Quote from: Emperor Norton;796552Or, you know, or

And I know this one might be hard for people to get

Cause apparently it is

She saw her wife was a woman the whole time whether she had man parts or not? Cause she was. That is what being transgender is.

This.

Haffrung: I'm pretty sure there was mention of married couples and occasional romances in RPGs long before Paizo.

But privilege tends to overlook such things because married men and women isn't political, it's just normal, eh?

If I may - would a Paladin ever end up married, gender roles notwithstanding?

In my mind (having played a Paladin or two in my day), they would be utterly committed to their deity, and things like physical/emotional entanglements would distract them from their "mission" in life. Like Jedi, I guess? Except for that one that we all know, who got into such entanglements, and we see how he ended up.

One reason I prefer game religions to be more mysterious is that I would think it interesting to have paladin sects fiercely at odds over doctrine, when you can't just ring up the gods and say 'hey, is this unlawful?'

Quote from: Will;796559Haffrung: I'm pretty sure there was mention of married couples and occasional romances in RPGs long before Paizo.

But privilege tends to overlook such things because married men and women isn't political, it's just normal, eh?

  This line of argument has long struck me as begging the question by assuming the moral equivalency of all consensual adult sexual/interpersonal relationships--the very thing that's in such debate.

  Now, that's the majority position in the online RPG community, and certainly the hip and trendy one at the moment. (I"m not sure if the cult of Moloch Paneros is going to continue on the advance, or if it's overreached itself--and I fear a reaction untempered by wisdom and charity if the latter's the case.) But it's not anything close to a consensus, especially in the broader society, and Haffrung raises the point that many people would find it intrusive regardless of their own beliefs on the matter.

In modest defense of stupidquestion, I would say that there is stuff I don't want in my RPG adventures.  Not out of bigotry; I don't like evil player characters, soap-opera-level melodrama, thinly veiled allegory, horror, and probably a host of other things that many people seem to like in RPGs and that I don't necessarily object to in other forms of entertainment.  (I was persuaded to buy Kittens in a Blender on the promise that you're trying to keep kittens out of the blender; but really that's your kittens only and the objective is to puree the other players' kittens.  That purchase made me unhappy.)  And I'd like some way of finding out if a given purchase is going to be something I won't like.  Internet reviews and less confrontational, more specific questions should do it.

I'd also add that published adventures featuring paladins tend to be a minefield because there are so many incompatible notions as to how a paladin should or must behave.  But especially please spare me stupidquestion's utilitarian paladin who makes all decisions solely based on maximizing the hurt to evil forces.

I also don't think it's fair to insist that anyone who buys a pre-made adventure is going to have to put in substantial work to adapt it; I don't buy that sort of product much but it seems to me that avoiding work I would otherwise have to do would be the major motivation.  If that's expected anyway then there's little point--what time are you saving in return for your money?  (I don't know how significant this was for the adventure in question; if it plays the same with a random curse substituted, then that's not asking much.)

I am curious; stupidquestion, how many Paizo adventures have you bought?  From what others say, this seems to be the most extreme example; were you unlucky enough that this was the first, or were you happy with all of the previous ones, and if so, how many?

Quote from: Will;796565One reason I prefer game religions to be more mysterious is that I would think it interesting to have paladin sects fiercely at odds over doctrine, when you can't just ring up the gods and say 'hey, is this unlawful?'

Hmm, I see - Sunni and Shia, for example? Or Catholic and Lutheran?

....nah.

If the ENTIRE POINT of a Paladin is that they enforce the actual, TRUE intentions of their ACTUAL, REAL deity (as per the fact that, in fantasy games with Paladins, said deities ACTUALLY DO EXIST), then there is no room for "sects". That's the whole point of D&D-esque religions... there is no ambiguity, no questioning - the god(s) DO in fact exist, and make it known on a fairly regular basis.

This has been covered in a multitude of places, over many decades. Just sayin'.

As I said before, I've played a Paladin on a couple of occasions, and in my (and the other people in my groups') opinion, a Lawful Good Paladin is almost, if not more, frightening than a Lawful Evil whatever. At least, that's how I play 'em.

Werekoala, you never followed Eberron, did you?

Gods were nonobvious, and doctrinal arguments were quite possible.

Quote from: Will;796572Werekoala, you never followed Eberron, did you?

Gods were nonobvious, and doctrinal arguments were quite possible.

Nope, got me there - never did "follow" Eberron. I prefer my D&D old-school. If they portrayed deities as vague, amorphous, new-age, touchy-feely, whatever-floats-your-boat non-entities, then I can't even imagine why they'd need Paladins as a class.

Oy, you guys with your politics in everything. As bad as the radfems.

Look, ambiguity creates interesting conflicts. Conflict makes for fun games.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;796569This line of argument has long struck me as begging the question by assuming the moral equivalency of all consensual adult sexual/interpersonal relationships--the very thing that's in such debate.

I'll be completely honest. If you don't think that transgender and non-hetero adult sexual relationships are morally equivalent to cis and hetero adult sexual relationships, I don't give a shit if you are offended or not. Actually, no, wait, I hope that anyone who doesn't believe that is offended, and leaves the hobby forever.

To follow up my last idea, I had a fun idea for a paladin v paladin war:

A bunch of 3e werebear paladins realize 'hey, anyone we bite becomes a LG werebear... Crusade!'

And a bunch of other paladins go 'uh, no...'

Quote from: Werekoala;796573Nope, got me there - never did "follow" Eberron. I prefer my D&D old-school. If they portrayed deities as vague, amorphous, new-age, touchy-feely, whatever-floats-your-boat non-entities, then I can't even imagine why they'd need Paladins as a class.

Wait, vague dieties that have split sects with different doctrines is newage? Someone tell Henry VIII.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;796569This line of argument has long struck me as begging the question by assuming the moral equivalency of all consensual adult sexual/interpersonal relationships--the very thing that's in such debate.

Begging the question is something many folks engage in . The bible, for example, is hardly a universally accepted source of morality. Yet religious people frequently point to the bible as if it was actually going to settle the moral question.

QuoteBut it's not anything close to a consensus, especially in the broader society, and Haffrung raises the point that many people would find it intrusive regardless of their own beliefs on the matter.

People who find it intrusive should do what I do when I find some bit of RPG material doesn't suit me. Don't buy it. Or buy it and revise it.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;796582Wait, vague dieties that have split sects with different doctrines is newage? Someone tell Henry VIII.

You know what I mean. Go back and read Deities and Demigods and tell me how much gray area each deity had in regards to their followers.

This isn't Real Life (tm) we're talking about, despite what some folks would try to force us to believe.