TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

This is the multi-year Q&A sessions held by D&D co-creator Gary Gygax here at EN World, beginning in 2002 and running up until his sad pasing in 2008. Gary's username in the thread below is Col_Pladoh, and his first post in this long thread is Post #39.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

Re: Paladin's Detect Evil Power

Howdy Ken

Well, as the Paladin is supposed to be the virtuous warrior wholly dedicated to being upright and doing good, the Detect Evil capacity seemed natural.

I envisaged it as being one that the Paladin must use with active thought, that meaning when he is thus engaged he can be doing nothing else. (It was not meant as an automatic sensing device akin to a Geiger counter detecting radiation level.)

Okay, there is is, and don't ask why this isn't quantified thus in the original PHB

cheers,
Gary

So as a follow then why would people think it is rude for a paladin to detect evil? or would they, not that they do IMC, as it is considered part of there make up.
Ken

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Re: Re: Paladin's Detect Evil Power

So as a follow then why would people think it is rude for a paladin to detect evil? or would they, not that they do IMC, as it is considered part of there make up.
Ken

If in the company of gentle folk, certainly belted knights and nobles, for a Paladin to perform a detection for evil is clearly a gross insult to all those present! Only if there is ample reason for a devoutly religious person to suspect some malign influence might the act be considered otherwise. To do so before a sovereigh head of state, directed at that one, is certainly lesse majeste, perhaps a capital offense.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Hadit]

Re: Re: Re: Paladin's Detect Evil Power

If in the company of gentle folk, certainly belted knights and nobles, for a Paladin to perform a detection for evil is clearly a gross insult to all those present! Only if there is ample reason for a devoutly religious person to suspect some malign influence might the act be considered otherwise. To do so before a sovereigh head of state, directed at that one, is certainly lesse majeste, perhaps a capital offense.

Cheers,
Gary

Yeah, I always sort of looked at it like that as well.
To a lesser degree, the casting of detect evil on folks seems similar to the modern habit of imploying lie-detectors or urinalysis on prospective employees... extreme annoyance!

This brings up a tangential question in my mind.
How do you view the changes a society would exhibit that had access to clerical spells of healing and divination? (The D&D society, basically.)
Would hunger and disease be effectively eradicated for the lower classes, or are clerics powerful enough just too rare to cover everybody's needs?

Thanks, Gary!
Take care, Duglas

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Paladin's Detect Evil Power

This brings up a tangential question in my mind.
How do you view the changes a society would exhibit that had access to clerical spells of healing and divination? (The D&D society, basically.)
Would hunger and disease be effectively eradicated for the lower classes, or are clerics powerful enough just too rare to cover everybody's needs?

Thanks, Gary!
Take care, Duglas

If the world setting has active deities and clerics able to employ magic, the lot of the lower socio-economic class would be very much improved. There would certainly be sufficient lower grade ecclesiastics--hedge priests, friars, and monks--to cover the basic needs of the ordinary folk, while more able clerics would see to the greater concerns such as disease and crops.

The more affluent the agrarian and worker base, the more wealthy and advanced the middle and upper classes.

I am propounding this general theme, and admitting my error on not placing sufficient importance upon the ecclesiastics in the fantasy milieu that assumes active magic and like deities in the upcoming "Gygaxian Fantasy Worlds" reference book, LIVING FANTASY. that's a bald-faced plug, but the fact is i deal with the subject of improved conditions at some length therein.

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Devall2000]

bump

 

[Grishnak]

Bit of a goofy question but what did you think of the D&D film that was made? Do you think that they should have had a better story than the 1 in place?
Also have you read any books by David Gemmell? If so what do you think of his style of writing?

P.S On a final note thank you for letting me lose 8 years of my life so far on D&D Well worth it though!!

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Bit of a goofy question but what did you think of the D&D film that was made? Do you think that they should have had a better story than the 1 in place?
Also have you read any books by David Gemmell? If so what do you think of his style of writing?

Heh, and frankly I found no single redeeming feature in the D&D movie. even the special effects weren't special. Yes, then needed a story with a good plot and developed characters, then actors to properly play the roles, real direction, decent costuming, makeup that omitted blue lipstick, and dramatic music...

I've read one book by David Gemmell and enjoyed it.

P.S On a final note thank you for letting me lose 8 years of my life so far on D&D Well worth it though!!

Only eight years! So you are still a journeyman, eh? I've been at this for over 30 now

Cheers,
Gary

 

[The Blue Elf]

Mr. Gygax have you hear about another D&D movie is in the making?

And thank you

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Heh, and frankly I found no single redeeming feature in the D&D movie. even the special effects weren't special. Yes, then needed a story with a good plot and developed characters, then actors to properly play the roles, real direction, decent costuming, makeup that omitted blue lipstick, and dramatic music...

I agree with much of what you're saying. The direction of the film was, apparently, close to non-existent. A couple of actors had good screen presence, but had nothing to work with; I'd say the lead actor who played Ridley is a good example. The actor who played the dwarf is another. They deserved better. Jeremy Irons could not have been taking his role seriously, else he would not have played it so over-the-top. I think the film suffered most from coming out pre-Lord of the Rings. Had Irons, for example, seen how Ian McKellan and Christopher Lee played their roles with dignity and grace, perhaps his portrayal would have been more thought-out. I kept getting the feeling he had no liking or respect for the genre.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Whoa!

The guy who played the (giant) dwarf did nothing other than mug the camera during the whole dreadful performance.

If the D&D movie had awaited filming until after the first LotR one, I think they would have canned the whole project, as it would have been obvious that it was a total bomb, something that fell out of the back end of a horse

Cheers,
Gary