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: 9369253" data-attributes="member: 6801228">That isn't what it says at all? Before any mention of the Talisman it says "for an improper command will break the law which binds them to service. (It also typically requires a contract for the soul of the creature commanding the internal power to obey.)" So, an improper command, which is vague I will grant, will break the law enforced by their contract. And note, nowhere in this, does it say they will lie or that they will break their word.Knowledge is neither good nor evil, but is is valuable. If you want to call it utility, then you can, but it seems to me that while we can demonstrate the utility of ideas, you are referring to something else when you claim value, then declaring it self-evident and only existing in the things you consider good. YOu are just arguing in a circle, declaring your facts self-evident.Right, you have never made a claim, everyone else makes claims that you insist we must follow. And sure, Gygax isn't the first to declare Beauty good, nor truth good, nor genocide good (after all the destruction of all those biologically evil beings is nothing but good to Gygax) but if you are just going to sit here and keep acting like no other viewpoint holds value, because Gygax said something to the contrary, then there is really little point in any discussion. And I'm not exactly going to be convinced that blind adherence to extreme viewpoints is necessary for the paladin to exist, just because Gygax said it.But, I was never once trying to discuss Gygax's coherency. In fact, digging back to the original point I was discussing, I was responding to a quote from the text of the 2e Player's Handbook. Which, was written by Zeb Cook, not Gary Gygax. I have also spoken of the presentation in 3.X, written by Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams. And of course, to 5th edition, which was also NOT written by Gygax. If you want to say that every author after Gygax ruined his perfectly coherent vision of the paladin, fine, but it is getting increasingly frustrating to talk about things that Gygax had no hand in, and get in return "But Gygax said..."You can think that if you want, however, as I keep saying, when the paladin is encouraged to not even lie by omission, and the party in any way shape or form wants to hide information from anyone, then you have a problem coming from how the paladin was presented. Now, to the eternal benefit of the game, much of that is gone. The books very rarely attempt to tell the DM how things must be, for example, nothing in alignment or the paladin in 5e declares that "stealth is a last resort". Heck, the Devotion paladin oath is almost written to be wishy-washy, constantly addending their oaths. Courage: Never fear to act, though caution is wise. Why immediately tack on the idea of wise caution? Because whether or not Gygax said it in the AD&D PHB, many many people have played Paladins who must be courageous, and played that to mean they must never back down from a fight and charge face-first at any enemy, for honor and glory.... and generally the frustration of their party members. What did Gygax have to say about courage? I have no idea. I don't care. But the paladin players who are problematic aren't the ones who showcase courage, they are the ones who want to dramatically showcase blind courage without any thought of consequences, even if the party would be forced to abandon them, so they can show off how courageous they are. Did Gygax intend for that to happen? I have no idea. I don't care. It has happened. Many times. And it is the current source of most of the problems people run into with problematic paladins.</blockquote>

Verification