I don’t remember how old I was when I was first exposed
to Dracula and/or vampires. I’m sure that the two were synonymous in my mind
for a good long time in my youth, but I don’t remember when I got the concept.
Certainly by age 5-6 I had a good knowledge of the monster, because by
kindergarten my knowledge of Halloween was pretty solid, and I’m almost
positive that my initial knowledge of the undead came in the form of a
Halloween costume.
In fact, now that I consider it, I know my mother made
“vampire capes” for my brother and I pretty early on (a semi-triangle of black
cloth with a purplish, satiny lining sewed in. I believe my brother’s was the
same but with pink lining instead of purple). And I know we had those fake
plastic fangs that you wore over your own teeth and that didn’t allow you to
talk right…and that my hair back then would just not do the Bella Lugosi
“widow’s peak” no matter how hard I tried (always ended up being a blonde, bowl
cut-looking vampire).
But those capes might have been a little older…like 1st
grade (age 6-7). Certainly there were a couple years in there where my little
brother and I liked to dress up in the Halloween costumes on days other than
Halloween and play pretend.
[*sigh* Good times. Need to work on getting Diego a
little brother one of these days]
So, anyway, my vampire “lore” certainly wasn’t very
refined back then. In fact, I’d says it was pretty much limited to three
things:
Vampires turned into bats. They sucked your blood. And
they were held at bay by crosses.
I’m not even sure I knew about them being killed by
stakes and sunlight or needing to sleep in coffins. Television shows like The
Munsters, Scooby-Doo, and The Drak Pack were probably as much responsible for
my knowledge as anything else…and vampires in kids’ television tend to go a
little light on the darker aspects of the undead (for example, they usually aren’t
getting killed).
So the idea that a cleric with a holy symbol can “turn
undead” was never a very foreign concept to me…though I honestly don’t remember
my 8-year old brain’s recollection of what I thought about turning skeletons
and zombies and wights as outlined in the Basic set. Probably not much judging
by the fact no one ever played a cleric until we picked up the Expert set, when
we only had the “B” in B/X, players were either fighters or thieves or elves or
halflings. There may have been a dwarf, too, but I really don’t remember ANY
magic-users or clerics.
And why would there be? A 1st level cleric in
B/X (because we were playing B/X when we first started and all new characters
were dutifully created at 1st level) has very little to recommend it.
Fighters have more hit points and do more damage. Elves and magic-users at
least get some sort of spell power. The only thing a 1st level
cleric has over other classes is it’s ability to “turn” undead…and then, only
skeletons, zombies, and ghouls.
And any DM throwing zombies and ghouls against 1st
level characters is engaging in genocide and mass TPKs.
All of these undead were actually pretty foreign to my
brain. I’d seen a couple of Harryhausen’s Sindbad films and
Clash of the Titans,
but
not Jason and the Argonauts, so I didn’t really have an idea what a fight
with animated skeletons was all about.
B2: The Keep on the Borderlands
(included with the Basic box set) has one cave complex filled with undead (mostly
skeletons and zombies) but it is the highest, most difficult set of caverns to
reach, and a killer for most 1
st level parties that even bother to
try (as undead don’t negotiates and never break morale there’s no way to deal
with the scores of monsters except by combat…an extremely risky proposition for
those first couple levels of experience). I can’t remember anyone trying back
in my “B-Only” days.
Likewise, even when I moved into “X” (and it was shortly
thereafter that I received my first
Monster Manual, too) I wasn’t including
wights and wraiths and mummies. For a young child (and I was under the age of
10, which I consider to be young)…your eye is drawn first and foremost to
monsters that are illustrated (which begin percolating ideas), and afterward to
monsters that you are intimately familiar with…like the Cyclops and Minotaur
and Vampire. As I didn’t read Tolkien’s
Lord of the Rings till high school,
might only exposure to a wraith was in the animated Return of the King film
(which I first viewed circa age 11 or 12)…and I really had no idea what I was
watching.
I even created a “unique” monster based on the Lich-King seen in the film for use in an adventure…but only because I didn’t understand the creature
was already present in the books.
But as I said, even without any real fantasy literature
under my belt, I still knew what a vampire was, and I knew that they were
driven back by crosses. I’d imagine that it was sometime AFTER I received my
Expert set (with clerical turnings that included Vampires and Mummies) that the
whole “cleric turning” thing started gelling in my mind. Cleric presents cross
(“holy symbol”) and vampire recoils…if the cleric’s faith is strong
enough…makes perfect (movie) sense. But why did it only work for clerics?
Originally, it worked for everyone.
The write-up for the vampire monster in OD&D (Book 2)
is the most extensive of any monster presented. Towards the end of the passage,
it states the following:
Vampires cannot abide the smell of garlic, the face of a
mirror, or the sight of a cross. They will fall back from these if strongly
presented.
Note this is not related to turning…the other undead (all
turnable in OD&D) make no such mention. Now, in typical clear-as-mud
OD&D fashion, there’s no system given for how to judge whether or not the
item is “strongly” presented, but at least it’s there: a cross will keep a
vampire at bay.
Which leads me to infer that the turning effect is very
different in OD&D compared to the fashion in which it’s presented in later
editions. And what do ya’ know? It is. There is only a “cleric versus undead
monsters” table (located beneath the cleric spells table), not a “turning
table.” Here’s the ONLY text regarding the table:
Also, note the Cleric versus Undead Monsters table,
indicating the strong effect of the various clerical levels upon the undead;
however, evil clerics do not have this effect, the entire effect being lost.
[note again the problematic issue of “evil” in the text
when there is no “evil” alignment in OD&D, only “Law” and “Chaos.” It seems
apparent that this is with regard to Chaotic “anti-clerics” mentioned in the
text (seeing as how most of them have the term “Evil” added to their title
(with the notable exception of the “shaman”)]
There are a couple really important pieces to this. One
is that the table represents an “effect” that the cleric has on undead
monsters. This is not an action that is taken by the cleric…no holy symbol is
being presented, for example. This is just the effect the (good) cleric’s
(holy) presence has on the undead.
Presumably, anyone can present a cross against a vampire
(there are two available for purchase in the equipment list: a wood one for
2gp, and a silver one for 25gp). “Strongly presented” might mean the character
can take no other action (no attacks or spell-casting for example) instead
focusing on the “presentation” while chanting The Lord’s Prayer or some Latin
benediction.
But the cleric just “shows up” and there’s a chance the
undead run away…it’s the character’s very presence that sets ‘em running (or
dissolves/destroys them). It’s like a Papal aura (in the sense of “the Pope” –
can you believe the current one is resigning by the way? In the middle of Lent!
Watched his helicopter leaving the Vatican this morning)…a holy “something-somethin”
that just causes the abominations to head for the hills. Presumably, it doesn’t
do anything to prevent the cleric making normal attacks or casting spells.
Heck, the priest wading into battle, mace in hand may be even more
frightening…though I really like the image of the aged vicar that hobbles into
the room, leaning on his cane, and watches passively as undead monsters explode
around him.
That’s a pretty cool effect.
It also gets rid of all that later complicated discussion
about how many times it can be used, or “turning attempts,” or what order of
the round it takes place in, or how many times can it be attempted against the
same monster, or whatever. The DM simply checks to see if this particular
monster is affected by this particular cleric when encountered. No extra effort
needs to be taken by the cleric…the “effect” is always “on.”
SO, in regard to
our original topic of conversation, this
turning
as originally presented is a neat class effect…call it the effect of
any
“saintly type.” If you want a classification of adventurer called “holy
person” or “saint,” this is a happy little effect. Of course, it’s also
alignment-specific…that’s the second piece of the effect’s description that is
important. It is
only an effect of non-evil clerics (which, again, we can infer
means non-anti-clerics, i.e. non-Chaotic clerics). There is no opposite effect
for anti-clerics; no worship or control of undead that automatically occurs
when the anti-cleric shows up. Instead, the trade-off appears to be anti-clerics’
use of
reverse spells (like
finger of death).
Which, interestingly enough, is pretty much exactly how I
was running clerics in 5AK, with the added restriction that only monotheists
(of Lawful or Neutral alignment) could engage in turning, and polytheistic
clerics (even those of non-Chaotic alignment) could use reverse spells at will.
But I’m not talking about spells yet.
While it’s a “neat effect,” what exactly is the impact of
the cleric’s turning “aura?” What does it give the adventurers? Is it
necessary/appropriate to include a “saintly” class of character that has this
impact on undead?
The undead subject to the clerical turning effect include
the following: skeletons, zombies, ghouls, wights, wraiths, mummies, specters,
and vampires. The “greater” undead require silver or magic weapons to hit them,
but these shouldn’t be too hard for the average PC party to come by after a
couple-three levels, so all of the monsters are “killable” without a cleric.
What the undead do have that appears to make the saintly
cleric necessary is a number of special powers for which there is no saving
throw. Ghouls paralyze party members “as per wights in Chainmail” (this means
party members are paralyzed for ONE TURN…either 10 minutes or 1 day depending
on the scale of “turn” being used). Unlike later editions, there is no save for
this effect in OD&D. A mummy inflicts disease on characters (no save) that
can only be mitigated by a cleric’s cure disease spell, not cured. Wights,
wraiths, specters, and vampires all do level drain (no save) of either 1 or 2
levels.
None of these special attacks have any recourse in the
game besides “have a better Armor Class.” Even ghoul paralysis has no “cure” in
OD&D (later editions state cure light wounds will remove the effect). There
is no restoration spell in OD&D to deal with level drain, and as stated a
cleric’s cure disease only changes the effect of “mummy rot” from healing
taking 10 times as long to healing taking twice as long. As such, the best
defense against these creatures is the presence of a high level cleric to turn
them away or dissolve/destroy them. Without the cleric’s turning ability, these
undead will eventually hit in combat (especially unarmored magic-users) and
inflict their ills, all of which are extremely potent. In this regard, the
cleric’s “aura of turning” is extremely useful against some of the deadliest
monsters in the game.
Now what if the game doesn’t have level drain? What if
paralysis carries a saving throw the same as a giant spider’s poison attack?
My game doesn’t have level drain. Not because I have
anything against it particularly, but because I can’t really justify the
ability. When did a vampire’s touch (in fiction) ever cause someone to forget
their past experiences and training? And if I don’t have these kind of “no
save” attacks, is it necessary to have a character class that prevents the
attacks from happening (via “turning”)?
Knowing the origin of the cleric class, it makes me
wonder whether these undead effects came first, or if they were added to give
the cleric’s ability more “oomph.” After all, zombies and ghouls and wights and
wraiths are all present in Chainmail and none of them have any type of
“draining” attacks. Instead, they all simply paralyze an opponent: ghouls and
wights for one turn; wraiths (as a Nazgul/specter) until such time as the
character is touched by an “elf, wizard, or hero-type.” Also interesting to
note that the paralysis doesn’t affect elves, wizards, or hero-types (or any of
the creatures listed in the “fantasy supplement” section, including dwarves, etc.)…only
“men.” It leads one to believe it’s a kind of “paralysis of fear” effect, that
stronger willed types aren’t affected at all against the types of individuals
that make up the player characters. A direct translation would be:
-
Paralysis affects only (non-PC) mercenaries and
normal humans, AND
-
Fighting-men (fighters) under 4th
level (“Hero” status)
[in fact, based on a literal interpretation of the
OD&D line “as a wight in Chainmail,” the paralysis of a ghoul might be
ineffective against any PC other than fighters of level 1st – 3rd]
If your undead don’t have “no save” attacks, or ones that
aren’t this potent, then the addition of a “cleric class” may be rather
superfluous. Likewise, axing the cleric and then including such dangerous
monsters might make your game overly dangerous/difficult unless such monsters are few and far between.