G.K. Chesterton's Fence, AD&D 1e, and What Happens When You Don't Understand What You Are Changing - A Varied Rant

  The subheading on my blog warns you about my rants.

  G.K. Chesterton was a prolific writer of the early 20th Century who once told a parable about reform and a fence, which I will paraphrase

  Two men are enjoying a pleasant stroll through the country when they come upon a fence barring their way. This rather stout, well-maintained fence stretches from the thick forest on each side and completely blocks the trail.

  The first man looks at it and declares,
  "I do not understand why this fence is here; I will tear it down so I may continue to enjoy my stroll!"

  The second man replies,
  "If you do not understand why this fence is here you certainly should not tear it down." "What if it prevents a mad bull from running wild? Go, research and think about it and once you understand why it is here, then you might still want to tear it down."

  This is a simple concept - understand why before you remove or change - that seems to escape a lot of people. Especially some in gaming.

  In high school I had a friend named George who ran a game of AD&D 1e. We had two players that were in both groups and he and I spoke about the game fairly often. One of our 'shared' players, a guy named Brent, loved to play elves but hated, hated, hated, the level limits on elves. He argued with me often that he should be able to go to any level he could as an elf. I always said no.
  George said 'ok' and removed all level limits on all demi-humans. Then he removed all class limits. Then he removed all characteristic limits from demi-humans. He had removed alignment restrictions to classes before any of this.
  Then he was wondering why there were so many half-orc fighter/assassins in his game. Never mind the slew of elven fighter/magic-users with castles. And no human PCs.

  They did not understand the why of class, level, and stat requirements in AD&D 1e and they tore them out without understanding them. As a result, they had a wild bull get loose.

  If you look at the 1e limitations on demi-humans you see some interesting things:

1. Only Humans, Half-orcs, and strong Dwarves are establishing domain fortresses
2. Only Half-orcs can't establish a thieves guild
3. Only Humans, Half-elves, and Half-orcs can be cleric PCs and only Humans are any good at it

  Not only do these restrictions make guys who can, say, wear armor while casting Lightning Bolt rare and therefore more interesting, it means there are great reasons for playing humans - the domain game.

-------------------------------------------------

  In 1e half-elves and gnomes have access to classes other demi-humans can't be: half-elves can be rangers, gnomes can be illusionists. Half-elves are (in my experience) popular because they have so many possible multi-class combinations but gnomes have that sweet niche of being illusionist/somethings. Who doesn't want a fighter/illusionist or illusionist/thief in the party?!

  In 3e there was a decision to let any race be any class. Sure they tried to give a sop to things by saying some races were 'better suited' to certain classes, but especially for gnomes that changed around a bit, etc.
  When 4e came out I remember reading a statement from one of the designers about why gnomes had become 'monsters'. He said [paraphrased] "Well, they were just a lot like dwarves and we really didn't understand why anyone would play them or what they were for."
  OK, leaving aside the different flavors of elf available, the reason that gnomes had nothing special about them because the designers of 3e removed what made them special! Team A tore down a fence they didn't understand and that resulted in Team B not really grasping why those post holes were all over the place.

  Half-elves and Half-orcs are, as I mentioned, the only demi-humans that can be cleric PCs. Despite the low level cap this works out to be an advantage because this makes these races the source of multi-class clerics, combos that are always welcome in any party. If you let every demi-human be a cleric and expand the access to multi-class combinations there is no reason to play a half-elf - after all, if elves, who have better bonuses, etc., can do the same thing being an elf makes more meta-sense than being a half-elf.

-------------------------------------------------

  There are plenty of other examples. The most common one I see is 'Gee, I don't understand alignment, so I removed it' followed by 'why do all my players play murderhobos?!'.
 It's a puzzle.

-------------------------------------------------

At the end of the day (and near the end of my rant!) the radical changes by some who want to 'fix' level limits, racial class restrictions, and even alignment where these limits are replaced by nothing reveal mainly two things about the people making the changes: they don't understand the why of these game elements and they don't grasp that Gary was actually a competent, good, even great game designer.

-------------------------------------------------

End Rant.

Law, Chaos, the UK, America, Teutonic Knights, Orcs, and Just What the Heck is Going On With 9th Level Fighters?!

  This one is going to be weird, folks, so strap in.

  The sons and I were talking about gaming (like we do every day) and about some of our other shared passions; history, the Church, and books. We were also talking about my main campaign and how I was always surprised that the handful of guys that made it to 9th level did not get 'all fortressy' but rather angled to take over existing positions within the game

  What I mean is the few characters to hit name level who could then establish a demense all finagled with NPC rulers to take over existing fiefdoms rather than build from scratch.

  Which is, naturally, fine. My oldest speculated that he, himself, might never build beyond the border because there were so many interesting places on the map already; Dwarf Hill, Wyvern Keep, Skull Mountain, the Vanishing Manor, the Tower of the Air, etc. But then we began speculating;

  Why is the assumption that everyone from warriors to priests to mages will strike out into deep wilderness and hack out a corner for themselves?

  I mean, think about it; that is a tremendous amount of expense and risk. Why not do what people in my campaign did and just - get a promotion and retire rather than contend with plague, famine, and orc hordes?
  And why, oh why, would people flock to follow you if, and only if, you did that hugely risky thing?! And not just guys with levels! 0-level men, their wives, their kids! Pilgrims might come and just - settle. I mean, what is going on?

  For a while we speculated that the default D&D world is a lot like the America of the past - vast, largely unexplored, and daring people struck out to make their way.

  [We had the discussion Sunday, I started writing this Monday, and I saw this in my google+ feed Tuesday. Small world!]

  That might be part of it, sure, especially how followers appear and why random encounters sometimes stick around. But does the 'untouched wilderness' really apply to something so Dying Earth as D&D? As the great blog The Hill Cantons points out, based on the wilderness encounter charts the typical AD&D world is littered with ruins of past fortresses, cities, etc. all thrown down to ruin by war or time. And in a manner very similar to North America, D&D wilderness isn't 'untouched', it is full of intelligent being. Berzerkers, cavemen, orcs, hobgoblins, nomads, goblins, kobolds, etc., etc., etc. Heck, you leave patrolled demi-human areas and the 'wilds' are crawling with intelligent creatures. Sure, they're malevolent, but still!
  Plus the AD&D world isn't modeled after 2015 North America or even 1975 Europe, is it? No, the 'place in time' of the real world that seems closest to the default assumptions of AD&D is somewhere between 770 AD and 820 AD; yes, yes, this is speculation, but I can talk about that in another post. Sure,  there are anachronisms for that but that is my guess.
  Now,  modern Europe looks like this;

In 800 Europe looked like this;

Look at the differences! As I point out in my second most popular post ever, in the year 1000 AD the place that is now the Berlin Metropolitan Area, the 6th largest city in Europe, was uninhabited, howling wilderness. 780 AD is 400 years before the first Germans settled on the banks of the Spree!
  In other words, at the time that seems most like AD&D's assumed setting in history Europe was cheek-by-jowl with howling wilderness and hostile forces.
  This means that in the context of the setting and place well behind the curtain of AD&D (Charlemagne's Europe as described in the Matter of France) Europe looked a lot more like 1870's America than most people realize (Although Andy Bartlett did explicitly mention this in the article I linked above). In both places the average person who wanted a better life and who had the courage and resources (or just a lot of courage!) could, and did, set out into the wilderness and start a new life, Heck, that's where little towns like Leipzig and Berlin came from!

  There is also the very mildly controversial topic of the Northern Crusades. In a very high level gloss not meant to dive into the complex, nuanced issues associated with the Northern Crusades, but only to illustrate how it relates to the point at hand over a century of mutual conflict between pagan peoples in North/Northeastern Europe with the Catholic nations to their West and Orthodox nations of their East, where peaceful missionary and diplomatic activity failed, led to a call for a Crusade and a subdual of the pagans by force in the belief that decisive victory would cause the interminable wars to end.
  What followed was some pretty serious and organized expansion and battles from the West. Part of this was having some of the toughest fighters from the West build fortresses in the pagan areas, establish domains, and maintain the peace.
  Sound familiar?
  Heck, sometimes when there were no opportunities to set up in established areas tough, popular leaders would travel even beyond the pagan lands, set of a stronghold, 'subdue the wilderness', and attract people who wanted a better life who could count on the protection of this leader from bandits, etc.
  That had better sound familiar!
  So there is, interesting enough, at least one historical period where something vaguely like Name-level characters starting the 'domain game' did occur, which is pretty cool.

  But I think there is a bit more meta going on, here. In Three Hearts and Three Lions (as well as other books, like Operation Chaos) the author speaks of Law and Chaos as being opposed to each other in a sort of ongoing struggle. But this concept of Anderson's (that seems to have also influenced Dickson in The Dragon and the George) is a lot more complex and nuanced than the shallow, never actually quantified, Law vs. Chaos of Moorcock. Anderson's Law and Chaos (as well as Dickson's  Chance and History) are very much about Virtue/Civilization/Good (Law/History) against Amorality/Wilderness/Evil (Chaos/Chance).
  This was explicitly stated in Three Hearts and Three Lions;

"Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos."

  It is also essentially stated that the Church is Law while Chaos is a tool of the Devil. The faerie and their uncaring capriciousness? Chaos, because they could not be trusted.

Despite the desire of contemporary people to think of the faerie/sidhe as fun-loving hippies in folklore they're are much, much more like the Weeping Angels - inhuman, utterly other creatures that if you were lucky will only cast you decades through time away from all you know and love.

  This sort of 'axis' is pretty clear in OD&D where you are Lawful (good) or Chaotic (bad) and it was very much a fantastical experience of fey vs. man.

  But it is more complex and such in AD&D with both the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil axis and the Neutral section. But the core concept remains valid: when a party goes into the (wild, uncivilized) dungeon and destroys monsters the PCs are championing civilization against it's opposite, wildness; when a Lord goes into the wilderness, builds a stronghold, attracts followers, etc. he is championing civilization versus wildness, just on a different level.
  And no, I am avoiding the term 'barbarism' for a reason; woad-painted warriors, nomadic tribesman, etc., can be forces for Law or Chaos, it depends upon if they build or destroy, if they are trustworthy or capricious as a people.

  In my post on how I handle religion in my campaign I mention that the big divide between demi-humans and humanoids is if they are (in general) within the Church or outside of it. But the difference is also 'do those races build civilizations or destroy them?'. Sure, hobgoblins, orcs, etc. are organized, they have skills, etc. But they are wreckers, not creators. In my world they have no cities, they live in what they capture from demi-humans and humans; they have no trade, only plunder; they have slaves who often are worked to death; they have at best war chants but no music, enough writing to issue orders but no literature; etc. Where they go they push back civilization, scrubbing away cities and towns, fences and fields, and leaving behind only brambles, thickets, end desolate ruins.

  So a fighter, wizard, or cleric going into the wilds, building a strong place, attracting followers, and all the rest is, in a very real way, pushing back darkness, ignorance, savagery, and evil. Where there were brambles and thickets he puts fields and orchards; where there was a bare hill he puts a cozy home; where there was darkness there are the lights of a village; where there was isolation and fear he puts friendship and hope.
  No wonder those who want a better life follow.

  So why do 9th level fighters spend all that money and take all that risk? Because they are fighting evil an a new, more important, way.

Are Only Swords Smart? And, if Not, What does this Mean? Part I

  As I have looked at intelligent weapons for the last few (hectic) weeks we have to pause to ask - are only swords smart?
  There is always a simple way of answering this - what did Gary/the DMG say?
  The obvious examples of things with intelligence are artifacts;
 - Baba Yaga's hut has an intelligence score. Of course, it is an evil tardis with giant chicken legs, so... why not be smart, too?
  - The Orbs of Dragonkind each have an intelligence score and an ego score and can struggle with their wielders just like swords!
  OK, so that seems to show that not just swords can be smart!
  What's that? Did someone say "yeah, but those are artifacts so they don't count"?
  Well, I have heard that before - that artifacts and relics are so 'other' that you can't treat them as examples. I don't agree with it, but I will admit it has merit, so let's keep looking.
  How about the Figurine of Wondrous Power - Onyx Dog? It has an intelligence of 8-10 and can speak Common. This seems to imply it is much more than the spirit or intelligence of a dog. [Well, unless all it can say is "I love you"]

Quick Aside: Can you see it now? An adventuring party of 4 - a paladin named Frederick, Dymphna the low-Int cleric, Vell'Ma the mage, and Norville the Shaggy, the thief. Norville has an onyx dog that says things like 'ruh-roh, raggy, a rombie!'.

  Anyway; the onyx dog looks fairly clever, although it isn't as smart as a dim sword. No mention of an ego, so let's keep looking.

  Then we get to Appendix H. I love appendix H because it implies so much! Gary tells us, rather casually, to simply take a few things from 'features' and a few things from 'attributes', randomly toss them together,and turn them into tricks.
  Why do I mention implications and stress how casual Gary was? Because Appendix H tells us, pretty clearly, that anything can have intelligence. From a pool of water to a machine to an illusion to FIRE - anything can be smart. Anything can have an intelligence score and, it is strongly implied, any smart thing has an alignment.

  Huh.

  Let's start with the obvious stuff, first.

  Intelligent daggers and staves shouldn't be a big stretch from swords. A dagger that can make its wielder Invisible once a day and can detect precious metals within 30' at will would be pretty valuable to a thief. A Robe of Eyes with its own intelligence could warn its wearer of creatures approaching while she slept. A smart Instant Fortress could act as its very own doorman, admitting people it knew without the owner being present.
  All pretty cool.

  But since this is obviously possible and obviously handy, why is it only really directly mentioned (and turned into a table) for swords? And why is it done for swords so often (after all, intelligent swords are almost 3% of all magic items)?

  Let's talk about magic item restrictions for a second..

  In 1e certain types of magic items are only usable by certain classes or class groups - a fighter can't use a Wand of Fire; a magic-user can't use Gauntlets of Swimming and Climbing, etc. This seems to imply that there is more than just power words or even force of will involved in activating certain magical items - there must be some sort of 'essence' associated with these items and their powers.
  Fighters seem to be the most restricted in this regard (I haven't done a real examination, this is just an impression). And many, of not most (or even all) of the powers seen in intelligent swords appear to be the sorts of powers a fighter could not use if the power was in, say, a wand.

  Here's my theory: the reason for the prevalence of intelligent swords is because the sword's intelligence is required to make the powers of the sword usable by a fighter. The intelligence of the sword is a form of proxy - since the fighter can't activate the sword's powers directly he, in the end, orders the sword to activate the power for him. The intelligence is, in a very real way, a workaround for the limitations faced by a fighter using a magical device.

  That seems to make sense for the powers that seem to mimic racial abilities, too. A human is never going to be able to use dwarven racial abilities. But a dwarven-forged sword with an intelligence could invoke those racial abilities on behalf of a human wielder.

  Suddenly intelligent swords with special magical powers make a lot more sense, don't they? And the fact that intelligent swords are the one thing really covered in any depth make more sense, too.

  Next: Part II

Why are so many Smart Swords Good? More on Intelligent Weapons

  Some of the numbers from my first post on this topic are a little surprising: 25% of all magical swords have at least a special ability, an alignment, and an intelligence score; talking swords are as statistically likely as potions of healing; good-aligned characters can use many more intelligent weapons than evil-aligned characters.
  I want to talk about that last fact for a little bit today.
  If you analyze the distribution of aligned swords by the ethical axis (Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic) it looks like this:

  Chaotic: 20%
  Lawful: 35%
  Neutral: 45%

  So intelligent swords skew slightly toward Neutral, then Lawful, and are Chaotic least often.

  If you analyze the distribution of aligned swords by the moral axis (good, neutral, evil) it looks like this:

  Evil: 15%
  Neutral: 35%
  Good: 50%

  Showing that intelligent swords are mostly Good, then Neutral with few being Evil.  The single largest grouping of sword alignment (as the first post showed) is Lawful Good.

  So it appears that the majority of wizards and clerics who make magical swords with special abilities are, themselves, Good - 25% of the time specifically Lawful Good!
  Why do I assume this? Well, I don't think a Lawful Evil mage would craft a Neutral Good sword. As a matter of fact, he might not be able to!  The very nature of alignment means that a Chaotic Good crafter might make a Chaotic Neutral weapon and might make a Neutral Good weapon, but almost certainly will only make a Chaotic Good weapon, and this would hold true for each other alignment, too.
  Depending on the specific origins of the alignment and intelligence of the weapon and method of placing them in the sword (which is a future post) they might be restricted to only making weapons that match their own alignment.
  We can also assume that since druids can make magic items, and druids can use swords (scimitars count) that a rather large percentage of the True Neutral swords are actually scimitars for druids or other swords made by druids for followers, allies, etc. If we do this it implies that the overwhelming majority of non-Druid-crafted intelligent swords are made by good guys.

  But - why? Are most magical swords made by good guys or is it just that most intelligent magical swords are made by good guys?

  My oldest son has a theory - quality over quantity.
  Or as he put it,

  "An Evil Overlord Dark Wizard all in black with lambent red eyes is going to crank out a bunch of +1 swords for his Horde of Mooks. His lieutenant is going to be a Charmed Half-Ogre with a +3 club of Dwarf Crushing and his scout is going to be a Shadow Demon from an Iron Flask."
  "The white-robed Advisor to Good Kings is going to forge a mighty implement of Good to be wielded by the king's best knight, a man who is a paragon of virtue and honesty."

  I tend to agree. After all, let's look at the overall Evil vs. Good picture in AD&D.

  Quick aside: I tend to play the same 'game' as the Hill Cantons - the DMG, etc. are always right. I tend to find that if you look around you will see that not only do the odd bits actually work, they often make sense and have an internal consistency.

  Orcs and such? Large numbers of scum with lots of low-level thugs.
  Elves and such? Fewer troops overall but with an edge in quality and their leaders are fewer, but individually tougher.
  Demons and Devils? Lots and lots of (relatively) low powered mooks all over.
  Celestials? A handful of big guns like Planetars and Solars.
  Bad guys? Uhhh - fighters and assassins.
  Good guys? Paladins.
  Paladins are rare. If you roll 3d6 in order as Gary intended only 1 in 1,000 stats sets will qualify for paladin. If you just look at my past articles on the implications of the henchman rules you'll see that NPC paladins are much rarer than that. That being the case, why are there so many Holy Avengers?
  Because Good is about a few elite, well-equipped, highly-trained specialists both dealing out a great deal of damage and being able to survive a great deal of damage.

  Bad guys tend to rely upon large numbers and rapid replenishment of forces. They hit you with wave after wave of ill-trained, poorly-equipped sword fodder and if they lose, well, there are more where that came from!
  [As I was writing this Wombat wrote a cool post at his Den of Gaming Iniquity. Worth a read!].

  So why are so many swords Good? because good guys have more motication to make them and can trust their wielders to not turn on the creators!

  The next article will be about more implications of the DMG and MM.

Magic Item of the Week - Magekiller

  No, not all of my magic items are low power or non-combat.

  One of the most terrifying NPCs in my Blackstone campaign is the Undying Witchking, Emperor of Zangara. The legends surrounding him are many, but they all agree - he is not undead but he can't die. He's been stabbed, punctured, burned, decapitated, and more and always appears fresh as a daisy a few rounds later. He has also ruled Zangara with an iron fist for 2 centuries and does not appear to age (he is ostensibly human).

  Note: Since he is one of the top BBEGs of the campaign and I assured the party I follow the rules very closely for NPCs a major meta-plot was them doing serious rules research to figure out how I did it. I am proud to say that, as hard as it was, they did figure it out.

  Two generations ago a conspiracy of Zangaran wizards and clerics worked for decades to create a weapon capable of destroying the Witchking regardless of the methods he uses; the result was Magekiller. The conspiracy was betrayed and killed before they could locate a hero to wield the weapon. The last survivors of the group, a father and son, fled in a ship that was destroyed by water elementals summoned by the Crimson Watch, the Witchking's personal guards (various wizards, clerics, thieves, and fighters). Magekiller was thought lost to the sea.

  Just a few years ago a barbarian warrior in a frontier district of the continent of Ansar began to rise in local prominence, eventually founding his own small fiefdom on the utmost border of civilization. He is a swordsman of great renown, considered by some to be the greatest living master of the zweihander. The sword he wields is rumored to be Magekiller, returned from the sea.

  Note: the Blackstone campaign is AD&D 2nd edition with all player's options books.

Magekiller

  +3 two-handed sword; +4 vs. creatures with spell-like abilities; +6 vs. any creature capable of casting arcane spells, summoned or conjured creatures, animated objects, constructs, familiars, and golems.

  Int: 17 Ego: 25 Alignment: Neutral Good Special Purpose: Destroy evil arcane spellcasters

  Can communicate telepathically with its wielder, can speak, read, read maps, and Read Magic

  Can speak and read: Bandur (the Western Common tongue), Kadathi (the language of arcane spell casters in the campaign), Zanzur (the Eastern Common tongue), Borelath (a creole common to elves, gnomes, and halflings), Low Pidgin (a language common to orcs, goblins, kobolds, etc. with no written version), and Denek (dwarven)

  Magekiller can see normally out to a range of 60' and has mystical sight that allows it to see normally in complete darkness (but not magical darkness) up to 10'. Magekiller has a field of view roughly equal to that of a person but can 'look around' like a character by altering its direction of sight. Magekiller cannot see through solid objects, etc., although it is possible to, for example, extend the sword's blade past a junction so that it can 'look around the corner'. Anything seen by Magekiller must be communicated to the wielder or spoken aloud; it cannot share its senses.

  Magekiller likewise automatically senses all magic within 30'.

  Magekiller can automatically detect if a creature has spell-like abilities or can cast arcane spells within 10'.

  Magekiller can detect alignment on arcane spellcasters (only) within 10' automatically.

  Much like vision, Magekiller must communicate what it senses to its wielder.

  Lastly, Magekiller automatically knows if its wielder is under the effects of a Charm, Quest, Geas, or similar spell.

  When worn or held Magekiller;

-Acts as an Amulet of Proof vs. Detection and Location

-Grants its wielder 20% magic resistance

-Grants its wielder a +4 on all saves vs. magic

-reduces all damage from spells or spell-like effects/abilities by 2 h.p./die (to a minimum of 1 h.p. per die); if the attack is set damage, etc., the damage is reduced by 1/4th.

  When held and the blade is bared the wielder may choose to activate the sword's power of Spell Turning. This is identical to the Ring of Spell Turning. While this power is active Magekiller does not grant any magic resistance, saving throw bonuses, or reduced damage from spells. The wielder also cannot engage in melee combat with Magekiller while Spell Turning is active, although he can move or fight with other weapons.

  When fighting evil arcane spellcasters Magekiller may invoke its special power of Cancellation when it strikes such a target. When used the weapon's blow does no damage but all spells and spell-like effects active on the creature struck are 'turned off'; the creature struck gets no save vs. this spell although magic resistance does apply at 1/2 strength. Cancellation may only be used once a day and only when Magekiller itself decides to use it.

  Example: Lord Doomsman and his companions had finally penetrated the catacombs beneath the Obsidian Fortress and cut their way through the hordes of undead - all that remained were the Necromancer Lord Pathin the Foul, his henchmen, and their personal guards.
  As the two groups closed with each other Bishop Darkwalk and Mournglow the Mage immediately began casting, their personal henchmen guarding them, while Ember the Pyromancer, always unpredictable, cloaked himself in fire and charged with his flaming sword bared, his henchmen trailing behind. Stardust had simply vanished, as usual. Doomsman charged the cluster of men surrounding Pathin, eager for battle, his lieutenants guarding his flanks as he cut down enemy mercenaries.
  The vast cavern flashed with terrible magics as the Death Priests and Necromancers sought to hold off the forces of good. Doomsman saw a Death Priest cast a warding upon Pathin as the necromancer lord drank a foul brew. A blast of shadow swept over Doomsman, Magekiller protecting him from the foul curse. He saw Stardust appear from nowhere and slit the throat of a Plague Priest before she vanished back into the darkness. Mournglow and Darkwalk were both blasting foes and protecting each other from counter-attacks. Ember was laughing with joy as he cut down enemy spellcasters with the cleansing flames of his blade and cloak.
  Doomsman and his men slammed into Pathin's personal guard like a hammer, cutting through rapidly. Some of his men froze, gripped by spells cast by the Death Priests, but Doomsman felt the magic glide past him like a breeze as Magekiller shielded him again. Pathin, obviously afraid of the tall barbarian lord, cast a spell that caused him to be surrounded by a shell of shadows.
  Doomsman was finally through the last guards and lunged toward Pathin. The necromancer also leaped forward with magical quickness, touching Doomsman's arm; there was a muted flash of green light and, once more, Doomsman felt Magekiller protect him. As Doomsman's first stroke lashed out he heard Magekiller's voice in his head,
  "Strike true"
  The blade hit but Pathin was unharmed; instead the shell of shadows, the green nimbus on his hands, and all the rest simply vanished [Magekiller Cancelled the spell effects of Prayer, Aid, Bless, Spirit Armor, Ghoul Touch, and Contingency as well as the effects of a Potion of Speed]. Pathin recoiled in terror as Doomsman's backstroke slashed across his torso, almost disemboweling him. The spellcaster staggered back and opened his mouth but the third stroke decapitated him before the scream could start.

  Magekiller's personality is very subdued; it almost never speaks aloud and is very taciturn even with its wielder. It will not allow itself to be wielded by an evil creature nor a creature capable of casting arcane spells; in the former case it 'turns off' it powers and uses its telepathy to make the wielder uneasy and fearful of it until it is sold or given away. For the latter it will telepathically urge that it be given to 'someone more suited' as well as 'turning off' its powers.
  Magekiller prefers to be wielded by fighters, then multi-class fighters (not including fighter/magic-users or such!), and then those clerics that can use a two-handed sword.
  Magekiller will usually only come into conflict with its wielder if the wielder has been Charmed, Geased, etc. If that occurs Magekiller will attempt to 'take over' and force the wielder to seek out counterspells. Note that Magekiller cannot use its Cancellation power on any creature that cannot cast arcane spells!
  Magekiller could potentially also come into conflict with a wielder who refuses to oppose arcane spellcasters at all.

  Anyone wielding this powerful weapon should expect to fact threats ranging from other who desire to own it to the enmity of virtually every evil mage to the machinations of the Crimson Watch.
  [The party that has it is justly paranoid of 'Witchking Infiltrators'].

  Some sages suspect that if Magekiller were to destroy the Witchking that the sword itself may become 'depowered', its purpose completed.

Chivalry - It Isn't Good Manners

  Many of us have at least elements of European Medieval culture in our game worlds. This makes a lot of sense for a number of reasons. But just like how Chinaland, Japanland, Egyptland, Vikingland, and MayincatecLand in campaigns are often muddled, so too Europeland can be a little - off. So let's talk about the Real World, Chivalry, Courtesy, and your campaign.

  In the Complete Paladin's Handbook it describes a paladin encountering a rude barkeep. The barkeep insults the paladin and, finally, spits in the paladin's face. The paladin simply wipes his face and leaves. This is meant to exemplify a paladins courtesy.

  A very common mistake in the modern world is to think 'chivalry' and 'courtesy' are synonyms. They aren't.

"Chivalry: Bravery in war; warfare as an art; a body of armed men. Those qualities expected of a noble knight."

  As opposed to,

"Courtesy: The showing of politeness in one's attitude and behavior towards others"

  These are different things, obviously. So when I hear a woman state something like,
  "I was carrying a heavy bag and none of the men standing around helped me; chivalry is dead!"
  I reply,
  "No, courtesy is. Unless someone there was of noble birth and trained as a warrior chivalry had nothing to do with it."

  Chivalry was (and technically still is) a code of behavior very purposefully designed to channel the energies of highly-trained, highly motivated, heavily-armed professional killers into protecting the weak and innocent. It is not about tipping your cap or wearing cologne.

  The actual elements of chivalry are pretty well documented. They are;

• Defense of the Holy, Catholic Church
• Defense of the weak, the poor, the helpless, and women
• Obedience to you lord and your king
• Honor in the pursuit of Duty
• To exemplify the seven knightly virtues-

1. Courage
2. Temperance
3. Prudence
4. Justice
5. Faith
6. Hope
7. Charity

  The seven knightly virtues look an awful lot like the elements of the code of Bushido, don't they? Of course they do, they both have the same goal. Feudal Japan and Feudal Euope were both hard,violent places and both knights and samurai were the toughest, best-trained professional warriors of their respective culures. Both chivalry and bushido are meant to channel the incredible power of these classes into being forces for good. European knights can be thought of as samurai with better horses and better armor.
  So, here is a question. Imagine if that barkeep in the Paladin's Handbook had spit on a samurai? Do you think the samurai would have just walked away? Did you know that the code of Bushido specifically mentions 'courtesy' while the code of chivalry doesn't?

  Let's back up a bit. Another element of chivalry is the simple fact that those who were part of chivalry were at least nominally nobles. This means that in a very real sense commoners cannot be chivalrous. it also means that knights had and expected certain privileges in society and also had different norms of behavior. A knight might very well never curse, especially in public; if he were to do so it would probably harm his reputation a great deal. A commoner, however, might very not face the same, or even any, repercussions for coarse language [thus the phrase 'not worth a tinker's damn' - tinkers were low-class people and known for coarse language]. Other habits expected of nobles, such as dress and such, were different from those of the lower classes and since they were related to attending at a noble's court, these are very directly courtesy ['courtesy' means literally 'how you would act at a noble's court'].
  It is very easy how chivalry came to be confused with courtesy even though they are very different. The fact that the chansons de geste, the romance novels and emo music of their day, confuse many with their fictions about courtly love, etc. But this does not mean that courtesy is chivalry nor that courtesy trumps chivalry.

  Let's look again at the barkeep and the paladin but through the lens of actual chivalry. Let us listen in on the paladin's thoughts.

"A commoner being rude in speech? To be expected from an uneducated lout; perhaps a coin for this unfortunate person will sweeten his mood? No? Ah, well, I shall-

This cur spit upon me?!  That is an offense to my honor!"

  At that point he would probably have his squire thrash the barkeep. If he were alone he would do so and if the barkeep struck back, well....  The barkeep might face prison. If the barkeep took up a weapon he might very well die.

  Here is a quick comparison of chivalry vs. courtesy.
  - Leading a lance charge against overwhelming odds with a smile on your face? Chivalry.
  - Holding a chair out so a lady may sit? Courtesy.
  - Being polite to others when speaking? Courtesy.
  -Allowing others to insult or strike you with impunity? Neither.
 

Misunderstood and Improperly Played - the Cleric

  As usual, I am beginning this article with a confession.
  I love the cleric class. I like the idea, I like the design, I like the role, and some of my favorite characters are clerics - and not just my characters! Kazare the 6th//8th dual-class fighter//cleric from my high school group (run by Dave Ridgway); Aurelius the historian with a mace (mine); Ophiuchus of the Church Militant (Lew Pulsipher), Claire the Stern, the cleric so Lawful Good she never met a paladin she could trust (Sue Pulsipher), Andune, a Cleric/Magic-user and balrog-slayer (mine); there are more.
  Second, the cleric class is near the bottom of the list of classes I have fiddled with. I did adopt Lew's idea of Double Memorization - a cleric can memorize twice as many spells of each level as he can cast then picks which to cast at the time of casting. And in my 1e campaign clerics can pick one unusual weapon (sword, axe, etc) to use. So I don't necessarily think they are perfect or the best.
  Having run and played in 3-4 campaigns in high school where the cleric was a cornerstone of the party, then played in Lew Pulsipher's campaign where the cleric is considered perhaps the most critical member of a party, and then encountered more campaigns since that likewise count of the cleric I was surprised to find so much internet hate for the cleric. A quick search on the interwebs shows me over 300,000 results for "OSR hate the cleric" and the complaints boil down to about four big ones that seem to have similar solutions;
  1) They can't use swords/specialize/fight as well as a fighter.
      Solution - make them fighters
  2) They can't cast Fireball/Lightning Bolt/Magic Missile.
      Solution - make them magic-users
  3) All they do is heal people.
      Solution - get rid of them and give their spells to magic-users
  4) I don't like religion in general/Christianity in particular/making gods is hard.
      Solution - get rid of them and give their spells to magic-users.

  And a fifth problem that is less common but far from zero;
  5) There's Conan for fighters, the Grey Mouser for thieves, Ningauble for wizards, even Holger Danske for paladins, but no archetype for clerics.
      Solution - get rid of clerics and give their spells to wizards.

  Part of the real problem here is a misunderstanding of the role of the cleric. To repeat something I said earlier, the roles of the Big Four are - fighter is physical offense, magic-user is magical offense, thief is scouting and intelligence, and the cleric is physical and magical defense.
  Or, to put it another way, the role of the cleric is to free up every other class to focus on their own unique role during adventures. Let's think about this;
  1) Ties with the fighter on having the best A.C. potential
  2) Second best in melee combat
  3) Second best hit points.
  4) Limited or nil ranged combat ability
  5) Melee combat limited to 'second-tier' weapons
  6) Spells focus on healing, reversing negative effects, decision making, improving the entire group, weakening the enemy, and supplies
  7) Turn Undead, an almost unique ability, is focused on avoiding both hordes of scum (skeletons) and surviving top threats (liches, demons) by avoidance

  Of, to see this another way, where does the cleric often end up in the marching order? Right next to the magic-user to both fill a similar role AND to protect the squishy mage.The fighters can focus on offense knowing that there is a high A.C. fairly high hit point character that can at least keep the bad guys off the wizard. The thief can risk traps and the things that like to eat lone rogues knowing that Slow Poison, Remove Poison, and Cures nearby. The wizard can focus on spells like Lightning Bolt, Fireball, and Magic Missile because he knows there is someone with Resist Cold, Cures,  etc., nearby.
  What happens when you remove the cleric?  In the games I have seen without clerics the party is forced to be more timid and have more of everyone else to make up for the gap.You need another melee type to ensure that nothing can get through the defensive line, you need another spellcaster to pick up the defensive slack, and if you give magic-users healing spells you need another spellcaster to focus on healing. Oh, and another rogue to help with scouting.

  And you can also completely lose two aspects of the cleric that are far too often completely overlooked - spells that help with decisions and spells that help with supply.
  By 'spells that help with decisions' I am referring to spells like Augury, Know Alignment, Speak With Animals, and such. Spells that don't make decisions for you (no, not even Commune is that good) but helping supply key data. On a time limit? Augury can help you avoid time sucks. That guy in the corner of the inn? Know Alignment. I once saw the Slavers' Stockade module completely short-circuited by a cleric with Speak with Animals, Locate Object, and Know Alignment - the party tracked down a secret entrance, avoided the traps and ambushes, and spotted the big bad before any combat or other scouting.
  By 'spells that help with supply' I mean Create Water, Purify Food and Drink, and Create Food and Water. Yes, I use encumbrance. Yes, I track time in the dungeon and the campaign. Yes, I track food usage. Ask players in games like that how critical these spells are when a shifting wall trap got you lost on level 5, or when you get lost in the Bleak Wood, or when you free the kidnapped royal family who have been starved for weeks and you have to leave soon. Surprisingly important spells in campaign games, in my opinion.
  Can you give these spells to the magic-users? Sure, of course. But that just means you need more magic-users in that 5th level party, meaning you need more fighters to protect them, right? And if turning undead is now a spell, guess what?
  As you can see, when you realize what clerics are for (magical and physical defense plus decision support and logistics support) you can answer objections #1, #2, and #3 - they are defensive, they are defensive, and they are for much more than healing. That last point, 'they are for much more than healing' is why I adopted Lew Pulsipher's double memorization idea that I mentioned earlier. When a player actually has Augury, Snake Charm, and Create Food and Water written down on their spells list they more viscerally understand what clerics are capable of.

  So what about objection #4? 'I don't like religion in general/Christianity in particular/making gods is hard'. Well, considering this is a game about wizards flipping the laws of physics the bird, fighters than can take on hordes and never need a glass of water or a bathroom break, talking magical swords, and demons wanting to eat your soul and then kill you - if the fact that 'the imaginary people in this game might be religious!!!!' is your hangup, you need to think about why. After all, in the Real World the overwhelming majority of people are religious and I am unaware of a single instance of a talking magical sword or a dragon.
  If it is the obviously Christian basis of the overwhelming majority of early D&D well - what do you expect? Gygax was a devout Christian living in a culturally-Christian nation basing the majority of his work on archetypes that came from often-explicitly Christian sources. This is akin to complaining about how Oriental Adventures has an obviously Shinto basis.
  BTW, I read a lot of complaining that 'this game based upon medieval Europe is too Christian' but have yet to see anyone complain that OA or Bushido is 'too Shinto/Buddhist'. Let me know if you have encountered that.
  As far as those two related aspects go, and the third of 'all those individual gods are hard' well - be generic. Just say that 'the Gods reward you and give to orphanages' and move on. Are you explicit in where each fighter received the training that sets him apart from other 0-level warriors? A lot of detailed information on where each magic-user learned spells and the secret handshakes they all know? Is the thieves' guild your rogues go to for gear nailed down as to the day and time of the guild meetings? If the rest of them are kinda' vague, kinda' nebulous, why not the church(s), too?
  I can't give us more time to create or satisfy every player request but we can all use the same dodges for clerics we use for paladins and rangers, right?
  So there is objection #4.

  And I want to discuss complaint #5 a bit. Of course there are archetypes of the fighting priest and no, they weren't the Knights Templar!
  Friar Tuck who is the obvious first choice. In the old songs and literature he was much more active in combat than we see in movie and TV adaptations and is described as skilled in sword and buckler.
  Bishop Odo fought at Hastings and is prominent in the Bayeux Tapestry.
  [As a matter of fact, this is the origin of the urban myth/fiction trope that 'priests fight with blunt weapons' - since Bp. Odo was depicted on the tapestry as fighting with a club it became common in literature to do the same with fictional fighting priests in some circles and even led to a myth that priests could only fight with blunt weapons. This myth, very popular in the 19th Century is the very obvious source of D&D's weapon restrictions for clerics. And since in the tales of Charlemagne priests use swords and such I allow one non-blunt weapon to a cleric].
  And the really obvious example/archetype is Archbishop Turpin of Charlemagne's Paladins. The Archbishop went into battle with the paladins as their spiritual leader but was also described as a fierce fighter who was as feared as the paladins themselves.
  The amazing thing is Bishop Odo and Archbishop Turpin were real men and real priests who did real fighting (well, some argue that Turpin didn't do much but rather his predecessor Archbishop Milo was the fiercer warrior). But the stories of Turpin are amazing and a rich part of the Matter of France.
  But these stories, which until about the last century were far more popular than the stories of Arthur, clearly show clerics fighting alongside knights and paladins and the difference between them.
  And there are historical sources for the idea of fighting priests. Princess Anna Comnena, daughter of the Byzantine Emperor, described a Roman Catholic priest who fought alongside the crusaders thusly,
  "The Latin priest stood along with 12 other men in the midst of the battle. These knights alongside him were replaced as they suffered wounds but the priest, although he, too, took many a sore blow, held firm and fearless as he streamed with his own blood.
  "For the priests of the West do handle sacred things with their shield in their other hand, and put down the Body and Blood of the Savior to pick up the spear."

  In short, the idea of a fighting priest who is NOT a paladin is very old, very strong, and based on historical examples.
  And that puts paid to objection #5.

  "But Rick," I hear you ask, "how do you handle religion in your campaigns?"
  Two ways. When 2e Skills and Powers (and especially Spell and Magic) came out I experimented with a pantheon of 14 good gods, each with a specific custom priest design and 'generic clerics' were the priests that worshiped the pantheon as a whole. It was interesting, I tried it for about a year or two ,and I let it drift away since it didn't seem to add much.

  The older way which has always largely been true of my 1e campaign is - there is the Church for all good folks while evil clerics, etc. get their power from demon princes, devil lords, etc. Druids get their power more from the magic that is inherent in the trees and the rocks and from elemental lords and such.

  The Church is LG and followers can be from LN to CN but priests must be Good to get spells. There is a pope, bishops, etc. I have the NPC only class of Religious Brother/Sister to represent parish priests, cloistered monks, and nuns (well, those who aren't 0-level).
  Evil clerics make pacts with devil lords, demon princes, etc. Only 1 or 2 evil priests anywhere anytime can access any 7th level cleric spell (most are limited to 5th level spells or below) but they may have some magical power or servant, instead, making evil clerics mysterious and unpredictable.

  Feel free to disagree.
 

Well-Aligned: Why the D&D Alignment System Never Bothers Me

  I know the blurb says this but let me repeat it. I have been playing and running D&D and its various incarnations for 37 years+; my 1e/OSR campaign has been ongoing for 36 years this Summer; I have been in the rodeo a long time.
  [feel free to skip down to the next brackets]
  I have also played, sometimes also run [deep breath]: 2300 AD, Aberrant, Indiana Jones, Aftermath!, Alternity, Amber, Ars Magica, Beyond the Supernatural (very fond memories), BESM, Boot Hill (the GM for that game passed away last month, sadly), B&B, Bureau 13, CoC (about to start a new series of adventures for my kids), Castles and Crusades, Champions (most flavors - running one for a bunch of teens right now), oWoD (all of 'em, with Mummy being my favorite due to the other players), Chivalry and Sorcery, Conan, CORPS, Cyberpunk and FNFF, DC, Elric! (loved the book), EotPT, Fading Suns, FUDGe and Fuzion, Gangbusters, Ghostbusters (hilarious GM), Godlike, HackMaster (both versions, early memebr of the HMGMA and early pre-orderer of books), HARP, Heros Unlimited, In Nomine, Jorune, Marvel, Mechwarrior, Mercenaries, Spies, and Private Eyes, Metamorphosis Alpha, MERP, Morrow Project (a memorable campaign run by a special forces guy), Ninjas and Stupid Guys, Over the Edge, Palladium (and I have the notes around here somewhere converting my entire 1e campaign to Palladium - I was sick in bed for weeks and needed something to do!). Paranoia, Pendragon, Prime Directive, Psiworld, Rifts, Robotech, RuneQuest, Sailor Moon, Shadowrun, Space 1889, Spacemaster, Star Frontiers, Star*Drive, Star Trek (most versions), Superworld, Talislanta, TMNTAOS, TFOS, Timelords (great fun), TOON, Top Secret, TORG, Traveller (all versions, although the LBBs are best), Trinity, Twilight 2000 (one campaign was when I was in the army and everyone played *themselves*. The briefings were run by a senior intelligence analyst and were AMAZING!), and, of course, D20, D6, and GURPS.
  And my favorite non-D&D game, Rolemaster.
  [here's those other brackets I mentioned]
  So, I am familiar, often very familiar, with a lot of mechanics. I understand long discussions of skill systems, combat, initiative, damage, etc. I love most of these discussions. The one I never understood?
  "D&D alignments make no sense."
  Personally, I think the AD&D alignment system is one of the best ways to quantify the personality and behavior of a fictional character in a game system that reflects good and evil.
  And since the Real World has good and evil, shouldn't our RPGs?
  The axes of the alignment system are called moral (good to evil) and ethical (law to chaos). This allows us to examine each to see how to apply the system.
  Walk with me for a minute.
  'Good' is obviously meant in the Thomistic sense when used by Gygax meaning that 'good' is striving for what should be and 'evil' is a rejection of the good. Or, 'good' is true and 'evil' is the rejection of the true.
  'Law' also obviously refers to basic adherence to rules, order, social mores, etc.
  So when alignment refers to 'good or evil' it references Virtue and when it references 'law and chaos' it references Duty and the focus of duty.
  Let's look at the best example we have from Gygax to PC alignment, the paladin. The paladin is obviously based upon Catholic military orders which allows us to quantify alignment from the reality of those military orders.
  The orders followed the knightly virtues of Justice, Fortitude, Temperance, Prudence, Faith, Hope, and Charity. This looks like a pretty close map to how paladins are expected to act: self-control (limits on items and money) = temperance; brave without being foolhardy = fortitude; not cheating or lying, giving people what they are owed = justice;  showing good judgement = prudence; remaining faithful; not giving in to despair; and giving to others.
  Yup, looks the same, so it appears that equating the virtues with good is fine.
  But what about duty? Deontology is the ethical concept of adherence to rules and where those rules come from. Catholic military orders had a strict hierarchy, codes of conduct, rules of dress, scheduled prayer times, the Code of Canon Law from the Church, etc.
  Again this seems to fit with the description of the paladin.
  So it looks like we can classify 'Lawful Good' and 'striving for virtue and accepting a strict code of moral rules from a specific outside source'.
  The 'specific' part of 'specific outside source' is a critical element! It means that 'lawful' does NOT mean 'accepting and enforcing any law'! Even if local law allowed, oh, a warrior class to execute lower caste people for a lack of courtesy, a lawful good character would reject this as being unjust and against the prohibition against the murder of the innocent, for example.
  'Evil', then, means 'ejecting virtue'. No a fully evil person would be unjust, cowardly, intemperate, and imprudent; they would be impious, full of despair, and greedy. But failing or rejecting all of the virtues is not required to fail to be 'good'! A temperate, courageous city guard with an open hand with the poor and heart full of hope who indulges in too much drink to the point he says cruel things and starts drunken brawls could very well be Neutral, not Good. If he also takes bribes to ignore 'small crimes' he is edging into actual evil. Likewise, someone who desires to be good but often falls to temptation can be neutral or even evil. The flip side is a character that wishes to be evil but can't stop helping people, telling the truth, etc. can be neutral.
  On the law - chaos axis the character that believes in no external code but only trusts their feelings and decisions of the moment is the true Chaotic while a character that accepts the validity of a strong external code but makes exceptions, 'forgets. etc. could edge into neutral. A person who trusts themselves only for judgment but has a strict schedule and obeys a hierarchy could likewise be neutral.
  So the comparison to Lawful Good (the character that strives for virtue and obeys an external code of ethics) is the character that accepts no code but his own desires of the moment and embraces injustice, imprudence, self-indulgence, greed, etc. - Chaotic Evil. If a Chaotic Evil person obeys another it is out of fear, greed, or the desires of the moment.
  Seen this way an 'alignment violation' can be a serious issue because it is a sudden, drastic change in the characters personality - why would a paladin rob an old lady? Why would a demon perform a completely altruistic action?
  It also explains why True Neutral is virtually impossible. Animals are True Neutral because they don't make moral decisions - virtue, ethics, etc. simply don't apply.
  I know, this is very brief, high-level, and may only add to the fires, not solve anything. But it is a brief look at alignment in my campaign.