Are Paladins unfairly represented in wider media?

Except there's an innumerable number of situations where the good thing and the nice thing to do are different if not directly opposed. Think of a spoiled brat for example, do you discipline him or indulge in all his desires? The latter is clearly nicer than the former. Angela Merkel's refugee policy is also a good example of nice over good. The good thing to do is to remember that she is the chancellor of the German people, and her obligation is first and foremost to her own people.

In fact, the idea that good and nice are always the same thing is the most unsustainable and (ironically) the most arrogant. It would lead to the believe that simply being polite would make you a good person.

It takes more to be Good than to just call yourself 'Good' and then do the exact same shit as the people you are decrying.

Our culture is in love with getting as much shit they want before they even know what they want. The morals are what you use to stir up the yahoos and make money.

>spoiled brat example
>The latter is clearly nicer than the former
According to who? Not indulging in the child's desires is aiding him in the long run. It's like not giving drugs to an addict or letting a man dying of thirst drink from the sea. I'd say that's pretty nice.
>refugee's
I'm tempted to not even touch this can of worms, but it is a better example. Though this is more "good intentions with terrible execution".

pic unrelated, I assume

You know what is?

The great helm.

I guarantee you none of the crusaders you're aware of wore a great helm.

Yes this triggers me.

Or indeed like any deontologist.

>I guarantee you none of the crusaders you're aware of wore a great helm.
What pleb doesn't know about Saint Louis?

>According to who? Not indulging in the child's desires is aiding him in the long run. It's like not giving drugs to an addict or letting a man dying of thirst drink from the sea. I'd say that's pretty nice.

"But it's his body! His choice! Who are you to say that he can't use drugs if he wants too?!"

We live in an age where people demand the rest of the world caters to their fantasy self-image and delusions that at 400+ pounds they can still be "healthy".

The modern "morals" of the day are quite simply that the ultimate crime is not letting someone experience pleasure, while anything "good" is just letting them have pleasure unrestricted.

Plebs make up the vast majority of the population. Louis deserved to be a failure.

>We live in an age where people demand the rest of the world caters to their fantasy self-image and delusions that at 400+ pounds they can still be "healthy".
t. the sensible exception

Saint Louis did literally nothing wrong
LITERALLY NOTHING
Well, except maybe sparing the English but that's a pragmatic mistake rather than a moral one

>Not indulging in the child's desires is aiding him in the long run. It's like not giving drugs to an addict or letting a man dying of thirst drink from the sea. I'd say that's pretty nice.

Heh, right. You just opened the door, however slightly, to doing whatever you feel like to anyone you feel like as long as you think the long-term benefits are worth it.

The best thing Louis did was ruin his country's economy for fucking nothing. The Cathars—now they did nothing wrong, and France got what it deserved for the horrors they inflicted upon those enlightened heroes.

>Ruin his country's economy
Except he was one of the few French kings to consistently maintain a positive budget balance. Which mostly had to do with him restoring a system in which debt wasn't a good thing.
crisismagazine.com/2015/the-strong-money-of-good-king-saint-louis
Out of all French kings, his fiscal policy was probably one of the more responsible ones, despite two crusades "For nothing" (because securing the safety of Christians in the levant, which his first crusade succeeded in, counts as nothing I guess).

And let's not forget that unlike the more popular hooligan Richard, Saint Louis did not abandon his kingdom. It grew out to be the wealthiest kingdom in all of Europe at the time.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_IX_of_France

His entire outfit is fantasy, the helmet's hardly the worst thing there.

Paladin and crusader isn't necessarily the same either, there's a few more of the latter than just Charlemange's twelve favourites.

sort of because RPGs invented Paladins?

>Richard
Oh man, yeah, The Lionheart fucked up pretty badly.

Don't pretend two wars which fail is not an economic failure, too.

And yes, protecting the """Christians""" of the levant is nothing. Why protect those who went down the wrong path?

At least Richard had a cool epithet.
I know. It reminded me.
Charly-boy wants a word with you.

Fukkin saved

>Don't pretend two wars which fail is not an economic failure, too.
It is, but economic faillures happen all the time. This is a far cry from "ruining" a country though. Especially when he oversaw one of France's economic golden ages.

>And yes, protecting the """Christians""" of the levant is nothing. Why protect those who went down the wrong path?
Bruh.

>e-economic failures happen all the time!
>so this isn't really an economic failure after all!
Too many frogs legs isn't good for the brain.
>Bruh.
And why do you eat frogs anyway? Is that one of the Demiurge's rules?

>Implying there's anything wrong with that.

t. Inquisitor Peter Hitchens of The Ordo Malleus

>thread hidden for /off topic /pol/ shit.

And he dares exhort the glories of milk...

>Not realizing whole milk is good for you.

...

I think you misunderstand me.

I'm lactose intolerant, does that make me evil?

Stay triggered lil nigger.

It means you're hopeless.

Yes.

I dunno if this is what you're getting at, but I'd say there is a stupid tendency to show European knights as slow, incompetent fighters compared to other cultures, whose heavy armor doesn't do anything. Admittedly, Crusaders and other groups lost plenty of battles against their near eastern equivalents, but they generally won engagements when they were able to play to their strengths (shock cavalry), or weren't getting completely fucked by poor organization and bickering leadership.
As far as morally resolute characters sticking to a code... yeah, generally if you go anywhere besides super hero movies they don't show up that often. Kinda lame, I think moral ambiguity becomes more interesting when it has contrasts.

>wider media
What wider media? The only place you find paladins outside tabletop is vidya and they pretty much take their cue from tabletop.

I've always had a weak spot for characters who have a rigid ruleset and go through their life trying their hardest to adhere to it at all times. Especially when they succeed. Double-especially if they end up confronted with and accept the reality that they were wrong.

To me these are much more interesting characters than all these blithely self-interested ones who are at their core purely selfish but happen to feel good by doing things that make others feel good. I much prefer watching characters who do, or struggle with doing, what they think is right rather than what they feel like is right.

Have you heard the tragedy of King Henry II the Wise?

daubeny a shit
also he's no paladin

Where do these come from?

>confirming the original post as correct by not arguing the actual point of the post
Since you didnt bother to read, ill sum it up in that modern Christians are too concerned with putting up a facade of being nice while not actually doing good in that they do "nice" things that dont benefit anyone in the long run, such as welfare programs.
The user who originally made those posts challenges people who think nice=good to find a scriptural reference to assert their claims that nice=good, which isnt possible considering that nicety is merely a byproduct of good, if Christ were to not drive the moneychangers from the temple, he would be nice and not do any good whatsoever, but as he wasn't nice to the moneychangers, he did good to the people as a whole by actually showing them that their actions have consequences.

Of course. Villains own the media.

What did he mean by this?

Yes, they always fall.

They are an oppressed minority of peace?

>We live in an age where people demand the rest of the world caters to their fantasy self-image and delusions that at 400+ pounds they can still be "healthy"
In the fantasy scenario that their body fat was less than 25%, it's possible

flickr.com/photos/10072349@N05/6272026327/in/photostream/

Pretty much this.

Another OP with a faulty premise, leading to a pointless thread about nothing.

Kids, if you dont have anything interesting to post, dont make a thread.

The digits are making me uneasy

Christian fanatics with swords are not inherently paladins.

I've always wondered. Why is it I see the Knights Hospitallers depicted wearing both black with a white cross, and red with a white cross? What's the difference between the two?

One is Hospitalars the other Templars. Separate orders.

Nope. Templar wear a white mantle with a red cross. Yet we see Hospitallers wearing both a black mantle with a white cross, and a red mantle with a white cross. As best I can the different uniforms are supposed to indicate different sub-orders within the Hospitallers?

Red cross on white is the robe of the knights Templar, a different order, if that's what's confusing you. Personally I've always been more fond of the Templars, though the Hospitallers are way more swag.

Same here. I don't think everyone should be a Paladin, but I think they're good characters. And for goodness sake, they can struggle with their codes but they shouldn't *ALWAYS* fail or be proven to be complete hypocrites whose codes are totally self serving and inconsistent. Stannis the relentlessly Lawful Neutral, even though it tears him apart inside, was way more interesting to me than the Stannis who's mostly motivated by Mel's pussy and decides to burn up his kid despite it making no damned sense.

Most paladins are either lawful stupid or so fanatical they are either bad guys or that one good guy no one likes hanging out with.

Also Daubeny was a little shit

IIRC, around 1260 they started to use red and white in war and black and white otherwise. Had something to do with the pope I think.

I see what you're saying. Interesting question.

I think this is the closest to an answer I'll be getting. There doesn't seem to be much information on the subject.

I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition.

>>Kinda lame, I think moral ambiguity becomes more interesting when it has contrasts.

good tastes are present in this thread!

When they were given Malta?

...

Nope, nevermind, just the Pope decided they would have different colours one morning I guess.

Well, at least most people associate them with their aesthetic black/white dress.

WE ARE THE FLAME!

>look at my desperate attempt to justify violence against people doing things I don't like while still maintaining a feeling of moral superiority

Why are christcucks so pathetic?

as far as I'm aware the black robes were worn by knights serving temporarily in the order, and the non-combatant members. The Red was worn by those who were sworn in for life.

But WHO IS THE MILKMAN