but I thought about it and
: # changed my mind. It could be possible to play a lesbian Paladin in a
: # couple of ways:
It would have to depend on context. In a campaign based upon western
historical modeals, it probably won't work. But suppose you have a
females only cult, like say an Amazon type culture somewhere. This is not
to say that "Amazons" is a code word for lesbian, but one could conccive
of a culture where women ruled the military structure and excluded men.
After all, the ancient Greek culture was somewhat misogynistic and
warriors had much closer personal male-male relationships than we would
have. Flip it around and a lesbian paladin would make some sense. Its
going to depend on the surrounding culture and the deity in question.
Aaron Pound, Esq.
Steven Taylor
Xavier Gallagher wrote:
> fabio milito pagliara wrote:
> > I think that
> > your problem is considering what the Cattolic Church consider wrong is
> > wrong for LG religion.
> Mistaking the Catholic Church for a Lawful Good religeon is
> a mistake that anyone could make.
True, but that's not what he said. I would say, yes, the Catholic
Church is Lawful (very organised with a strict hierarchy, etc.) Good (In
theory; I realize that many terrible acts were done in the name of
Catholicsm, but as it is intended,I think it's basically Good). That
was not the debate. The problem comes when you get the idea that the
Catholic Church is the _only_ template for a Lawful Good religion.
Other religions could very well be Lawful and Good without conforming to
Catholicism. IMC, there is an order of monks who live by a set of
strict rules (Lawful) and their goal and purpose is to help the poor and
sick (Good). They also believe in polygamy, homosexuality, ritual
cannibalism (of naturally deceased members), etc. that the Catholic
church would have a fit over. However, they are still LG. A Paladin of
this faith could very well be a bisexual or lesbian, and still retain a
LG outlook and loyalty to the faith.
Steven Taylor
Doug Smith
dave...@hooked.net wrote:
>In article <599urm$1...@t3.mscf.uky.edu>,
> pj...@t4.ms.uky.edu (Paul Zoski) wrote:
>>
>> So let me change the question a little.
>>
>> How would you play a lesbian Paladin? What personality would she
>> have? What motivations? What makes her tick? In short: describe
>> such a character.
>>
>> I have a few ideas, but would appreciate everyone elses input.
>>
>Maybe it will help if you approach the situation by asking yourself "how would
>I play a straight paladin?" Does this question sound silly to you? It should.
> You would have to conceive of the character based entirely on the fact that
>they are attracted to people of the opposite sex. What does this have to do
>with palladinhood?
>Now take your response to the "straight paladin" question and apply it to the
>lesbian or gay paladin question and we can all pray to our respective deities
>that this thread will end before the new year.
>The general consensus here seems to be that while chastity and/or moderation may
>be issues for palladins of specific deities (not specific alignments per se),
>sexual orientation is irrelevent to choice of character class.
Agree with you.
For that matter a male Paladin of a Greek diety would be EXPECTED to
be bisexual. Aphrodite was the Goddess of Lust, not Love. That was
the province of Eros, and the Greeks felt the highest form of love
could only be between MEN.
In other words, some dieties would only allow certain sexes to be
their Paladins, and some dieties would only allow certain sexual
orientations, and plenty of dieties wouldn't give a rats ass. It
isn't a Law or Chaos thing, merely a matter of specific diety
preferances.
>Dave
>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
DES
"Ooops. So much for a live arrest." Yuri
Michael Karapcik (SCFN)
Doug Smith (des...@primenet.com) wrote:
: In other words, some dieties would only allow certain sexes to be
: their Paladins, and some dieties would only allow certain sexual
: orientations, and plenty of dieties wouldn't give a rats ass. It
: isn't a Law or Chaos thing, merely a matter of specific diety
: preferances.
: "Ooops. So much for a live arrest." Yuri
Just for kicks...
Some temples (Syria, Babylon, etc) had temple prostitues. These
were respected religious women. A man would make a contribution to the
temple, and his sex would be an act of worship. At least ideally, anyway.
Originally, when sex was respected and important, this worked. Then along
came the Romans...
Just another bit of proff that sexual moraise can vary widely
over time. It could also be quite a perverse twist on a paladin.
"What?!? You want me to cast Bless before this fight? *Sigh*
Ok, help me get out of this armor..."
--
Michael Karapcik Automated Services
Hardware/Software Technician 273-3711
* Osibili, si ergo fortibuses in ero. *
* Nobili, demis trux. Sewatis enam? Cowsendux! *
Daryn Brown
In article <59upn3$i...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, des...@primenet.com (Doug Smith) writes:
|> dave...@hooked.net wrote:
|>
|> >The general consensus here seems to be that while chastity and/or moderation may
|> >be issues for palladins of specific deities (not specific alignments per se),
|> >sexual orientation is irrelevent to choice of character class.
|>
|> Agree with you.
|>
|> For that matter a male Paladin of a Greek diety would be EXPECTED to
|> be bisexual. Aphrodite was the Goddess of Lust, not Love. That was
|> the province of Eros, and the Greeks felt the highest form of love
|> could only be between MEN.
|>
|> In other words, some dieties would only allow certain sexes to be
|> their Paladins, and some dieties would only allow certain sexual
|> orientations, and plenty of dieties wouldn't give a rats ass. It
|> isn't a Law or Chaos thing, merely a matter of specific diety
|> preferances.
|>
I think that being a Lesbian/Gay Paladin would prove to be easier than
a straight paladin simply because the lack of temptation. There are less
chances that a lesbian/gay paladin would be approached by an attracted
person than a straight paladin. A paladin who was required to be chaste
would therfore have less reason to break his vows. At least if the DM
was going to be fair about it. And the paladin didn't advertise his/her
preference.
DBIII
Doug Smith
d...@mailhost.ElSegundoCA.NCR.COM (Daryn Brown) wrote:
I believe a strong part of the Paladin role play is the RESISTANCE of
temptation. Besides I feel that someone who is a saint merely because
they aren't around temptation isn't very impressive. "Gee, look at
me. I've been on this deserted island, and havn't commited robbery,
murder, rape, or theft. This shows that I'm a person of outstanding
moral character." ---NOT. When I GM and their is a Paladin in the
group, tests of a spiritual and temptative nature get woven in at
times. In my view, part of the Paladin's power comes from the
strength of his faith. Overcoming temptation is one of the main ways
that the Paladin 'grows'.
>DBIII
Archangel Dave
> I think that being a Lesbian/Gay Paladin would prove to be easier than
> a straight paladin simply because the lack of temptation. There are less
> chances that a lesbian/gay paladin would be approached by an attracted
> person than a straight paladin. A paladin who was required to be chaste
> would therfore have less reason to break his vows. At least if the DM
> was going to be fair about it. And the paladin didn't advertise his/her
> preference.
>
But the temptations are the fun things to role play. It gives the paladin
something to struggle with and overcome or *gulp* fail. Without temptation
the paladin is less interesting to play.
--
And with that the Archangel took flight, it's majestic wings spread
into a arrowhead pattern that pointed towards the Father.
If you're in the Louisville area, and interested in playing
AD&D, Email me at bma...@aye.net
His name was Archangel Dave
MHILarry
> I think that being a Lesbian/Gay Paladin would prove to be easier than
> a straight paladin simply because the lack of temptation.
Ohhh PLEEEEESE, like gay people are free from sexual temptation.
Sidnaceous
Berg Oswell needs to invest in a dictionary or a thesaurus. Celibacy is a
ban on sex. Not of marriage. Thus the safest sex is being Celibate.
MORON!
J. McGuire
Sidnaceous needs to read the dictionary he invested in. The one I have
handy, _Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary_, defines 'celibacy' as
"the state of not being married; esp: the state of one bound by vow not
to marry."
Sidnaceous, I don't need to call you names. You've done well enough for
yourself.
-- Jean
Wintertree Software | Remember to remove the spambot-blocker
http://www.io.com/~wtsoft | from my address before replying via email
"When the foolkiller comes, we'd better ALL hide in the tall grass"
Doug Smith
mhil...@aol.com (MHILarry) wrote:
I think he meant that it would be much rarer for the paladin to run
across another homosexual to tempt him in the first place than it
would be for someone who was straight. Also more difficult to find
another homosexual since many won't be open about it.
Daryn Brown
Thanks, that is what I meant. Plus, in a medieval setting would be even
MORE homophobic than contemporary times. And when someone DID tempt that
paladin it would be very interesting if the source of his/her temptation
were straight and unaware of his/her plight.
AHH such sweet agony...
DBIII
MHILarry
|> mhil...@aol.com (MHILarry) wrote:
|>
|> >> I think that being a Lesbian/Gay Paladin would prove to be easier
than
|> >> a straight paladin simply because the lack of temptation.
|>
|> >Ohhh PLEEEEESE, like gay people are free from sexual temptation.
|>
|> I think he meant that it would be much rarer for the paladin to run
|> across another homosexual to tempt him in the first place than it
|> would be for someone who was straight. Also more difficult to find
|> another homosexual since many won't be open about it.
|>
>Thanks, that is what I meant. Plus, in a medieval setting would be even
>MORE homophobic than contemporary times. And when someone DID tempt >that
paladin it would be very interesting if the source of his/her temptation
>were straight and unaware of his/her plight.
Okay, I know I'm treading on a very touchy subject; so let me express my
personal opinion respectfully. IMHO just *being* homosexual is falling to
a sexual temptation, just like pedophilia.
Steven Taylor
J. McGuire wrote:
> Sidnaceous wrote:
> > Berg Oswell needs to invest in a dictionary or a thesaurus.
Celibacy is a
> > ban on sex. Not of marriage. Thus the safest sex is being
Celibate.
> > MORON!
> Sidnaceous needs to read the dictionary he invested in. The one I have
> handy, _Webster's New Encyclopedic Dictionary_, defines 'celibacy' as
> "the state of not being married; esp: the state of one bound by vow not
> to marry."
> Sidnaceous, I don't need to call you names. You've done well enough for
> yourself.
Actually, Sidnoxious didn't reference a dictionary. He invested in a
thesaurus for his definitions. Maybe that's why he's screwed up on this
one. That's two today, from what I've read, Sid!
BTW, Sid, what you defined as "celibacy" is chastity. The two are
completely different things.
Steven Taylor
Alana Beltzer
In article <19961230202...@ladder01.news.aol.com> mhil...@aol.com (MHILarry) writes:
<big snip>
>Okay, I know I'm treading on a very touchy subject; so let me express my
>personal opinion respectfully. IMHO just *being* homosexual is falling to
>a sexual temptation, just like pedophilia.
Then just being heterosexual is falling to sexual temptation. I realise you
probably mean that being homosexual means you only think of sex for sex and
not procreation. Well how many straight people do you know that only think of
sex for procreation...not too many I would think.
Alana
Treating people as people since 1975
dhard...@sprintmail.com
|> I think he meant that it would be much rarer for the paladin to run
|> across another homosexual to tempt him in the first place than it
|> would be for someone who was straight. Also more difficult to find
|> another homosexual since many won't be open about it.
depends of which medival society mediaeval Greek and roman were both
much more open to alternative sexual philosophies then modern day U.S.
populace which draws roots from puritans a very sexually repressed
religious group in fact I have found we are the most sexually repressed
group outside the middle east and I have been in quite a few places
including the orient Europe, Russia, south America and Australia.
PS I am totaly strait myself but I respect what ever views you might
have.
mag...@ij.net
MHILarry
mag...@ij.net wrote
>in fact I have found we are the most sexually repressed group outside the
middle >east
I suppose one person's repression is another's morality, Magnus.
Larry.
The Amorphous Mass
(dhard...@sprintmail.com) wrote:
>depends of which medival society mediaeval Greek and roman were both
>much more open to alternative sexual philosophies then modern day U.S.
>populace which draws roots from puritans a very sexually repressed
>religious group in fact I have found we are the most sexually repressed
>group outside the middle east and I have been in quite a few places
>including the orient Europe, Russia, south America and Australia.
1) You said "puritan" when you meant "victorian." The Puritans were not
sexually repressed by the standards of their day.
2) Please take the time to write coherent sentences. I ran out of breath
trying to read the runaway runon sentence above, and I wasn't even reading
aloud.
--
The Amorphous Mass If I knew what I was doing,
amo...@avalon.net it wouldn't be research.
Daryn Brown
In article <32C84F...@sprintmail.com>, dhard...@sprintmail.com writes:
|> |> I think he meant that it would be much rarer for the paladin to run
|> |> across another homosexual to tempt him in the first place than it
|> |> would be for someone who was straight. Also more difficult to find
|> |> another homosexual since many won't be open about it.
|>
|> depends of which medival society mediaeval Greek and roman were both
|> much more open to alternative sexual philosophies then modern day U.S.
|> populace which draws roots from puritans a very sexually repressed
|> religious group in fact I have found we are the most sexually repressed
|> group outside the middle east and I have been in quite a few places
|> including the orient Europe, Russia, south America and Australia.
|>
|> PS I am totaly strait myself but I respect what ever views you might
|> have.
I think the medieval we are talking about is the charlemaine, saladin,
crusades type. I'm sure the greeks and romans were not sexually repressed
because of the number of gay philosophers and statesman in both the roman
greek empires. But I don't think a roman or greek god would be that
inclined to force chastity on his/her paladin. We are talking the
monk, priest, nun type of abstinence of christianity that would drive a
paladin. This, to me, is what gygax was aiming for (IMHO) when he created
this class of fighter. But its not limited to just this type of paladin.
I remember in kurosawas Heaven and Earth where the young lord (forgot
his name) made the vow to bishamon (the japanese god of war) to stay
celibate if bishamon made him invincible in battle.
As far as repression is concerned, I think it is only repression in the
eyes of the person outside of the religion the "repressed" person is
part of. As larry said in his note,
"I suppose one person's repression is another's morality"
If however, that morality turns against others in force, it becomes
oppression.
DBIII
PS. this is a GREAT thread folks!
Sidnaceous
Paladins are a rich class, ripe for role-playing. How it is done is up to
each individual gamer and judge. One persons opinion is not more valid
than another. We should all enjoy the flexibility of role playing and not
over examine the pieces.
Sidnaceous
Steven Taylor
MHILarry wrote:
> Okay, I know I'm treading on a very touchy subject; so let me express my
> personal opinion respectfully. IMHO just *being* homosexual is falling to
> a sexual temptation, just like pedophilia.
Even assuming that homosexuality is wrong (which as a Christian I do
believe), temptation does not equal sin! We are all tempted. A person
who is attracted to children (the pedophile you mentioned), but realizes
that it is wrong and denies himself the temptation is not sinning. Have
you ever been tempted to cheat on a test, but decided not to? If so, by
your definition, you sinned. I would say one who feels the temptation
and stands firm in what is right despite earns my respect.
Steven Taylor
The Orcslayer
I've played a paladin before it was a lot of fun but, My paladins,
wreckless do-gooders that they are tended to die at low levels, for
instance:
In the wilderness our party came across a bandit camp, Sir Ector
(My 2nd Lvl Paladin) went to investigate. He discovered a camp of about
30 bandits. He overheard some of them talking about pillaging a convent,
raping and killing nuns and taking their breasts to make purses from.
Outraged he tried to get the party to attack the bandits but they said
no. So he attacked alone. Killed a couple baddies and died valiantly.
The Orcslayer
<rg...@cdsnet.net>
Daryn Brown
Then whats the point of this newsgroup? We examine the pieces in order
to flesh-out the character. I don't think anybody has given a wrong
answer to the question. And I value other gameers and DM's opinions.
Otherwise, why read this group?
DBIII
Doug Smith
dhard...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>|> I think he meant that it would be much rarer for the paladin to run
>|> across another homosexual to tempt him in the first place than it
>|> would be for someone who was straight. Also more difficult to find
>|> another homosexual since many won't be open about it.
>depends of which medival society mediaeval Greek and roman were both
>much more open to alternative sexual philosophies then modern day U.S.
>populace which draws roots from puritans a very sexually repressed
>religious group in fact I have found we are the most sexually repressed
>group outside the middle east and I have been in quite a few places
>including the orient Europe, Russia, south America and Australia.
I certainly agree. However I was stating what I thought the other
persons viewpoint was, not what a specific campaign setting would be.
However, in general AD&D is a pseudo-European setting despite the
plethora of Roman and Greek gods. In that insipid and generic setting
homosexuality is a big NO-NO.
Note, don't have a problem with European settings that have some
foundation. Just don't care for vague, pseudo settings.
> PS I am totaly strait myself but I respect what ever views you might
>have.
Doug Smith
The Orcslayer <rg...@cdsnet.net> wrote:
Why would your Paladin have joined up with such a group of non-heroes
anyway?
Anyway it sounds like the GM was just trying to push your buttons.
Some GM's get into manipulation games rather than telling a good
story. Rape and murder are expected, but a convent of nuns, making
their breasts into purses? Sounds over the top, and tailored by your
GM to target your character. Doesn't sound like a fun game to me.
>The Orcslayer
><rg...@cdsnet.net>
Ray Delgado
The Orcslayer wrote:
>
> I've played a paladin before it was a lot of fun but, My paladins,
> wreckless do-gooders that they are tended to die at low levels, for
> instance:
> In the wilderness our party came across a bandit camp, Sir Ector
> (My 2nd Lvl Paladin) went to investigate. He discovered a camp of about
> 30 bandits. He overheard some of them talking about pillaging a convent,
> raping and killing nuns and taking their breasts to make purses from.
> Outraged he tried to get the party to attack the bandits but they said
> no. So he attacked alone. Killed a couple baddies and died valiantly.
I have a question, if the paladin wanted to stop the bandits, why did
he initiate an attack that was pure suicide ? The outrage at what the men
were about to do is justified, but, unless he had a death wish, the
correct plan of action would have been to warn the convent, alert the
authorities, raise the militia and meet the brigands on the field of
battle, thus saving the nuns, defeating evil, helping the community and
honorably forwarding the beliefs of law and good. By riding in and
attacking the bandits single handed, he was not stopping them, in fact,
he was helping them by giving them his horse, armour and equipment,
alerting them to the fact that they may have been overheard, and
eliminating himself as a potental threat. The nuns would still have
suffered their fate.
I understand that you were playing a reckless do-gooder, but
their is a line where reckeless becomes fool-hardy. That paladin, if he
survived, would have been the joke of the community. If he died, he would
have been used as the example of what not to do. Even if he had a reason
to hate the bandits above and beyond the norm, due to his background,
prior experiences etc., the LG thing to do would be to swallow his anger,
hold in his grief and do what was right. LG's make great martyr due to
their need to think of the community first, themselves last.
BTW - His own party refused to help? If they were good, they would
have at least attempted to warn the nuns and divert him from his blind
path. If they were not good, he should not have been with them in the
first place.
The only PC I can see doing this would be some type of Chaotic, A ranger
or barabian, and even he would think twice about attacking 30 men head
on. A hit and run, harassment and ambush tactic would seem more likely.
--
raydium
" Vertigo is not the fear of falling.... rather, it is the call of the
depths, the lure of the void, the temptation to cast oneself into the
pit, against which, terrified, we defend ourselves. "
Bob Baldwin
Ray Delgado wrote:
><cut>
> he initiate an attack that was pure suicide ? The outrage at what the men
> were about to do is justified, but, unless he had a death wish, the
> correct plan of action would have been to warn the convent, alert the
> authorities, raise the militia and meet the brigands on the field of
> battle, thus saving the nuns, defeating evil, helping the community and
> I understand that you were playing a reckless do-gooder, but
> their is a line where reckeless becomes fool-hardy. That paladin, if he
> The only PC I can see doing this would be some type of Chaotic, A ranger
> or barabian, and even he would think twice about attacking 30 men head
> on. A hit and run, harassment and ambush tactic would seem more likely.
>
I've run several Paladins and Cavaliers like this (not all, but several).
First, it is in accord with the code set out in Unearthed Arcana.
But more importantly, Paladins do that kind of thing because that's what
Paladins do. If you are not comfortable with that kind of logic, you
don't really understand the Paladin thought process. They just don't
_do_ hit and run.
BB
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
Phil Rhodes
Bob Baldwin wrote:
>
> Ray Delgado wrote:
> ><cut>
> > I have a question, if the paladin wanted to stop the bandits, why did
> > he initiate an attack that was pure suicide ? The outrage at what the men
> > were about to do is justified, but, unless he had a death wish, the
> > correct plan of action would have been to warn the convent, alert the
> > authorities, raise the militia and meet the brigands on the field of
> > battle, thus saving the nuns, defeating evil, helping the community and
> > honorably forwarding the beliefs of law and good. <cut>
> > I understand that you were playing a reckless do-gooder, but
> > their is a line where reckeless becomes fool-hardy. That paladin, if he
> > survived, would have been the joke of the community. <cut>
> > The only PC I can see doing this would be some type of Chaotic, A ranger
> > or barabian, and even he would think twice about attacking 30 men head
> > on. A hit and run, harassment and ambush tactic would seem more likely.
If you are playing a classic paladin, his code of honor would probably not
allow him to use hit and run attacks. Your other suggestions are very good.
> I've run several Paladins and Cavaliers like this (not all, but several).
> First, it is in accord with the code set out in Unearthed Arcana.
> But more importantly, Paladins do that kind of thing because that's what
> Paladins do. If you are not comfortable with that kind of logic, you
> don't really understand the Paladin thought process.
It sounds like you beleive that paladins are 'Lawful Stupid', not Lawful Good.
Attacking against impossible odds when there is an *honorable* alternative
(at least in my opinion) is a *dishonorable* act. By sacrificing himself,
the paladin probably doomed the convent by not warning them & raising the
militia as Mr. Delgado suggested. IMC, a paladin who attacked like this &
survived would be severely reprimanded by his superiors.
--
-Phil (Phillip...@baylor.edu)
"Assimilate this!" - Worf, Star Trek: First Contact
Michael Sandy
(Paladin's suicidal charge after some bandits deleted)
There was an incident in a campaign I was in that I think captures
what it is to be a paladin.
My character was a LG Cl/Mu, and our mostly LG party had been on a
mission that teleported us across the continent. We needed the help
of some locals so we contracted to investigate the estate of a presumed
deceased archmage who menagerie of nasty creatures was menacing the
townsfolk.
We were mostly 1st and 2nd levels, so Diplacer Beasts were a major challenge
for us. We killed them, but encountered this guardian cat which kept
coming back bigger and bigger. My character wanted to retreat, heal,
recover spells, and set up a better battle plan than getting ambushed by
that damn cat all the time.
The Paladin took the opportunity of the cat being put down for the third
time to charge upstairs. He ended up facing 4 gargoyles at 1st level.
However, he trusted his ability, and luck, and his destiny if you could
call it that, swallowed an unidentified potion, and swung a sword that
he had found recently.
The potion was a potion of Heroism. The sword was a +1 sword. Result,
4 dead gargoyles before all the extra hit points were gone.
We still had to deal with the damn cat, or course, and eventually used a
magic item an NPC had to dispell it (expensive!).
But the point is, the Paladin trusts to his own abilities, and won't
turn down a challenge just because it seems impossible. He has faith
that his god, luck, and his faith with let him prevail, or at least
be morally instructive.
Tacticly speaking, what the Paladin was dumb, splitting the party to charge
into an unexplored building, knowing his retreat was through a creature
that got bigger everytime it got killed. However, there was no fudging
by the GM in that he survived, and the Paladin's faith was confirmed
by the fact that his daring brought him succe.
Obviously a Paladin shouldn't _count_ on some chance found magic bringing
him success, but if the odds aren't _ridiculous_, I wouldn't fault the
Paladin for attempting it. If he succeeded, he would have his faith
rewarded and would be in excellant position to roleplay a pious knight
giving thanks for aid in battle, if he failed, he would've died trying
to do good.
Michael Sandy
Ray Delgado
Michael Sandy wrote:
> The Paladin took the opportunity of the cat being put down for the third
> time to charge upstairs. He ended up facing 4 gargoyles at 1st level.
> However, he trusted his ability, and luck, and his destiny if you could
> call it that, swallowed an unidentified potion, and swung a sword that
> he had found recently.
In this case the paladin, currently under the lordship of the locals
and seeking to rid the community of a known group of nasties, took the
initiative and assaulted a den of evil monsters of unknown quantity and
power. Glorious and honorable support of a contract supported by his
group. Exactly correct and much different then one against thirty ignoble
bandits.
> the point is, the Paladin trusts to his own abilities, and won't
> turn down a challenge just because it seems impossible. He has faith
> that his god, luck, and his faith with let him prevail, or at least
> be morally instructive.
True, the paladin used his faith, abilities and courage in the cause of
good which be had been directed to by the community and the present lord
of the land. He dealt with unknown horrors and did not fail in his duly
appointed task. Also, he knew that his death would have given his group
time to prepare their attack and avenge him if necessary. Again, much
different than an chance encounter with low-lige bandits and an
unsupported, unplanned attack at known odds of thirty to one, with no
back up at all.
> Tacticly speaking, what the Paladin was dumb, splitting the party to charge
> into an unexplored building, knowing his retreat was through a creature
> that got bigger everytime it got killed. However, there was no fudging
> by the GM in that he survived, and the Paladin's faith was confirmed
> by the fact that his daring brought him succe.
> Obviously a Paladin shouldn't _count_ on some chance found magic bringing
> him success, but if the odds aren't _ridiculous_, I wouldn't fault the
> Paladin for attempting it. If he succeeded, he would have his faith
> rewarded and would be in excellant position to roleplay a pious knight
> giving thanks for aid in battle, if he failed, he would've died trying
> to do good.
I agree completely, but, as I mentioned above, the differences are
evident. How a paladin dies is not the point, why and what is gained by
good, the community, his lord, his god and his allies defines a glorious,
honorable death and a useless suicide.
raydium - Vertigo is not the fear of falling.... rather, it is the call
Bob Baldwin
Michael Sandy wrote:
><Details Cut>
> The Paladin took the opportunity of the cat being put down for the third
> time to charge upstairs. He ended up facing 4 gargoyles at 1st level.
> However, he trusted his ability, and luck, and his destiny if you could
> call it that, swallowed an unidentified potion, and swung a sword that
> he had found recently.
>
> The potion was a potion of Heroism. The sword was a +1 sword. Result,
> 4 dead gargoyles before all the extra hit points were gone.
>
> We still had to deal with the damn cat, or course, and eventually used a
> magic item an NPC had to dispell it (expensive!).
>
> But the point is, the Paladin trusts to his own abilities, and won't
> turn down a challenge just because it seems impossible. He has faith
> that his god, luck, and his faith with let him prevail, or at least
> be morally instructive.
><Cut>
Well done! That is how a Paladin is *supposed* to act. The key to a
running a Paladin is to always assume that God is directly involved and
on your side. Never stop to consider the possibility of defeat, or how
much that item might cost, just keep trusting your faith.
In that sense, PAladins are an excellent Role playing opportunity, you
are frequently acting in ways the player might not consider in his own
best interest.
Sam Robinson
Bob Baldwin wrote:
>
> Michael Sandy wrote:
> ><Details Cut>
>
> > But the point is, the Paladin trusts to his own abilities, and won't
> > turn down a challenge just because it seems impossible. He has faith
> > that his god, luck, and his faith with let him prevail, or at least
> > be morally instructive.
> ><Cut>
>
> Well done! That is how a Paladin is *supposed* to act. The key to a
> running a Paladin is to always assume that God is directly involved and
> on your side. Never stop to consider the possibility of defeat, or how
> much that item might cost, just keep trusting your faith.
> In that sense, PAladins are an excellent Role playing opportunity, you
> are frequently acting in ways the player might not consider in his own
> best interest.
I agree that the paladin trusts their diety and acts as though the diety
is watching at all times. But before attemting the impossible, they will
often seek the guidance of their diety as well, possibly by asking the
DM to check morale or by doing it themselves where the DM can see it. I
figure that a Paladin deciding to charge into certain death would need
to have a morale of 12. Insurmountable odds, perhaps lower. I've seen a
lot of lawful stupid paladins in my time, and honestly wonder about
them. I've spent entire campaigns with a first level paladin tied to the
back of a mule and gagged because the player playing them was too bloody
dense to realize that to serve the diety, the paladin had to survive for
a while. A good alternate view of the role of the paladin can be found
in _The Deed of Paksenarrion_ by Elizabeth Moon. (This is a compilation
of the trilogy _Sheepfarmer's Daughter_, _Divided Allegiance_, and _Oath
of Gold_. I think it's a bit less expensive in the trade paper.)
Remember that one of the minimum requirements for a paladin is a wisdom
of at least 13 (AD&D 1 PHB p.22). If I want a paladin to do something
like what you're suggesting, I give them some encouragement. The self
interest point is well taken though, a paladin acting in a particular
way because of self interest is always wrong. Their motivation is for
something, someone, or some higher cause, never themselves. It's a hard
one to play properly.
--
Sam Robinson SamRo...@mindspring.com
____________________________________________________________
If you don't know what you want, you can never ever have it.
Robert Baldwin
Phil Rhodes wrote:
>
>> Bob Baldwin wrote:
> >
> > I've run several Paladins and Cavaliers like this (not all, but several).
> > First, it is in accord with the code set out in Unearthed Arcana.
> > But more importantly, Paladins do that kind of thing because that's what
> > Paladins do. If you are not comfortable with that kind of logic, you
> > don't really understand the Paladin thought process.
>
> It sounds like you beleive that paladins are 'Lawful Stupid', not Lawful Good.
> Attacking against impossible odds when there is an *honorable* alternative
> (at least in my opinion) is a *dishonorable* act. <Cut>
Not at all. As someone else mentioned, this sounds kind of like a
set-up by the DM, but that's IMHO. As a DM, I would have _expected_ that
response from a Paladin, and not created a situation where good role
playing results in unavoidable death of the pc.
No, L/G isn't L/Stupid, but being a Paladin is a *lot* more than being
L/G. It means acting on the knowledge that God Himself is personally
involved in every combat, and He's on your side. The original Code for
this kind of character goes back to the idea Trial by Combat, in which
God would defend a true and worthy knight. Paladins are not just
fighters with some extra perks. (IMO, Paladins are more reasonably
considered a sub-class of cleric, rather than fighter).
BTW, my .sig line is, IMO, the best summary of a Paladin's philosophy
I've seen yet. (It was actually the Family Motto for one of my
Cavaliers).
RB
"Eveyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
Phil Rhodes
Robert Baldwin wrote:
> No, L/G isn't L/Stupid, but being a Paladin is a *lot* more than being
> L/G. It means acting on the knowledge that God Himself is personally
> involved in every combat, and He's on your side.
Agreed. But paladins have a minimum WIS of 13 (?) and to throw one's
life away uselessly (IMO) is a mark of *low* wisdom and intelligence.
Also, most War deities have some degree of tactical sense, except for
berserker gods. Some of that has to be reflected in the paladin's code
of honor.
I guess it comes down to the debate about 'generic' paladins vs. paladins
of a certain deity. IMC, the paladins of Hieroneous (god of war) act much
differently than the paladins of Rao (LG god of reason). The codes of honor
are much different.
> BTW, my .sig line is, IMO, the best summary of a Paladin's philosophy
> I've seen yet. (It was actually the Family Motto for one of my
> Cavaliers).
> RB
> "Eveyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
Also agreed. But in the example, I would say that the paladin chose
to die in vain, and hence did not die well. Perhaps it is just that
I believe that Honor is not absolute; that is, in most situations there
is more than one honorable alternative, and senseless death in hopeless
combat is not one of them.
Robert Baldwin
Sam Robinson wrote:
><Cut>
> I agree that the paladin trusts their diety and acts as though the diety
> is watching at all times. But before attemting the impossible, they will
> often seek the guidance of their diety as well, possibly by asking the
> DM to check morale or by doing it themselves where the DM can see it. I
> figure that a Paladin deciding to charge into certain death would need
> to have a morale of 12. Insurmountable odds, perhaps lower. I've seen a
> lot of lawful stupid paladins in my time, and honestly wonder about
> them. I've spent entire campaigns with a first level paladin tied to the
> back of a mule and gagged because the player playing them was too bloody
> dense to realize that to serve the diety, the paladin had to survive for
> I think it's a bit less expensive in the trade paper.)
> Remember that one of the minimum requirements for a paladin is a wisdom
> of at least 13 (AD&D 1 PHB p.22). If I want a paladin to do something
> like what you're suggesting, I give them some encouragement. The self
> interest point is well taken though, a paladin acting in a particular
> way because of self interest is always wrong. Their motivation is for
> something, someone, or some higher cause, never themselves. It's a hard
> one to play properly.
But I have also seen to many players who always justify the Paladin's
*not* charging in on the basis of "need to survive". (I'm _not_ saying
you do or defend this, just reporting what I've seen.) I always thoght
it was like the politician who defends the latest compromise on the
grounds that they need to win now so they can fight later. I think the
Paladin and the Cavalier (1st.ed UA version) require _both_ a dedicated
role player *and* a DM who understands the unique role of the character.
If a DM is to "realistic", the Paladin is almost certainly doomed, if
they keep challenging the odds. OTOH, if the DM dosen't hold the line,
the Paladin threatens to take over the party, especially if other
characters die under odds the Paladin "miraculously" susrvives.
I've had a multi-classed Paladin/Cleric in the campaign I've been
runniong for almost 5 years now, and a level of trust has developed
between the player and I on this issue (It's the same pc from the
Halfling Paladin thread). I know I had to be careful, especially at
first, because I prefer Paladins as a player, and was tempted on a few
occasions to be to lenient.
The other key, of course, is to have other players who don't oppose the
Paladin needing a certain direction in the party. If this Paladin had
been in the original post's situation and had not died, he certainly
would never have adventured with _that_ party again.
I am confused, though, about your reference to the morale check for the
Paladin. Does your group often have the DM make morale rolls for pc's?
I have never done this. I always allow the player to make that choice.
RB
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
det...@why.net
Sam Robinson <sams...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Remember that one of the minimum requirements for a paladin is a wisdom
>of at least 13 (AD&D 1 PHB p.22). If I want a paladin to do something
>like what you're suggesting, I give them some encouragement. The self
>interest point is well taken though, a paladin acting in a particular
>way because of self interest is always wrong. Their motivation is for
>something, someone, or some higher cause, never themselves. It's a hard
>one to play properly.
in 2nd ed, its Str of 12, Con of 9(no biggie), Wisdom of 13, and
Charisma of 17!
Doug Smith
Phil Rhodes <Phillip...@baylor.edu> wrote:
>Robert Baldwin wrote:
>> No, L/G isn't L/Stupid, but being a Paladin is a *lot* more than being
>> L/G. It means acting on the knowledge that God Himself is personally
>> involved in every combat, and He's on your side.
>Agreed. But paladins have a minimum WIS of 13 (?) and to throw one's
>life away uselessly (IMO) is a mark of *low* wisdom and intelligence.
>Also, most War deities have some degree of tactical sense, except for
>berserker gods. Some of that has to be reflected in the paladin's code
>of honor.
Is it stupid to refuse to curse your god if cursing your god would
prevent the death of your family, your sickness, and your ruin?
(Job). Is it a waste to fight for a side if you know that side will
lose? Your concept that it is stupid and a throwing away of his life
to attack in this situation is very narrow minded. It isn't that the
Paladin didn't know he was going to die, but that following his
religious code was more important than his life.
One reason for a Samurai to commit Sepuku (ritual suicide) was if his
master did something he disagreed with and he wanted to make a strong
statement. For example if his lord allied with someone the Samurai
felt was dishonorable he might kill himself to make a policy
statement!
In the same way a Paladin might have to uphold standards that at first
glance seem to be 'stupid' because they can call for a callous
disregard for ones life. Upholding a standard is the Paladin's job.
This doesn't mean that I believe the Paladin in this case had to
attack the bandits by himself. But I don't think a Paladin doing so
is playing a low wisdom.
>I guess it comes down to the debate about 'generic' paladins vs. paladins
>of a certain deity. IMC, the paladins of Hieroneous (god of war) act much
>differently than the paladins of Rao (LG god of reason). The codes of honor
>are much different.
In discussing the 'generic' paladin of AD&D, you are basically talking
about a Paladin of God as defined by Christianity.
>> BTW, my .sig line is, IMO, the best summary of a Paladin's philosophy
>> I've seen yet. (It was actually the Family Motto for one of my
>> Cavaliers).
>> RB
>> "Eveyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
>Also agreed. But in the example, I would say that the paladin chose
>to die in vain, and hence did not die well. Perhaps it is just that
>I believe that Honor is not absolute; that is, in most situations there
>is more than one honorable alternative, and senseless death in hopeless
>combat is not one of them.
>--
>-Phil (Phillip...@baylor.edu)
>"Assimilate this!" - Worf, Star Trek: First Contact
DES
rel...@cbus.mindspring.com
Bob Baldwin <bald...@lanecc.kill.spam.edu> wrote:
>Well done! That is how a Paladin is *supposed* to act. The key to a
>running a Paladin is to always assume that God is directly involved and
>on your side. Never stop to consider the possibility of defeat, or how
>much that item might cost, just keep trusting your faith.
I disagree. I have played paladins both ways (as heroic sounding
foolhardy do-gooders, and more reserved heroic sounding, but
tactically smarter do-gooders) I prefer the second.
My paladin subscribed to this school of thought : There is no cause
worth dying for that cannot be better served by living. Meaning: why
die for a cause when you can better serve that cause by staying alive
and finding other ways to be victorious.
In the case of the nun-raping bandits, I feel it would have been much
smarter for the paladin to go and warn the nunnery ("get thee to a
nunnery" - Hamlet) than charge with reckless abandon into a battle you
are sure to lose.
Now, there are times when a cause can be very well served by fighting
a hopeless battle, that way your character can become a martyr...and
in some religions that is a good thing.
In the bandit scenario, if the paladin charges certain death with no
support, what good has he done? He dies and becomes a laughing stock
in the eyes of his fellow adventurers...and that makes his cause
laughable...and than makes the paladin's patron diety laughable....and
that makes the patron diety most unhappy.
Now in the same scenario, if the paladin decides charging without
support would be certain death, he could still pledge himself, in his
diety's name, to saving the nuns. He could ride the nunnery, warn
the nuns, help them get away, or raise a small army to fight the
bandits. To me, a paladin working with much more tactical sense would
be a better example of his religion and his diety.
I think his diety would be much more happy with the outcome...and
thereby be much more happy with his paladin.....
Michael Sandy
I could see the Paladin in the nun-torturing bandits scenario trying
to shame his companions into helping him by saying,
"If you will not help me, I will go alone, and not look back to see if
you are following me."
So, having made an oath in an attempt to motivate his 'friends', he has
no choice but to continue through on his promise.
Michael Sandy
Brags
Question: Why do you say being lesbian or gay or bisexual perverse?
mat...@marshall.edu
One of my worst player problems in my group is a guy who theinks that
Lawful Good means Lawful Stupid. Yes LG PC's should have distinct laws
and codes....but it doesn't mean that they are ignorant imbeciles and
don't know when they are outmatched. (Even GODS know when they are
outmatched!) They may vow to return when they are able and go collect
more strengths.
On 3 Jan 1997 16:40:58 -0800, meh...@kira.peak.org (Michael Sandy)
wrote:
>(Paladin's suicidal charge after some bandits deleted)
>
>There was an incident in a campaign I was in that I think captures
>what it is to be a paladin.
>
>My character was a LG Cl/Mu, and our mostly LG party had been on a
>mission that teleported us across the continent. We needed the help
>of some locals so we contracted to investigate the estate of a presumed
>deceased archmage who menagerie of nasty creatures was menacing the
>townsfolk.
>
>We were mostly 1st and 2nd levels, so Diplacer Beasts were a major challenge
>for us. We killed them, but encountered this guardian cat which kept
>coming back bigger and bigger. My character wanted to retreat, heal,
>recover spells, and set up a better battle plan than getting ambushed by
>that damn cat all the time.
>
>The Paladin took the opportunity of the cat being put down for the third
>time to charge upstairs. He ended up facing 4 gargoyles at 1st level.
>However, he trusted his ability, and luck, and his destiny if you could
>call it that, swallowed an unidentified potion, and swung a sword that
>he had found recently.
>
>The potion was a potion of Heroism. The sword was a +1 sword. Result,
>4 dead gargoyles before all the extra hit points were gone.
>
>We still had to deal with the damn cat, or course, and eventually used a
>magic item an NPC had to dispell it (expensive!).
>
>But the point is, the Paladin trusts to his own abilities, and won't
>turn down a challenge just because it seems impossible. He has faith
>that his god, luck, and his faith with let him prevail, or at least
>be morally instructive.
>
>Tacticly speaking, what the Paladin was dumb, splitting the party to charge
>into an unexplored building, knowing his retreat was through a creature
>that got bigger everytime it got killed. However, there was no fudging
>by the GM in that he survived, and the Paladin's faith was confirmed
>by the fact that his daring brought him succe.
>
>Obviously a Paladin shouldn't _count_ on some chance found magic bringing
>him success, but if the odds aren't _ridiculous_, I wouldn't fault the
>Paladin for attempting it. If he succeeded, he would have his faith
>rewarded and would be in excellant position to roleplay a pious knight
>giving thanks for aid in battle, if he failed, he would've died trying
>to do good.
>
>Michael Sandy
>
K.Churchill, J.J.Hancock
dave...@hooked.net wrote:
>
>> How would you play a lesbian Paladin? What personality would she
>> have? What motivations? What makes her tick? In short: describe
>> such a character.
>>
>> I have a few ideas, but would appreciate everyone elses input.
>>
I have successfully run an AD&D campaign (for two years and counting)
in which one of the main PC's was a lesbian Paladin. She was the
epitome of loyal servant of the God she followed, and never faltered
in her devotion. She never engaged in casual sex (being lawful), and
never forced her attentions upon anyone. In the second year of the
campaign, another character (a woman) entered the scene and they both
fell in love, and had a chaste, romantic relationship for about 8
months, then decided they were true lifepartners for each other and
consumated their relationship.
The point I'm trying to make is that, in their eyes, they were
married, even if the actual ceremony had yet to take place (due to
political reasons and a Dark elf invasion) They were true to each
other, just as if they had been a male/female partnership. There was
virtually no difference in the emotional commitment between that
relationship and a Male-Female relationship, and no difference in the
depth of feeling. The only difference was that they couldn't have
children unless they adopted - and many children who had lost parents
in the war were looking for a home. Who says that you need to be
male\female to have a viable family or relationship?
The only problems I can see with a Lesbian Paladin (or for a
Homosexual male Paladin) depend on the GM's game-world and the
Paladin's God or Goddess. If the Deity is very strict about same-sex
relationships, then either they remain chaste their entire life, or
they enter a "Traditional" Male-female relationship and live a lie,
fighting their conflicting emotions.
It's possible that many Dieties just don't care as long as the
emotion, trust and feeling is there. Is this the case in your
campaign? The question of allowability of a gay Paladin is pretty
much based on a few things - the Dieties in the game; the degree of
tolerance of the dieties in question; and whether you as a GM feel
comfortable GMing a person with a Homosexual character.
Just a few thoughts.
Kevin Churchill (Anval on the IRC's)
Noah Dowd
Brags wrote:
>
> Question: Why do you say being lesbian or gay or bisexual perverse?
Isn't it obvious? Because of an arbitrary religious paradigm
being applied to a larger society's mores.
-Noah
--
E-mail: no...@anet-dfw.com
If ever I find a soulless rind,
I'll pluck its weave and make it breathe. -Jaron the Spinster
Dave Harper
si...@ptbo.igs.net (K.Churchill, J.J.Hancock) wrote:
>I have successfully run an AD&D campaign (for two years and counting)
>in which one of the main PC's was a lesbian Paladin. She was the
>epitome of loyal servant of the God she followed, and never faltered
>in her devotion. She never engaged in casual sex (being lawful), and
>never forced her attentions upon anyone. In the second year of the
>campaign, another character (a woman) entered the scene and they both
>fell in love, and had a chaste, romantic relationship for about 8
>months, then decided they were true lifepartners for each other and
>consumated their relationship.
>The point I'm trying to make is that, in their eyes, they were
>married, even if the actual ceremony had yet to take place (due to
>political reasons and a Dark elf invasion) They were true to each
>other, just as if they had been a male/female partnership. There was
>virtually no difference in the emotional commitment between that
>relationship and a Male-Female relationship, and no difference in the
>depth of feeling. The only difference was that they couldn't have
>children unless they adopted - and many children who had lost parents
>in the war were looking for a home. Who says that you need to be
>male\female to have a viable family or relationship?
Um...a note here. (I am NOT against lesbians or gays! Read what I
say here!! Really!) According to a few churches - including the
Christian one - holy warriors of any kind were forbidden to marry.
The principle behind this was that they were already married to God.
The same applies to priests of *many* religions around the world, and
presumably anybody recieving direct intervention from their deity.
You can still see it today in Nuns and Priests, if you watch during
their ceremony of acceptance (or whatever it's called, can't recall).
In that POV, a Paladin - regardless of sexuality - could not marry or
form such a bond emotionally without being "untrue" to their god, thus
commiting blasphemy.
Note also, however, that in a campaign where the gods actually exist,
it's unlikely a LG deity would be that petty or jealous. Maybe in a
greek or norse-style campaign, where the gods acted like little
children with immense powers, but not in a more "Omnipotent and
Omniscient" one. And please, nobody flame me over this one, because I
do respect the Christian religion, along with many others...
>The only problems I can see with a Lesbian Paladin (or for a
>Homosexual male Paladin) depend on the GM's game-world and the
>Paladin's God or Goddess. If the Deity is very strict about same-sex
>relationships, then either they remain chaste their entire life, or
>they enter a "Traditional" Male-female relationship and live a lie,
>fighting their conflicting emotions.
I can see two gods with views on that - fertility/childbirth, and
love. The goddess (usually) of fertility would be strictly against
homosexual relations, as they are "unnatural" in that they don't
produce children. The goddess (usually) of love would be all for such
a relationship, even to the extent of proving sanctuary or little aid
for the star-crossed lovers (see many, many greek myths).
Others probably wouldn't care, unless it made a difference in how
others saw their champion (the Paladin). Since the idea of a Paladin
is not just to be a powerful warrior, but also to be an example in the
eyes of other and a leader of the forces of good, something that would
ruin their reputation in the eyes of the local people MIGHT be
considered bad by their god. This could include: Being female, being
male, being a race other than human, being homosexual, being
alcoholic, being addicted to a drug, buying pornography, owning
slaves, wife-beating, and so on. Note that ALL of these have been
considered "good" things during at least ONE point in history. All
have also been considered bad during at least one point.
Other gods of good might desire to break such stereotypes and show
others how hypocritical and unloving they are being - note especially
the case of one Jesus of Nazareth, who did just that. Sometimes a
champion is there to show the priesthood and the people exactly how
petty they are being. This is why being a Paladin is allowed for any
race, gender, sexuality, or whatever in my game.
>It's possible that many Dieties just don't care as long as the
>emotion, trust and feeling is there. Is this the case in your
>campaign? The question of allowability of a gay Paladin is pretty
>much based on a few things - the Dieties in the game; the degree of
>tolerance of the dieties in question; and whether you as a GM feel
>comfortable GMing a person with a Homosexual character.
No argument there. It might be a moot point if, in fact, a Paladin is
required to be chaste and celibate; the leanings of the Paladin in
question would then be ignored, and any kind of sexual encounter could
be grounds for dismissal.
>Kevin Churchill (Anval on the IRC's)
Say, Kev...if this is you...send me an e-mail, will you? The last few
I've sent haven't come back at all.
Dave. (dha...@mustang.uwo.ca)
"She said role-playing games were the creation of Satan. Dead
clever of him. I mean, sitting down there in Hell, working out
all the combat tables and everything. I bet he used to really
*swear* every time the dice caught fire..."
-Only You Can Save Mankind, Terry Pratchett
Dave Brohman
: a>
Distribution:
Dave Harper (dha...@mustang.uwo.ca) wrote:
> Um...a note here. (I am NOT against lesbians or gays! Read what I
> say here!! Really!) According to a few churches - including the
> Christian one - holy warriors of any kind were forbidden to marry.
> The principle behind this was that they were already married to God.
I would question this statement and request that proof be shown. As a
student of Medieval Studies I have yet to encounter this anywhere. I
think perhaps that you are confusing this with the chastity requirement of
the Catholic Church's priesthood. It is important to remember, however,
that, like medieval knights or so-called "holy warriors", paladins are NOT
priests.
However, if you were to provide verifiable references to thie statement I
would re-evaluate the situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Brohman E-Mail : dbro...@chat.carleton.ca
Carleton University
Featuring Alexi Sayle as the Balowski Family.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Harper
Noah Dowd <no...@bnr.ca> wrote:
>Brags wrote:
>>
>> Question: Why do you say being lesbian or gay or bisexual perverse?
>Isn't it obvious? Because of an arbitrary religious paradigm
>being applied to a larger society's mores.
Heh. Okay, how about "why do you THINK being lesbian or gay is
perverse?"
Dave
Vermilion
In article Noah Dowd <no...@bnr.ca> writes:
>Brags wrote:
>>
>> Question: Why do you say being lesbian or gay or bisexual perverse?
>Isn't it obvious? Because of an arbitrary religious paradigm
>being applied to a larger society's mores.
And exactly where's the 'arbitrary' part?
- Vermilion, ever curious...
Phil Clarke, Jr.
"Michael.S.E.Richards" <obi...@richsoft.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <19970108010...@ladder01.news.aol.com
>>, Brags <br...@aol.com> writes
>>Question: Why do you say being lesbian or gay or bisexual perverse?
>Maybe because it's unnatural? Duhh.
So's driving around in a car, or wearing clothes for that matter. So
either walk to your Bible class naked, or shut up.
Phil
http://www.webcom.com/dogglebe
visit the website, damnit!!!!
Noah Dowd
>
> >being applied to a larger society's mores.
>
> And exactly where's the 'arbitrary' part?
>
> - Vermilion, ever curious...
Well, that may have been a slight cheap shot, but I've never
seen a valid cause and effect dissertation on the beliefs in
the Christian religion. If you can provide a logical basis
for those beliefs, I will retract my use of arbitrary.
Noah Dowd
Dave Harper wrote:
>
> Noah Dowd <no...@bnr.ca> wrote:
>
> >Brags wrote:
> >>
> >> Question: Why do you say being lesbian or gay or bisexual perverse?
>
> >Isn't it obvious? Because of an arbitrary religious paradigm
> >being applied to a larger society's mores.
>
> perverse?"
>
Oh, yeah, ummm
"Because my pastor said so."