My Response to "Unrealistic" Alignments
John P. Raynor
rules aren't very realistic, but neither are fire-breathing dragons and
wizards calling down lightning bolts." Here's my response to that:
Absolute morality, which is *quantifiable* and *verifiable* is changes a
*basic* aspect of the human experience. Even people who grown up in
societies which teach that morality is absolute often find themselves in
situations in which they don't *know* whether their actions are moral or
not. There may be a list of "dos" and "don'ts", but there are always
situations which the list doesn't explicitly address. In such situations,
all anyone has to go on is his or her personal (and subjective)
understanding of the "moral yardstick." The problem with coding Alignment
into the rules is that it has the potential to eliminate the uncertainly
that *everybody* in the real world has to cope with now and then. As very
basic aspect of the human experience (something everyone can relate to)
has been fiddled with.
The fireballs hurled by wizards, on the other hand, are just *props.*
They have no moral or psychological meaning. A fireball is just a
napalm-strike in a fancy costume. A magical wand that discharges bolts of
destructive energy is, functionally, the equivalent of an automatic rifle.
These are very *superficial* changes, relative to something as fundamental
as "Alignments."
- J. Raynor
WinningerR
into the rules is that it has the potential to eliminate the uncertainly
that *everybody* in the real world has to cope with now and then. As very
basic aspect of the human experience (something everyone can relate to)
has been fiddled with.<<<
The problem with your argument is that you were forced to drag the "real world"
back into the fray at the critical moment where you explain your problem with
the Alignment rules.
Note that Alignment doesn't eliminate uncertainty, it just redefines it. In an
AD&D universe (or the Star Trek universe, or the universe of Marvel comics), I
know you're either good or evil, but I don't necessarily know which, perhaps
until it's too late.
Robert Baldwin
>
> People often say things like "Yes, absolute morality and the Alignment
> rules aren't very realistic, but neither are fire-breathing dragons and
> wizards calling down lightning bolts." Here's my response to that:
>
> Absolute morality, which is *quantifiable* and *verifiable* is changes a
> *basic* aspect of the human experience. Even people who grown up in
> societies which teach that morality is absolute often find themselves in
> situations in which they don't *know* whether their actions are moral or
> not. There may be a list of "dos" and "don'ts", but there are always
> situations which the list doesn't explicitly address. In such situations,
> all anyone has to go on is his or her personal (and subjective)
> into the rules is that it has the potential to eliminate the uncertainly
> that *everybody* in the real world has to cope with now and then. As very
> basic aspect of the human experience (something everyone can relate to)
> has been fiddled with.
I agree entirely, *except* that I think it's a good thing, not a
problem. I *want* a world where the concepts of Good and Evil are
absolutes; where the conflict between the two is the basis for the
campaign; and where any deviation from one's commitmants carries swift
and dire consequences. And the AD&D alignment system (1st ed, esp.)
serves that end perfectly. Players are free to have their character do
whatever they choose, but there *will* be consequences. That, IMO, is
one of the defining elements of High Fantasy.
--
BB
"Everyone dies someday; the trick is doing it well."
-
Why did the chicken cross the road ?
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die. In the rain.
COLONEL SANDERS: I missed one?
-
Remove the spam.block to reply.
John P. Raynor
: I agree entirely, *except* that I think it's a good thing, not a
: problem. I *want* a world where the concepts of Good and Evil are
: absolutes; where the conflict between the two is the basis for the
: campaign; and where any deviation from one's commitmants carries swift
: and dire consequences. And the AD&D alignment system (1st ed, esp.)
: serves that end perfectly. Players are free to have their character do
: whatever they choose, but there *will* be consequences. That, IMO, is
: one of the defining elements of High Fantasy.
Ah-Hah!
I guess this another case of "one man's meat is another man's poison."
I prefer "brutally gritty" Low Fantasy, driven by the logical continuation
of the historical and political conflicts within the campaign world.
Magic is rare and tends to be subtle, the Gods are so distant that it
isn't clear whether they are conscious spiritual entities or merely the
manifestations of the "collective will" of those who believe in them, and
Good and Evil are completely relative (the closest thing to "absolute
Evil" is really Lovecraftian "uncaring alien power").
For what you're going for, I guess "hard-wired" Alignment rules make
sense. For what I'm trying to achieve, they definitely don't.
- J. Raynor
John P. Raynor
: The problem with your argument is that you were forced to drag the "real
: problem with the Alignment rules.
Uh...I don't see why you have a problem with bringing "the real world"
into the discussion. People talk about how swords, crossbows, and spears
behave "in the real world" when they're talking about the combat rules,
don't they? Nobody makes a fuss about that. People talk about "the
real world" when they're talking about how far a group of adventurers can
travel, over a given type of terrain in a given amount of time. That's
completely acceptable. So why should the "Alignment" rules be declared
sacrosanct as far as arguments "from the real world" are concerned?
- J. Raynor
Alan Shutko
J> So why should the "Alignment" rules be declared sacrosanct as far
J> as arguments "from the real world" are concerned?
One person is arguing that the Alignment system doesn't reflect the
real world and shouldn't exist. The other is arguing that it's not
supposed to reflect the real world and it's ok.
Perhaps it should be rephrased as follows:
"Magic systems don't reflect the real world. Magic doesn't work that
way."
"So? What's wrong with magic other than it's not real?"
"Why should magic be sacrosanct? We evaluate other things by how they
reflect the real world."
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
DM Advice: Every tavern scene should end in a brawl.
John P. Raynor
: One person is arguing that the Alignment system doesn't reflect the
: real world and shouldn't exist. The other is arguing that it's not
: supposed to reflect the real world and it's ok.
:
: Perhaps it should be rephrased as follows:
:
: "Magic systems don't reflect the real world. Magic doesn't work that
: way."
:
: "So? What's wrong with magic other than it's not real?"
:
: "Why should magic be sacrosanct? We evaluate other things by how they
: reflect the real world."
This argument is, in my opinion, VERY WEAK at best.
Although *actual* magic (probably) doesn't exist "in the real world,"
there is a *vast* amount of folklore about how magic *supposedly* works,
and there are many depictions of magic in literature. I have often seen
articles which are critical of the rules for spell-casting in "Dungeons
and Dragons" because they differ so greatly from such a large fraction of
the folklore/literary depictions of magic (largely because they are based,
almost entirely, on the works of one fairly obscure author, Jack Vance).
If I were to write rules for magic which said that the best way to become
a powerful wizard was to eat vast quantities of black jelly-beans (because
they are a concentrated source of occult power), I would get a lot of
criticism. People would say "they's so silly!", and they would be
*right*, because the "magic via black jelly-beans" is incompatible with
just about *every* "real world depiction" of magic.
- J. Raynor
Aristotle@Threshold
>People often say things like "Yes, absolute morality and the Alignment
>rules aren't very realistic, but neither are fire-breathing dragons and
>wizards calling down lightning bolts." Here's my response to that:
Why does there have to be a response? If you like the alignment/morality
system you play with is there really any necessity to convince others that
your method is best?
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD ONLINE! High Fantasy Role Playing Game!
Player run clans, guilds, businesses, legal system, nobility, missile
combat, detailed religions, rich, detailed roleplaying environment.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jeremy Reaban
being indicators of 'absoulte morality', they're just general indicators of
how a person behaves. Sort of like the results you'd get from giving
someone a personality test. The Good-Evil axis just indicates how 'nice'
they are, while the 'Lawful-Chaos' axis indicates how law-abiding and
honorable they are....
John P. Raynor <jra...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote in article
<6pnpo6$3sn$1...@news.ycc.yale.edu>...
> People often say things like "Yes, absolute morality and the Alignment
> rules aren't very realistic, but neither are fire-breathing dragons and
> wizards calling down lightning bolts." Here's my response to that:
<snip>
Brett Evill
(John P. Raynor) wrote:
> I have often seen
>articles which are critical of the rules for spell-casting in "Dungeons
>and Dragons" because they differ so greatly from such a large fraction of
>the folklore/literary depictions of magic (largely because they are based,
>almost entirely, on the works of one fairly obscure author, Jack Vance).
'The Dying Earth' may be an obscure work, but Vance has written a lot of
other stuff since 1950. I really don't think that it is accurate to
describe a multiple Hugo and Nebula winner as 'obscure'.
Further, magic works rather differently in some of Vance's other works,
such as 'Lyonesse'.
--
Brett Evill
To reply by e-mail, remove 'spamblocker.' from <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au>
John P. Raynor
: 'The Dying Earth' may be an obscure work, but Vance has written a lot of
: other stuff since 1950. I really don't think that it is accurate to
: describe a multiple Hugo and Nebula winner as 'obscure'.
:
: Further, magic works rather differently in some of Vance's other works,
: such as 'Lyonesse'.
The degree to which Jack Vance is an "obscure" author isn't really the
point. The point is that he is *one* author, and the magic rules in
"Dungeons and Dragons" are largely based on *one* of his books, and aren't
particularly good for modelling anything else. But *all* of this
discussion of magic rules is a digression from the matter of Alignment.
- J. Raynor
Brett Evill
(John P. Raynor) wrote:
Irrelevance is no excuse for falsehood.
Alan Shutko
J> Although *actual* magic (probably) doesn't exist "in the real
J> world," there is a *vast* amount of folklore about how magic
J> *supposedly* works, and there are many depictions of magic in
J> literature.
Right. And it all contradicts. And magic existing at all changes a
very fundamental element of the human condition.
Besides, good and evil being primal forces is also well-represented in
folklore going back at least 2500 years. Probably longer than any of
the magic folklore you're talking about. So if your test is
"represented in literature", alignment passes.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
Eeny, Meeny, Jelly Beanie, the spirits are about to speak! -- Bullwinkle Moose
Brett Evill
<fran...@stlnet.com> wrote:
>You have a point, except that alignments in AD&D and D&D, are far from
>being indicators of 'absoulte morality', they're just general indicators of
>how a person behaves. Sort of like the results you'd get from giving
>someone a personality test. The Good-Evil axis just indicates how 'nice'
>they are, while the 'Lawful-Chaos' axis indicates how law-abiding and
>honorable they are....
My favourite ancestor was Sir John (or Johan or Johannes) Evill (or
d'Eyvile, or de Ewill, or Deiville), who was summoned to Parliament by
individual writ in 1264 (that was the first Parliament at which the
representatives of the commons were present, but he unfortunately was not
one of them).
Now, Sir John was a firm supporter of the Provisions of Oxford, but King
Henry III got the King of France to excuse him from his oath to uphold the
Provisions. The 'Baron's War' ensued, which the King won when his son Lord
Edward defeated and killed Simon de Montfort at Evesham on 2 August 1265.
After the collapse of the baron's cause, King Henry offered a pardon to
the nobles who had participated in the revolt and survived. Sir John
insisted that he had not broken his oath, but that the King had broken
his. Therefore, he said, he needed no pardon, and refused it. He fled with
his supporters and some friends such as Sir Nicholas Segrave into the Fens
around Ely, and held out against the royal forces for two years. During
this time he was several times outlawed and excommunicated, and became one
of the bases for the legend of Robin Hood. In November 1267 he led his
people to London, where with the help of the citizens they held the city
against the king until betrayed by the Earl of Buckingham the following
February. During these three months Sir John was outlawed once and
excommunicated twice *every day*. When the city fell he was taken
prisoner, and forced to accept a pardon. He died in 1277.
Now, everyone seems since to have decided that equality of all before the
law, subjection of the king to the law, and supervision of the government
by the representatives of the people are good things, so perhaps we can
agree that Sir John was Good. But was he Lawful or Chaotic? He broke the
law in an egregious way, and was in fact an outlaw: but he could not by
any means be shaken from his oaths, not even by excommunication, which was
a fearful thing at the time. Law-breaking but honourable: not the same
thing.
John Fiala
>Alan Shutko (a...@acm.org) wrote:
>If I were to write rules for magic which said that the best way to become
>a powerful wizard was to eat vast quantities of black jelly-beans (because
>they are a concentrated source of occult power), I would get a lot of
>criticism. People would say "they's so silly!", and they would be
>*right*, because the "magic via black jelly-beans" is incompatible with
>just about *every* "real world depiction" of magic.
> - J. Raynor
Unless you were playing the Sailor Moon RPG, in which case you could
probably get away with it if you were Usagi. (But Luna would compain it was
silly, and sulk.)
--
-john (http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Realm/5665/)
Cats are smarter than dogs. You can't get eight cats to pull a sled through
snow
jcf...@cssltd.com -Jeff Valdez
John Scott
<fran...@stlnet.com> wrote:
> You have a point, except that alignments in AD&D and D&D, are far from
> being indicators of 'absoulte morality', they're just general indicators of
> how a person behaves. Sort of like the results you'd get from giving
> someone a personality test. The Good-Evil axis just indicates how 'nice'
> they are, while the 'Lawful-Chaos' axis indicates how law-abiding and
> honorable they are....
Really? Then how can someone who kills defenceless children, women and
men be Good? It's not "nice" behaviour.
Unless you have an absolute system of morality, like AD+D's, which says
that some people are evil and some are good, and that it is alright for
Good people to Kill Evil people.
If orcs as a race are Evil, then killing orc children is not an evil act.
That's how most Lawful Good paladins are played, anyway.
As someone else has pointed out in this thread, it can be taken as a theme
of High Fantasy, and that's cool if that's the sort of game you want to
play.
But Good does not equal nice in AD+D, and Chaos does not equal dishonorable.
John
The University and I agree on a lot, but not necessarily this ...
Alan D Kohler
Raynor) wrote:
>People often say things like "Yes, absolute morality and the Alignment
>rules aren't very realistic, but neither are fire-breathing dragons and
>wizards calling down lightning bolts." Here's my response to that:
>
>Absolute morality, which is *quantifiable* and *verifiable* is changes a
>*basic* aspect of the human experience.
Is it? Take a moral philosophy class sometime. While when closely
examined, moral relativism is pretty much as indefensible as moral
realism (a category which includes moral absolutism, but from context,
you you say "abosilute morality", you seem to be describing what
philosophers call "moral realism", not what philosophers call "moral
absolutism"). However, no moral theory has ben "verified" outside of
its own criteria.
One thing you won't find in moral philosophy is an easy answer.
Spam Filter Notice: Remove "REMOVE2REPLY" to reply by email.
Alan D Kohler <hwk...@REMOVE2REPLYpoky.srv.net>
(6/27)- Martial Art rules under C&T, OA style!
- Guild Space setting for the Starfarer *free* SFRPG
http://poky.srv.net/~hwkwnd/homepage.html
SD Anderson
> Why does there have to be a response? If you like the
alignment/morality
> system you play with is there really any necessity to convince
others that
> your method is best?
In this case they're responding to calls to REMOVE said
alignment/morality systems from the core rules if not entirely
from the game. I can see why they'd get defensive, even
sympathize with them having to go through another learning curve
with the game if the rules did change, but I still say the game
would be better off without alignment packages being forced on
every PC and NPC and numerous items in the game.
SD Anderson
ancestor's actions look at Rex Stout's master detective Nero
Wolfe, who has very strict codes of behaviour, is described by
his archenemy Zeck as having one weakness, lawfulness, but who
pretty much disregards the law whenever it gets in his way.
The problem with AD&D alignments is that it links two distinct
moral and ethical groups together, say Lawful and Good. In
reality and in story, there are times when being lawful can't be
being good. Alignement rules don't handle this well.
Individualized disadvantages do.
Wolfe works fairly easily in GURPS: Greed [-15] and Quirk:
Maintains a very orderly life [-1] and Odious Personal Habit:
Manipulates the Law to his own ends [-5].
Mr. Evill's ancestor had a strong code of honor.
D. Cameron King
> >People often say things like "Yes, absolute morality and the Alignment
> >rules aren't very realistic, but neither are fire-breathing dragons and
> >wizards calling down lightning bolts." Here's my response to that:
>
> Why does there have to be a response? If you like the alignment/morality
> system you play with is there really any necessity to convince others that
> your method is best?
Perhaps you didn't notice...this is a newsgroup. People on a newsgroup
discuss things. Discussions without responses are known as "lectures."
Lectures tend to be boring. End of lecture.
* * *
Friends help you move.
Real friends help you move bodies.
semtex encryption proletariat detonator classified plutonium cocaine
Aristotle@Threshold
>You have a point, except that alignments in AD&D and D&D, are far from
>being indicators of 'absoulte morality', they're just general indicators of
>how a person behaves.
And a lot of people just use them as guidelines. I use alignments as a way for
players to get their character development started, and to have something
somewhat concrete to think about when they decide how their character will
act. I don't use it as a dictator of their actions, but something to bear in
mind.
Michele Ellington
> In article <01bdbb34$16673d00$bc0460d1@jer>, "Jeremy Reaban"
> <fran...@stlnet.com> wrote:
> > You have a point, except that alignments in AD&D and D&D, are far from
> > being indicators of 'absoulte morality', they're just general indicators of
> > how a person behaves. Sort of like the results you'd get from giving
> > someone a personality test. The Good-Evil axis just indicates how 'nice'
> > they are, while the 'Lawful-Chaos' axis indicates how law-abiding and
> > honorable they are....
> Really? Then how can someone who kills defenceless children, women and
> men be Good? It's not "nice" behaviour.
So the guys on the plane that bombed Hiroshima were evil, huh? I'm
not talking about the decision makers, I'm talking about the soldiers
that "pulled the trigger". They killed a lot of defenseless men,
women and children.
Whether that was an act of good or evil has been debated for years.
Whether the soldier who commits a terrible act on orders from a
superior should be blamed for the morality of that act has also
long been a subject of debate.
A preteen girl is made pregnant by her father. Who has committed
the greater sin, the father, or the doctor that aborts the fetus?
There are those who will argue each side in true moral vehemence.
A man is tied down by a group of people and one of them kills him.
Is the killer guilty of murder? What if the man killed was himself
a killer? What if the killing was a State sanctioned execution?
When does killing a defenseless person stop being murder?
I'm not making any claims to either argument, I am simply pointing
out that fiction which always offers a clear choice with no dichotomy
between right and wrong is likely to feel hollow and contrived. For
me, the dilemma of picking my way down the thorny path is a
large part of the adventure of role-playing. Trying to set aside
my own beliefs about right and wrong and see the issues through
my character's eyes, a perspective often very different from my own,
is the most interesting challenge I find in the game.
> Unless you have an absolute system of morality, like AD+D's, which says
> that some people are evil and some are good, and that it is alright for
> Good people to Kill Evil people.
> If orcs as a race are Evil, then killing orc children is not an evil act.
> That's how most Lawful Good paladins are played, anyway.
Yikes. Talk about a thorny path. How can a race be evil? Just
doesn't scan for me. "Evil" or guilt is derived by action, not
race, species, or even association. Certainly guilt warranting
summary execution would require some direct personal act on my
opponent's part. Of course, I have played characters whose
perspectives are different, but never so simple minded as "the
setting says they are all evil". Characters at war who killed
members of the enemy group on sight, characters with a powerful
race or species hatred. But that has nothing to do with "good"
and "evil". It has to do with a character's belief systems, and
carries no more validity to a central concept of right and wrong
than a Klansman's hatred of people of color.
John C Stepp
: Now, everyone seems since to have decided that equality of all before the
: law, subjection of the king to the law, and supervision of the government
: by the representatives of the people are good things, so perhaps we can
: agree that Sir John was Good.
I disagree. Law, and obedience to it, may be Good, Neutral, or Evil. The
Aztecs had laws demanding human sacrifice, for example.
Based on your description, Sir John rebelled on a point of order, that the
King betrayed one of the tenets of his position and was thus no longer fit
to rule. As such, John never broke "the law", since the King wasn't
really King and had no authority over him.
So I see Sir John as strongly Lawful (and lack enough info to say if Good
or Evil).
--
+---------------------------------------------------------+
| John Stepp || True heroics must be |
| University of Central Florida|| carefully planned...and |
| Orlando, FL, USA || strenuously avoided. |
| jcs7...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu || |
+---------------------------------------------------------+
Gregory D. Teed
: Is it? Take a moral philosophy class sometime. While when closely
: examined, moral relativism is pretty much as indefensible as moral
: realism (a category which includes moral absolutism, but from context,
: you you say "abosilute morality", you seem to be describing what
: philosophers call "moral realism", not what philosophers call "moral
: absolutism"). However, no moral theory has ben "verified" outside of
: its own criteria.
Screw "Moral Philosophy" classes. You learn nothing there, except
how to pontificate *LOUDER*. Go Analytic Ethics or go home.
External verification of moral theory? Now there's a hoot-and-a-
half! =)
: One thing you won't find in moral philosophy is an easy answer.
Well, you could discover that the questions are meaningless.
Moral Nihilism really clears away the fluffy bullsh*t in a big hurry.
- dglas (The Rational Fringe)
"I really feel, very *strongly*, that people shouldn't, y'know, just
shouldn't use normative language..."
WinningerR
behave "in the real world" when they're talking about the combat rules,
don't they?<<<
Yes, and I'm not sure that's always appropriate either.
As a general rule, I think RPGs should default to the "real world" right up
until it contradicts with the game's setting and/or source material.
WinningerR
there is a *vast* amount of folklore about how magic *supposedly* works,
and there are many depictions of magic in literature.<<<
Exactly. But there is also a vast amount of folkore about how morality
*supposedly* works and how combat supposedly works. My point is that an RPG
should be more interested in recreating its sources (ie. the folkore) than
reality.
WinningerR
moral and ethical groups together, say Lawful and Good. In
reality and in story, there are times when being lawful can't be
being good. Alignement rules don't handle this well.
Individualized disadvantages do.<<<
I think you're again confusing "Lawful" (in AD&D terms) with "someone who obeys
the law of the land." Lawful merely means that you follow a strict code of
behavior -- it makes no assumption as to what that code might be.
WinningerR
men be Good? It's not "nice" behaviour.
Unless you have an absolute system of morality, like AD+D's, which says
that some people are evil and some are good, and that it is alright for
Good people to Kill Evil people.
If orcs as a race are Evil, then killing orc children is not an evil act.
That's how most Lawful Good paladins are played, anyway.<<<
Paladins played in this fashion are played incorrectly. Slaughtering the
innocent or killing anything that does not pose a threat is always an evil act
and the rules make this clear.
John R. Cooper
>As a general rule, I think RPGs should default to the "real world" right up
>until it contradicts with the game's setting and/or source material.
What, exactly, *is* AD&D's source material other than itself? It was
pretty clear to me that TSR was trying to draw a line between core
mechanics and setting-specific genre conventions when they turned their
AD&D game worlds into distinct product lines. Unfortunately, the core
rulebooks continue to present a single view of magic, a singular view of
"turning" undead, one set of alignment rules, and so on. Anyone who says
that this is appropriate because magic "really is the same" in Ravenloft as
it is in Toril as it is in Krynn, etc. is ignorant of the history of the
game. The mechanics came first, the settings came later. AD&D was never
designed to reflect the nature of its game worlds, rather, the game worlds
were written to conform to the existing mechanics.
AD&D was obviously "inspired" by Tolkien, Howard, Leiber, and Moorcock.
But they do NOT serve as its source material. The only valid place to find
AD&D's "source material" is to go digging in Gygax's brain. Basically, the
old Greyhawk (and to some extent Arneson's Blackmoor) is AD&D's ONLY true
source material. Everything that has come out since is, by its slavish
devotion to the existing game mechanics, just derivations of the Original
Source (Greyhawk). Hell, the damn spells in the CORE RULES are still named
after Greyhawk wizards such as Bigby, Ottiluke, Tenser, Mordenkainen,
Melph, etc. Paladins MUST be human and they MUST be Lawful Good. It says so
right in the CORE RULES. Clearly, AD&D serves as its own source material,
and attempts to draw parallels with authentic genre fiction such as Tolkien
will always fail.
- John
SD Anderson
>> Really? Then how can someone who kills defenceless children,
women and
>> men be Good? It's not "nice" behaviour.
> So the guys on the plane that bombed Hiroshima were evil, huh?
You'll find people quite willing to make that argument, but
this isn't the place for that nor am I one of those people.
Among other differences, note the airmen were in a state of
declared war, while the typical party of adventures has heard
about this neat item held by this wizard they'd love to steal er
obtain.
SD Anderson
> I think you're again confusing "Lawful" (in AD&D terms) with
"someone who obeys
> the law of the land." Lawful merely means that you follow a
strict code of
> behavior -- it makes no assumption as to what that code might
be.
Hardly. Read some Wolfe books sometime. He'll perform all
manner of maneuvering to stay within the law if he can, but if he
can't, he won't hesitate to break a law.
Bruce Baugh
>right in the CORE RULES. Clearly, AD&D serves as its own source material,
..and has succeeded in getting a lot of them adopted as canons of
mass market fantasy literature. An interesting case of how not getting
it right the first time leads to the invention of new cliches.
--
http://pharospress.galstar.com/
Lace & Steel: swashbuckling and magic in a fantasy Renaissance
Nobilis: a new game of the secret struggle for the soul of the world
Check these out!
Bruce Baugh
> Hardly. Read some Wolfe books sometime. He'll perform all
>manner of maneuvering to stay within the law if he can, but if he
>can't, he won't hesitate to break a law.
Likewise Sherlock Holmes, for that matter. The gap between justice and
law is a classic theme in mysteries.
WinningerR
pretty clear to me that TSR was trying to draw a line between core
mechanics and setting-specific genre conventions when they turned their
AD&D game worlds into distinct product lines.<<<
Myths, legends, and a certain variety of heroic fantasy literature.
WinningerR
manner of maneuvering to stay within the law if he can, but if he
can't, he won't hesitate to break a law. <<<
Right. But presumably, he has his *own, personal* code that is inviolable, no?
SD Anderson
> Right. But presumably, he has his *own, personal* code that is
inviolable, no?
Which would be *selfish*, and my PH describes that as a chaos
indicator.
John R. Cooper
>Myths, legends, and a certain variety of heroic fantasy literature.
Okay, well, I was looking for something a little more concrete.
Where did Gygax get his notion of magic-users and their inherent
limitations from? What exactly is the model for the AD&D cleric (no edged
weapons)? What is the model for the thief, which ALWAYS has this
backstabbing capability? What or who is the model for the ranger class?
What legend originated the concept of turning undead? Where did Gygax get
the notion that dragons can only use their breath weapon three times per
day? I've always wondered about this stuff myself actually.
- John
Brian Newman
them, but I'll add my input for where I've seen them before.
John R. Cooper wrote:
>
> Where did Gygax get his notion of magic-users and their inherent
> limitations from?
I've never read his work, but it was apparently from novels written by
Jack Vance. Also, the idea of having usable powers once per day or once
and then needing recharging "outside the scenario" comes from the
minitaures wargaming background of D&D.
> What exactly is the model for the AD&D cleric (no edged
> weapons)?
It sound like an oversimplified model from Catholicism, but I'm not
sure.
> What is the model for the thief, which ALWAYS has this
> backstabbing capability?
Generic fantasy thief, I imagine. Plus, the class probably needed some
more power.
> What or who is the model for the ranger class?
This has to be Aragorn (from Lord of the Rings) and the other Rangers,
abstracted. ("Aragorn can track, therefore all rangers are trackers",
etc.)
> What legend originated the concept of turning undead?
This undoubtedly comes from the ancient idea of presenting a holy symbol
(such as a cross) to ward off vampires.
> Where did Gygax get the notion that dragons can only use their
> breath weapon three times per day?
See answer #1. :)
WinningerR
inviolable, no?
Which would be *selfish*, and my PH describes that as a chaos
indicator.<<<
How is your own personal code of honor selfish?
SD Anderson
> How is your own personal code of honor selfish?
What syllable of the word selfish don't you understand?
Something that is personal is by that definition individual and
separate, which is a chaotic tenet.
WinningerR
Something that is personal is by that definition individual and
separate, which is a chaotic tenet.
<<<
If you're going to be insulting, at least avoid cliches.
Having a property unique to yourself is not a chaotic tenet at all.
Paul Andrew King
Brian Newman <bne...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>I don't know why Gygax chose these things or precisely where he got
>them, but I'll add my input for where I've seen them before.
>
>John R. Cooper wrote:
>>
>> Where did Gygax get his notion of magic-users and their inherent
>> limitations from?
>
>I've never read his work, but it was apparently from novels written by
>Jack Vance.
As I've pointed out recently there are some rather important differences.
Also, the idea of having usable powers once per day or once
>and then needing recharging "outside the scenario" comes from the
>minitaures wargaming background of D&D.
I think this is a more likely eplanation - after all, Vance's only other
influence is a few spells - and I don't remember those in the original 3
books.
>
>> What exactly is the model for the AD&D cleric (no edged
>> weapons)?
>
>It sound like an oversimplified model from Catholicism, but I'm not
>sure.
The usual eplanation is Bishop Odo using a mace at Hastings.
>
>> What is the model for the thief, which ALWAYS has this
>> backstabbing capability?
>
>Generic fantasy thief, I imagine. Plus, the class probably needed some
>more power.
The Grey Mouser is the likely basis - although I can't remember him being
especially good at backstabbing. OTOH he probably is the reason why
thieves can read MU scrolls.
>
[...]
>
>> Where did Gygax get the notion that dragons can only use their
>> breath weapon three times per day?
>
>See answer #1. :)
(Hint it *doesn't* come from Vance :-)
--
"Hullo clouds, hullo sky, hullo pile of severed human heads," said Major
Basil Fotherington-Thomas.
(Eugene Byrne & Kim Newman "Teddy-Bear's Picnic")
Replace "nospam" with "morat" to reply
Paul K.
John R. Cooper
wrote:
>Also, the idea of having usable powers once per day or once
>and then needing recharging "outside the scenario" comes from the
>minitaures wargaming background of D&D.
Miniatures wargaming hardly constitutes literary or mythological source
material, now does it? Again, if this is true, then it further confirms my
belief that AD&D and its mechanics (or those it originated from such as the
fantasy supplement to Chainmail) serve as its own "source material."
>> What exactly is the model for the AD&D cleric (no edged
>> weapons)?
>
>It sound like an oversimplified model from Catholicism, but I'm not
>sure.
Eh? Which Catholic priests went out in full armor and went wading into
battle with non-edged weapons only?
>> What is the model for the thief, which ALWAYS has this
>> backstabbing capability?
>
>Generic fantasy thief, I imagine. Plus, the class probably needed some
>more power.
What is a generic fantasy thief, pray tell? And what pre-D&D fantasy
literature did this generic fantasy thief come from?
>> What or who is the model for the ranger class?
>
>This has to be Aragorn (from Lord of the Rings) and the other Rangers,
>abstracted. ("Aragorn can track, therefore all rangers are trackers",
>etc.)
Yeah, and Aragorn could cast priest (animal/plant) spells, right? What
other "Rangers" are you referring to?
>> What legend originated the concept of turning undead?
>
>This undoubtedly comes from the ancient idea of presenting a holy symbol
>(such as a cross) to ward off vampires.
Sounds plausible. Unfortunately the reasons for the symbol of Christ
being capable of warding off vampires don't extrapolate very convincingly
to other undead.
- John
Brett Evill
(Paul Andrew King) wrote:
>In article <35C65A0E...@aracnet.com>,
>Brian Newman <bne...@aracnet.com> wrote:
>>> What exactly is the model for the AD&D cleric (no edged
>>> weapons)?
>>
>>It sound like an oversimplified model from Catholicism, but I'm not
>>sure.
>
>The usual eplanation is Bishop Odo using a mace at Hastings.
And overlooking Archbishop Turpin using a lance and sword at Roncesvalles.
--
Brett Evill
To reply by e-mail, remove 'spamblocker.' from <b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au>
Brett Evill
nos...@nospam.com (John R. Cooper) wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Aug 1998 17:47:10 -0700, Brian Newman <bne...@aracnet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Also, the idea of having usable powers once per day or once
>>and then needing recharging "outside the scenario" comes from the
>>minitaures wargaming background of D&D.
>
> Miniatures wargaming hardly constitutes literary or mythological source
>material, now does it? Again, if this is true, then it further confirms my
>belief that AD&D and its mechanics (or those it originated from such as the
>fantasy supplement to Chainmail) serve as its own "source material."
>
>>> What exactly is the model for the AD&D cleric (no edged
>>> weapons)?
>>
>>It sound like an oversimplified model from Catholicism, but I'm not
>>sure.
>
> Eh? Which Catholic priests went out in full armor and went wading into
>battle with non-edged weapons only?
Bishop Odo, at the battle of Hastings, springs to mind.
Carl Perkins
}In article <B1ED0668...@morat.demon.co.uk>, pa...@nospam.demon.co.uk
}(Paul Andrew King) wrote:
}
}>In article <35C65A0E...@aracnet.com>,
}>Brian Newman <bne...@aracnet.com> wrote:
}
}>>> weapons)?
}>>
}>>It sound like an oversimplified model from Catholicism, but I'm not
}>>sure.
}>
}
}And overlooking Archbishop Turpin using a lance and sword at Roncesvalles.
}--
}Brett Evill
Yeah, but he was obviously on bad terms with his deiety becasue of it -
he wasn't seen casting any spells, after all.
--- Carl
Triad3204
<10225...@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>Ray Winninger wrote:
>> How is your own personal code of honor selfish?
>
> What syllable of the word selfish don't you understand?
>Something that is personal is by that definition individual and
>separate, which is a chaotic tenet.
All Paladins are Chaotic Good? You're out on a limb and falling fast.
Jusitn Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Triad3204
(John R. Cooper) writes:
> Where did Gygax get his notion of magic-users and their inherent
>limitations from?
Jack Vance for the memorization technique. Restricting swords and armor are an
attempt to make rules where guidelines alone should apply, but are drawn from
various sources (mages very rarely carry swords).
> What exactly is the model for the AD&D cleric (no edged
>weapons)?
You've got me. Probably one of the Catholic Orders (such as the Templars).
> What is the model for the thief, which ALWAYS has this
>backstabbing capability?
Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser would be my guess.
> What or who is the model for the ranger class?
Aragorn from LOTR, although it gradually became more than that as the "nature
oriented" section of the class description was expanded in later years.
>What legend originated the concept of turning undead?
Dracula is turned by a cross. It doesn't take much to expand the concept.
> Where did Gygax get
>the notion that dragons can only use their breath weapon three times per
>day?
This was probably added specifically to stop dragons from decimating Gygax's
PCs.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Brett Evill
tria...@aol.com (Triad3204) wrote:
>> What exactly is the model for the AD&D cleric (no edged
>>weapons)?
>
>You've got me. Probably one of the Catholic Orders (such as the Templars).
Nope. All the monastic fighting orders used swords, lances, and (later)
muskets and cannon.
John R. Cooper
Evill) wrote:
>In article <35c798b8....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>nos...@nospam.com (John R. Cooper) wrote:
>> Eh? Which Catholic priests went out in full armor and went wading into
>>battle with non-edged weapons only?
>
>Bishop Odo, at the battle of Hastings, springs to mind.
Well, Brett, I confess you have me at something of a disadvantage since
I don't know anything about this Bishop Odo. Was he really a man of the
cloth or was his title granted as a political move on the part of the
papacy? What was his objection to edged weapons?
- John
Thraka-Xeno
>
> This was probably added specifically to stop dragons from decimating Gygax's
> PCs.
I suspect it probably came from something like this:
Joe: Hey, Gary, how many times can a dragon breathe fire?
Gary: Uh, I dunno, as many times as he wants, I guess.
Joe: No, that's fucking stupid. Doncha think he would run outtah steam
some time?
Gary: Yeh, probably so. Okay, he can do it three times. If he can't
smoke the PC's with 3 shots, he's toast anyway.
Thraka
(Who knows all to well how some game ideas are created.) ;)
Brett Evill
nos...@nospam.com (John R. Cooper) wrote:
>On 5 Aug 1998 04:24:23 GMT, b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett
>Evill) wrote:
>
>>In article <35c798b8....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
>>nos...@nospam.com (John R. Cooper) wrote:
>>> Eh? Which Catholic priests went out in full armor and went wading into
>>>battle with non-edged weapons only?
>>
>>Bishop Odo, at the battle of Hastings, springs to mind.
>
> Well, Brett, I confess you have me at something of a disadvantage since
>I don't know anything about this Bishop Odo. Was he really a man of the
>cloth or was his title granted as a political move on the part of the
>papacy? What was his objection to edged weapons?
Here is his entry from the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica':
"Odo OF BAYEUX,
"French ODON DE BAYEUX, also called EARL OF KENT (b. c. 1036--d. February
1097, Palermo), half brother of William the Conqueror and bishop of
Bayeux, Normandy. He probably commissioned the famed Bayeux tapestry,
which pictures the Norman Conquest of England, for the dedication of his
cathedral (1077).
"Odo was the son of Herluin of Conteville by Arlette, who had previously
been the mistress of Duke Robert I of Normandy, William's father. Although
scandalously immoral, he was made bishop of Bayeux in 1049 by his half
brother. Odo typified Norman churchmen before the Cluniac reform. They
were essentially scions of great families placed in possession of the
church's wealth.
"Odo took part in the Norman invasion of England (1066) and fought in the
Battle of Hastings. The following year he was made earl of Kent and
assigned to guard southeast England. With two other men he ruled England
during William's frequent absences from the country. In 1082 he was
imprisoned by William on a charge of raising troops without royal
permission, probably to defend the pope against the Holy Roman emperor
Henry IV. He was released on the accession of William II, in 1087, against
whom he rebelled in support of William's brother, Robert Curthose, duke of
Normandy. Though the revolt was quelled, Odo was allowed to become
Robert's aide. He was active in organizing the First Crusade and was on
his way to the Holy Land when he died."
In short, he was a typical high-ranked churchman of his time. A career
priest and administrator, but probably lacking any trace of a religious
vocation. It is notable that several people with unquestioned vocations,
such as Sts Peter and Paul, are attested as using and carrying swords.
I think his motive might have had something to do with the Hildebrandtine
Reforms and the controversy over investitures. As a political move in his
struggle to break the power of the Holy Roman Emperor, one of the popes
declared that the consecrated priest must not be defiled by contact with
the hands that wielded the sword (hoping to prevent nobles from investing
bishops and abbots). Now, I thought that that was Calixtus II, and that he
said it in 1122, but it could have been someone else, or someone else
might have suggested it, as early as 1059.
Note further that the Templars and Hospitallers definitely used swords and
lances around this time, and that they were all ordained into minor orders
at least. (The status of the Templars was non-sacerdotal, but I believe
that the Hospitallers were canons regular: a type of priest).
John Scott
> On 5 Aug 1998 04:24:23 GMT, b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au (Brett
> Evill) wrote:
>
> >In article <35c798b8....@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> >nos...@nospam.com (John R. Cooper) wrote:
> >> Eh? Which Catholic priests went out in full armor and went wading into
> >>battle with non-edged weapons only?
> >
> >Bishop Odo, at the battle of Hastings, springs to mind.
>
> Well, Brett, I confess you have me at something of a disadvantage since
> I don't know anything about this Bishop Odo. Was he really a man of the
> cloth or was his title granted as a political move on the part of the
> papacy? What was his objection to edged weapons?
>
> - John
" Odo
William's half brother and Bishop of Bayeux was thought responsible for
the commissioning of the Bayeux Tapestry and possibly the inclusion of
epic deeds that he was not responsible for, but took the credit. ( more
will be said about Odo when the tapestry is analysed in more detail ). "
(From http://battle1066.com/wforce1.htm)
"Odo, Bishop of Bayeux and Earl of Kent, was born in Normandy about 1032.
He was brother by the mother's side of William, Duke of Normandy (the
Conqueror), and was named by him Bishop of Bayeux in 1049. He took a very
active part in the preparations for the expedition to England in 1066,
blessed the troops on the morning of the battle of Hastings, and took part
in the battle. He was rewarded with a grant of the town of Dover, and on
William's return to Normandy was charged with the government of England,
William Fitz-Osborn being associated with him. They exercised their power
with the most pitiless rigour, and quenched in blood the revolts provoked
by their tyranny.
Odo amassed immense riches, and had a large share of power during the
greater part of William's reign. In 1080 he was sent to Durham to lay
waste and slay
with fire and sword for the frequent revolts of the wretched people. Not
at all satisfied with his almost royal power and wealth, and irritated by
the appointment of Lanfranc to the see of Canterbury, Odo cherished the
hope of getting by craft, money, or power the papal chair. He had a palace
built at Rome, sent his agents there with rich presents for bribes, and
resolved to go himself, attended by Hugh, Earl of Chester, and other
powerful barons. The king, however, heard of the project, and ordered the
arrest of Odo, who had reached the Isle of Wight; and as none of the
officers would lay hands on a bishop, the king seized him, not, he said,
as bishop, but as Earl of Kent.
Odo was deprived of his dignities and estates, and prisoner at Rouen till
William's death, in 1087. Restored to liberty and reinstated in his
earldom of Kent, he joined in a conspiracy to dethrone William Rufus, but
was besieged in Rochester Castle, and compelled to surrender, obtaining
leave to retire to Bayeux. He retained great influence over Robert, Duke
of Normandy; advised the seizure of Prince Henry of England in 1091, and
was charged with the custody of the prisoner. Odo assisted at several
councils, and, in 1096, set out for the Holy Land, but died at Palermo
early in the following year. The famous Bayeux
Tapestry was given to the cathedral by Odo. "
(From: http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/royalty/bishopo.html)
At http://alethea.ukc.ac.uk/SU/Societies/deBec/Tapestry/bt32.html there's
a section of the Bayeaux Tapestery showing Odo, rallying the troops. I
guess he's the one directly under the word Odo, and he certainly looks to
be weilding a club rather than a sword. (Warning - that's a 240K image)
John
The University and I agree on a lot, but not necessarily this ...
John R. Cooper
Evill) wrote:
>Here is his entry from the 'Encyclopaedia Britannica':
[Snip]
My (admittedly limited) view of "Bishop" Odo is that he was not a man of
the cloth, but was merely entrusted with the title so that William had a
half-brother in charge of church resources. Sounds completely political.
Odo doesn't sound like much of a cleric to me. This man was not trained by
the church to be a priest; he was a glorified administrator who, like most
nobles of his time, eventually entered the Pillaging profession in order to
take part in the crusades.
I would hardly call this man a priest; certainly not one worthy of
spell-casting ability in an AD&D world. So unless Gygax had this kind of
person in mind when he invented the cleric class, I would seriously
question "Bishop" Odo as the model for the archetype.
- John
Brett Evill
nos...@nospam.com (John R. Cooper) wrote:
Then who do *you* suggest? Saints Peter and Paul wore and used swords. The
canons regular of the order of St John of Jerusalem used swords, lances,
and cannon.
John P. Raynor
<b.evill-0608...@tynslip1.apana.org.au> <35c9f2ba....@netnews.worldnet.att.net> <b.evill-0708...@tynslip4.apana.org.au>:
Distribution:
Brett Evill (b.e...@spamblocker.tyndale.apana.org.au) wrote:
: Then who do *you* suggest? Saints Peter and Paul wore and used swords. The
: canons regular of the order of St John of Jerusalem used swords, lances,
: and cannon.
The Knights Templar certainly used swords and lances. A very prominent
ecclesiastic writer of the time, Bernard something-or-another, wrote an
essay praising the "new chivalry" (that is, religious knights under
monastic vows, like Templars), and described such knights' weapons
(including swords) in terms of various virtues and spiritual gifts.
In short, the "cleric-with-a-mace" is at least seventy or eighty percent
"intra-party game balance," thinly excused with a questionable piece of
historical lore.
- J. Raynor
Ross TenEyck
>Then who do *you* suggest? Saints Peter and Paul wore and used swords. The
>canons regular of the order of St John of Jerusalem used swords, lances,
>and cannon.
I no longer remember the source for this, but I have vague memories of
reading about at least one of the "militant" orders -- kind of like the
Knights Templars, although not them -- that used non-edged weapons
exclusively. I think there was some kind of rule against "shedding
blood," and they figured that meant that sharp things were out, but
blunt weapons were OK.
(Fortunately, I've never had occasion to witness a genuine mace being
used on a living being. I assume that there is actually a fair amount
of blood involved. However, the rule was obviously purely on theoretical
grounds.)
If I can remember where I read this, I'll try to track it down.
--
================= http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck/ =================
Ross TenEyck Seattle WA \ <Note: the web server that my page is
ten...@alumni.caltech.edu \ on is intermittently down, so the URL
Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ above may not exist from time to time>
Jens Hage
> Then who do *you* suggest? Saints Peter and Paul wore and used swords. The
> canons regular of the order of St John of Jerusalem used swords, lances,
> and cannon.
I always thought the clerics used blunts weapons for the sam reason the
Inquisition never used blades; no blood was to be spilled. -In theory-
(yes, I'm damn aware it's a lousy theory when dealing with maces) you
wouldn't break the skin.
Jens "Shrugging helplessly otherwise" Hage
Pete Hardie
> I no longer remember the source for this, but I have vague memories of
> reading about at least one of the "militant" orders -- kind of like the
> Knights Templars, although not them -- that used non-edged weapons
> exclusively. I think there was some kind of rule against "shedding
> blood," and they figured that meant that sharp things were out, but
> blunt weapons were OK.
IIRC, it was Bishop Odo, the brother (cousin?) of William the Conqueror,
who
chose a mace for that reason. I don't recall if it was a personal
choice,
a individual vow, or a restriction of the clergy.
Pete
Andy Wills
It was a restriction of the clergy, I recall. For a short time, clerics
could not shed blood, in theory at least. I don't remember the details,
sorry.
> Pete
-Andy
John R. Cooper
Evill) wrote:
>
>Then who do *you* suggest? Saints Peter and Paul wore and used swords. The
>canons regular of the order of St John of Jerusalem used swords, lances,
>and cannon.
>
To be honest, I have no idea whatsoever. I am tempted, on the one hand,
to assert that the AD&D cleric isn't based on anything in particular, that
it is just a figment of Gygax's imagination, and that the prohibition
against edged weapons was another one of his dubious attempts at game
balance.
But I am not willing to cliam that just because *I* can't think of a
precedent, that there isn't one. I am merely curious what Gygax based it on
himself. I am presuming that he was exposed to more history, myth, legend,
and literature than I, and that the cleric is based on something I've never
heard of.
- John
Bryan J. Maloney
(John R. Cooper) wrote:
> To be honest, I have no idea whatsoever. I am tempted, on the one hand,
> to assert that the AD&D cleric isn't based on anything in particular, that
> it is just a figment of Gygax's imagination, and that the prohibition
> against edged weapons was another one of his dubious attempts at game
> balance.
BINGO! Just like the "no armor for mages" rule.
--
- "God created women equal with men" ... "There are many women who
are better than men."--St. Kosmas Aitolos
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/bjm10/