A is for Alignment

I missed the April A-Z Blog Challenge this year, so I'm doing my own...in June. This year, I will be posting one post per day discussing my AD&D campaign, for the curious. Since 2020, this is the ONLY campaign I run. Enjoy!

A is for Alignment. A funny place to start when it comes to talking about one's campaign but, I think, a necessary precursor to understanding how my world runs.

As with most DMs, I have "modified" the AD&D game rules in a number of ways. Unlike most DMs, these modifications are few in number and generally quite small in the grand scheme of the game; most are designed (in part) to ease speed of play. 

Removing alignment, however, is no small thing.

Still, I've done it, and am quite satisfied with the result. Humans (and human-like elves, dwarves, halflings, etc.) are capable of doing good and evil, acting lawfully and chaotically and are not so simplistic to model as stock characters from a morality play. Actions have consequences; it is important for the Dungeon Master to keep this in mind because (when he/she does so) issues related to "bad behavior" tend to take care of themselves.

But the game...

Well, the D&D game created alignment originally to distinguish the two sides of the (war gaming) table. There were the forces of LAW (i.e. "good") and the forces of CHAOS (i.e. "evil") and then there were "neutrals" who might fight for either side, depending on their whim (this was long before the advent of "True Neutrals" who refused to fight for any side...). 

Over time, these assignations grew muddled in complexity, as LAW ceased to mean "good" but rather "order and organization" while CHAOS ceased to mean "evil" but rather "freedom and wildness." Having multiple factions certainly makes for more interesting gaming (and more asymmetrical war gaming) than just "Side A" versus "Side B," but it hardly models the complexity of life, where actions are determined by degrees of ambition and pride and fear and self-interest and love and joy and...well, all the things. All the stuff; "the usual" (or, just, "the ush") as they say.

But then, how does that work with the cosmology of D&D? How do paladins and assassins get along? Why do we kill orcs and goblins? How the heck are we supposed to know if clerics are being granted their spells?  And what about all those alignment-based spells and magic items?

Here's how I approach these things in my campaign:

With Regard To Monsters (and Character Classes): 

Think of "alignment" as a short-hand for the general attitude/perspective of a class/species from the point of view of a human; D&D is human-centric, after all.  Any creature with a "good" alignment is generally "pro-human" or (rather) "pro-human values;" any creature with an "evil" alignment is "anti-human."  SO, "good" dwarves and elves and halflings like and value humans and treat them in as friendly a manner as humans treat each other. Admittedly, humans have a long history of robbing, raping, and killing each other so this might translate to "not-so-friendly," but it's a good enough starting point and things being equal they're generally willing to work with humans so long as it suits their interest.

"Evil" creatures, on the other hand, have a history of conflict and antagonism with humans and their allies (i.e. creatures that get along with humans or that humans would view as "good"...like dwarves and elves). It doesn't mean they're inherently evil or bad or spawned of Satan (at least, with regard to non-planar creatures) just that...historically...they've been on opposite sides of the battlefield more often than not.

Paladins and rangers (traditionally "good" aligned classes) are characters that champion HUMANS and their allies. As fighters, they are warriors, killers, and destroyers of things that would harm or threaten humans. That is what they are trained to do; although they have different training from each other.

Assassins (traditionally "evil") place no particular value on human life...being trained as professional murderers, a human is only "valuable" insomuch as it affects the fee they charge to end it. Meanwhile, thieves' traditional "non-good" designation aptly describes their cavalier attitude towards other humans' property (being trained in the larcenous arts). 

"Lawful-ness," then, is simply an estimate of whether or not a particular species operates in an ordered and civilized fashion..."civilized" again being from the perspective of humanity. Do they have hierarchy? Bureaucracy? Laws? Most of the humanoid monsters found in the Monster Manual (and, thus, in my campaign world) fall into this category...they are as organized with regard to trade, agriculture, and warfare as any human society.

"Chaotic-ness" on the other hand, is not just the absence of law and order, but an abhorrence of it, and a a wanting to smash the social norms and niceties of (what humans would call) 'polite society.' Bugbears are something OUTSIDE the hierarchy of other goblinoids...a throwback species (like a neanderthal or sasquatch), insane individuals too large to kill that have been driven into exile, or perhaps some ogrish-hybrid...who knows? Ogres are just too big and un-refined to have ever developed anything like a "society;" they are at the top of the food chain and they enjoy being there. Gnolls are something like the beastman marauders found in the Warhammer world...they are as close to a demon-worshipping barbarian horde as anything you'll find in my world. And elves...well, let's just say most humans tend to stay the hell out of elven cities (there's only one), as they're something akin to Moorcock's Melniboneans; they'll get their own post in this series.

As far as classes go only the monk and paladin have a requirement for "Lawful-ness" and this simply indicates that they must follow a strict hierarchy and discipline with regard to their profession. Monks are beholden to their monastic order and must follow its dictates; paladins are the same with regard to their church. Here, the alignment restriction (again...not used in my game!) indicates character classes that are not altogether free from obligation.

And the Neutrals? Well, all the creatures and classes of my campaign are effectively "neutral" when it comes to their actions, self-determination, and self-interest. But with regard to the True Neutral druid, we simply see a sect that is neither concerned with promoting human interest, nor overtly antagonistic to it. For the neutral-leaning bard, the alignment merely describes the free spirit of these drifters.

By the way: any character class can adventure with any other character class in my game.

With Regard To Alignment-Based Magic:

There are only a handful of magic spells in the PHB, mostly clerical in nature, that require alignment to be addressed. Know alignment does not exist as a spell (un-needed). Detect evil detects the presence of unnatural or supernatural presences: the undead, creatures from other planes, and (as noted in the spell description) "evilly cursed magic items" (i.e. magically cursed items specifically designed to do harm). Similarly, dispel evil banishes enchanted and summoned creatures regardless of alignment. Protection from evil is now just circle of protection, a spell that wards out unnatural and supernatural creatures and provides the listed bonus against creatures trying to do harm to the warded character(s).

I should probably note that I long ago stopped using denotations like "protection from good" or "unholy word." To a devil-worshipping cleric, "unholiness" is "holy" and "evil" is "good." While these spells still exist, they do not merit having a reversible version (holy word is always "holy" to the person using it). 

As for magic items of an alignment nature, they generally fall into three categories: items designed to screw with a PC's alignment, items meant to restrict access (benefitting or cursing depending on alignment), and items meant to exert control over its user (like an intelligent sword). In the case of the former (a helm of opposite alignment, for example), they're simply out of the game...it was rare that I would stock such items anyway, even back when I used alignment, as all they ended up doing was giving a player an excuse to engage in unproductive shenanigans OR unfairly stripped the abilities of a PC (paladins, rangers) through no fault of their own.

For magic-swords and other such items (like the Gauntlet in module UK3), I determine what the item's motivations are, and have it exert control in order to obtain those motivations REGARDLESS of alignment. No damage is received from using such an item, unless it's made for a particular type of wielder (a dwarf or a paladin, for example) as is picked up by someone else.

As for magic items that bestow benefits based on alignment...eh, anyone can use it. You want your magic-user to read a libram of ineffable damnation? Have at it...all magic-users gain the benefit (and can likewise benefit from a libram of gainful conjuration, etc.). I want my wizards seeking out forbidden tomes of knowledge, good or evil; that's the stuff of the adventure fiction I grew up reading.

With Regard To Clerics:

Clerics in my campaign still pray for (and receive) magical spells from their deities. They have access to the same spell list, regardless of deity; this list is different from the other spell lists. My long-standing house rule is that they pray for their spells as needed, not in some morning ritual...I've explained this all before. 

Clerics have tenets of faith and worship that they are expected to practice. Do I bother detailing these? No.

Would it be possible for a cleric to lose their spell powers for failing to follow the dictates of their church/religion/deity? Maybe. I haven't (so far as I can recall) ever ruled as such in any D&D game I've ever run.

Are clerics expected to fight for "good" (or "evil") against their opposite number? Clerics are expected to champion and protect their own faith and that faith's worshippers against those who'd harm or threaten that faith or those worshippers. Sometimes that might mean fighting against a (previous) ally. Sometimes that might mean fighting with a (previous) enemy. Sometimes "protecting the faith" involves rooting out corruption within their own church (i.e. fighting/killing their own clergy or congregation members).

God (and gods) move in mysterious ways.

I don't use the DDG all that much these days. If I were to use it, it would be mostly as a "monster manual" for other planar entities. Yes, I have no issue with high level characters fighting (and possibly slaying) gods...good luck to 'em if they want to try it. I know from experience that it's not all that easy...in fact, I've never seen it done in an ACTUAL game of AD&D. Nope, not even Llolth (and I've run Q1). If a god were slain, I'd expect its worshippers to shift allegiance to whatever god would have them (and that suited their fancy), and would retain all their prior levels/spells/abilities.

Just about the only way I really see a cleric losing their spells would be through some crisis of faith: either a literal "crisis" (our deity has been slain!) or through some curse/geas or vow breaking crisis, of the kind that might require an atonement spell. In the latter case...well, that's the kind of thing that has to be worked out on a case-by-case basis generally through (*shudder*) role-playing. Which isn't BAD, folks, but just isn't something I can pencil down with a hard-and-fast answer. That the AD&D game provides for this potentiality of such a spell being needed speaks to the robustness of the system...you won't find atonement in 5E, just by the way.

[which maybe says something about the unforgivable blasphemy that is 5E]

ALL RIGHTY...that's enough of a foundation in the basic cosmology of my campaign. We'll get to the actual geography of the world (physical and political) in tomorrow's post.

Off the Rails

As I'm sure I've written before, the problem with not posting for a month (or more) is that the brain keeps working and the ideas/concepts keep accumulating and you end up with a bunch of random detritus you want to talk about and no good way to organize it into something manageable.

*sigh*

Ah, well. Guess I'll start with the title.

The AD&D game with my kids continues (sporadically) and they're doing fine and still rather enthusiastic about the game. But (of course there was going to be a but, right?) I'm having...um..."issues." It's not the system, or the complexity, or the rate of advancement, or the game "tone" that's bothering me. Nor is it the attention to detail or the depth of simulation which (despite adhering to the rather abstract AD&D rules) is (still) pretty deep. All that is well and good. 

It's just that...mm...the thing lacks "magic."

How to put this...hmm. An idea came into my head a few days ago; an idea that took the form of a couple questions and a couple answers. For the benefit of my readers (and my own sanity), I'll go ahead and type 'em out so they stop rumbling around my noggin:

1. Why did Gygax end up adding so many new spells to (the original) D&D rules, beginning with the Greyhawk booklet ("supplement 1")?
2. Why did Gygax end up adding so many new monsters to the game (see Fiend Folio and the Monster Manual 2 for plentiful examples).

I have come to believe that the answer to both these questions is: because he needed to.

After all the work I've done over the last 11+ years of writing this blog, I consider myself something of an expert on the B/X edition of D&D, and a passingly knowledgable mind when it comes to OD&D as well as other "basic" editions of the game. With regard to AD&D, however, I barely scratch "journeyman" status...yes, I can run the game just fine using the core three books, even down to running an unarmed combat with the system given in the DMG. I can parse out the initiative sequence and make use of speed factors and whatnot, I can locate drowning rules and wilderness travel rates, and have a good head for encumbrance and what constitutes "bulky" armor. I've got a handle on the basics of the game.

But I don't know everything. Not in a truly comprehensive way, not by a long shot. Not in a way that allows me to take in and digest the game as a whole and manufacture something that makes use of its various nuances. 

This became readily apparent to me when I was listening to last week's Grogtalk podcast (their "Valentine Special").  The use of two monsters from the MM2 in their playtest adenture (the "annis hag" and the "stench kow") completely threw me for a loop...despite having owned the book for decades, I had no idea that these creatures were even "a thing," and simply assumed that the monsters in Carlos Lising's game had been specifically created from whole cloth for the module. Not so; Carlos was utilizing the AD&D resources that he's become familiar with over decades of constant AD&D play. Then there was the (frankly hilarious) discussion of various hybrid creatures and PCs that took place over the last 40 minutes or so of the special (interbreeding and "love connections" being part of the Valentine theme)...it raised all sorts of valid questions like: Just why the hell are there half-elves in the game anyway? All issues of disparate cultures aside, the sheer magnitude of longevity difference between the species makes any sort of romantic relationship incredibly unlikely. What elf wants to marry (or dally with) a human whose lifespan isn't even a tenth of her own? What elven parent wants a child that will age and die before she's even reached middle age? 

Kind of crazy...once you consider it. Which I hadn't. Because I'd been too intent just running the game.

And that's the thing. Focusing on the simple nuts and bolts of the system and the game world...things like halberd formations and goblin motivations and market economics has been a "drill down" that sacrifices the forest for the trees. Resulting in a game that has been interesting and (in its way) "logical," but lacking in magic. Not magical items or wizards per se (though both these things have, to date, been rare in the game)...I'm talking about the magic of playing a fantasy game in a fantasy world. Not going gonzo and nonsensical but certainly "off the rails" more than negotiating relations between humanoid tribes and the local human garrison. Jesus, this is a game that contains the Machine of Lum the Mad for goodness sake! Shouldn't it be a bit wilder than the step-and-fetch (or seek-and-destroy) of a 5E scenario?

[wondering what I'm talking about? Check out the 5E "Essentials Kit" for examples. Here's one: take a message to a logging camp. Fight some ankhegs. Return for a reward. Go to an apothecary hermit with a message. Fight a manticore. Return for a reward. That kind of thing...]

It brings me back around to those questions above (and my presumed answers for them). Gygax didn't just add astral projection and gate to the spell list of Greyhawk just because he wanted to fatten the page count, nor did he throw owlbears and beholders into the book just for the sake of creating new intellectual property. Things like probability travel, nightmares and devils, liches and golems, artifacts and relics...these were things that were used...they weren't just added to show "what is possible" or define parameters of the game or "fill in niches" (like aquatic elves or evil dwarves). Rather, these things were practical content, used to enrich the game being played at the table. These things...just like assassins guilds and psionics and level drain and (yes, even) alignment language...these things that seem wily-nilly, half-baked, and off-the-cuff (i.e. poorly thought out) aren't just there for kitchen sink, 31 flavors, pick-and-choose your poison. They ARE the game. 

Setting limitations and toning down the weirdness is a bit of a disservice. 

That's why, I think (maybe), my recent experiences have seemed to lack "magic;" the scenarios created in UK2 The Sentinel and UK3 The Gauntlet and B2 The Keep on the Borderlands are far too reasonable; it is far too easy to assign real world analogies, motivations, and "naturalism" to them. These adventures are dealing with banditry and sieges and diaspora and treachery and colonialism...dammit, that's all just too "normal" for the campaign to feel like a D&D game. Where are the giant magic statues? Where are the subdued dragons being used as mounts? Where are the sentient blobs and oozes looking to melt your face off?

There's not enough "dungeon" in my Dungeons & Dragons game...and I'm not talking about some sort of absurd, dozen level mega-dungeon. Been watching a lot of History Channel this last year with the Search for Yamashita's Gold and the Curse of Oak Island and all that jazz: finding subterranean treasure chamber's in our real world is hard, dangerous work and it should be even more so (with suitably bumped up rewards) in a fantasy adventure game. In D&D, Howard Carter would have had to deal with actual magic curses (and probably undead monsters) before he could recover King Tut's treasure because that's the game. I haven't been giving that part of the campaign enough attention. 

I realize there are those people who, upon reading this post, will reflect that my issues relate to the pre-fabricated source material I've been using for my campaign, and that's a fair point to bring up. While the main reason for using these adventures has been a matter of convenience (my time for producing adventure material is pretty scarce) and familiarity, I suppose I could be choosing different modules...except that many end up in the same category of mundanity when scrutinized. Certainly I'd throw the Slaver series (especially A1 and A2) into the same pot, the Giant series (though giants are neat, they're still just big humanoids), and even Dwellers of the Forbidden City (not enough snake-folk to make the thing truly strange). The Special series (S1-S4) clearly fits the bill of what I'm looking for, but those adventures are all designed for higher level characters than what my players have...all the low-level stuff is uncovering cultists and rooting out bandits and fighting goblins. 

Ugh. Simply not good enough. And maybe I'M not good enough (or not familiar enough) with AD&D to design myself out of this funk that I seem to be digging for myself.

[if you think THIS post is ranty, you should have seen the one on the draft board that was never posted. This is my attempt at being "thoughtful"]

Anyhoo, that's where my head's at (with regard to gaming) at the moment. Just to be clear, I'm not of the opinion that "all hope is lost;" the campaign is still in its early stages and I think there's plenty of time/space to inject some "magic" into the thing, but it'll probably require me taking my eye and focus off the mundane aspects of the campaign/system, and instead shift to the strange(r) aspects inherent in the game. Heck, I'm even considering bringing back cosmic (capital-E) Evil...despite all the handwringing over alignment, it does provide some shape to the cosmology of the game.

[perhaps in a later post I'll talk about how that lack of "shape" ends up requiring a lot of rewriting of system when one starts needing to justify souls and spirits and raise dead with regard to different game species (like elves)...systems that provide balance and necessary checks to the game. Pull one thread and the whole thing starts to unravel...]

Too bad there're no gnomes in the party; would really love to introduce some talking squirrels or woodchucks into the mix. What ancient secrets could they reveal!   ; )

All right, that's enough for now. We're still on mid-winter break in the JB household, and while the snow from "Snowmageddon 2021" distracted us for a couple-three days (building forts and snowmen and having snowball fights) things have warmed up enough to slush-ify most of it. As such, our gaming has moved indoors, and I'm nearly certain we'll have a chance for some more campaign crawling once the kids are up and breakfasted. Maybe. We still have a pretty solid game of Axis & Allies (& Zombies) going on from last night. More info to follow.

Later Gators.

Morality and the Cosmic Struggle

[quick note: I've decide to try moderating comments for the time being as I've been getting an excessive amount of spam lately, and it's become a real irritation]

This isn't really what I planned on writing about, but after reading Father Dave's recent post, I figured it was time to finally throw down my two cents on alignment, my (current) thoughts on the concept, and how it will apply in my game setting.

Over the years, I've gone back and forth on the subject many, many times. My current stance (which I've had for less than six months) is to use alignment in my game. Multiple reasons go into this decision that I [still] don't want to enumerate [yet]. However, I will assure the reader that NONE of those reasons stem from a personal desire to simplify the game ("Rules As Written!") nor make my DMing life easier. Finding a way to use alignment in a meaningful and effective way is actually more difficult and not a headache to be readily embraced; it certainly isn't a headache I've found terribly enjoyable.

Still, I think alignment is important to my game world, as the cosmology of the setting is at least as important as the physical geography to its overall design.

SO...having said that (and having spent the last few days going though the OD&D monsters and figuring out the IFs and HOWs needed to slot them into my setting), please indulge me a moment to talk about my personal viewpoints on evil and how it works in a game context.

Father Dave's post discusses the importance of evil as a concept for an RPG; how reducing the game setting to one of moral relativism (if I may be allowed to paraphrase) makes the struggle between selfish individuals (and the stories told of those struggles) both boring and pointless. I assume some folks would take umbrage with this statement, as "boring" can be recognized as a matter of taste (television shows that I find tedious are undoubtably stimulating to others) and "pointless" ...well, what can be more pointed than watching humans (and/or tieflings, etc.) struggle in the face of adversity? That IS the point of The Game, after all.

But I understand the good padre is writing from his stance as a Christian theologian and I respect his perspective.

[ooo...I can see the potential for this discussion to get nasty. Lots of people get LOTS of things out of D&D besides any potential "meaning" or morality lesson, people who hold the game on an equally high (or higher) pedestal. I really, really don't want to have that debate here. Please don't go down that particular road in the comments; yes, I understand D&D holds a lot of juice for a lot of people of all stripes and persuasions...]

For ME, it is important that my campaign setting is sensible; if the setting doesn't make sense to me, I will (eventually) become tired of and frustrated with the nonsensical elements until I chuck the whole thing...something that has happened many, many times to me in the past. I'd rather have a game setting that will last, oh say, a hundred years or so (enough time that it should outlive me) and my best strategy for doing so is picking an epoch in our real world past that is so far removed from today that who knows WHAT might have happened "way back then" (knowledge does tend to get lost after a few thousand years...). However, making use of our Real World means using a real world cosmology or, at least, a close approximation given the circumstances of the setting and the rules of the game; that, to me, is sensible.

So then what is "evil" as I believe it? Father Dave defines evil as the absence of God. "Goodness" is the same as God...God is the source of all goodness. The more you remove good/God from the equation the higher the degree of evil; the padre compares evil to cold, and God/goodness to warmth. Cold increases the more you remove yourself from the source of heat; add heat and cold is diminished. Easy-peasy...that's a fairly typical Christian perspective on the way the cosmos functions.

My own take is a little more New Age-y (I'm not the world's greatest Christian by any stretch): God is All; All is One. "Evil" comes from denying this fact...by separating ourselves (through thought and/or action) from the truth (or Truth) that All is One. Forgetting our place and our purpose as "higher beings," parts of God's whole, destined and designed to do God's will because we are one with God. Forgetting our higher purpose...or ignoring it, or working against it...results in the only "sin" that matters: selfishly separating ourselves from God. This causes suffering in the whole (for All is One)...it is a sin against God, against ourselves, and against our fellows for we are all part of a single whole.

But why does such sin (or the possibility of it) exist? Here, I'll take a page from Tolkien and draw the analogy that Eternity is like a grand symphony, composed of many notes, chords, rhythms, and movements. Only with an omniscient understanding can its whole be observed at once; only with the perspective of God can it be seen how one part leads to the next, how each portion is necessary to the whole. The struggles and challenges of those humans residing on our planet may seem terrible and terrifying...or petty and sordid...when viewed with only a limited ability to perceive. But that limitation, too, is part of the overall scheme and design of the composition.

Putting that into D&D language: I am using the three-point alignment system of Law, Neutrality, and Chaos in my setting. A Lawful person is one who actively does God's will (purposefully, though regardless of whether or not there exists understanding). "Persons" mean creatures with a level of intelligence rising to the level of sentience; "God's will" generally means living in harmony (with others and with nature), and generally promoting the same. There are very few species in my game that are (culturally) of the Lawful disposition; most are angelic beings.

By my definitions, anyone NOT actively doing God's will would be in the "evil" category (to greater or lesser degree), but the difference between Neutrality and Chaotic is a preferred distinction for my setting. While there are certainly selfish people out there who are more interested in their personal  desires than following the Law of One, not all are so wicked as to actively be working AGAINST the cosmic design (i.e. trying to create MORE separation from God). This, then, is the distinction: a Neutral person is not working to create a closer bond with God, nor are they working to undermine oneness (and, generally due to ignorance and disinterest, these may perform deeds at various times that move the needle one way or the other: helping an individual in need one day, while cheating someone else another). These maintain the "status quo" of life on Earth, perpetuating its cycles, and maintaining the possibility to join one side or the other. In contrast, the Chaotic person, by thought and deed, continuously pushes to destroy One-ness through selfish aggrandizement, exploitation of others, and general awfulness.

Regarding non-sentient beings: most are of the Neutral alignment (all "natural" creatures, for example) unless their very nature is an offense to the natural order: undead creatures, for example, or certain magical abominations created by stray and terrible magics (like trolls). "Demons" are not "fallen angels" in the Milton sense, but there are certain ethereal beings whose interaction with humans usually take a malignant turn (for the humans), much the same way that interacting with other "forces" (fire, gravity, etc.) have the potential to cause harm to the unwary; such forces are labeled as "Chaotic" due to the danger their interference poses to humans attempting to follow God's will. Such creatures (and those who harness them as tools in their quest for personal power) provide a steady source of conflict in the setting.

Hope that all makes sense.

This, by the way, has brought up other headaches...er, "interesting challenges"...with regard to the design of the campaign's mega-dungeon. Licancabur is a natural formation, one that in recent centuries has been sacred and holy to the people of the region, much as such sites (Olympus, Rainier, Danali) have been sacred to other peoples throughout history. Moreover, nature may be aloof and uncaring to the wants and needs of human beings, but that doesn't make it evil...merely dangerous. So what "lawful" reason could there be for adventurers to delve its ancient depths, explore its hollowed out volcanic tubes, slay its denizens, and pillage its treasures? If Licancabur is not some sort of gateway to hell, what gives them the right to ravish it, sword in hand?

Corruption. Perversion. The temple has become a den of inequity. The hallowed halls are defiled with mutants and monsters of the vilest sort. Something must be done to return the place to a state of grace, though it may take years, and the blood of many would-be heroes, to do so.

And, for now, that's enough to kick-off a campaign. Because my setting takes place some 9000 years before the time of Christ, there are no Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions in the game, but there are religious orders and clerics. The line between magic-users and clerics is very thin, in my setting, the difference being mainly one of perspective and mission. Only followers of the Law of One have access to the full range of healing powers; worshippers of false gods and natural powers are little more than hedge wizards, and idolatrous demon-worshippers have no access to healing magic at all, being only capable of harnessing the powers of malice and harm for their personal "benefit."

Magic-users as a class hold themselves aloof from matters of the spirit and worship, but they are aware of the way the cosmos works, and ignore it at their own peril. Many wizards, lacking wisdom or lost in their pursuit of knowledge and power, will tread the path of chaos. Bad things undoubtably await them (in this life or in the next), but such a road will not curtail their progression.

My use of alignment in D&D isn't meant to dictate behavior, neither with regard to players, nor their characters. With regard to player characters, alignment is a stamp and statement of where their souls lie in terms of the cosmic struggle. There is no requirement to "act one's alignment:" presumably, a character's actions will stem from a [Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic] motivation, and even if not, so what? Individuals slip up, make mistakes, and act against type. Lancelot sleeps with the wife of his friend and liege. Hercules gets drunk and kills his family. Darth Vader decides he'd rather go out a hero than watch his son be murdered. Do such deeds make up for a lifetime of goodness/badness? Maybe, maybe not...the player is free to discuss a possible alignment change with the DM (me) if she wants to entertain that possibility.

Regardless, I'll assume that the character is doing plenty of acts "off-screen" that readily bolster and justify the alignment chosen.

Actions have consequences...all sorts of consequences. Kill all the lizard men in the local swamp and you have no lizard men. In some ways, this is a good thing: fewer dangers in the swamp (if the lizard men were apt to ambush unwary travelers), perhaps more game to be found by the locals (since the lizard men aren't hunting it). Perhaps, though, the lizard men acted as a natural "buffer zone" between the local village and a different threat of some sort, a more dangerous tribe of creatures that will now take their place. Perhaps the lizard folk worshipped a black dragon and their occasional "sacrifices" kept the thing from looking for prey elsewhere. Perhaps they hunted a particular type of animal that is difficult for a non-scaly hunter to eradicate, and now the unchecked pest threatens to overrun the swamp...maybe some sort of giant spider whose venom was ineffective against the lizard people (but is fatal to humans).

The point is: the genocide of the lizard people isn't necessarily evil...it may have been an expedient solution to a very real problem. But actions have consequences, and there may have been more than one solution to "the lizard man question." Finding a harmonious approach is, generally, the Lawful way, as I'm defining the term...but sometimes, stamping out a Chaotic threat IS the "Lawful" method needed.

But that isn't to say my world is one of moral relativism; I personally don't believe in moral relativism, and since my setting is my own, personal creation, I get to determine the truth of the matter. So there are absolutes of good and evil, right and wrong, broadly defined as moving in alignment with God or against God. And unfortunately, for most humans trapped in a fallible bodies of limited perception, having actual knowledge of what is God's will is pretty much impossible to fathom. Which is why we rely on the wisdom of priests and the teachings of religions for guidance. It's only too bad that the priesthood and writers of religious tracts are (mostly) composed of fallible humans of limited perception.

*ahem* Anyway, having a system of alignment allows me to shape the scope of my setting in (morally) absolute terms: these creatures are an abomination, these magic items are designed for the use of Law, these spells can only be used in the service of Chaos, etc. Alignment allows me to steer the tone of the game and provides a convenient shorthand for defining the nature of the cosmic struggle in my own morally absolute terms. It provides another layer to the physics of the game world, an extra dimension of challenge to be navigated, an additional meaning to the experience of play.

Again: its purpose is not an edict of player (or character) behavior.

That being said, it would probably be strange to have both Lawful and Chaotic characters in the same adventuring party.

It Starts With Religion

Hope everyone had a "merry, merry" and all that jazz. My holiday (which continues this week in Mexico) has been pretty good, what with the food, family, and fun. Heck, I even got to watch the Seahawks game Sunday, an exceptional gift, in and of itself (as well as a bit of a Christmas miracle, all things considered).

But has been tough to get any blogging done (duh) with the festivities. Not to say this was my intention (it wasn't), but I have had some things I wanted to write about. I've been trying to finish up a post on The Temple of Elemental Evil for about four days, and just haven't quite put the capper on it. Still, that's just one of several things floating around my brain.

When considering the creation of a fantasy campaign...or, more accurately, it's "milieu" (to use the Gygaxian term)...one has to consider how things tie together, setting and system, in order to ensure a type of consistency that will last long term. Not necessarily because "everything needs to make sense;" sensibility, is actually a little bit down on the list of necessaries for a good, fun game. But because it helps establish boundaries and paradigms within which one can create.

[does it sounds like I'm gearing up for some sort of painfully amorphous, "thought exercise" blog post? Yeah, I guess it does. But I'll try to keep it short]

Ancestor was raped by a dragon.

For example, what is the overall fecundity of fantasy species in your game world? Is it some sort of Xanthian cauldron of crazy that allows for half-dwarves and goblin-troll hybrids? Some fantasy allows for vampires to have biological progeny (the "daughter of Dracula" kind of thing); others take a far more staid approach to the subject. Decisions like this (and the relative sentience of species and levels of variance and ability) not only inform how the game world looks, but important system considerations like what are playable races, and whether or not non-human characters are allowed to choose between different classes.

Similarly, there are issues of tone to consider. Here, I'm not talking about dictating player behavior...over the years, I've come to the conclusion it's damn near impossible to influence something that will be (largely) determined by the particular group dynamic of the players you're saddled with. But one has to decide the "background noise" of the world. Is everyone living in fear of some unconquerable horde that periodically ravages the civilized lands? Do the rulers of the realm more resemble the High King of Gondor or the scheming nobles of Game of Thrones? Is magic an inherited birthright, a supernatural art, or some form of lost, "higher science?" All these things contribute to the flavor of the campaign setting, informing what type of scenarios and situations might be encountered by players...and also places limits on what becomes necessary for rules.

For me, however, I've come to the conclusion that my first cosmological priority is, and has to be, the form and shape of religion in the game world.

Not, necessarily, the God or gods of universe, or the "creation story" of my little fantasy setting. These things are generally "higher mysteries" that players may or may not discover...and that are possibly subject to change (with new "discoveries" or revelations that occur in play). And anyway, I already know how this particular universe was created: I made it. Probably the players will know that, too.

But religion...how people relate to their belief systems (and the effect those belief systems have on the people) is a major, serious, foundational bit of world building for a fantasy campaign, especially one based (however loosely) on the Dungeons & Dragons system. Not only with regard to the clerical class and its related subclasses, but also alignment, magic, the ordering of the natural and supernatural, the organization of societies, the conflicts inherent in the world, the value of treasure...just a crap-ton of different aspects of the game, its systems, and the fantasy environment in which the players will adventure.

Anyhoo. Maybe I'm wrong, but for my game, that's what I'm starting with. Apologies, but at the moment, I don't have time to elaborate.

Counter-Spells (for real this time)

OKay, moving on...counter-spells are something I've been wanting to write on since Eric Treasure commented that it would be good (for magic-users) if one could combine the "no saving throw" thang with a workable counter-spell mechanic. "Workable" is the operative word. Remember me writing about cutting down on dice rolls during combat, especially reactive/defensive rolls (like parrying/dodging?). Well, that's the main principle here preventing me from using some sort of dice-roll counter-spell "save" type thing.

Chainmail had counter-spells: an opposing wizard can spend his entire action during the round to counter the spell of another wizard. A 2D6 roll is made with the target number determined by the difference in power levels between the two (targets range from 7 up to 11). Here we have something workable...the counter-spelling mage still only receives one die roll for his "go" in combat (as opposed to a dice roll to cast a spell). But then, D&D doesn't have casting rolls.

[as an aside, Five Ancient Kingdoms, largely inspired by Chainmail, uses a similar mechanic for counter-spells]

As far as I'm aware, the first published attempt at counter-spells in D&D is found in 3rd edition (though admittedly it's been a loooong time since I've owned a 2nd edition book or played that version...and I didn't play it more than a couple times). And it's pretty cumbersome: the wizard has to actually know and have memorized the spell which she wants to counter. Then, if the would-be counter-speller makes a successful skill roll (*barf*) to identify the enemy wizard's spell, she can counter it by burning her memorized version of the same spell.

The way counter-spelling works in 3E, it just doesn't look very useful. I actually played quite a bit of 3E and never once saw an attempted counter-spell. I mean, if you have flesh to stone and the enemy has flesh to stone, why not just try to stone them before they stone you? Because you lost initiative and your spellcraft skill roll is easier than your fortitude save? I guess...but this is just fiddly rules for the sake of fiddlyness builtin the already shaky foundation of an inconsistent approach to magic (in earlier editions magic-users always had good saving throws versus magic because it was a save versus magic; beginning with 3E, different spells started targeting different...well, you know I wrote a whole series on this, so I'm not going to go through that again).

I've no idea what 4E's approach to counter-spells is because, you know: garbage. But 5E actually has a very simple solution: a 3rd level spell called "counterspell." You cast counterspell as a "reaction action" to another wizard trying to cast a spell: if the spell is 3rd level or lower it's countered, if it's 4th or higher it might be countered depending on a die roll (though a mage can memorize counter spell at a higher spell slot in order to give it more auto-dispelling "punch"). This is very similar to the use of dispel magic as a counter-spell in 3rd edition, except for the auto-effect. It's kind of a Magic: The Gathering approach to counter-spelling ...throw down your two mana "instant" to knock out the opponent's spell.

I have this card in a shoebox somewhere.

[Note that dispel magic still exists in 5E (as a separate spell) but it is used to dispel existing magic, not magic being cast]

Here's the thing about counter-spells: how you implement them is going to say a lot about what magic is in your world and how it (magic) operates. It's going to (in part) define something of the cosmology of your world.

If you've got Vancian magic (D&D) and you need to cast the actual spell to achieve a counter (as in 3rd edition), you are reinforcing the idea of spells as living things, with only their identical siblings being able to successfully combat each other. If you say you just need to learn and memorize a candle-snuffer like 5E's counter-spell, you're saying that magic is a harnessing of forces easily disrupted and dispersed with the right application of "zing."

When you define magic in this way...i.e. when you start nailing down the cosmology...it behooves you as a designer to consider the implications. If magic is so easy to disrupt that it only needs a 3rd level counterspell, then many professional adventurers are going to want to study at least a few levels of wizard just to pick up that ability (or to be able to read a scroll with it or whatever).

My own game...*ahem*...that is to say, the game on which I'm currently working doesn't have "counter-spells." It also doesn't have spell design, either. It's a fairly finite world in that regard: the magic is what the magic is, and spells are limited to the Forty Magnificent Marvels. Mastery of said spell list is possible, with dedication and sacrifice, but it's a noteworthy feat. These spells cannot be countered...nor are there saving throws...but we're talking about reshaping the universe and breaking natural laws here, not things that can be brushed aside by humans. Even magically trained humans...if you unleash the beast, it's gonna' roam. Spell-breaking (of the remove curse stamp) is possible, but requires a broader base of knowledge than most other magics.

'Course, that's all subject to change: the game's not even to the play-testing stage.
; )

Because I do like the idea of counter-spells. Or rather (and more accurately) I like the idea of opposing magicians struggling against one another. The idea of the "wizard duel" which was so poorly implemented (IMO) in the Ars Magica game. The concept that when two wizards meet in battle, they can effectively neutralize each other...leaving the resolution of an encounter to the sword-wielders or (if one wizard can get the upper hand) decisively turning the tables for one side.

But that's something I've yet to work out. Heck, I hadn't even put much thought into it till writing this (too busy worrying about hats, I guess). It is something I'm considering now, though, and for the new heartbreaker, it will probably take the place of any "counter-spelling" mechanic.

Just as an aside: I was talking to my (three year old) son a couple days ago and I asked him, "If you were an adventurer living in olden times, would you rather be a caballero or a mago?" His response? Caballero ("knight"). Why? Because they have armor and swords and get to fight. What does a mago ("magician") do? They do magic and make potions. Can't they fight? Not like knights.

He really is a boy after my own heart.

Spell Works (Part 1)

A few random notes first.

RE Sport: Congrats to the US national team in qualifying for the 2014 World Cup in convincing fashion (and right on to all the gringos that came out in Columbus to support the team; I fully expected the stands to be a sea of green). Condolences to Mexico, birthplace of my wife…however, if you don’t get your shit together you’re not going to go far in Brasil anyway, even if you do make it through the New Zealand play-in. Jeez, Tri!

In other news: the Seahawks look good, and the Mariners have gone down the toilet. What else is new?

RE 5AK: All thanks to a couple people who’ve pointed out typos in Five Ancient Kingdoms. While I can’t correct the print copies at this point, the PDFs have been corrected and you can download the updated versions from DriveThruRPG…assuming you’ve purchased the PDF version (Book 1 and Book 2 are the only ones that needed fixing).

RE “Patriot Day:” Did you know how much gasoline costs in Venezuela? $0.25. That’s not $.25 per gallon; that’s $.25 per tank…like to fill up your SUV (lot of SUVs in Caracas) costs a quarter. Granted, Venezuela has reported oil reserves more than ten times that of the United States (276 billion barrels to 26 billion), but it costs me $50 to fill my fuel efficient car. Just a bit of trivia for folks.

Okay…back to work.

In yesterday’s post I said to “consider the desired end result.” What do you want wizards to look like in your game? Me, I want geezers and crones. Now, I realize that advanced age is no guarantee of knowledge or (Lord knows) wisdom, but for my money I want it to be a (usual) requirement of the former (i.e. knowledge) at the very least.

I also wrote that I didn’t want magical skill to be based on some sort of genetic hiccup…my fantasy world isn’t one of “muggles” versus magic-users. Most people just don’t have the time or inclination or resources or opportunity or dedication to learn the magical discipline. That’s why magic-users will tend to be older geezers – save, perhaps, for the occasional young prodigy or failed apprentice. However, these latter two will be exceptions to the norm, even as magic-users themselves are exceptions to the non-wizard populace. Got that?

All right, now that we’ve got that down, the next part of our design process is to consider the cosmology of our fantasy world. We know what our magic-users look like; now, we need to know what magic itself looks like. Not only that, but we need to start asking (and answering) questions about the game mechanics regarding magic spells.

Now just by the way, let’s understand that I’m not being incredibly original here: pretty much every fantasy heartbreaker published has provided a new and different magic system (i.e. different from the Vancian magic system in D&D). My gripe isn’t with Vance or his fantasy world…or even with the many worlds of D&D (Greyhawk, Eberron, Krynn, whatever). I just want something different for me, somewhat steeped in the lore and mythology of our own world’s pre-D&D fantasy.

Cosmology is the important word here, and probably one that requires its own separate post. What I mean by the term is figuring out how the “laws of the universe” works for your particular game world/system. For example, here are some of the aspects of magic in Five Ancient Kingdoms:

• Spells are ordered in degrees of magnitude (i.e. “spell level”) just like D&D
• “Miracles” are divine favors granted to saints and holy men. Magnitude measures greater miracles. Miracles don’t allow saving throws and are generally permanent in nature. There are a limited number of favors a deity will grant to a saint, with more prominent characters (i.e. higher level PCs) gaining more attention.
• Magician spells tend to be transitory in nature and allow saving throws to resist. They wreck reality (or the perception of reality), but fade and are generally non-permanent. There’s a greater variety, and magnitude reflects the difficulty of learning and casting spells (higher magnitude are more complex and take longer to cast).
• Spells are a product of knowledge; a magician may have committed some spells to memory and may have others in a written form. There is no limit to the number of times a spell may be attempted, but it must be performed correctly to take effect.
• Witches' spells, being tied to the material world through their physical components can produce some of the same permanent effects of divine favors, though unlike miracles they still need to be performed correctly and they may be resisted (saving throws) like any magician spell.
• While divine favors are granted, magician spells must be learned, found or created through research. Low level magicians begin apprenticed to a wizard who will teach them some magic; sorcerers are taught their magic by a demonic tutor who sticks with them throughout their career.
• Spells (divine or not) generally produce magical effects…they do not deal damage like spells in D&D. Dealing damage is usually a product of combat (sticking people with a sword).

This cosmology works with 5AK because it works with the setting…it models what I want it to model. It does not include rules for long-bearded geezers because, well, magicians in Arabian folklore (especially female magicians) tend to be younger, spryer folks than what you find in northern European folklore (their not basing their archetypes on Wotan/Odin, I guess).

But now I am looking at that type of model so I want to take apart the cosmology and see how to make it work for this new system and the first order of business is this: abstract magic or specific?

Specific magic means “specific spells:” spell lists in other words. This is what you find in most fantasy RPGs, whether you’re talking D&D or Palladium or Warhammer FRPG. Often spells are listed by level (what I call magnitude) with higher levels being beefier spells, but you don’t have to do this. You could simply have a list of powers to choose from, which may or may not be more difficult to cast. Think of force powers in the old D6 Star Wars. Whether or not the spells are a resource (D&D’s Vance system) or utilize a resource (“mana points” or whatever) is irrelevant at this point.

Abstract magic means “spells on the fly;” there’s no set list. This would be games like Ars Magica or Mage the Ascension or The Riddle of Steel where a magic-using character has a number of “components” with which they can “build spells” as needed. For example, in Ars you combine a form (like “fire” or “body”) to a technique (like “create” or “destroy”) to make the spells you want (“create fireball” or “disintegrate person”). Mage is even easier: you have a level (from one to five) in a particular sphere of magic (“mind” or “travel”) and the level determines what you are capable of in that particular arena. Abstract systems require a greater degree of creativity on the part of the player and a greater amount of adjudication from the GM…they also tend to be games in which magic is the dominant force and focus of the game (which doesn’t necessarily work for a D&D like game featuring many different character archetypes).

[to be continued...sorry, I'm just a bit busy today]

Clerical Conclusions & Cosmology (Part 2)

[continued from here]

Tolkien’s world postulates that there’s this Fallen Angel-type (think “Lucifer”) that created a bunch of monsters by twisting and f’ing around with the beloved creations of The Big Guy in the Sky (think “God”), so orcs are just corrupted elves and trolls are just corrupted ents, for example (humans apparently don’t need to be corrupt as they already have “evil versions”). When you realize orcs are just corrupted elves, you get a better sense of things: why they might crave and hoard treasure (and live in underground “cities” and craft weapons and armor, etc.). You also have a justification for killing them without much guilt (demonic spawn of Satan!). See how that works?

When I was working out the system for 5AK, I had to consider these things, this cosmology, too. And I still like the answers I came up with. For example, it’s one think to want S&S style “beastmen” or “apemen” or “halfmen” in your game (those “subhumans” Conan and his ilk are always running into in pulp short stories). I mean, they’re already present in B/X (read the description for “orc” in Moldvay and forget the illustrations in the MM)…but in a world were civilization has continued to march forward, how do you explain the appearance of these organized, intelligent, tribes of savages. At least, without creating some Great Evil Overlord like Sauron or Morgoth?

I decided to go a little Biblical.

But, of course, that’s the problem…once you have a rational cosmology (even a fantastical one) at work in your game, you start losing the ability to wahoo-style pulp. Vance’s Dying Earth makes little rhyme or reason sense in general, except that the world is SO LARGE and SO DIVERSE and SO OLD that it is simply fraught with a huge amount of weirdness…weirdness that doesn’t need to make sense. On the other hand, part of the theme found in his books is the absurdity of behavior and culture especially in its diversity (when set-up in isolation based on a break-down of society) and how despite culture and tradition some aspects of human foibles remain regardless and can be played (and preyed) upon. But I don’t want my game to be a discussion on human weakness.

Instead, I want a game that creates the opportunity for heroic fantasy, with individuals whose greatest asset is their natural drive and ambition, rather than any “superpowers” (“feats, “ etc.) or the acquisition of powerful gear/equipment.

Ugh…this post is just rambling now. Let’s try to tie it up.

I know I wrote (back in the beginning) that I was a little distressed to find my game becoming a little too fairy tale in feel and not as “S&S” as I would like. Now don’t get me wrong, it’s not like I hold “sword & sorcery” on some pedestal of absolute coolness compared to other types of fantasy (tried to sit through Tales of an Ancient Empire the other night and found it to be absolutely terrible…meanwhile, I still consider Disney’s Dragonslayer which is much more “fairy tale” in nature as one of the greatest fantasy films ever made). But I wanted my game to be a little more “gritty” and if anything has forced it to be too clean it’s the polite and ordered nature found in an idealized SETTING like the Golden Age of Islam circa 800 CE.

Unfortunately, moving the setting BACKWARDS in time (a la prehistory "Hyboria") makes it much harder to conceive of certain game elements: like a clerical class that makes sense sans traditional monotheism, or large cities like Baghdad and Basra and Constantinople. However, keeping the setting makes it hard to rationalize why there are still perilous adventure sites of the kind that would be considered “typical D&D” or rationalize the presence of huge humanoid populations or the existence of Evil High Priests…at least without moving waaaay away from even “mythic history” (like saying China is ruled by some Darth Vader-ish figure or something…I mean, you just start going down a really silly road that way). Greyhawk and Blackmoor got away with this (a bit) by creating a main megadungeon “tent pole” around which to build an otherwise functional fantasy world (still based on a 10^th or 11^th century European feel)…but just reading Gygax’s novels you can feel his world was much more a world of MEN (even “elven men” and “dwarf men,” etc.) than MONSTERS. It’s a world of politics and war, not dungeoneering…not surprising, really, when you consider the man was a war gamer that created D&D from the CHAINMAIL (war game) chassis.

I wanted (and still want) my game to be one of heroic individuals (the player characters), but I want real heroic tales, not just counting clacks and coins or whatever…I mean maybe I’m just being stupid about this. Maybe the best thing I can do is simply give folks tools and inspiration…I mean, they’re going to tweak the rules as they see fit anyway, right?

But I really can’t help but think there is an advantage to having these things thought out in advance. I want there to be a reason why it’s okay to find a female fighter out and about in an (otherwise) medieval, patriarchal society without simply being a matter of transposing ideas of 21^st century equality onto this otherwise historical (fantastical) world. I want to know WHY if magic-users are SOOOO powerful with their “wish” spells and whatnot, how come only clerics can raise the dead or create food? And why the gods would even ALLOW such a thing as a “raise dead” spell if they’re in the business of collecting souls? I mean, assuming we have multiple gods from conflicting spheres fighting over the same batch of sentients for worship and adoration.

And why haven’t the orcs run roughshod over the whole of civilization again?

I realize that to many players of Dungeons & Dragons and other “fantasy games” the cosmology of the thing makes little difference to them. They are content to enjoy the escapism of the thing, blow off steam pretending to be a sword-swinging merc or a spell-slinging wizard. There are also plenty of folks who think modeling “romance” with a mechanical system is a completely cockamamie idea and one with no place in their “fantasy story.”  One has to be careful about introducing real morality in a fantasy adventure game, not because you might offend someone (I mean, I don’t THINK making an atheist or Christian play a Muslim-knockoff would be any harder than asking one to play a priest of Odin or Zeus), but because introducing morality brings question to the whole “adventuring idea” of killing things for their stuff. If a creature was intelligent enough to gather wealth, then this is tantamount to murder and theft...and yet, how else is one to get rich in a medieval world if you aren’t born into wealth and nobility from the get-go? Sure you can try your hand at dragon slaying (good luck at 1^st level)…but how many dragons with hoards are left in the fantasy world?

And if there are evil wizards holed up in castles of brass and basalt, why haven’t the forces of Christendom (or Islam) already knocked down their walls?

It’s a tall frigging order to reconcile in your mind (or your game)…if you happen to be someone who cares about these things. When I was ten years old, I didn’t…nor when I was 14 or 24 for that matter (though I certainly wanted some level of sense to my game world…even if it was only “Krynnish” sense).

At this point, I think I will keep the rules for 5AK as I’ve already written them, clerics and all. I still LIKE how I did clerics (though I’m going to change my own “undead turning” rules to be more in-line with OD&D), and even though I really like the typical swords & sorcery take on priests (a la The Beastmaster take), I’m not quite ready to devolve my setting to one of Neolithic prehistory. Instead, I’m going to rework the cosmology a bit to account for why clerics have one sort of magic, and why magicians have limits on what they can do (and I’m talking spell-wise, not armor-wise). And also make sure that the wilderness of the world remains “barbaric” enough to account for the diverse amount of monstrous fauna. I guess I really need to play-up the “ancient ancestral people” that once inhabited the region and left “dungeons” (i.e. “adventure sites”) dotting the landscape.

You know, now that I think of it, perhaps my biggest issue with the cleric class is making it common. Like every temple has a high priest (9^th level cleric) with a number of “under-clerics” filling out the administration. MY idea is that clerics with true healing ability (i.e. the saints) should be even fewer and farther between than magic-users, let alone adventuresome fighters and thieves. Maybe I need to rename the classes to get the point across that these individuals are rare and wonderful? Perhaps something like:

Adventurers (for thieves)

Heroes (for fighters)

Saints (for clerics)

[I already use the term magician for magic-users, but either way any suggestion that a person possesses magical knowledge implies a special and uncommon individual]

Of course, I’d have to rewrite large sections of the book, since I generally use the term “hero” and “adventurer” interchangeably for the term “player character.” Or perhaps I should retain the term “adventurer” for PCs and simply call thieves…um…skill-monkeys? Or something.

[no, not scoundrels]

But Saints, Heroes, and Magicians sound good in place of Clerics, Fighters, and Magic-Users. After all, a cleric sounds a bit more staid and traditional in the stay-at-home pastoral sense. And ALL of my adventurers can fight (members of the “fighter” class just do so more heroically). Mmm…this is all stuff I’ll be meditating on over the next couple days. My wife just got back into town, so I’ll have the opportunity to return to my play-testing Thursday. We’ll see if I can get out of the “Ali Baba” realm and into something a little more dark and grisly.

I'll keep you posted.

; )

Clerical Conclusions & Cosmology (Part 1)

[sorry for the delay in getting this up...my wife just got back into town this last weekend and I've been doing "family time" ever since. Which is a good thing, but has resulted in substantial delays. There will also (probably) be more delays in the coming few days and for similar reasons. Just letting folks know]

In writing up this recent series of posts on clerics…

[hmm…please reference:

-        Clerics: What You Get

-        Undead Turning

-        Armored Spell-Casters

-        Powers of the Prophets (part 1)

-        Powers of the Prophets (part 2)

If you haven’t already checked ‘em out]

…in writing these posts, I come back to a blog topic that I’ve been meaning to sit down and write up for awhile now, which is the importance of COSMOLOGY for your RPG.

For those unfamiliar with the term, the American Heritage Dictionary defines cosmology as:

1.     A branch of philosophy dealing with the origin, processes, and structure of the universe.

With regard to a fantasy role-playing game (like Dungeons & Dragons), I break this down into the answers for the following questions:

-        Where do monsters come from?

-        Where does magic come from?

-        Where does the world come from (i.e. the nature of God or the gods)?

And (specific to D&D or similar games):

-        What part of the world’s history provides the adventuring environment, i.e. the dungeon?

For me, these are the questions that need to be answered for the world to make any type of sense. I also find it personally helpful to find a baseline correlation (if possible) with a particular history/time period in our own “real world” in order to get a grasp of the types of technology and politics one will find in a particular game.

Now some folks might be saying, “Hey, man! When I design a fantasy heartbreaker, it is GENERIC…just like D&D! The stuff you're talking about is all ‘setting material,’ and I don’t care about the setting…let the individual DMs fill in those blanks!”

To which I say: if you don’t know how these base building-blocks of your game came to be, you are cruising for a bruising. Or at least, you are opening yourself up to the (very strong) likelihood of criticism and ridicule. At least at the hands of people who have half a brain and care about coherent, sensible (as opposed to nonsensical) game play.

If you can’t tell me how all the monsters of your world came to be and why, nor how and why magic functions the way it does, nor what role the gods (or God) have in the grand design of your game world, then you might as well be playing a board game. “When you pass GO, collect $200 okay? That’s just the rules.”

Don’t be nonsensical.

Or at least, don’t be nonsensical if you want me to buy or play your game. Your purported-to-be role-playing game. It’s hard enough putting myself (mentally) into the shoes of a dwarf or wizard or whatever…don’t hamstring me with a ridiculously lazy attitude like, ‘hey, it’s just all there, folks.’

Don’t tell me wizards can’t wear armor unless you can tell me WHY they can’t wear armor. No, game balance is not a reason. I say:

“My wizard is going to wear the plate mail.”

DM: no you can’t do that.

“Why not?”

 Because it’s a rule.

“Screw that, MY CHARACTER CAREFULLY BUCKLES THE ARMOR ONTO HIS OWN BODY; if I have problems, I ask the fighter to show me how…there, I did it…what are you going to do about it?”

Well, you can’t use cast spells now.

“Who cares? I already used my sleep spell for the day. Anyone have an extra mace? A metal spiked club seems like an easy weapon to use…you just swing with it, right?”

You have to give me a reason WHY things are the way they are, because one of the draws of playing an RPG is the ability to act in the role of your character. As if I was a wizard poking around this imaginary world, get it?

Assuming you have an explanation for the sprawling underground labyrinth (of not less than six levels, per the instructions in OD&D)…why are there monsters living down there? What exactly are monsters anyway? If they have intelligence, why aren’t I trying to build alliances and trade routes with them? They can provide me with mined gold, I can bring them fresh rations from the surface world…this sounds like a “win-win” for everyone concerned!

Look, it’s not hard and it’s not rocket science…any half-assed reason or excuse can be come up with to answer these questions of cosmology. But you have to put in the (minimal) time and (minimal) effort to do so. You can’t just say “because.” Or rather, you CAN but then we will mock you for being a knucklehead.

Why don’t magic-users wear armor in Krynn? Because it was forbidden by the gods (oh, yes, the gods are very active in this world…like fighting it out with each other on the material plane and not being content with ruling their heavenly plane but trying to rule the material world as well). What happens if a wizard puts on armor or tries to wield a weapon? Well, then the gods will punish you for your arrogance in some way…maybe strip your “magical gift” or blow you up with a lightning bolt from the clear blue sky. Um, so why can elves (or dual-class humans) use weapons and still learn magic? Um…because the elven ancestors performed a lot of divine fellatio? I don’t know…Krynn doesn’t make that much sense! Hopefully your world will make more.

The point is you have to consider it. You have to think about it. And it’s helpful if you WRITE IT DOWN so that other people who play your game will know what the F is going on, too.

[to be continued]