O is for Originality

[over the course of the month of April, my plan was to post a topic for each letter of the alphabet, sequentially, every day of the week except Sunday. While I was unable to complete the project on time, I find I still have things to say. Our topic in question is Advanced Dungeons & Dragons: how to approach it, how to run it, how to enjoy a system that deserves to be played NOW, nearly 50 years after its inception. Consider this a 'crash course' in the subject]

O is for Originality...something that is overrated within the so-called "Old School" community.

Not that this series is meant to slam the (mostly commercial) venture that is the OSR these days. But many of the new DMs coming to the AD&D game these days...or even old DMs returning to AD&D after decades of hiatus...are doing so by way of the Old School Revival that's rumbled along these last 17+ years. And in the commercial offerings that carry the "OSR" branding...specifically the for-purchase, pre-written adventure modules (of the kind that new and/or rusty DMs lean on to both inspire themselves and polish their chops), you find a particular type of pathology on display: the urgent need to add "original content" that never was to their offerings.

As if the game didn't offer enough content already.

I write quite a lot of adventures for use at my own table (both for my home campaign and for gaming conventions I attend). And when it comes to designing adventures, especially for convention play, I do not include "original content;" that is, I do not create "new, original" monsters, or magic items, or spells. Oh, you'll see some adventures I've penned for various writing contests that include one or two of these things (because they are elements of the contest), but these adventures don't see actual running at my table except when/if "play-testing." For my own campaign...and when demonstrating AD&D at cons...my adventures don't include anything you wouldn't normally find in the books...for a number of reasons:

1. The content already included in the books is (for the most part) tried and true and already tested within and against the (long-tested) rules of the game.
2. There is more content in the books than I have ever used in totality...which is to say, I've yet to use EVERY monster, or EVERY magic item, or EVERY magic spell over my 40+ years of gaming.
3. For purposes of playing (and "mastering") a game, players need a consistent structure within which to learn and hone their skills, not a rug that gets pulled out from under them with every new dungeon. As I wrote earlier, I am all for metagaming as it IMPROVES player engagement.

Thus, I have no need or desire for adding "original content" to my games...in fact (as per reason #3), I find original content can be detrimental to one's campaign if used in a less-than-judicious fashion.

And it's really not needed! Again, I will make use of a metaphor suggested to me by a DM of far more experience and wisdom than myself: AD&D can be compared to a piano. Consider the ubiquitous piano with its 88 keys...the industry "standard" since 1890. How many people have studied and learned and composed music on a piano over the years, challenging themselves and entertaining others? And how many of them have attempted to add "more keys" to the piano to make the thing "more original?" How many have said, man, these 88 keys aren't enough...there's just not enough sound here to make a decent song!

The idea is ridiculous, as anyone with the slightest  passing interest in music might tell you. And, yet, how many DMs are unsatisfied with the content of the core D&D books? How many have said that the 350+ monsters in the Monster Manual or the 300+ magic items in the Dungeon Masters Guide or the 400+ spells in the Players Handbook are insufficient for their crafting of adventures? Are you kidding me?

There is a TON you can do with the "limited" amount of content in the books: writing an adventure is much like composing a piece of music on a piano. And just as a piece of piano music can be played differently by different musicians (softly, loudly, quickly, slowly, jazzy, or arranged with other instruments, or whatever), a single adventure can be "interpreted" differently by different DMs...or run differently by the same DM on different occasions depending on the players involved.

Orcs aren't "boring." YOU are boring. What is needed is NUANCE, not novelty. Situationally, there are as many different ways to use orcs in your game as there are to use humans...these are intelligent (if imaginary) creatures after all. Consider all the way humans can differ...not just in form or function, but culturally.  I know that many of my fellow American look at all Latin American people as one big mass of brown-skinned, Spanish-speaking people (I know this as I was once one of those Americans) but it is so, so not the case. Even if you ignore the individual differences of individual Mexicans (for example), Mexicans are VERY different from Ecuadorians who are VERY different from Panamanians who are VERY different from Paraguayans who are VERY different from Brazilians who are VERY different from Argentinians or Chileans, etc., etc.. In fact, they are SO DIFFERENT from each other, that unless their country is right next to another they tend to know NOTHING about the differences they have...yeah they know the people there speak Spanish (and, perhaps, have a decent soccer team) but they are often completely ignorant when it comes to someone else's history, politics, customs, food, etc.

It's like the way MUCH of the western world thinks of Africa as one big, homogenous country with border lines drawn on it. There are THOUSANDS of different ethnic identities in Africa and wildly differing genetic diversity even amongst people who share the same color of skin. Would a westerner consider all white people to be one big group? Is a Dutchman really the same as a Sicilian? My Basque friends from Bilbao certainly don't consider themselves "Spanish" in any way, shape, or form. "Your Catalan is getting quite good" they tell me (in English). 

As an American I know there are huge differences of culture between our 50 States. Yes, there are plenty of similarities, but a Washingtonian is a LOT different from a Hawaiian or a Georgian or a New Yorker or a Texan. It's not just politics that divides my country: we are (and always have been) separated by regional and cultural identity, even if we've been united (for most of our history) by some rather singular and lofty ideals that...once upon a time...we all agreed on. But are we different? Do we vary? Hell yes! Even within my own State of Washington, there is a vast difference between the "island folk" of the San Juans and the hard drinking/snorting fisher folk and lumberjacks of the Olympic Peninsula and the multi-generational farmers of the Palouse and the military folks in Everett and the very complicated metro area that is Seattle. Seattle, itself, is large enough that different neighborhoods have their own cultural identity...we're not all elitist tech-savvy "Lib-tards." Far from it! I've lived here since I was born (in '73) and MOST of that time, Seattle was pretty darn "working class" and that's how a lot of us "long timers" still see ourselves. Besides, everyone knows the elitist, tech-money d-bags live in Bellevue.

[haha. I joke. Bellevue is full of wealthy Asians, duh]

The POINT is, just saying an orc is a 1 HD antagonist and that we need a blue-skinned version that explodes when you hit it or one that has feathered wings or an orc that shoots lasers from its eyes in order to "spice things up" is simply showing a profound LACK of imagination. And it's short-changing both your players (who are trying to master the system...something they can only do when there is consistency of application) and yourself (as a designer and Dungeon Master).  What? Are you afraid that if you start "humanizing" orcs (or goblins or lizard folk or giants, etc.) by giving them nuance and ethnical variety that you're going to somehow turn them into something the players don't want to kill and then there goes the game? Have you not noticed how many different motivations, excuses, and justifications humans have found to kill each other over the centuries? My cup runneth over!

Yes, I am well familiar with the classic TSR modules of early days of AD&D and how the MAJORITY of them (pre-'85, i.e. "the good years") would include a new monster or two. I would just point out the following for consideration: A) you almost never see new magic items or spells, things which (in my estimation) have the highest potential for unbalancing or "breaking" the game, B) many times these new monsters are unique encounters and/or thematically linked to the adventure (i.e. not likely to show up elsewhere in a campaign), C) compared to the MAJORITY of the monsters in a 30-60+ encounter area, one or two new critters are a pittance, and D) you generally do NOT see these shenanigans in adventures designed for introductory, low-level play (no new monsters in B1, B2, N1, N2, etc.). Players have to learn the ropes before you start serving up curve balls!

SO...to bring this entry to a summation and close: it is NOT a mark of "creativity" or "good Dungeon Mastery" to be adding new, unique content to your game. Anyone can do that; the Fiend Folio is an entire book filled with new creatures created by a wide swath of designers (more than 70). Pursuing "originality" (in terms of content) as a goal in and of itself isn't the best use of your time and energy as an adventure designer. In my estimation, you'll get far more value out of finding ways to use that which is already present in ways that are unusual, challenging, surprising, and in ways both deeper and more nuanced. Engage your players through good system use, rather than novelty. 

AD&D campaigns can last a long time and you can get a lot of mileage out of it as written. However, when it comes to the vehicle's actual components, there's still a lot of tread left on the tires; no need to change them out so soon!

; )

H is for Humanoids

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!

H is for Humanoids...orcs and such.

"Humanoid," when used as a noun, means "a being resembling a human in shape" (the -oid suffix is the "resembling" bit). So, you know, two arms, two legs and a head. An xorn doesn't really fit the bill, nor does any creature that walks on four legs.

And yet there are many creatures in the Monster Manual that resemble the "human shape" as much as an orc or goblin that are not defined as "humanoids." Sea hags, for instance, or yeti. Why not? Doesn't a minotaur have the same number of limbs as a gnoll? 

But if I look to the definition of the adjective form of the word (i.e. to describe a "humanoid creature"), we see a little something extra: "having an appearance or character resembling that of a human." Ah...now that's something to consider.

There are plenty of D&D creatures that have a vague resemblance to the human shape: faeries of all stripes, giants, various aquatic creatures, even animal hybrids like harpies and centaurs. But they lack the character of a human, character being defined as "the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual."  Personality-wise, humanoids resemble humans. These other monsters? They don't.  Even if they are sentient, even if they are tool-users, their psychology is alien compared to a human. You cannot use the same line of reasoning with a lizard man or mind flayer that you would to resolve a conflict with a human adversary (humans don't haggle over how many brains we're going to devour).

So, yeah...bullywugs and crabmen? Not humanoids. Neither are the giant-folk (who operate on a scale well outside of human experience) nor the faerie-folk (who are fey and whimsical and often...as with dryads and nymphs...quite alien) nor the various extra-planar/dimensional beings (djinn, devils, night hags, etc.). In fact, there are only EIGHT critters that count as "humanoids" in my setting; they are: bugbears, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, ogres, ogre magi, and orcs.

These eight species count as humanoid because they resemble humans both in terms of form and character. They are sentient and aware. They possess language and technology. They have social structures, traditions, "laws" they follow (though these are pretty meager with regard to bugbears and ogres). They are mortal and possess lifespans and biological cycles roughly equivalent to humans. They eat the same foods; they want the same things. They share many of the same fears and ambitions. They are reasoning creatures.

Of these eight, orcs are the closest in resemblance to humans; this is why they are available for play as a PC species. As I've written before, I do not have "half-orcs" in my game; the term is us used to describe an orc who has joined (or attempted to join) human society, adventuring with humans and their allies (elves, dwarves, etc.). To normal humans, such individuals are (perhaps mockingly) referred to as "half-orc," acknowledging that while they are definitely not human, they're not quite the same as a member of their own community...and to that orc community, these beings are (often) seen as betrayers of their kin, and the orcish word for such rogues roughly translates as "half-orc," but in terms of being lame or crippled, albeit in spirit.

1st edition orcs. Note: NOT Mexican.

But orcs do not breed with humans...or any other non-orc species. My campaign setting is not the magical hybrid-land of Piers Anthony's Xanth books. Other than the objective data of hit dice and AC and whatnot, I choose to presume the information in the Monster Manual are something akin to field descriptions by an amateur (and somewhat racists/xenophobic) biologist-anthropologist. Similar in nature to the writing of 15th and 16th century European explorers attempting to describe the civilizations they encountered in the Americas and elsewhere. Not factual but, instead, based on subjective impression and misunderstanding due to poor translation and inexperience with different cultures.

[we call such descriptions "racist," because the person doing the writing has a presumption of the superiority of their own race (in this case, I mean the human race, i.e. species). But this racist orientation does not always or necessarily result in poor treatment or relations towards the perceived "lesser" species...but often enough that it's not considered a practical assumption to take; see my previous post on alignment]

Orcs are ubiquitous to my setting; they have small villages and communities on the (Olympic) peninsula, around the Puget Sound, and on the east side of the Cascades, as well as along the Columbia. You will also find them in the region of Okanogan County, near Winthrope

The non-orc humanoids fall into three groups: the ogres, the gnolls, and the goblins. As with the orcs, these all have an antagonistic relationship to humans (hence, the "evil" alignment designation), because they have a long history of competing for the same food supply, resources, and territory of humanity and (especially) the humans' main allies...dwarves and elves...both of whom have a much longer history on the planet of my setting. However, each of these groups (including the orcs) compete with each other as well as the "good races," and should not be seen as any kind of unified "horde" of antagonistic creatures. In fact, it is their lack of unity...in comparison to the human-elf-dwarf alliance...that has led to the humanoids leading a meaner existence, relegated to inhospitable corners of the wilds.

When totaled, the goblins are the most numerous of all the humanoid groups, but their species is divided into four distinct types that have complicated relationships with each other. The basic "goblin" is the standard of their species, but are diminutive, leading to a disadvantage in inter-humanoid warfare. Their warriors, however, are large, fierce, and well-organized...these are the hobgoblins (so called because of their proclivity for hobnailed jackboots)...unfortunately, they are far fewer in number than than the orcs, and (still) smaller in size than both the gnolls and the ogres. The kobolds are despised "runts" driven out of goblin society and forced to live an even meaner and cruder existence in abject squalor...they hate their own (goblin) kind only slightly less than they hate other species. And then the bugbears, true outsiders of the goblin race, these huge hairy, mutants are prone to violence and insanity, and "do not play nice with others;" driven from goblin communities (much like the kobolds) they sometimes form small bands in the wild where they survive via banditry. Many human communities place a bounty on bugbear scalps.

My kobolds are more pale, 
scrawny goblins than the
mailed dog-men of the MM.

Some enclaves of goblins can be found in the (northern) Cascades, but the bulk of their kind congregate in northern Idaho. However, bugbears tend to live in the forested parts of western Washington, while kobolds can be found farther south (near the active volcano of Mount Saint Helens). Goblins do not build boats and are not found on the water.

The ogres are the strongest and most intimidating of the humanoids, but they are also the fewest in number; they have a "society" in only the most loosest of terms. Once, perhaps, this was different, but ogres have been hunted almost to extinction by the other peoples of the setting, and they are now only found in out-of-the-way places, sometimes selling their services to other humanoids as muscle in exchange for food and coin. The ogre magi are exceedingly rare and bear witness to a civilization that "once was," passing on a tradition that most ogres feel unnecessary to the survival of their race. However, there are some among them who dream of of seeing ogre-kind rise to prominence again...perhaps a looming threat on the horizon?

Once we were kings.

The vast majority of remaining ogres hide among the mountains of northern Idaho. 

Finally the gnolls, the hairy mongrels of the humanoid tribes. Gnoll-ish society is perhaps the least understood of all, as they are a nomadic people who refuse to set down roots. They live by raiding and pillaging, and selling their services as mercenaries...generally other humanoids...but have shown a propensity for turning on masters who show signs of weakness, or when offered a more lucrative deal. 

Gnoll society is matriarchal: they have far fewer females than males, and gnoll warriors are expected to earn glory and gold in order to woo the hands of unattached gnoll maidens. Leading warbands and acquiring followers and pillage is in aid of building family structure and having children...it is less about legacy and more about biological imperative. Gnolls respect strength, because strength leads to survival of the tribe...a chieftain cultivates followers by showing that he can be a provider, but a weak leader will be challenged and (if defeated) devoured. The females, for their part, appear just as fickle in their loyalty, for they are pragmatic...their decision making is based on the good of the community. They are also the spiritual leaders (and spell-casters) of the species. The women command; the men obey, and the gnoll king is the mate of the highest-ranking female of the village.

Gnolls are found throughout the peninsula, and on both sides of the Cascades (though on the eastern side, they stay closer to the mountains), as well as along the length of the Columbia (where they will sometimes engage in piracy, but more often ambush travelers who come ashore in vulnerable spaces). Gnolls are also found in bands in northern Idaho, but not in great numbers...they are more prominent farther east (in Montana).  However, their nomadic lifestyle means they can appear anywhere they find easy prey.

All right...that's enough for the day.

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.

Orcs: Neither Noble, Nor Savage

Back at the Village of Hommlet...actually, the village of Twisp in the Grand County of Okanogan, Bork the "half-orc" met his end rather quickly, never setting foot in a dungeon proper. He was stabbed in the back by an invisible Fernok of Ferd (4th level thief) while attempting to burgle rooms on the upper floor of the Inn of the Welcome Wench. So ends his tale.

However, Diego was fairly shaken by the death...to the verge that he claimed he hated the game and wanted to quit. He really liked Bork, you see; he had already formed an attachment to the character even before the character had done anything in the game, even though I'd had him roll up multiple characters before the start (in the eventuality that one or more might die). 

Such is the price of investing in a backstory for one's player character. It's but a small step for a DM to allow a "do over," a "take back" to allow the player to retain a cherished character...a character that was only just created and should contain ZERO emotional attachment. And from there it's the slippery slope of fudging dice rolls and changing encounters and turning the game from a game into a farce. THIS is how it starts.

Nope. Not doing that. "Do you really want to quit playing?" No. "All right, then grab another character so you can show up at the Inn." Diego's new character (Langston the elven thief) is doing much better.

We want players to be invested in the game, not their characters...though I readily agree that investment in character is both inevitable AND desirable over the long term. This is why parties will spend copious amounts of treasure to raise a fellow PC (or cherished NPC) that has died in the course of play...especially one with a few levels under his/her belt. But a newly minted 1st level character? No. Roll up a new fighter/assassin, call him Cork the Orc, and away you go.

*****

Since my last post I've been thinking hard about my "indigenous orcs." A lot of great comments on that last post (appreciate the feedback) leading me directly to define how and what the species is in my world. And I started by reading the "orc" entry in the Monster Manual and comparing it with the half-orc player race as described in the PHB and DMG.

The first thing one notices upon reading the MM with a clinical eye is just how slanted the description of the orcs are, pitting the reader against the creature. Gygax sounds like a propagandist in writing, painting a picture of "disgusting" and "unattractive" people; "bullies" who need "strong leaders" to "control the orcs" as they are otherwise likely (75%) to fight each other. They are "cruel," and "hate living things in general." They also "hate the light" despite noting that a quarter of orc villages are found above ground (though these are noted as being "rude" and primitive affairs).

To me, it reads like the biased account intended to drum up hatred for a society as a pretext for aggression, conquest, and subjugation. We've seen similar accounts written up over the years in our Real World, and not just with regard to indigenous peoples...part of going to war with countries post-Enlightenment has often (always?) included similar essays dehumanizing our opponents. Makes it easier for a soldier to see themselves as a "hero," and makes it far easier to put a bullet into a fellow human being.

So, let's chalk this up to someone working for the (human) nobility and not an actual sociologist studying this strange people. Hell, we can even write off the illustrations as exaggerated cartoons...still inhuman, but not quite so much "pig-man." Time for a closer look at this orc species!

Let's start with the basics. Physically, they are roughly human size. Orcs are stated as being 6' + tall, but again, this seems to be an exaggeration as the "half-orc" (per the DMG) is generally smaller and lighter than a human (5'6" and 150# being male average; 5'2" and 120# being female average)...which makes sense considering their maximum strength is LOWER than that of a human. Even if I was using half-orcs as a HYBRID species (I'm not) it makes little sense for the pairing of a large human and a larger orc to result in a smaller, weaker species...that's not how biology works. Instead, you should have something IN BETWEEN (at least) indicating such offspring should be larger and stronger than their human parents.

I am inclined to see the 6'+ description as more propaganda. "They're giants!" No.

Orcs do tend to have more hit points and better fighting ability than your average (non-classed) human: 1 hit die (1-8 hit points) compared to 0-level and 1-6 hit points. However, we know they are a robust species (+1 CON, maximum 19) and since the likely opposition PCs will face are the warriors of the village (rather than non-combatants), this makes sense. The 1-8 points of damage an unarmed orc inflicts is, perhaps, a reflection of their greater average strength (+1 STR, though humans have a greater range). This should not be considered an unarmed attack, but damage done from picking up whatever's at hand: furniture, tools/implements, etc. 

[furthermore, if one considers an orc's "penalty" for fighting in daylight, they are little different from a 0-level human with a high CON. Better to think of them as a species with an ADVANTAGE in darkness, than a truly nocturnal race]

Orcs mature quickly (reaching full adulthood by the age of 16), and can reach an age of 80 or more. Skin color ranges from brown to green with a "bluish sheen" changing to pink at the ears and snout. Hair color ranges from dark brown to black, perhaps fading with age (accounts of some with "tan patches"); warriors cut their hair short (described as "bristly"). 

Their intelligence is listed as "average (low)." Intelligence in D&D is a measure of two things: ability to learn languages and ability to learn sorcery. We know from the MM that the majority of orcs speak at least three languages (goblin and hobgoblin being different dialects of the same tongue), that they are "accomplished tunnelers and miners," and that they engage in construction, build fortifications, manufacture their own armor, and use a variety of weapons and siege equipment. From the DMG, we know that they have their own spell-casters: shamans (clerics) of up to 5th level ability, and the derisively called "witch-doctors" (cleric/magic-users) of up to 4th level ability. The range of 3 to 17 for intelligence given in the PHB seems fine and appropriate.

All the orc images on the internet are crap. Here's a
typical coastal native village from the 19th century
(this is a S'Klallam tribal village near Port Gamble).

Socially, they are little different from humans. I choose to see alignment as proclivity, and being lawful orcs engage in the building of communities, have laws and traditions, hierarchies ("chiefs," "sub-chiefs," etc.) and engage in trade with other humanoid communities (as described in the MM by their caravans, and as evidenced by their speaking the tongue of subterranean goblins). The 1-to-1 ratio of male orc to child orc and 2-to-1 ratio of male orc to female orc suggests a high rate of maternal mortality in childbirth, though this is perhaps due to the present conditions (competing with humans for living space). 

"Evil" alignment can be read as "hostile to humans (and their allies)." They have religion, their own form of worship. They obviously value strength (as do many humans); no wonder they are "fiercely competitive" as this is a way of showing strength and thus proving their worth/value to their community. The practice of slavery enforces this value (again: a show of strength in subjugating their foes). However, slavery generally comes about when there is a need for individuals to provide "work," and a lack of willing individuals to do the work.

[an abundance of land and scarce labor supply...once the indigenous locals had died off...contributed to the first slaves being imported into the Americas. Enslaved child soldiers fill the need of "armies" that don't have enough willing combatants; sexual slavery serves a demand that cannot be met under the values and norms of our polite society. And one can see the decline of serfdom and slavery in Europe and Asia as populations grew and cheap, unsupervised labor became abundant]

The D&D world is an immensely perilous one. Able-bodied orcs are needed to protect communities from large monsters and competitive humanoids (like the rival elves and...later...humans). Someone is still needed to grow food for the community, farming and raising animals. Slaves help fill that role for the orcs, especially given the need to preserve females for childbearing. It should probably go without saying that not all Orc communities engage in the practice of slavery.

The disproportion of adult female to male orcs does not necessarily suggest a matriarchal organization, nor even polyandrous relationships. Instead, the value of strength is again exhibited as males unwilling or unable to "prove" themselves are left without mates. Females, especially those proven to be good mothers, will have higher value/status in the tribe, but "environmental considerations" (the hostile D&D setting) contribute to an emphasis on war leaders and battle captains. 

"Cruelty" is in the eye of the beholder. Slavery is cruel to the enslaved (and to those who find slavery abhorrent). "Bullying" is practiced in all walks of human life. Deities & Demigods states the orcs' worship of Gruumsh (in my mind, the orcish word for "God") requires monthly sacrifices of blood...but that doesn't necessarily mean human sacrifice (nor the sacrifice of slaves or fellow orcs!). A goat, ram, or other ritually raised animal works fine and would be little different from historical human practices.

[another DDG note: "raiment" from Gruumsh includes a war helm and black plate mail; this is clearly a bit better than the usual orc armor described in the MM, and more evidence that the orcs' manufacturing ability is on par with humans, at least when it comes to personal armaments]

While the MM's author objects to the specific colors orcs enjoy, the fact remains that the orcs use colors (dyes and whatnot) and have their own sense of style and fashion. They are not primitive cavefolk eking out a subsistence existence. They also use standards and livery, and exhibit a great sense of martial pride (see their bonus when it comes to defending their battle standard). The DMG (page 16) describes:

Half-Orcs are boors. They are rude, crude, crass, and generally obnoxious. 

To me, this says they are straightforward and plain-talking, unconcerned with subtleties of speech and the niceties of (human) etiquette. They speak their mind. They are practical and pragmatic. That doesn't mean they aren't polite or honorable (in their own way), but asserting oneself loudly is (again) a means of showing strength...something they value. Because the weak have a hard time surviving the wilds and the depredations of elves. 

Ah, the elves. Long before the humans arrived, the orcs have been warring with elves. And why? Because they want the same things: Land. Resources. Access to timber, water ways, food supply. The elves (who I will discuss in a later post) have gotten the upper hand over the years (most likely by dint of superior magic), resulting in the orcs seeking shelter and homes in subterranean lairs (the majority of orc villages). Regrettably, this has pushed them into conflict with the subterranean dwarves and gnomes in recent years (the PHB p.18 notes a hatred for dwarves and gnomes, rather than simple antipathy with elves...the more recent conflict burns hotter). 

The newly arrived humans have been more curse than blessing for the beleaguered orcs. The humans have much in common with the orcs, and lack the history of ancestral feuding, but they also have the need for the same land. The physical features of the orc race make humans less amenable to them than to other demihumans, and the orcs have little to offer compared to the other species on the planet (elves: magic, dwarves: crafting, gnomes: gemstones, etc.). Orcs are a competitive species with the humans, a rival with little to offer in trade. Their practices of slavery and blood sacrifice make them seem "primitive" in the eyes of humans; their inhuman features and working relationship with goblinoids and ogres make them feared and "dangerous" in comparison to the more human-appearing species. 

[it also doesn't help that humans making friends with the fairer-appearing elves and dwarves has automatically put orcs in the "enemy-of-my-ally" category]

And, yet, some humans and orcs have found the ability to inter-relate with each other. Some humans have taken it upon themselves to "pound the orc out" of (usually) orc children, teaching them the ways of "sophistication;" other less-scrupulous humans see the orcs as easily manipulated muscle for their own agendas...expendable mercenaries, easily bought with promises of land and revenge on hated elves, dwarves, etc. For their part, some orcs have decided it's better to live among the humans, learning their ways, then continue to fight a losing war of cultural competition. 

RULES

While orcs have their own forms of worship and magic, shamans and "witch-doctors" are not available as player character classes. Only the classes listed in the PHB (as for half-orc) are available, along with the multi-class and level restrictions listed. Single-class orcs may add +2 to the maximum level in any particular class, subject to normal restrictions (for example, no assassin may progress beyond 15th level).

Orcish player characters have lived and trained extensively with humans. As such, they receive neither the bonuses, nor penalties of other orcs (with regard to fighting in daylight or near an orcish battle standard, etc.). Player character clerics have been initiated into the humans religious practices and advance as a standard cleric, not a shaman, including normal wisdom adjustments; no such character may achieve a level in cleric beyond 4th (6th level if single-classed). All orc player characters speak the common tongue of humans as well as the language of their orc tribe; additional languages can be learned subject to their intelligence.

Player character orcs have both a charisma score and an adjusted charisma score. The adjusted score is two less than the original roll, and never higher than 12, unless magically increased. The adjusted charisma is ONLY used when interacting with humans, elves (and half-elves), dwarves, and gnomes. The adjusted charisma score does not preclude the orc character from entering non-assassin professions.

An orc may be raised from the dead as any other PC race.

A Different "Half-Orc"

SO...last night (Thursday) my players were creating new PCs for the campaign (because their others are all dead...natch) and my son rolled up a half-orc fighter/assassin; his FIRST half-orc character as far as I can recall.

[we don't use alignment in our games and this is far from the first assassin we'e seen, but it is (perhaps) interesting that it's taken this long to get a multi-classed one]

Right on, I said. A half-orc, huh? To which he replied something along the lines of: "Yeah, I'm thinking he was kidnapped from his orc-mother's village by humans when he was a child and forced into a reeducation program similar to what was done to Native Americans. How's that for a backstory?" Well, we really don't do backstories (he laughs), but that's not a bad one. How does he feel about orcs? "Well, he sees orcs as his people, really, and hates humans for what they did to him and other village children."

I pointed out to him that his sister's character is a human (and a cleric to boot...a lot of those Indian Residential Schools were run by Catholics or Christian missionaries). At which point he started bending over backwards to create more backstory justifying their relationship and reasons for adventuring and...'No, never mind. Not important.' Because, of course, THAT's not. The game is not about exploring complicated social dynamics based on race and trauma, the bonds of camaraderie and friendship, and the acrimony of historic abuse and cultural genocide.

Thank goodness. That wouldn't be nearly as fun.

However, as I sat in church today (my kids attend Catholic school and since the pandemic, they alternate which classes get to attend Mass on Fridays...today was my daughter's class)...I reflected on this. On this sordid piece of my religious/cultural history. It is/was a really f'ing sad piece of work all around...one that the Catholic Church has yet to apologize for (the Pope is scheduled to meet with delegates from some 30 indigenous American tribes this March...we'll see what happens).

Because...all awfulness aside...my kid's idea for using "half-orcs" is kind of brilliant.

I've done a lot of things with orcs in my games over the years. First, of course, they were just another evil minion monster looking to follow a strong evil leader (the classic trope). Later, they were "beastmen," the common sword & sorcery trope, some sort of not-quite-evolved, more bestial human (see the Moldvay description). At times, I've wanted to use them in the Tolkien sense...an evil "fey" (fairy) race, either evil by nature or corrupted by some dark power (Tolkiens' orcs are "broken" elves)...however, this always steps on the toes of the various goblinoids.

More recently, I've postulated orcs as either some sort of "created" servitor race (most likely by the sorcerous elves, for whom they hold enmity) that have thrown off their shackles and established their own brutal civilization OR ELSE "orcishness" is a type of magical mutation that occurs in the post-apocalyptic wilderness, while "half-orcs" are simply first generation mutants; the PA spin on the S&S beastman trope.

What I haven't considered...like, at all...is using the orcs as analogous to any real world people. I don't see them as Mongols or Huns or "noble savages" of ANY sort. I haven't had the desire to replace real world cultures, I definitely don't see humans in D&D as "white Europeans only" and I always wanted solid reasons for PCs to have adversarial relationships with these subterranean, cannibalistic, tool-using sentients. They ain't humans...at all.

And yet, in AD&D we have half-orcs. And, heck, they're one of only three races that can (as a matter or the PHB rules) be clerics. Wha-wha-what?

One of the things I liked about the B/X rules were their complete lack of semi-humans (half-orcs and half-elves). Leaving aside the old school racism of the "half-breed" trope (ugh!) can we say these are different species and NOT reproductively compatible with each other? Just what kind of fantasy are we playing here? If this is Greek myth...well, okay, anyone can breed with anything (that's how you get minotaurs, for example). But given the kitchen sink nature of the setting, you go too far down that road and you end up with something resembling Piers Anthony's Xanth novels. And that's NOT really the kind of game I want to run...not even close.

Now, if orcs (and elves) are just variant humans...like neanderthals and cro-magnons and whatnot...with genetic compatibility...well, okay, sure. But then orcs should be able to breed with elves...and the rules are pretty explicit in THAT prohibition (one assumes this is, again, because of Tolkien...but Tolkien himself had the orcs as corrupted elves. And drawing on northern European myth, why not have marriages between light and dark fairies? Um...pretty sure that was a thing, once upon a time).

Do I want orc-elves? No. I do not.

So, I'm considering riffing off my kid's backstory in my world's concept of "half-orcs." In my campaign humans are a transplanted species...they've only been on the planet for two or three centuries (long enough that their history...where they came from, how they got there...is mostly mysterious and lost knowledge). They are the "new kids on the block;" the other sentients were there long before with long established relationships and histories. 

Despite that...and despite the hostility they face from MANY of the sentient species on the planet...humanity is an ascendant species and have quickly adapted and, in many parts, taken over the local. There is still hostile "wilderness" to be explored (and conquered) but humanity has already managed to carve out multiple kingdoms in the region...kingdoms connected by tenuous strands of humanity.

The elves...and their relationship with humans (both socially and genetically)...is something I won't get into today, but it's fairly mapped out. The orcs, on the other hand, aren't something I considered before, other than: A) they're one of the indigenous species (unlike humans), B) they're antagonistic to the humans, and C) their capabilities (game-wise) are more-or-less as described in the PHB.

Now, however, I am thinking of half-orcs as something much more similar to the indigenous peoples of North America, and their relationship with the "new" humans being something very much like that of the indigenous people to the white (and black) settlers that came to the (Pacific Northwest) region in the 1800s.

[my game world is set in the PNW...my game map is Washington State and the surrounding area]

Unlike the actual indigenous people, orcs are not humans. However, they are close enough that the humans have attempted to assimilate them into their culture...much the way as Canadian and US governments attempted to reprogram native peoples with their own values, customs, languages, etc. And using similarly brutal and inhumane methods.

A "half-orc" then is NOT a hybrid species of human and orc. Instead, it is an orc that has been taken and culturally re-educated by the humans (good-intentioned or not). They've been taught the language, taught the skills, learned the values and etiquette, all in an attempt to make the creature "less orc." The classes available to the half-orc (fighters, clerics, thieves, and assassins) are the only ones humans would deign to teach an orc (and clerics only to 4th level), or that orcs could pick up on their own. Sorcery? Absolutely not...though within their OWN culture, they teach their own versions of sorcery and clerical magic (using the tribal spellcaster rules on page 40 of the DMG). Such individuals...derisively referred to as "witch doctors" by the humans...are not available as player characters, as their powers are only used for the good of their peoples, rather than "adventure."

Non-indoctrinated orcs, then, have far different cultural priorities than the average adventure-seeking humans. It's not that orcs who retain their own upbringing and social structure don't (sometimes) get the urge to go out and plunder an ancient ruin...but the game is not about those individuals. It's about the humans (and human-accepted) who cooperate, hang out in (human) towns/cities, and look to increase their wealth, prestige, and standing (amongst human-types). 

Nothing halfway
about this guy....

The orc peoples...of which there are many tribes and traditions...are just a little too hostile to the encroaching humans to mix easily into an adventuring party. Those that do can ALL be considered "half-orc," or rather "half-human," based on their different perspective and outlet. Not all of them will hate and resent humans, though most will have mixed feelings about them. 

Not sure why this particular approach to humanoids feels better than human-on-human violence that was so off-putting when I considered setting my game in historic South America. It's not because the actions of American settlers in the west was any less egregious than what happened in (what is now called) Latin America...just research a bit about the Yakima War for a taste of that action. But for some reason, it doesn't feel so problematic to me. Perhaps, I just have more of a handle on the local history and politics, that I feel I can steer the narrative better. Perhaps using "fantasy races" I feel like there's the opportunity to resolve things in a different (maybe better) way. Perhaps I've just grown and matured the last couple years and feel capable of dealing with the harsh reality of colonialism and racial relations.

Or maybe it's just that my children (who are my players) have some understanding of real world history and won't just be going "Cowboys and Indians" on the poor old orcs.

I don't know, but I'm digging on the whole concept. It opens some other issues, of course (like, what exactly is up with Lavinia and her half-orc sons in UK2: The Sentinel...are they adopted? Is she some sort of horrible ex-teacher from an Orc Boarding School?). But the more I reflect on it, the more I find the subject matter something I want to engage with. I hope Diego's new PC can stay alive for a while...I'll be interested to see where his adventures take him.

Happy Juneteenth!

From Wikipedia

I had never heard of Juneteenth before the summer of last year (2020). Like never. This probably has more to do with my geographic location (Seattle) than with the company I keep, which includes all colors of the rainbow. When I first heard about Juneteenth, it was through my wife (who heard about it through her company which is based out of Washington D.C.). I believe my introduction to the holiday was her asking me, "Have you ever heard of this?"

Now for the obligatory post on racism.

I'm a white American. I'm a racist. Not the kind that would spit on a Mexican (like someone once spit on my Mexican wife in a Seattle bar). Just the kind that you are when you grow up in a culture that was built on the blood and exploitation of other people. The kind that needs to be constantly on guard against a false sense of "everything's fine" when injustice is still being perpetrated on folks who don't look like myself.

I prefer to not be part of the problem. Part of the problem is ignoring that a problem exists. Sometimes I talk about the problem (of racism). I don't think orcs are racist. I think people are racist. I've heard stories from non-white people about white racist gamers treating them badly (treating them like orcs). Some of these people feel there are problematic parts of the D&D game that promote bad attitudes/behavior or permit/encourage such. I don't see it that way, but I understand some do. 

I have sympathy for those folks' point of view. I acknowledge that racism is an inherent problem in my culture and society.

My children are half-Mexican (not the same as black but, even so, non-white). They enjoy the hell out of D&D. They enjoy killing orcs. Sometimes they enjoy talking to orcs (and goblins, etc.) and reaching resolutions that don't involve killing. This is part of the game...combat can kill player characters, too, not just orcs. My son runs an on-line AD&D game for his friends (they are age 10). He goes to a diverse school; nearly half of his class is "non-white." 

All the players in his campaign are caucasian. His dungeons have orcs. These things are unrelated, just facts. 

Inherent racism is a problem; probably more than overt racism (though the latter leads to more violence). My children are too young (or too fortunate) to have directly experienced overt racism. But we watch the news in our home. We talk about things. We talk about the problems of racism in this country. It's worth talking about. 

D&D isn't a problem for us. For some people, it is. 

It's good to be aware of racism; sometimes, on my blog, I feel I have a responsibility to bring up the subject. Rather than ignore it. Even though I haven't been affected it by it like other people. Even though I'm a white American dude.

Or, perhaps, BECAUSE of these things.

Juneteenth is a good thing. Acknowledging and understanding our history is a good thing. Realizing that there's still work to be done to make our society equitable is a good thing. 

Hope everyone has a good holiday weekend.

"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!

: )

In The Tomb

Happy Holy Saturday! As we all await our own "resurrection" from the caves in which we're sheltering (see what I did there? Easter humor), I figured I'd post up a few addendum notes to yesterday's post. I mean, why the hell not?

Regarding my re-typing of OD&D:

Finished doing Book III...well, as much of it as I plan on writing at this point. The thing devotes a LOT of space (about a third of its page count) to aerial and naval combat, neither of which are incredibly pertinent to my campaign at the moment. I understand the authors' original intention of including everything necessary for a "complete game," but this is more appendix kind of stuff for "special adventures" (this may be a B/X prejudice as the original Expert set put ship and waterborne combat info in a just such a chapter at the end of the book). For better or worse, I don't see my players doing a lot of aerial combat maneuvers in game.

That leaves a lot of space, however, which I will be using to fill out GM info (from later works) that I really want to include. I went through the later OD&D supplements, as well as The Strategic Review and early Dragon magazines...

[ha! in the other room my daughter is having a video "play date" with one of her kindergarten friends and she's attempting to explain the Dungeons & Dragons game we've been playing. Funny stuff.]

...and made notes of the things I want to incorporate into the text. There are some interesting world assumptions I'm finding in the text. The fact that orcs are readily available for hire as mercenaries (and for low prices) says something about their place in the world/civilization of the game...especially as other humanoids AREN'T (goblins are too feral? I suppose). But how does this easy relationship sit with rangers? Not good I suppose (which is why they prefer to live in the wilds). Still, it helps explain half-orcs when orcs are regular participants in inter-species relationships...

Then there's the whole issue of evil (i.e. "chaotic") patriarchs. The same rules for high level clerics apply to evil high priests...which means any such individual that builds a stronghold is going to attract a large force of "faithful" fanatics...not to mention the automatic "tithes" (20 g.p. per inhabitant per year!) that starts rolling in to the EHP's coffers. Apparently all gods are honored in this fantasy setting...sets up all sorts of Isle of Pan Tang ideas.

Regarding the Tomb of Horrors:

Man, that adventure is the gift that just keeps on giving. After The Keep on the Borderlands, I've got to believe it's the module I've run the most over the years (yes, more than White Plume Mountain). Last night, I ran the original OD&D tournament version of the module for the kids, though using the illustration pack from the later 1980 publication. Kids each took two of the pre-gens from the adventure: Diego used an 8th level paladin ("Rider") and a 12th level magic-user ("Winklebart"); Sofia used a 4th/6th level Elf fighter-mage ("Fiddly Fiddler") and a 10th level cleric (first call "Sheila May," later changed to "Lovine the Artist"). The kids had a lot of fun picking out all the cool spells their high level characters could carry, and spent a good amount of time selecting equipment that provided them the right mount of utility with the most efficient encumbrance.

Because we were starting rather late at night, I declared we'd go with the two hour tournament time limit (though we probably went over by a bit). The players started by exploring the "right-hand" (western) false tunnel. The collapsing ceiling killed Fiddly, necessitating the use of Lovine's raise dead spell. Fortunately, the elf made his resurrection survival roll and two weeks later they were healed up and ready to try again.

The party's second foray into the dungeon saw them exploring the "left-hand" (eastern) entrance. Despite the rumbling they heard behind them, they decided to press forward and try to open the doors. It was only after they discovered the blank wall behind the doors that they turned to find the tunnel behind sealed by a shifting wall. "What do we do now?" What do you want to do. "Well, we'll check out the fake doors, but we'll be careful for traps." I think you've already set off a trap don't you? Oh, right. Fortunately, Winkle had memorized the passwall spell so they were able to escape.

Next up was the main (central) tunnel entrance. Here they managed to fall in most every pit trap along the path, but led by their stalwart paladin (with high hit points and amazing saving throws) they managed to traverse the length, finally arriving at the corridor's end. Finding and reading the the cryptic message on the floor, Diego decided to try the misty arch while Sofia's characters remained behind to "watch for monsters." The teleportation deposited Rider and Winkle in a rather messy heap in the chamber of the four-armed ghoul who surprised the pair (apparently they were still disoriented by the mist's effects). Random die showed the ghoul going after the wizard, who quickly died. Rider fought a round with the creature before deciding to flee due to low hit points and the strategic disadvantage of facing a monster with 4 attacks per melee. Charging through the exit he kicked open the plastered door to the main tunnel, only to plunge into the pit lying on the other side (death by impalement...he still made his saving throw). Hearing the commotion the rest of the party retraced their steps, recovered Rider's body, and retreated from the tomb.

The paladin was raised (easily making his resurrection roll) and two weeks later the party was back at the Tomb. Down a man (even had they attempted to retrieve Winklebart's corpse, it had been too long since his death to revive the wizard), they party decided to exercise the utmost caution. Taking a vote, they decided to go through the devil mouth this time. Once again, the paladin was chosen to go first (it was really Sofia's idea to try the devil mouth, but then she chickened out of taking the plunge; rock-paper-scissors was executed and Rider was given the job). Tying a rope around his waist and hoisting the lantern, the paladin pushed his way into the mouth, disappearing completely into darkness. Pulling on the rope brought back...nothing. After sticking a few odds and ends into the mouth (torches, both lit and unlit) it gradually dawned on the players that the devil's mouth was a one-way trip. "So where am I?" asked Diego. In heaven...you were disintegrated! Time for bed!

[there was a lot of laughter at my son's expense, even his own. "Sofia, why do you keep letting me make stupid mistakes?!" followed by the realization of his own words. Ah, D&D...I've missed you]

The children were suitably impressed that the Tomb of Horrors was exceptionally deadly and as fierce as its reputation suggested. Of course, they are also interested in going back, though they realize they're going to have to create some more characters. For my part I feel...refreshed by the experience. Maybe in my own way I'm like some sort of withered demilich that needs to bathe in the blood of young adventurers to get the creak out of my bones!

Regarding the chipa:

It turned out delicious. Here's a picture (we made more, but...um...it all got eaten):

Used a combo of queso fresco and mozzarella cheese in place of the queso paraguayo. The video was good (converted everything to English units of measure) and did a half order...still made a ton of chipa. Very tasty.

Enjoy your weekend folks...as best you can.
: )

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.