Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9365797" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Yeah, I think the AD&D version is wrong. That is WHY it has always created so so so many problems. That is WHY people like Pemerton have tried to point out that it is a fundamental world-building question of if paladins should even be allowed. Because people take this idea that the oath is immutable, written by the gods, and the ultimate expression of all that is good... without realizing that nothing in the modern game states that anymore. Notably, nothing in the oaths section says it was written by the gods. Nothing in that section says it is immutable. Heck, nothing says that you as the paladin aren't misinterpreting the oath when you think it is in conflict with the right thing to do. Maybe the original supernal version of the oath if read with the correct mind set, would tell you that your actions do not conflict with your oath.And I think we still, to this day, see the echoes of these bad ideas cropping up. Whether from player or DM, and causing some of the problems we still see with Paladins. Not because the idea of an oath-bound warrior who draws strength from their convictions is a bad concept, but because people tie in unnecessary concepts like "providence" or that choosing to follow their morals instead of the legal word of their oath means they were prideful and wrong. And these concepts are being pulled from genres of fiction that just do not fit with the assumptions of a DnD game.</blockquote>

Verification