F is for Forestry

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!

F is for Forestry and Forests, something the Pac Northwest has in abundance. All apologies to Davy Crockett, the Evergreen State is "the greenest State in the land of the free;" fight me!

Ha! Actually, when one compares forest cover to square mileage, Washington ranks only 25th at 52..74%, behind Tennessee (52.83% and 23rd) and well behind Maine's #1 position (89.46%!). Blame Eastern Washington with its vast stretches of farmland (or "vast stretches of nothing" as I used to call it). But we do have thick, dense forests from the Pacific coast to the eastern foothills of the Cascades, all (or mostly) evergreen. You can see why a native Seattleite like myself would operate under the illusion that we're all lumber jacks 'round these here parts. 

Just my side of the mountains (at least till you get out to Okanogan and the northeast part of the State). 

Still, it's a D&D campaign and forested wilderness is a necessity...after all, I need some place to stash all the rangers and druids. And for me, these guys are squarely over on my side of the state's political border (i.e. the Cascades), though you'll find them poking around the Inland Empire on occasion.

I've described my rangers before, and I haven't stopped loving them since I made the mental transition from floofy Aragorn to Jeremiah Johnson. These guys are rough, and it doesn't bother me in the slightest that PC rangers use charisma as a "dump stat:" it doesn't affect their ability to gain (animal) followers at high level and it's reflective of long periods of time spent living in the woods and not talking to folks. Or only talking to them with an axe. 

If you know what I mean.

; )

Taciturn. Yep, that's the word of the day for rangers. These guys prowl the forested slopes of the Cascades and Olympics making the land safer for the settlements of human woodsmen living on the edge of the wilds. Any half-elf ranger grew up on the peninsula, more likely than not, and their human parent was probably a ranger, too. They are the avenging protectors of humankind (whether they get along with and are appreciated by their fellow humans or not). Gosh, they're a great archetype.

Then we have the druids.

We do have druids on the east side of the Cascades, but they're still in the shadow of the mountains where there's still plenty of forest. I set N2: The Forest Oracle in Thorp, and the Village of Hommlet (with its "Old Religion" druid cult) is set in Twisp. But that latter town is about the farthest east you'll find druids...the wood elves of Colville hold no great love for druid types and do not encourage their sect in the northeastern forests. As with rangers, if your half-elf is a druid, you probably grew up on the Olympic Peninsula (almost certainly the west side of the Cascades) and your human parent was probably a druid, too.

Druids are an interesting bunch. I've mentioned the inspiration my campaign has taken from Bob Pepper's artwork, specifically his DragonMasters card game. Well, one of the "suits" of those cards are the Druids, and one might well wonder if my druids bear any resemblance to Pepper's. The short answer is: no, but there is a little more to it than that. See, Pepper's druids DO make an appearance in my setting...as the (human) Atlantean refugee types that were part of the campaign when originally conceived as South American. Those guys? The shipwrecked Numenoreans that every fantasy campaign needs? They're the folks populating the greater Seattle area.

Yeah, Atlanteans as the Denny Party. Welcome to Hollywood, people.

So the druid religion is tied to the forests of western Washington (i.e. west of the Cascades) and thus tied to the Sea Kings (as I call them...though I'm pretty sure I swiped that term from an MZB novel) who have settled the City of Seven Hills, thus uniting form with function to close the circle. We'll talk about the Sea Kings later, but suffice is to say they're a pretty godless bunch (unlike the actual Denny party, who were devout...if pretty conservative...Christians) with a lot of their own magical woo-woo stuff going on. 

We'll leave Tacoma for a later post, too. There's a reason why there's no "Emerald Empire." Not yet.

Anyhoo...foresters. The sea and the woods have long been the lifeblood of the western Washington economy, but my setting doesn't have the maritime economy of the real world (because there isn't anything beyond the west coast...just endless ocean). As such, it is the forests that are of prime importance, and much of the shipping that does occur (along the coast, down to the mouth of the Columbia) includes a substantial amount of timber.  In a D&D world full of monsters, deep dark forests would be especially perilous to "puny humans," if it wasn't for the work of the rangers and druids. Not that they aren't dangerous individuals themselves, but they act as a balancing 'check' against hostile forces that would quickly overwhelm small communities of ship-building woodsmen. The unicorns of my world aren't very nice.

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.

Demi-Human Expansion

 AKA Cocaine Is A Hell Of A Drug

From Dragon Magazine, issue #96:

With expansion of the deities in the WORLD OF GREYHAWK Fantasy Setting, and by Roger Moore's articles herein so as to provide for the races of demi-humankind, there is no logical reason to exclude their clerics from play...

Elves, half-elves, and halflings -- being more nature-oriented than the other demi-human races -- deserve admission to the druid sub-class. Elves are now unlimited in their ability to rise in levels within the druidical ranks, just as half-elves have always been...

Elves are no longer prohibited from entering the ranger sub-class with the same reasoning that now opens the druid sub-class to that race....

E. Gary Gygax, April 1985

In the previous Dragon (issue #95), Gygax had outlined new level maximums for the various demi- and semi-human races for characters that have exceptional ability scores, i.e. prime requisites that exceed the normal maximum for their species. As such an event only occurs through the use of powerful magic (for example dozens or scores of wish spells), I see no problem with extending levels for those rare circumstances. 

Likewise, I have even less problem with the new rule that allows single-classed non-humans to boost their maximum level by +2 in a class that they could normally multi-class with (for example, an elven magic-user or dwarven fighter). This is sensible and a nice bennie for non-humans that seek to "focus" in a particular profession. An excellent addition to the game, while still allowing humans to maintain their place in the PC hierarchy by dint of their "unlimited potential."

SO...see those last two paragraphs? One thing: non-obtrusive. Second thing: good and welcome.

Now, let's talk about everything else. Because Gary seems to have been all coked up when he tweaked out the rest of this mess.

Players and DMs alike should take note of an impotant new rule change which is alluded to herein: player characters can be members of certain demi-human sub-races that are not permitted to PCs by the rules in the Players Handbook -- namely, the valley elf, grugach, drow, duergar, and svirfneblin. More will be said about this new development in subsequent articles. For now, however, players who choose to have drow, duergar, or svirfneblin characters should heed this general stricture: The alignment of such a player character may be of any sort, but daylight adventuring must be severely curtailed due to the nature of these creatures. Without special eye protection and clothing, these three demi-human types will suffer slight problems and sickness due to exposure to sunlight. 

No, Gary. No. No. No.

No, you cannot give players to play powerful demi-humans...creatures originally designed to provide additional challenge to high level PCs with their extra special abilities. Creatures with built-in magic resistance or natural spell powers or the capability of summoning elemental monsters regardless of class. No, Gary. You are high, man. You are NOT thinking straight.

Unfortunately, however, the drugs would continue to flow all the way through the publication of the Unearthed Arcana, when the final blow would be struck to the balance of non-human class relations:

The cavalier class is not listed on the tables for elves and half-elves, and the bard class is not listed on the table for half-elves, because level advancement in either of those classes is unlimited to any character with the requisite ability scores to qualify for the class.

Fucking cocaine, man. 

Anyone unfamiliar with the cavalier class as it appears in the UA will have to wait for the next post in this series to understand just how crap-tastic it is to give elves unlimited class advancement in a class that's...basically...a better fighter. That such a character could also be, say, a drow with a bunch of bonus bennies is a friggin' travesty. Oh Noes! So sad I have a -2 penalty to hit in daylight...we're exploring dungeons, jackass! If I'm getting into fights in town, there's already something wrong!

*sigh*

But let's talk about some of the more subtle problems here. Letting non-humans into the ranger and druid class is a thumbing of the nose at the (unstated) wold-building inherent in the original work. Rangers are not "woodsy heroes of good" (and even if they were, why the hell would a DROW get to be one?)...rather they are AVENGING KILLER HUMANS that hunt and murder the humanoids that threaten humankind. That rangers operate in the wilderness is because THAT'S WHERE THEY FIND THEIR PREY.  It's not the "civilized" ork or goblin that they're protecting (human) people from...it's the roaming bands of cannibalistic hostiles that would otherwise overwhelm fragile humanity. Regardless of your take on alignment, forcing rangers to be "good" places them in direct opposition to the listed (evil) alignment of their quarry.

And druids? Do we not remember what these are and where they came from?

DRUIDS:  These men are priests of a neutral-type religion, and as such they differ in armor class and hit dice, as well as in movement capability, and are a combination of clerics/magic-users...they will generally (70%) be accompanied by a number of barbaric followers....

From Supplement I, Greyhawk

...They are more closely attuned to Nature, serving as its priests rather than serving some other deity... Druids have an obligation to protect woodland animals and plants, especially trees. Unlike the obligation of lawful and good types towards others of this sort, the tendencu of druids will be to punish those who destroy their charges, rather than risk their own lives to actually save the threatened animal or plant. Druids will not slay an animal if it can be avoided, and they can never willingly or deliberately destroy a copse, woods or forest -- no matter how enchanted or evil it may be -- although they may attempt to modify such a place with their own magicks.

From Supplement III, Eldritch Wizardry

As explained in the PHB: "Druids can be visualized as medieval cousins of what the ancient Celtic sect of Druids would have become had it survived the Roman conquest."  These are very HUMAN  characters, aligned with neutrality/nature, not the frolicking Chaotic Good elves feasting on freshly hunted deer. If anything, druids and elves would probably live in a state of polite distance (if not Cold War style hostility), each in their own section of the forest...if not different forests altogether. That half-elves can beliong to the druid class (and the druidic-based bard class) speaks more to their human nature than any elvish part of their blood.  The same reason, really, that they can become rangers (although lacking the unlimited leveling potential of a fully human ranger). 

It's part of the neat thing about half-elves: they get more OPTIONS than an elf. Now you're giving me no reason to play a half-elf at all...except as a bard (and interestingly enough, all the half-elves in the campaign of my youth were bards, including my own PC). 

And thus a new trope was born...of elven archer-y rangers and leafy-pantsed druids. Man, it always bugged me the way 3.0 portrayed rangers and druids as elves, and now I know why (though I guess that's not as bad as dragonborn paladins...). Still, if you're going to allow elves to become rangers "by the same reasoning" that gives them unlimited druid access, why not go all the way and let halflings play giant-killer, too? What? They can't shoot a bow?

Idiocy.

Of course NOW ("officially") halflings can become CLERICS...something that wasn't allowed in the PHB (even for NPCs). And, why? Because Roger Moore came up with some demi-human deities for a specific campaign setting, that Gary wanted to throw his editor a bone (and some royalties) by using them as filler in the new UA book. AND he (Gary) extended the maximum clerical level obtainable by non-humans (PC and NPC alike) to the point that a dwarf or elf with 18 wisdom (not even a number requiring wish magic!) can obtain double-digit (!!) levels of experience...while the poor half-elf can't get higher than 8!

That's right: a dwarf cleric can reach a higher level of cleric than they can fighter. Cocaine.

Okay, again, understand the original world-building of the game. Originally, ONLY HUMANS COULD BE CLERICS...of the adventuring sort. Yes, you could find dwarf and elf clerics (see their monster description in Supplement I: Greyhawk), because it makes sense that a demihuman population worships their own gods and have their own priests. But those clerics were of limited ability: 

On the other hand half-elves, since their inception, have always been allowed to earn levels as an adventuring cleric: presumably because of their human nature. That they could not advance very high showed how their elven half limited their ability to advance within the (human/adventuring) church...even though they could make up for it through multi-classing (half-elves with OPTIONS had the largest number of multi-class possibilities of any race in the PHB). It is this same elven nature (presumably) that prevented the character from being a paladin (originally) even though they wee human enough to take up the mantle of ranger. 

[yet another reason why the UA's allowance of half-elf paladins is such a slap in the face]

Similarly, half-orcs were also given the ability to become clerics and cleric multi-classes...the only other non-human (besides the half-elf) with the capability. Again, the assumption is this is possible because of the character's semi-human nature...they have the blood of humanity in their veins and so can learn the ways of the human (adventuring) church. That these teachings could be perverted to evil and combined with the skills of an assassin speaks to their orcish side, I imagine.

But with the UA rules, no half-orc with max wisdom (14) nor half-elf (18) will ever equal a dwarf with even a 16 wisdom (not an elf with 17) because...reasons? Their racial deities are cooler, I guess?

*sigh* (again)

Hey! How 'bout this? Have you ever noticed that...with the advent of the new super-official Unearthed Arcana...even while demi-human class and level potentials were "expanded," a LOT of the original (i.e. PHB race-class combos) were actually reduced? Huh? What? That's right...here's the comparison:

   Dwarf fighter, STR 16 (or less) in PHB: maximum 7th level

   "Hill Dwarf" fighter, STR 16 (or less) in UA: maximum 6th level

   (High) elf fighter, STR 17 in PHB: maximum 6th level (7th with STR 18)

   High/Grey elf fighter, STR 17 in UA: maximum 5th level (6th with STR 18)

   Gnome fighter, STR 18 in PHB: maximum 6th level

   Gnome fighter, STR 18 in UA: maximum 5th level

   Half-elf fighter, STR 18 in PHB: maximum 8th level

   Half-elf fighter, STR 18 in UA: maximum 7th level

   (High) elf magic-user, INT 18 in PHB: maximum 11th level

   High elf magic-user, INT 18 in UA: maximum 10th level

So, yeah: adopt the new UA rules and all your "standard" races are going to suck a bit more. Hey, but at least they raised the maximum thief level a half-orc can achieve (still not "U" however, so why would a half-orc be anything bother being anything but an assassin?).

It's crap...it's all just a big pile of crap. I'm sure there are folks that LOVE the Unearthed Arcana rules and the newly expanded demi-human roles. Sorry...I'm not one of them. Here, I'll share another fun, personal anecdote with everyone: when I decided I wanted to start playing AD&D again (four-ish years ago), I decided to look at each D&D race, and their allowable classes, and figure exactly how high of level I wanted their potential to be based on A) how I viewed the species, and B) how it fit with my world/setting. This included looking at what I wanted their best fighting ability to be, the highest level of skill I wanted them to get to, the best spells they would have access to, and all the various "class abilities" (like the gaining of henchmen or "baron status" or whatever) they might achieve. I decided that I was not going to be a "slave to the rules," but would "make my own choices" as to what level/class restrictions would be allowed in my game. 

And what I found was that I liked ALL the classes and level restrictions AS WRITTEN. The PHB limits are perfectly appropriate, based on how I see my campaign world. Well, except I'd like a dedicated, "focused" non-human to be able to achieve a slightly higher level (and the UA '+2 to max' rule gets that job done). 

But I definitely don't want elven cavaliers and (adventuring) dwarven clerics and half-elf paladins in my game. Nor do I have any interest in making duergar and drow and svirfneblin available as PC race types...my players have yet to discover and explore the Underdark! Why should that content be available to players from the get-go? 

(Spoiler: it shouldn't)

There have, of course, been worse travesties in D&D since the UA was published. Allowing PC githzerai (hello, 2E Players Options!). And WotC's devolving the druid class into its current shape-shifting/no semblance of origin/bullshit is a clear sign that the designers live in Seattle and smoke way too much weed ("Dude, like, why don't we, like, lean heavy into the shape-changing thing? Like isn't that better than making them use a scimitar all the time?" "Yeah, dude. Like what if it were a dragon-born druid, and it could become, like, a REAL dragon." "Dude, cool.").  Yeah, far worse travesties. But adopting the UA rules wholesale into your 1E game is...pretty bad. You're going to end up with a lot of elven cavaliers.

(I mean, why wouldn't you? No level cap, right?)

No. The PHB works JUST FINE. Add the +2 bonus to max level for single-class demi- and semi-humans. Leave out the non-standard "sub-races" (terrible term, BTW, Gary). Leave out the cavaliers. If PCs end up taking their prime requisites into the 20s some point down the road then, sure...take a gander at the UA tables to get an idea at how many bonus levels to grant (here's an idea: +1 to max level for each point over 18). But, otherwise, just stick with the classics; stick with what works.

And remember folks: drugs are bad for your brain.

Must. Stop. Doing. Cocaine.

In Search Of The Unknown

So...huh. Looks like I do have another post or two left in me before 2023.

Holiday playdates have been going on this week...Wednesday, we had Maceo over and Lo and Behold, the kids did not want to play laser tag, sing karaoke, or show off their Minecraft creations. Nope, they wanted Dungeons & Dragons and nothing but. 

Not only that, but they're starting to get to the point they can sit and engage with the game for hours without needing 'brain breaks.' Kid got over to our house around 12:20 and after 15-20 minutes or so of the usual catch-up with buddy you haven't seen in weeks, they had butts at the table and ready to go. And stayed that way till 5pm. Could have continued, but we had to kick the kid out at 5 since we had plans to hear Beethoven's 9th at the Seattle Symphony in the evening. 

[it was magnificent, by the way]

However, the kids did NOT want to run with their beefy, mid-level (elven) assassins. Instead, they wanted to make brand new 1st level characters. Reason being: level restrictions. Knowing they were starting to reach the top end (well, being more than halfway there) and seeing the writing on the wall, they decided to move onto new characters rather than invest more time in the old ones. The new characters: an elven thief ("Donc"), a human ranger ("Luther von Dink"), and a human cleric ("Brother Dank").

[yes, Dink-Donk-Dank...there was some silliness involved, and that's fine. Always some jitters/nerves when starting out...we can always retcon and rename later if we want]

Luther had a rolled strength of 18/93, which makes him the second-strongest ranger to have graced our table (Diego had previously had a ranger with...natural!...18/00 strength that perished in Hommlet). Using my updated height/weight tables we determined he was 6'2", 313# , giving him roughly the same size and build as Drew Desjarlais of the New Orleans Saints (I pick Drew because he's from Ontario and most rangers should be modeled after Canadians). 

Donc is typical of elven adventurers in my campaigns: a lowdown scoundrel with a debased and incorrigible disposition. I don't get it, haven't these kids ever watched those LotR films?  I suppose Diego ran a Legolas clone in his early days, but...well whatever. Mace just likes roguish wastrels with pointy ears. 

Sofia refuses to play elves (half-elves are okay). She joined the game a little belatedly, jumping in with a new cleric to round out the party. Clerics aren't her usual shtick, but so long as her character can wield a flail (her preferred weapon) she's generally unbiased in what she plays. 

SO...yeah, new characters, so no Desert of Desolation reclamation project. Which is, you know, fine. It's not really ready anyway...and, as with my (similar) Ravenloft project may end up being for lower leveled characters than the 5th-9th range, more like 3rd+.

[what I'm actually doing is reworking the whole thing as a more open "sandbox" environment for exploration with various interconnected plots/factions, all laid over a map of southern Idaho...however, the dungeons/monsters get bigger/meaner/tougher the deeper one gets into the desert. Fewer purple worms in the west than in the east, for example]

New characters need a new adventure and I decided to run B1: In Search of the Unknown, an adventure that I haven't ever run "straight" (at least, not in recent memory). For my world, Quesqueton is located in the Cascade foothills, just outside of Issaquah, up the side of Tiger Mountain in what the internet tells me is "the Issaquah Alps" (I have never heard this term and I've hiked Tiger dozens of times over the years). The party was hipped to the location by a local thief ("Garbo," halfling) who was willing to sell them a map to the 'legendary stronghold.' Little did they realize this is just the local scam business, and all number of adventurers have picked the place over during the last couple-three decades.

Turned out to be a fun little romp. My players are pretty solid with regard to adventuring logistics...outfitting themselves with lanterns, oil, donkeys, saddlebags, rope, rations and water. Upon locating the entrance to the old fortress, their first priority was building a shelter for the animals and a base of operations for themselves. Initial scouting found old guard stations that...with modification...could act as a makeshift stable. Thus securing their pack animals, the delve proceeded.

It was soon apparent the the place had long been picked over by prior invaders. Various vermin-type monsters were found and dispatched (giant rats, a pair of primitive troglodytes), as well as humanoid looters (gnolls..."we hate these guys"). A small tribe of goblins were found to be squatting in the fortress barracks and negotiations were struck up with them and bloodshed avoided altogether. 

Lots of neat discoveries...B1 has a lot of "interactivity" within it, leaving aside monster encounters and plunder. The famous "pool room" accounted for quite a bit of fun, with the players using fish from the "fish pool" to test the waters of the various magical pools. Much harm was avoided in this way, though the cleric still managed to get himself magically silenced, prompting the adventurers to depart (no voice, no spells).

The treasure take wasn't bad for their initial excursion: in addition to a scroll of clerical spells, they recovered a bit more than 500 gold pieces worth of salvage, with some 'big ticket' items (a marble statue, a beautifully carved rosewood bedroom set) left behind and marked for later carry-out. Plans were made to return to town and hire mercenaries, using acquired loot, for the removal of these exceptionally heavy/bulky objects (the statue in the lounge has no weight but is described solely as a "life-sized" marble statue; the Venus de Milo is a bit larger than life-sized and weighs some 900kg. Based on some rough dimensions and the density of marble, the statue probably comes in somewhere between 1500 and 1800 pounds).

But, overall, it was a successful little venture. Three-ish hours of delving netted the characters a good amount of experience, and if they can somehow recover that statue, they should all level up (even the ranger!). Personally, I would have tried to harness the goblins as a work gang, but they'd still need some sort of cart to get the thing back to town (some seven miles distant on foot). An interesting quandary.

Anyway. Good fun. Not sure what 2023 is going to hold as far as gaming is concerned, but it's nice to see the kids are still interested in that old edition magic.  If I get another post off before year's end, it will probably be some sort of "review" or discussion on new resolutions. Time to make the kids some breakfast. 

Happy Friday, folks!

: )

5E Assumptions

As I wrote Tuesday, the weekend was fairly busy for Yours Truly. Rest assured that D&D continues in one form or another 'round my house, but this weekend we'll be traveling to Skagit County for a three day soccer tournament, so who knows when I'll have the chance to write again...figured I should get something up on Ye Old Blog NOW, while I can.

Last Wednesday (before school let out) we had Diego's buddy Kieran over to the house. Kieran is a kid that Diego introduced to D&D the previous school year (I believe at the time it was still just B/X) but who then went out and got the 5E books and started playing in a 5E game, much to my son's chagrin. Back in February, Kieran expressed interest in starting up his own 5E campaign, but it ended up falling through as these things tend to do. Kieran, all things considered, isn't really cut out for the role of "DM" at this point in his life. He'd much rather just sit down and play.

So we offered him the chance to play in our campaign. Here's how it went:

At the time, the players were still in Coeur d'Alene ("Orlane"), tidying up some last bits before starting their new "boat adventure." As this was Kieran's first time playing 1E...and because I was making lunch for the kids...Diego led him through the character creation process (standard Option I procedure from the DMG). He was trying for a paladin, but couldn't quite make the scores and ended up settling for a human ranger. And UN-like our usual practice, I gave the character 4,600 x.p. (50% of the party average) for a number of expedient reasons:

• While this was Kieran's first time playing AD&D, he wasn't an unexperienced gamer...he's been playing 5E for about a year and has had characters in the teens.
• It brought the character up to 3rd level, comparable to the other party members, adding survivability while not grossly affecting overall effectiveness.
• I expected Kieran would NOT end up being a regular member of our campaign (as he was already involved in a weekly 5E game). If he does in the future, we will - of course! - have him create a new 1st level character.

Finally, I thought that the party would be adventuring in MY "Ravenloft" (rewritten for levels 3rd to 5th) and I didn't want him getting one-shot by a half-vampire.

However, we never made it there. 

Our "warm-up" for the session came courtesy of the Inn of the Golden Grain (still in N1: Against the Cult of the Reptile God). A secret room in the inn cellars had a barred door that the party had not taken the time to investigate prior to their abduction by (and subsequent conquest of) the titular cult of the adventure. While the party discussed mounting an excursion (while swilling wine and victuals procured from the inn's larder), who should enter the inn but a wandering ranger looking for adventure! "Revlin" was quickly enlisted for the task at hand.

Down into the cellar went our brave adventurers, searching after an ivory idol that one-time cult member (now loyal henchman) Misha had memories of. The network of tunnels beneath the inn were crude, narrow, and only recently dug out, only (occasionally) widening into large caves. For the most part, the cramped conditions required single-file lines and stooping to avoid low ceilings. "Hey, Revlin: what kind of weapons are you proficient with?"

Well, my main weapon is the two-handed sword. That's a 'greatsword,' right? 

"Um, yes, but you're not going to be able to swing it very well (or at all) in these conditions. Two-handed swords are a lot more useful in the open than in underground environments. What else do you have?"

I've got a (horseman's) flail, too.

*sigh*

The ranger ended up walking point, light crossbow in hand. However, it wasn't long before found their way into a large(r) cavern, able to spread out a bit.

At which point a giant constrictor dropped from the ceiling, achieving complete surprise. Random roll determined that it landed on the ranger.

[the adventure location has the constrictor wrapped around a rafter and achieving surprise with a whopping 5-in-6 (!) chance. Rangers, of course, reduce the normal chance of surprise from 2 to 1. After adjustments, it still ended up being 2 full segments of surprise]

Fortunately, the other party members have excellent response times (high DEX). While the ranger literally "flailed away" (he got out his flail and tried to whack the thing...to no avail) his companions stabbed the snake repeatedly with short swords and daggers. The serpent snapped at the harriers repeatedly even as it continued to constrict its coils around the hapless ranger....

He was saved, healing was provided via the party cleric (no "short rests" I'm afraid) and play continued. More exploration, the elf now walking point. Cursory inspections of "empty" caves and wariness (ceiling checks!) became watchwords of the party. They avoided spending time in partially collapsed chambers (avoiding the concealed mudvipers that lay in wait) and eventually stumbled upon a huge ivory carving of the naga "god." Realizing it was too large to carry, they broke it into several large chunks, filling their bag of holding with as much ivory as it could hold and vowing to return for the rest. They then proceeded to search for the exit.

And instead wandered into a huge chamber filled with several cadaverous humanoids, hissing at them with drooling, hungry eyes and brandishing filthy claws.

"I've got this!" declared the courageous ranger, dropping his crossbow and pulling his two-hander from its back scabbard. The party dropped back, hurling daggers, as the ranger advanced upon the foes, sword in hand. I think the ghouls hit him 7 or 8 times? I know he was paralyzed by the end of the 1st round (even though I only require one save per creature, rather than one save per successful attack).

The cleric attempted to turn the monsters but failed, and the party was forced to do battle with mace and blade. Fortunately, elvish blood and well-worn iron carried the day: the ghouls were destroyed and the party set a watch till the ranger revived and they could exit the catacombs. 

All told, it was a good haul of treasure, and the party was most satisfied with having secured the cellars of their newly acquired tavern. Revlin agreed to accompany them on their upcoming voyage via ship, and even contributed to the cost of the ballista ("We have a ship in our 5E game, too! It has three magic canons and an aboleth chained to the bottom!"), though some party members had doubts about the young ranger's overall effectiveness. In total, he'd inflicted two points of damage over two encounters while sustaining 28 points of damage himself. 

Kieran DID have fun, however.

; )

"You can be a GNOME?"

 Ah, AD&D...still king after all these years.

My kids are only now just starting to discover the majesty and mystery of that tome we call The Players Handbook. At first, they were only really using the ability score and equipment tables...now, they're starting to dive in.

As I suspected, their first excitement simply came from the fact that we were playing Dungeons & Dragons again...the boy made an elven fighter, the girl made a halfling ("kender") fighter/thief. Both were approaching the game much as one might a game of B/X or OD&D (their previous forays into D&D), though of course there was some confusion ("What's ring armor?" "What's a bastard sword?" etc.). They were both happy to purchase guard dogs.

Everything else they've taken in stride. I don't think they've noticed, for instance, that armor class goes to 10, or that weapons do different damage versus large creatures.They prefer to shoot arrows into things anyway. They appreciate the extra hit points, of course, but those are always a precious resource and never in large enough supply.

But playing D&D has once again fired both kids' desire (though my son's especially) to run the game. And Diego drafted a dungeon to run AD&D for myself and his sister. And he was tres shocked when I brought a ranger to the table. "What the heck is that?" Maybe you should read up on the new sub-classes and races in the book, I suggested. And, oh boy, did he...now he's trying to get his sister to roll up an assassin or an illusionist, while he himself created a ranger of his own...though his has a bow (unlike mine).

[I am so tired of the ranger archer trope]

I am glad their imagination has been sparked; my own has had a jumpstart as well. However, I will whine that the old complaint still lingers: it's frustrating that one has to wait and wade through novice challenges without being able to get to the higher level content (i.e. "the good stuff"). When last we left off (last night) the party was just attacked by a handful of fire beetles, who appear to be getting the upper hand (AC 4 is especially rough for low-level PCs to hit). It may soon be time to create new player characters...too bad, as they just spent the gold and time to train up to 2nd level.

[ah, AD&D]

For the curious, I will list the particularities of the game I'm currently running:

• Rule books being used include: the PHB, DMG, MM, and Fiend Folio. The MM2 and DDG might be used in the future but have not, as of yet, been necessary. No Unearthed Arcana or later rules.
• Ability scores are rolled 4D6, arranged to taste, and character must have at least two "15" scores to be considered viable.
• Demihumans who single class may add +2 to their maximum applicable level when otherwise limited.
• First level hit points are maximum to begin; "1s" are rerolled when leveling. 
• Training costs are in silver pieces instead of gold. Training time is determined randomly (roll 1d4), doubled without a trainer/mentor.
• Psionics have not yet been added to the game.
• To this point, I have simply been using 2d6 (B/X) reaction rolls when necessary, rather than the more complex system provided in the DMG. This might change once I've had a chance to put together a cheat sheet, but it seems unnecessary for a more complex system, considering that none of the PCs have any kind of reaction adjustment (average charisma scores).
• We are not using alignment at the moment; there are no alignment languages and players have not chosen alignment for their characters. Right now, the entire issue of alignment seems an inconvenience; i.e. an obstruction to play. Not only is it difficult to explain, its mechanics are obscure. The players are basically "good" (and are playing their characters as such) and until it matters for some reason, I am simply using alignment (with regard to NPCs, magic items, etc.) as rough guidelines for motivation. 

And that's about it. Um...yep. Everything else is being used as written. I'm only going to worry about changing things if/when we run into a "snag" in play. 

Regarding the campaign setting: as I wrote the other day I am taking it extremely slow with regard to putting things together. The world definitely has a "post-apocalyptic" vibe to it, though in the way of Bakshi's Wizards rather than Dragonlance/Krynn.  Orcs, for example, are simply mutants. They are not a particularly "fecund species;" instead, mutants (caused by bad magic/radiation/something) are found amongst most species. A "half-orc" is the mutant offspring of a genetic human; tainted areas of the wilderness might give rise to a higher percentage of "half-orcs" in the population. Orcs proper are bestial descendants of such creatures being driven into the wilderness, forced to band together in tribal communities, further mucking up their own blood lines. Such creatures have an antagonistic relationship with the races that have spurned them.

[goblin kind, on the other hand, are an actual, non-mutant species. They're enmity towards dwarves are based on rivalry born of competing subterranean species; their hostility towards humans and elves come from these latter groups being allies with dwarves. Kobolds, in my game, are simply "small goblins," (like gnomes are "small dwarves") not dog-headed gremlins]

Typical orcish horde.

I've often, in recent years, considered orcs to be something akin to the sword & sorcery trope of "beastmen," creatures that, AD&D, would normally be modeled by the mongrelman creature found in I1: Dwellers of the Forbidden City and later (published officially) in the Monster Manual II. The justification for this comes directly from my reading of the Tom Moldvay's (B/X) description of the orc:

"Orcs are ugly human-like creatures who look like a combination of animal and man."

...the first time ANY physical description of orcs (outside of coloration) is given in any of the D&D books. To me, it conjures a bit of an Isle of Dr. Moreau vibe, and I'm happy to run with that...especially the idea of such mutant creatures setting down their own laws and traditions in an attempt to build some semblance of "society."

But, again, I'm digressing. And I have errands to run. The Seahawks are playing tonight (we'll see how THAT goes...), and since the MLS playoffs don't start (for Seattle) till Tuesday, that means my weekend should be very freed up for Dungeons & Dragons. Rainy days in November are good for gamers!

: )

My Ranger

Yesterday, I spent a lot of time (probably too much) searching the internet for an image that matches the picture in my head. A picture of how I (at present) envision the ranger.

See, ever since I started reconsidering the ranger, my imagination has captured this pic completely at odds to the way the character class is generally portrayed. You folks probably know what I'm talking about: the effete, lightly armored archer type, perhaps with some forest colored cloak (brooding hood included), and...for the males anyway...a light beard or Erol Flynn goatee. Something like this:

Pulled from Pinterest

This is image is what comes up when I google the phrase "typical D&D ranger." Yes, there are a lot of other similar images, many of them equally awful...not bad because of the artwork but  just so, ugh, trope-riddled, okay? And they just don't align with image in my head. None of them.

Because here's what I am picturing: a really beefy bruiser, dressed in plate armor, sporting a beard that would put a Jeremiah Johnson style mountain man to shame. Probably carrying a big axe for felling trees and orcs alike.

But BIG okay? Not slim and trim, but barrel-chested with the increased lung capacity of a cross-country skier. A ranger should be damn near as big and hairy as a bugbear...literally. After all, the average bugbear only has 14 hit points; it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect a 1st level ranger to have at least that many hit points in AD&D, given their constitution requirements. And if playing a campaign where the DM awards max HPs to start, the ranger's going to be closer to ogre-size.

Rangers are human bugbears...they're big, sneaky sons of bitches that goblins tell campfire stories about, trying to scare each other. They live and ply their trade on the edge of human civilization, operating in areas the normal army can't or won't operate. Armed and armored to the teeth, they are self-sufficient and fiercely independent...if you find the maximum (3) rangers operating together, chances are they are a married couple and a single child learning the parents' craft. Other than a mate or a student-teacher relationship, there's little reason for rangers to congregate: they value their solitude and while they'll tolerate non-rangers' lack of etiquette in impinging on their space, they won't tolerate such intrusions from their own (ranger) kind, who should really know better.

It was this or
some viking image.

My own ranger would look something like this guy, I suppose. The helmet is a little too fancy for the wilds (too easy to get those antlers stuck when passing through a heavily wooded area), but I like the idea of a character decorating his armor with trophies in such a way as to cut a more intimidating figure. Most evil humanoids should fear the class...rangers are trained slayers of such creatures, and hunt them as they can, with neither pity nor remorse.

As I consider the role of such characters in my campaign setting...especially as they relate to both druids and bards...this is the image I'm holding in my mind's eye. Rangers: the true bully of the wilderness. Bugbears have nothing on 'em.

Hunter of Men

Just continuing the series started Tuesday...

Are rangers the only character class able to track in an AD&D campaign?

Clearly other intelligent humanoids...especially humans...will have some means of tracking prey. Hunting has long been a means of providing meat for the table, and the ability to find and recognize tracks is nearly as pertinent to the practice as the ability to bring down the target. People have been hunting since the stone age and it is too far-fetched (from my perspective) to restrict the skill to individuals of exceptional ability and supernatural power (i.e. rangers).

Of course, this doesn't mean folks of non-exceptional ability are as good at tracking as rangers. The class as presented in the PHB provides a 90% base chance to track in the outdoors (Unearthed Arcana adjusts this to level based, though I'm inclined to ignore most of the UA). The Expert rule book (Cook/Marsh) provides a straight 1 in 6 chance per day of successfully hunting with a far higher likelihood of the turning up a hostile predator than a tasty antelope. Foraging for nuts and berries (also a 1 in 6 chance in B/X) is a safer bet.

Still, my takeaway is that it's possible for anyone (i.e. non-rangers) to find tracks (at least obvious ones), though their ability to make any sense of sign...or successfully follow it...may be far more limited than the sturdy ranger. And while there may be professional hunters or pathfinders...something equivalent to an expert hireling...these are probably little more than an NPC with the appropriate "secondary skill" (from page 12 of the DMG): something like forester, hunter/fisher, or trapper/furrier. Any PC has about a 15% of acquiring one of these skills, should the DM decide to include these in the campaign (we always did, back in my old AD&D days).

However, it's entirely possible that a player might desire more than a random secondary skill and less than the "full ranger" experience. While the clear winner of the man-hunter category is the assassin class (duh), I know there's been a long-held interest in the bring-em-back-alive archetype, usually embodied in the bounty hunter archetype.

A typical bounty hunter.

The bounty hunter is no stranger to the D&D game: aside from the Michael Sechi version (which inspired my adaptation in The Complete B/X Adventurer), I found no less than THREE different versions of the class waaaaay back in Dragon magazine #52 (August, 1981). Later editions continued to produce their own versions, first as a "kit" in the second edition (The Complete Thief's Handbook), then as one of several similarly themed prestige classes (the "Bloodhound," etc.) in third edition. There just seems to be something appealing to the concept of what is (essentially) a paid vigilante. It goes back at least as far as the Western genre, and remains active in the imagination of the TV and movie-going public (see The Mandalorian as the most recent example).

For an "advanced" D&D campaign, I think it's a bit more interesting to add such a character type to the list of permissible classes than to tweak or alter an existing class (e.g. by lifting the alignment restrictions on rangers and/or assassins). The reason I find it more interesting is that adds specificity, an additional layer to the setting. What does it say about the world that such a character type exists? If execution of wanted criminals was the only result needed, why would anyone require more than an assassin? A specialist in tracking and trapping targets can sometimes be useful, especially if one requires more information out of the subject than can be gained through a speak with dead spell. And it almost goes without saying that there are times an employer will want to engage the services of a professional kidnapper for the capture of an individual no goody-two-shoes ranger would ever touch.

Personally, I like the idea a lot. They'd use D8s for hit dice and be open to the same races (with similar level restrictions) as the assassin class, probably with a non-lawful alignment restriction. I like the idea of a multi-class or dual class bounty hunter, and can easily see the class paired with a cleric or magic-user to give them a kind of "witch hunter" vibe (without actually needing to create a new witch hunter class). Yeah, the more I think about it (and I have been thinking about bounty hunters a lot the last two-three days) the more I think I'm going to write it up...possibly for free, but perhaps as a download for my Patreon supporters. It's about time I showed them a little tangible gratitude.

More later.

Supernatural

When I writing about rangers in yesterday's post (a post in which I expressed a near 180 degree turn on the subject of the class's inclusion), I mentioned I'd deal with the alignment issue in a separate blog entry. This is it.

First: the preamble. Lots of hate for the concept of alignment out there. I've vented my own spleen on the subject, most recently just a couple months back. Today, I'm not out to change anyone's mind on the subject...of the folks whom I respect and follow on Ye Old Interwebs, I've seen good arguments both for and against and this post isn't about picking sides or shaping opinion; DMs simply need to get things right in their own head so that they can run their game with aplomb and efficiency.

Second (aka Preamble Part Deux): this post is specifically aimed at addressing alignment restrictions with regard to class and (even more specifically) with regard to the ranger class (yes, it's "Ranger Week" here at the 'ol B/X Blackrazor blog). Other issues with regard to alignment (especially as relates to constraints on player behavior and its role in inciting intra-party conflict) I reserve for a later post.

Okay...all the ground rules laid out? Cool.

The ranger is one of three classes in the PHB that have "flame out" clause in its contract with regard to alignment, the other two being the paladin and the monk. Here's the explicit text, keeping in mind that the ranger is restricted to one of the three "good" languages (lawful good, neutral good, or chaotic good):

"Any change to non-good alignment immediately strips the ranger of all benefits, and the character becomes a fighter, with eight-sided hit dice, ever after, and can never regain ranger status."

In some ways, this is a bit harsher than the paladin strictures as by the letter of the book, any change (even, presumably, an alignment changing curse or magic item), will permanently strip the character of abilities AND leave the character as a weakened version of the fighter (using only D8s for hit dice instead of D10s). A fallen paladin, on the other hand, has to knowingly commit an act against her alignment...and would (at worst) retain D10s if reduced to an ordinary fighter.

[the consequences of a monk's deviation is incredibly interesting, even as it is especially tough: the character "loses all monk abilities and must begin again as a first level character." But a a first level what? A fighter? A magic-user? With such high ability scores required for the monk, most classes should be open to the now non-lawful character]

However, with regard to the ranger, it hasn't been the harshness of the penalty that's long bugged me: it's the penalty itself. I can understand the paladin's loss of abilities: the paladin concept is one of a holy warrior, granted many divine boons (save bonuses, immunity to disease, magic horses, healing hands) based on the character's inherent goodness and holiness. These are gifts from God (or the gods or whatever) a reward for a saintly individual doing The Lord's Work. Stumble on the path and, yea, you shall be smote, etc. They are supernatural abilities, not hard won skills, and metaphysical transgressions can result in them going away.

But many of the ranger's abilities...tracking, fighting giants, sneaking up on opponents, reading magic-user spells...seem far more grounded skills, earned through training ad practice, not bestowed by some divinity. I can get behind the idea that a ranger's bonus damage is based on the righteousness of her wrath and that this might disappear with a change in alignment (likewise magical abilities, specifically the druid ones). But tracking? I turn evil and suddenly forget how to spot footprints? What's up with that?

I must not be the only person who had this thought, as the 2nd edition of AD&D removed the consequences of alignment change from the ranger class (instead penalizing the class, like paladins, for "intentional evil acts"). 3rd edition D&D even took it a step forward, addressing the unspoken question "can't evil individuals track and hunt?" removing all alignment requirements from the ranger class.

[I'd like to make note at this point that MOST of the character classes in AD&D have alignment constraints: the cleric, druid, thief, assassin, and bard all have restrictions on their allowable alignment. However, unlike the aforementioned paladin, monk, and ranger, NO SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCES are noted for these characters, should they deviate from their alignment. Yes, clerics can have their spells withheld for failing to follow the tenets/ethics of their faith, and all characters are presumed to suffer the effects listed on page 25 of the DMG (i.e. level loss)...however, if my thief or assassin decides to "go good" and is willing take the XP hit, what's the prob? Apparently not much, other than a discombobulation with regard to alignment language]

Why should the metaphysical (alignment behavior, spiritual devotion, etc.) have consequences on the physical (ability to track, ability to cast spells, ability to both surprise AND be more alert)? It doesn't make sense for the supernatural to affect the natural...does it?

Here's the thing I realized: my gripe is based on my own post-Modern, secular perspective. A couple-few centuries ago, people ABSOLUTELY considered the metaphysical to affect the physical. Causation was based on far more than that which could be observed or scientifically proven. What a person of the 21st century might call "superstition" was an acceptable part of life and the natural world.

Even today, we have superstitions. I'm superstitious (I think this is probably more common with sports fans): I avoid walking under ladders and feel uncomfortable when a black cat crosses my path. Do I really believe that breaking a mirror will bring seven years of bad luck? No. But I still have my game day rituals when watching a Seahawks game (like not drinking a beer until they've scored a touchdown), which I feel somehow will influence the result...despite any observable causal effect.

Medieval humans were far more superstitious. They lived with spirits and folklore and magic as a part of their daily life. The "evil eye" could kill you. Treating the dead with less than healthy respect could lead to haunts and visitations (or possession!). Excommunication from the church could imperil your mortal soul. Failing to make the proper sacrifice (or seeing the wrong omen) could lead to defeat in battle.

D&D works in THIS mindset. It is fantasy, after all...it is chock full of magic and the irrational. The idea that a ranger would lose her ability to follow tracks seems as preposterous to me as the idea that masturbation makes you go blind...but I don't live in a world of wizards and elves and dragons. Why shouldn't an evil-aligned ranger suddenly lose the ability to do anything but hack and slash? The resulting causation of the metaphysical crime is supernatural...but in a fantasy setting, the supernatural is natural. It's not just a matter of playing the game "by the book;" it's a matter of establishing the proper headspace to run the campaign setting in a justifiable fashion.

Which is what I want as a DM: as I wrote in yesterday's post, I think it's imperative that a Dungeon Master gets her head right with regard to how and why the "physics" of the setting work. Doing so makes it much easier to speak and run the game with authority, satisfying questions that arise in play (both her own and those of her players) and permitting focus to rest squarely in the realm of play.

Now, I admit that there's still a question about other, non-good types having the ability to track individuals...but that's a question to be answered in a different post. Regarding the ranger, I feel my concerns have all been addressed.

Hmm...maybe I should have saved
this post for Friday (the 13th).

Rangers Reconsidered

Back in October, Alexis chided me over a post I wrote about fatigue rules in AD&D, stating specifically:

Face it. The REAL reason you chafe at this nonsense is that you're finding excuses not to make a setting, design an adventure and start a campaign. As long as you are able to continue to futz around about this petty jazz, and get pats on the back from your readers about its importance, the longer you can find excuses to disparage AD&D and thus avoid the real meat of being a dungeon master.

And (as I admitted at the time) there's more than a little truth to what he wrote. "Futzing around" with rules complaints IS a form of procrastination. I took his advice to heart and ceased posting about "needed" rules changing that weren't pertinent to the work of actually crafting an adventure or campaign...the real meat (as Alexis rightly points out) of being a DM. With the result being very few posts on this blog aside from some Blood Bowl items.

Thing is, I have been working on campaign ideas the last couple months...something I hope to write about in a future post. Not the ideas themselves (though I might get to that just for the sake of writing), but about my approach to creation, which some might find helpful/interesting...and/or which might incite feedback that I can use to adjust my approach to creation.

However, THIS post is about rangers.

I've written about rangers before (more than once): I wrote about how I thought it was a dumb class (and my reasons), later providing some circumstances that would justify its inclusion in the game, and even added a stripped down version for Holmes basic some time later. All of which should lead folks to the conclusion that, generally speaking, I am dissatisfied with the ranger class.

I've since changed my stance. Yeah, I'm so fickle about this stuff...only took eight plus years.

As I've begun diving back into Advanced D&D, especially with the goal of simply taking the rules as written, there are two major points that have shifted my perspective:

1) The literary origin of the class means NOTHING to me. That it was originally based on some Tolkien fan-boy's interpretation of Aragorn and the Dunedain means nothing more than an interesting footnote: it's a piece of trivia. The inspiration for the class is of no concern when one is dealing with the Rules as presented; my campaign setting is not Middle Earth so I have only to examine whether or not the class "fits" as a playable option in my own world.

2) The class as originally written (in the PHB) IS well-balanced and written in relation to the other AD&D classes. The hit point bonus (relative to normal fighters) fades by 5th level, the spell abilities acquired at high level (useful but limited in compared to spell-casters of similar level) help make up the difference for a character with limited equipment/followers. These abilities, including the extra melee damage versus common foes, helps make the character more independent and self-sufficient...emphasizing the theme of the character...while NOT making the class "all powerful," at least if one is bringing the full brunt of the AD&D rules to bear.

I'll talk about the alignment thing in a separate post.

For my purposes (and to be clear, I'm speaking of my purposes as a Dungeon Master, nor as aloud-mouthed blogger), the ranger class works, and this is important because it allows me to proceed with world building for an AD&D campaign. I can justify the class in my own mind, and thus I am armed with the arguments I need to speak with authority on its inclusion in my setting. For me, it is important for me to go through these examinations so that when a player asks "why?" I can provide them with an answer that satisfies...thus allowing both of us to get back to the important business at hand: playing the game.

Rangers can (and do)
wear plate armor.

No, the ranger is not an "archetype;" it is a bit too specific in its application. But a campaign world is composed of specifics, not generic archetypes; it has to be, in order to engage the players and, frankly, to engage the Dungeon Master. The fighter class can comprise every warrior from the poorest mercenary the most prestigious knightly order with only the individual's kit (based on wealth) being the difference. The ranger is a different OPTION ("option" being the important word) outside the paradigm of "dudes seeking fortune and fame with martial prowess."

I think it's important that the campaign have these options. I think that the eleven classes presented in the AD&D Players Handbook (and their related multi-classes) provides just enough variation to sustain a long term campaign. I could kick the ranger to the curb in favor of my own "option," but there's no guarantee it would be any better. Less actually, considering the years of play testing the ranger has received.

So, yeah. I take back what I said about rangers. They're not a "dumb" class. In fact, I'm looking forward to seeing some in the next campaign I run...just no more than three at a time.
; )

Race, Racism, Alignment, and Evil

Apologies in advance: I should probably break this down into a number of separate posts. But I'd rather just lance the whole topic in one shot rather than prolonging the suffering.

Let's start with the basics: I'm about 10 seconds away from cutting alignment out of my D&D game. Yes, this is something that some folks (like the much esteemed Alexis Smolensk) has been advocating for years...blogging about it as recently as last week. But it's not Alexis who finally broke my back on the subject (even if he did lay a lot of the initial groundwork); rather, it was G.A. Barber's recent posts on decolonization, integration, and racist tropes in D&D.

And orcs. Thinking about orcs. Really just...orcs.

We're going to bring this around to the Icespire Peak thing in a second (that's a factor), but let's start with the orc thing first. I wrote a rather long comment/response on Barber's post that was either eaten by the internet or hasn't been approved. Doesn't matter either way because it was kind of dumb. But here's the summarized thought (refined a tad):

- While I understand the tropeyness of monocultures (an "elf nation," "orc nation," etc.) is both banal and uncomfortably similar to racist stereotypes (e.g. "all African nations are the same"), it's tough to separate from this when I want non-humans to represent a small segment of the world's sentient population (in comparison to humans, who are prolific and diverse). I'm more inclined to handle these monocultures as Gygax does the Drow in module D3: have a variety of internal factions, conflicting political/religious groups, and rogue independents within the monoculture. Another example might be the dwarves of Krynn as presented in the novel War of the Twins.

- That being said, there's an additional challenge: I like my tropey evil species. I like dragons that are greedy. I like goblins that are sneaky gits. And I like orcs to be scourges on the civilized species, whether because of some genetic curse or their innate subservience to some Dark Lord (Sauron, etc.). I understand this is a callback to European views of the Mongols or Huns (did Eastern nations view Alexander in the same fashion? Maybe) and, admittedly, lazy as far as world building. But what's the alternative? Feeling bad about killing orcs and taking their stuff? When we could be building bridges with and finding empathy for another sentient, misunderstood species?

[this is still D&D we're playing, right? A certain type of escapist fantasy that allows us to expediently resolve conflict with swords and spells, unlike the real world. Superhero fantasy (where conflicts are resolved with mighty fists instead of thoughtful dialogue) is similarly lazy and escapist, but sometimes we want that, right? Or not?]

- But even saying I go partway here towards "understanding orcs" (at least understanding that they are a group of homocidal, unreasoning inhuman humanoids), we can start to say HEY there's really no such thing as "evil races" and "good races" only SELF-INTERESTED peoples. Just like real life nations. Dwarves (or elves or orcs or whoever) might appear stand-offish to outsiders, but if your interests align with theirs, they're happy to become helpful, friendly allies. On the other hand, when your interests and theirs conflict, they're similarly likely to become enemies at the gate. And unfortunately for the orcs, the ethics and values of their particular "society" (such as it is) is quite likely to be at odds with those of (most) human communities.

[side note: I think it was the 2nd or 3rd edition of Warhammer 40,000 that suggested or implied that orcs were a plant-like species: the green skin/blood being related to chlorophyll, their seeming indifference to pain or lost limbs, their driving motivation to compete and expand like a hostile plant being introduced into an unprepared ecosystem. I do kind of like this idea, but D&D already has vegepygmies]

[hmmm...are vegepygmies kind of racist?]

Moving on from Barber's post (and my comments), this idea of "self-interest" echoes back to my thoughts on the nature of capital-E EVIL in D&D (advanced or otherwise). I wrote about this waaaaay back in 2010, when I realized there really shouldn't be a separate "holy" and "unholy" version of spells, water, and symbols. To the priest of Satan (or whoever), her symbols, spells, and special ointments are all "holy," and the implements of different faiths/religions are "unholy" or "blasphemous." Our perceptions are colored by our own values and self-interests, especially as ingrained in us by our parents/family/elders/teachers/society.

That doesn't mean everyone is a SELFISH BASTARD! There are still people in the fantasy world that are taking actions that enlightened 21st century (and, in my case, Christian) folks would consider "good" or "altruistic." Self-interest doesn't preclude acts of charity and kindness, if those things are of value to the particular fantasy being in question. Orcs, however, may not have those values by definition of their "particular society." A few outliers aside (as always).

Back to the Dragon of Icespire Peak adventure: the adventure background concerns a white dragon moving into the territory and setting up shop. This sets in motion a number of events, including the forcing of orcs (the dragon's convenient prey) out of their usual territory, forcing them into conflict with the nearby human settlers. Again, I will say this isn't a terrible premise for an adventure...it is in fact, a very reasonable, realistic scenario. In a fantasy world of monsters eating and enslaving other monsters, it's only natural that such a chain of events would occur (the dragon in the adventure is youngish and was forced out of its territory by other, more powerful dragons...similar to a young lion being forced from the pride by the alpha male). The problematic part of the adventure is the execution of the scenario: kill encroaching monsters (orcs or otherwise), level up, kill dragon, yay...all for little or no reward.

Do I want to take out the orc fights? No, not necessarily. Do I want the PCs to peaceably "integrate" the orcs into their society? No. Even if they were re-skinned as "barbarous hillmen" (or something) I want to retain the cultural differences and conflict. I do not want my Dothraki walking around and enjoying the culture of King's Landing in some fantasy version of Renaissance Venice, okay? Keep that shit to the final episode...er, session of the campaign when you're done with "adventuring."

But do you see where I'm going with this line of thought? There's no need for alignments...especially monster/species designated alignment...in a campaign world based on thoughtful self-interest and reasonable motivations. THAT is why I'm finally, finally willing to take a hard look at axing alignment from my game, after years of resisting the idea. In B/X this isn't difficult: "evil" (for purposes of detect evil, protection from evil, etc.) is only limited to supernatural evil of the undead or demonic variety, with "evil" being defined as "contrary to the natural order of the world." Here are the only other considerations, as far as I can recall:

Alignment language: I don't use it anyway.
Intelligent magic weapons: even without alignment, such items have an ego and an agenda, and will attempt to control a character. I see little reason to do the "gotcha" damage from picking up a weapon of different alignment; being mind controlled by an intelligent sword is "gotcha" enough.
Alignment changing magic items: there are better, more interesting cursed items to include in a campaign world.
"Good" alignment play for adjusting XP acquisition: No.
Alignment restrictions based on class: I'd address this on a case-by-case basis.
- Assassins: originally required alignment was "neutral." Evil is as evil does: no restrictions.
- Bards: requiring "some sort of neutral" is the same as no requirements. Duh.
- Cavaliers: PHB only, please.
- Clerics and Druids: see the bit about holy symbols above. Priestly types are expected to follow the tenets of their particular faith in order to produce magical effects. Failure to do so might result in loss of abilities.
- Monks: have you not seen Iron Monkey? Look at the main villain.
- Rangers: I'm not running a Middle Earth campaign. These are outdoorsy hunter dudes, and that doesn't require a "good" alignment. Other restrictions certainly apply!
- Thieves: plenty of examples in fiction of "heart-o-gold" thieves; see Grey Mouser. Not sure why there was ever such a restriction (I think, back in the day, we house ruled this to "non lawful" instead of non-good).
- Paladins: the most problematic of the bunch, and my main impetus for years for keeping alignment (even when not playing AD&D!). I know that I still want "behavioral restrictions," but I don't want to tie them to DM fiat of what is or isn't being "true" to the lawful good alignment. Are the paladin's abilities supernatural? Yes. So then, as with other spell-casters, they are tied to their beliefs as self-imposed strictures (like a wizard's taboos against weapons). As such, I'd probably set a number of tenets/laws (similar to the cavalier's "code of conduct" in the UA) that such a character would not be able to transgress without the loss of her abilities.

All right. I think that's about all I want to say on the subject. Next post will be shorter (I think) and address the "vanilla fantasy" setting that is the Forgotten Realms.

Not all orcs are alike.