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.

Starting Over

Wonder if I've used that title for a post before. Probably more than once.

I've been cooking a lot lately by which I mean 'a lot more than usual' (and by lately I mean the last month or so). I've really tried to be attentive to what I'm preparing as far as food for my family and what they/we eat...not only to ensure proper nutrition for growing kids (and for geezers like myself that need to *ahem* slim down) but because a variety of good, solid foods, well-prepared taste better and are less detrimental to your health, energy, and longevity. 

Also, it's cheaper. Who doesn't want to save money?

Fortunately, I live in Seattle which is positively overflowing with a cornucopia of foods, reasonably priced, all year around...more than I'll probably ever have time to learn or try, let alone master. Others aren't so lucky..."food deserts" abound in this country, and in a society that's mostly forgotten how to grow/raise their own food, that leads to a variety of problems. 

Me...I'm blessed. My grocery bills are half what they were, we're wasting less food, eating better, and the only thing it costs me is time. Time, that most precious of commodities. Being mortal (as we all are), you really come to appreciate that resource, especially the less of it you have.

Today, I have a little extra (time) because it's Friday during Lent, so the food prep is ultra-simple. Thus, I have time to punch out a quick blog post. 

Tuesday's AD&D session saw the death of my players' first, main characters. Out of spells, down three party members and wounded to the point of exhaustion the survivors were forced to retreat from an elite force of hobgoblins (the leader was dressed in plate and shield). Valens, the 5th level elf fighter (with a comatose Jesse - 4th/5th level halfling - lashed to his back) broke from the rest of the group and jumped from a cave ledge 50' above the ground, using a bracelet of swimming & climbing to try to gouge handholds in the cliff face as he plunged toward the canyon floor. 

He landed on his right leg and shattered his ankle. 

[this was a bit of a rough one. The character was not attempting to climb the wall but, instead, break his fall using the magic item's ability to "give the wearer a very strong gripping and holding ability" ...much the same as a high level monk. As the climb vertical percentage given by the item - 95% - is about the same as a 7th level monk, I allowed that the character could remove 30' from from the potential falling damage (as a monk of that level can fall 30' and take no damage) with a saving throw to mitigate damage from the last 20'. He ended up being reduced to exactly 0 hit points by the fall and, given the circumstances, decided to allow him to remain conscious in exchange for a serious, debilitating injury]

The hobgoblins were not about to give up pursuit, however, as the party's raid had killed some 30+ of their number. As some members of the war party raced to fetch a rope ladder, crossbow bolts rained down upon the elf, as he struggled to cover the hundred yards or so to where the party's horses had been tethered near the entrance to the canyon. Holding his shield +1 above his head (he had tossed it out the cave mouth before tossing himself) and using trees for cover, it was a valiant effort...only a natural 20 would be enough to hit him.

Unfortunately, he fell pierced through the neck.

Something like this.

"I can't believe Valens got killed!" my son exclaimed Wednesday morning over breakfast, probably for the 10th or 15th time. "He was so beefy!" And he had been: 5th level, 40 hit points, an AC of 1 thanks to magical leather armor and an 18 dexterity, a +2 long sword, etc. My daughter's character (a fighter/thief) hadn't been nearly as fight-worthy, but she'd been plenty formidable in her own arena, and exhibited bravery, cleverness, and compassion (for both henchmen and foes alike) on plenty of occasions. 

They had, however, been nearing "retirement" anyway due to AD&D's restrictive level caps on demihumans (the halfling had already reached maximum fighter level and the elf was but one level away). One way or another their adventuring days had been drawing to a close. And - thankfully - neither child was particularly torn up about their deaths (i.e. there wasn't any crying or fussing or begging for a "do over").

And so they rolled up new characters. Trying something different, we used Method III from the DMG and ended up with some pretty solid characters; Diego even had good enough stats to be a paladin. Instead, he wanted to try a half-orc fighter/assassin and only changed his mind when he realized his starting age (per the DMG) would put his character at Middle Aged (for a half-orc)...and one year away from Old Age!

"This game sucks!" he said. "How did I end up being such a geezer?" Well, learning two different professions takes a lot of time, and orcs aren't known for their longevity...something about the 'evil, corrupting magic' leeching out the lifeforce. Ah, AD&D: so good at balancing itself!

He decided to be an elven assassin instead. His sister's new character is a half-elf cleric/ranger. 

[I'll note, the boy considered a half-elven assassin because they have a higher level cap (11th instead of 10th), but eventually settled on the elf race because its superior bonuses and abilities were a decent trade-off]

For multiple reasons (which I hope to describe in a future post) we have decided to reinstate alignment in the game (sorry, Alexis!). At the moment, its inclusion means little (other than the players had to choose alignments for their characters and these were limited based on their classes): the cleric/ranger is lawful good and the assassin is lawful evil. There is no restriction on rangers adventuring with evil characters (unlike the rules for paladins) and we have decided the PCs are half-siblings, there being only a 30 year age difference. 

SO...to sum up, we are starting the campaign over from scratch. And this time, I'm not using published adventures (at least, not to start). The bulk of our Thursday session (yesterday) was spent equipping their characters, exploring the village in which they found themselves, and locating some sort of adventure to be had. Hopefully, we'll be able to run through it in the next day or two: the local witch needs some powdered kobold horn to complete the potions of diminution she's been commissioned to brew, and she's a little too busy (and old) to go tracking after them. A small hillside lair is known to be located a couple days ride from the town...and if nothing else, sending them off on the quest (with a promise of payment) was enough to get the pair off her property for a few days....

We'll see how this turns out; those giant weasels are pretty vicious.

; )

Morality & Justice

AKA What I Learned from Saint Cuthbert

Yes, another post about alignment in Dungeons & Dragons.

My last post on the subject (just reread it this morning) is a good example of just how far down the rabbit hole one can fall when one spends an inordinate amount of time theory-bashing, putting the cart before the horse when it comes to world building ("cart") and running ("horse"). NOW...well, I've been running the game for a couple-three weeks, and I just wanted to share my experience. 

When we started this up, I decided to simply ignore the entire concept of alignment until such time as it became "necessary" to the game. There were a number of reasons I made that decision, but the main one had to do with laziness: I am running Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (1E) for small children, and I didn't relish the idea of putting a 9 point alignment system in terms they could understand (i.e. in a meaningful, playable way) when the concept is A) pretty shaky anyway, and B) mechanically meaningless. Besides which, as a parent to these small children, it's already my job to instill in them a sense of right and wrong, and I don't need to confuse that message with the artificial concepts of a game...especially a game that (often) celebrates murder and robbery.

We are, after all, Christians, and the main lesson of Christ is to love everyone (including one's enemies) as much as you love yourself. I'll be honest, I've been less rigorous in my proselytizing as I probably should be (given that we haven't been to Mass since February) but I try to point out examples as they come up in daily life. And they both understand that D&D is a game and that stabbing people is a "no-no" without me needing to throw down a disclaimer at the beginning of each session.

But rather than confuse things in their mind...forcing them to shift their paradigm of thinking when we're deep in the throes of imagining and expecting them to compartmentalize...instead of that, I've simply tried to create a bit more richness to the game world and pay closer attention to the depth of choices that abound AND the consequences of those choices.

Some examples:

The players were ambushed by a half-orc (read: "mutant") thief and his mountain lion pets while conducting a raid of the old goblin fort where the mutant made his home. The players won the fight, reducing the thief to negative one hit point which (per AD&D rules) left him alive. They then ministered to his wounds so he would survive, and took him hostage...for a time. What they found was that they had little use for an NPC who bore a great deal of resentment for the party (they'd invaded his home, killed his pets, robbed the place...not to mention beating the crap out of him); any "gratitude" he might have had for sparing his life was tempered by the overriding desire for revenge on his oppressors! 

The players on the other hand, were clearly loathe to murder an unarmed captive...what to do with the guy? Enslave him? Keep feeding him like a pet? After a couple-four days at the village where the players were staying, the town Elder asked the players to resolve the situation as it was making the locals decidedly uncomfortable (for a number of reasons). So they took him to the edge of town and let him go...basically banishing him into the wilderness, charging him with keeping his nose clean. This small mercy would give them a spot of trouble later, but in the end it was a decision they could live with.

In a later game session, the players were able to end their personal feud with a certain goblin tribe through a combination of negotiation and concession, sparing additional bloodshed (on both sides) and creating the possibility of allies while somewhat mitigating a local threat AND advancing their own goals.

In Saturday night's game, the players came upon a village that had been recently devastated by a band of gnoll raiders. Literally (per the adventure) there is NO ONE LEFT ALIVE in the place, except the gnoll chieftain (and his dog) who was abandoned by his own people for being too wounded to travel/fight. The players captured him pretty easily and, after getting what info out of him they could, were discussing what to do with him. I had the henchman magic-user blow him away with her single (unused) magic missile spell. She had, after all, been hired in this very village by the PCs a month earlier...she'd known these people and enjoyed their company, and this creature had led his people here to rob and slay every single man, woman, and child in the place. Killing him was justice for an unrepentant monster (who was only bitter at being left behind).

None of this has anything to do with alignment.

The plot of the adventure module (which I still plan on blogging about, one of these days) is that one ancient artifact of "good" (The Sentinel) has a beef with another ancient artifact of "evil" and wants the players to carry it into a final confrontation. But when one examines the reality of the artifacts' histories, it is clear they were simply created by two rival nations who were at war with each other...a war that has long since ended and which was won, rather peaceably, by the "evil" side (one kingdom being subsumed into the other). The sentient "good" artifact wants to be wielded by creatures of good alignment (and uses the know alignment spell to discover the proper person)...if PCs are unwilling or unable to use the item, the adventure provides a wandering 10th level ranger lord to which they can dispose of the thing...but this part of the narrative is completely unnecessary to the scenario. All it does is penalize (i.e. "You can't go on the adventure") players who don't buy into the module's heavy handed morality. Characters of evil alignment (not to mention druids, thieves, assassins, and bards, all of whom the Sentinel ignores) need not apply.

And considering the item's raison d'etre and purpose (a mutual destruction suicide run) the alignment of the wielder has zero impact on the possible outcomes. It doesn't even mean anything as far as forcing the players down a specific railroad: the item itself has an incredible 38 personality (the sum of its intelligence and ego). To put that in perspective, the Sword of Kas only has a 34 personality, and "will certainly attempt to control whomever takes it as his or her own." (DMG161) If the Sentinel wants to force the PCs to do its bidding, it has no need to appeal to their "better natures;" it can simply seize control, in what I'd argue is a typical hazard of D&D.

[Blackrazor's personality is only 33]

The POINT being (man, I wander) that alignment is easily removed from the adventure...and from the game...and isn't really missed. This is perhaps even more clear when one examines the second module in this series (UK3: The Gauntlet) and find the PCs in parley and allied with a lawful evil fire giant family.

But what of clerics and deities and extra-planar cosmic struggles? Because those things are often cited as reasons that alignment makes sense and should be retained (some have said that alignment ONLY makes sense because of this). But I've been thinking long and hard about clerics and religion and theisms (poly- versus mono-) lately and I had a bit of an epiphany the other day, spurred in part by a recent post at Grognardia: one does not need rival gods to have a multitude of competing temples and religions. Even in the medieval Catholic church, you have different orders, different saints, different motivations, not to mention multiple schisms, scandals and heresies.

Why do all clerical spells look the same (as opposed to water magic from sea gods and battle magic from war gods and whatnot)? Because they're all coming from the same divine source. The "lords of light" in my campaign are simply a collection of ascended saints and holy men. Saint Cuthbert, for example (if I ever decide to throw Hommlet into my world). But while a seaside fishing village may have a church dedicated to Saint Barto of the Depths (or whatever), and the people pray to him like travelers rubbing their medals to St. Christopher, everyone understands that their patron's power comes from a "higher source."

[where does this leave traditional "evil high priests" and their underlings? In the realm of demon worshippers and satanists (diabolists), I suppose, performing twisted "miracles" (reversed spells) due to the nature of their patrons. Does that make their patrons as powerful as God Almighty? Hardly. The evil cleric's magic is (for the most part) destructive in nature while the good cleric's heals, restores, and extends life. In the final race for supremacy, Good can be expected to outlast Evil]

All of which is a long-winded way of saying: I'm finding less and less need for alignment...for any reason...in my game. 

Issues like paladins' alignment restriction can be accomplished through oaths and vows; their penalties are, after all, based on behavior and actions taken. Assassins and thieves, purveyors in murder and theft respectively, need no artificial stamp of "evil" and "non-good" as their professions speak for themselves. Things like whether or not a patriarch will heal a character can be judged by what purpose such restoration will serve, regardless of what "alignment" is noted on the character sheet. Likewise, sentient magical items can decide for themselves whether or not a character's motivations fit their own.

[with regard to other magic items with effects based on alignment...a libram of silver magic versus one of ineffable damnation, for example...I think it's fine to allow use to any character, especially as no character can benefit multiple times from a work of the same type. Other items, like a talisman of pure good (or ultimate evil) are fairly self explanatory in their function, regardless of the existence of "alignment"]

In closing this post, I think it's important to consider that "heroism" may be more a matter of reputation than inherent propensity for good (or evil); heroes are known for their press releases far more than even their actions. After all, how many folks in the D&D world actually get to witness the party's fight with the dragon? Sure, sure, the PCs have the thing's head (and hoard) to show for their prowess, but tales of their battle might well be greatly exaggerated (and/or "spun") by the party itself...especially if less-than-heroic means were used to slay the beast. I am reminded greatly of Reid's Rangers, a band of NPCs from the Rifts RPG sourcebook The Vampire Kingdoms. Considered legendary heroes by the local population for their exploits in fighting blood-sucking extra-dimensional entities, they are (to a man) of evil and anarchist alignment, a group consisting of sadists, bullies, drunks, necromancers, and megalomaniacal narcissists. Still, because of their reputation they remain beloved by the people; it's one of my favorite write-ups in any RPG ever.

Removing alignment (as a system) from my game has not stripped it of meaning, nor caused players to devolve into murder-hobo lifestyle. BUT (and, yes, I want that "but" emphasized) this is mainly due to the PCs' actions having consequences in the campaign world. Behavior matters; reputation matters. Villages are not unlimited spawn points for hirelings, goods, and services...NPCs are not (all) nameless/faceless masses. Sentient monsters (like goblins) are not motive-less kills-waiting-to-be-tallied. Relationships matter, and issues of morality, justice, and honor all all tied up in those relationships.

At least, that's what I'm finding in my game.

"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!

: )

Morality and the Cosmic Struggle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that all makes sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supernatural

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Problematic Content I Like

My experiments with Alexis's trade system is, unfortunately, going to go on hold for the moment (family stuff takes precedence on the weekends, and the boy had a baseball double-header Saturday).

However, I still have some time have a bit of time now, in the wee hours of the morning (while everyone else is asleep) to blog a bit more on the South American campaign setting. The more I consider it and research it, the more I like the whole concept. As long as I treat the indigenous humans like, you know, humans and not some sort of cardboard fantasy antagonists, I think the setting can still provide plenty of ground for adventure while not becoming some sort of sick colonialist fantasy. I think the main thing to keep in mind is that humans are a diverse bunch of people: no group is inherently "good" or "evil," though self-interest can look like the latter when it's at the expense of others. Regardless, the game will probably have a bit more "moral ambiguity" than your average D&D campaign, especially those latter day editions that presume players to be some sort of heroic do-gooder types.

And that's fine. If a PC is murdering a fictional human in a game, does it it matter that the NPC is an Incan or a Spaniard? Is it really any different from murdering a (fictional) Traladaran or Thyatian? I think it only becomes offensive when the game states (explicitly or not) that a particular group of people is "orc equivalent" in the setting, i.e. a species of less-than-humans existing only to be slaughtered, and that there's no moral quandary for doing so, as the culture is all "evil" anyway.

I suppose we'll have to see how it works in practice which...considering my lack of gaming at the moment...might take a while. Still, I'll try to keep it in consideration as I do my prep work and world building. For now, let's just figure it's all "doable" and move on to the next offensive thing I've got planned: religion.

Specifically the re-skinning of alignment as "religion" for the campaign setting.

The whole Law-Neutral-Chaos axis doesn't really work in a setting of moral ambiguities: if you don't have a Dark Lord Sauron on one side and some sort of Council of Good Peoples on the other, the idea of alignment becomes either a means of measuring temperament (do I like to steal and cheat?) or one that measures some type of "cosmic force" interaction. The latter works great for settings that pit players against extra-natural entities (Cthulhu and the like) or define the conflict as one of order/civilization versus chaos/wilderness. But those don't really work for my setting: there isn't any cosmic evil force the PCs are striving against, and the "wilderness" of South America already had plenty of order/civilization in the form of the native peoples of the continent. The conquistadors were really the ones introducing chaos (to the eyes of the indigenous population) even as their perception was one of bringing "the light of reason and faith" to the region.

[oh...and if you just want alignment to be temperament, then why bother with it at all? Humans change their minds and behaviors all the time. No one is inherently Lawful or Neutral or Chaotic]

However, I do have reasons for wanting "sides" in the setting (and a shorthand description for characters), and instead of traditional alignment, I've decided that the term religion will do just fine. In this case, I break it into three categories:

True Christian
Practical
Non-Christian

Part of this is tied directly to the history of the setting. When the Church allowed the Spanish and Portuguese to divide up the non-Christian world between them, part of the justification for this was the conversion of the non-Christian populations. As such, only Christians were allowed to emigrate to the Americas, individuals in fact needing to be able to prove that they were Christians (of two Christian parents) in order to participate in the colonization. For the Spanish and Portuguese, going to the New World wasn't a search for "religious freedom;" it was about expanding the Church's dominion. As such, all European explorers in South America were exclusively (if nominally) "Christian" during this time period.

Now Christianity, like most world religions, is generally pretty nice when people follow its laws and tenets. Thing is, though, you actually have to practice what the priest is preaching...just because you've been baptized and take Communion regularly doesn't mean you're not an asshole. Walking in the steps of Jesus...like walking the path of any holy person...can be frigging hard especially the more attachments you have to the worldly. Not just money and power mind you, but your family, personal honor, and self-identity (status, place in society). It's tough dissolving one's ego and "trusting in the Lord," and most of us get too caught up in the immediate stuff in front of our noses to see (or care) about the larger picture.

Those that DO see that picture, or who can at least glimpse it and care enough to try to live it, are the folks that fall into the "True Christian" category. Baptized Christians (i.e. European explorers) who habitually forget or ignore either the letter or the spirit of Church teachings fall into the "Practical" category; they still believe in heaven, and are respectful of priests and the Eucharist (superstitiously so) but they're not really trying to live Christ's example. "Non-Christians" are people who actively disbelieve or despise the Church; it includes both atheists and apostates, and any pagan peoples (like all the indigenous folk at the start of the campaign).

In addition to helping define where one falls in the conflict between New World and Old World, these alignments serve a practical purpose of helping to distinguish and categorize the character classes in the campaign; at the moment, I see them breaking down like this:

Cleric: True Christian or Practical only
- Druid: Non-Christian only
Fighter: Any
- Paladin: True Christian only
- Ranger: Any
Magic-User: Practical or Non-Christian only
- Illusionist: Practical or Non-Christian only
Thief: Any*
- Assassin: Practical or Non-Christian only
- Bard: Any
Monk: Non-Christian only, if used

I haven't decided whether or not I actually want to include the monk character class...if I do, it will probably be some sort of fantasy order/cult found among the indigenous. I toyed with limiting thieves' alignment, but I figure there might be some "reformed" types who retain their skills refraining from their sinful (stealing) ways. Mage-types and assassins are limited because, regardless of any particular devotion they might have, they continue to practice crafts (sorcery and murder) that are distinctly counter to Church law.

Being a True Christian matters mostly to the cleric and paladin classes. It is possible to be a priest or knightly warrior without being a devoted Christian, but the supernatural powers of these classes are tied to their faith. As such, I've defined seven Saintly Virtues (based on the Cardinal and Theological Virtues) that True Christians must observe to retain their status:

Charity, Chastity, Faith, Fortitude, Mercy, Modesty, and Temperance

I have notes about how each might be broken, but the effects of breaking them differ between classes.

Because "to err is human," a player may choose a single virtue that their character may safely disregard while still retaining their status as a True Christian; it is assumed this is a personal flaw/vice that they are struggling with and so long as they show proper remorse (and seek confession) there is no alignment penalty (changing alignments carries the usual penalty of losing an experience level, but it's pretty damn difficult to switch between Practical and Non-Christian without actual religious conversion!).

Paladins who fall from True Christian to Practical alignment lose all class benefits, becoming a normal fighter (though one with a tougher XP table...oh, that guilty conscience!). The nice thing about this system is that I have actual "sins" (well, vices really) with practical limits that regulate if the character is being true to her alignment or not, rather than some arbitrary (i.e. DM defined) "act of evil." Players who want to play a more typical (and historical) "robber knight" can play a fighter of Practical alignment instead.

For clerics, the seven Saintly Virtues are tied directly to their spell-casting ability: the cleric may not cast spells of a greater level than the maximum number of virtues they obediently observe. This applies even to clerics of Practical alignment: each character has seven boxes that will be checked off by the DM if and win a character falls to the Vice that corresponds to a particular Virtue. For example, "lust" is the sin associated with Chastity, which here is defined as "sex outside the sanctity of Holy Matrimony." Since priests and nuns are prohibited from being married by Church law, this Virtue would be broken with ANY sexual relationship. This might not cause a change in alignment (especially if the cleric was already of the Practical bent) but would prohibit the character's ability to cast spells higher than 6th level...at least without proper atonement and penance.

[I am still deciding whether or not undead turning is linked to alignment...in which it would only be available to True Christians...or to class (in which case alignment matters little). Probably will depend on what I decide is the reason the ability works and how]

Aside from these things, I intend to have certain magical effects that function differently (or not at all) depending on the alignment/religion of a character: these include some spells (especially clerical and druidic magic) and some magic items as well: a pagan may burn (and take damage) from touching a holy Christian relic, and some Christians will face similar (and worse) penalties from particular pagan artifacts...though, of course, the effects will be less pronounced for "Practical" Christians.

It should be noted that while alignment might affect some societal structures, it need have no effect on which characters will adventure together. A True Christian will happily join a party that includes a pagan or an assassin with the hope that her shining example will inspire such characters to religious conversion (or, at least, to "mend their evil ways"). There is, thus, no proscription against paladins adventuring with a band of faithless miscreants.
: )

We Don't Care

[I'm actually back in Seattle now, eagerly awaiting the start of playoff football. This is a post I wrote while winging my way back from Mexico]

Somewhere over North America…

Several weeks ago I had the chance to watch Dan Collins (Delta) and Paul Seagel in their first livestream video about "old school gaming" in which they discuss some of the concepts that distinguish the "old school" from the "new school" (cue the usual groans and rolled eyeballs). Around the 23 minute mark of the video they start talking about high death count as one of the usual indicators of old school play. And while I don't entirely agree with that, Paul has a quote about two minutes later that really struck a chord with me...one that I've been rolling around in my mind ever since:

"I have had moments with players being more used to 'new school' games being taken aback, and needing an adjustment of 'Oh, really? I can die this easily? Well, why do I care about this character?' And the answer is, well, you don't. Like, maybe get attached to them after they've lived through a few things..."

This is literal truth. We DON’T care about our characters…not at first anyway. 

Allow me to walk through character creation, B/X style:

I roll my six ability scores, then take stock of what I have and what looks like a good option for a possible class, probably leaning towards something I think I’ll enjoy playing (*I* tend to be partial to fighty types). Based on how those ability scores look (in relation to my character class and, possibly, my presumed role in the party) I start to form an idea of my character. Then, because of the randomly determined gold I possess, I choose equipment I feel will be suitable for my character and the adventure at hand. At this point, I might (if my imagination is working good), start to form an image of my character in my mind’s eye…though not often.

Finally, I roll hit points, make some notes about armor class and whatnot, give my character a name that feels appropriate, and pick an alignment based as much on whimsy as on setting, image, and/or idea. Alignment gives me some guidelines for how I might play my character, but if I haven’t formed a really solid concept in my head, I’ll probably just pick “neutral” as a default.

At this point, I am ready to play. There is nothing more I need…no background, no backstory, no hometown, family, allies, enemies, blah-blah-blah. None of that matters. It is helpful if I’m familiar with other players at the table, and it’s definitely useful to know what kind of characters they are running, but these things can be picked up on the fly once play begins. Social dynamics are going to morph anyway once the game commences, based on player personality, scenario/situation, and reaction to situation (based on player personality).

If the DM is doing his/her job, I will become immersed in the game world, reacting to situations as they arise, based on my personality, the resources available to me on my character sheet, and the actions of my fellow party members. Depending on the outcome of party member actions, social dynamics might change, and things may develop that impact future play. But when I am fully immersed in game play, all thoughts of character “image” or “concept” melt away…in my mind’s eye, it is me (JB) wearing armor or wizard robes, swinging a big axe or a holy symbol, dealing with monsters, exploring dark dungeons, etc. The personality of my “character” becomes my own, with all other directional pointers (like alignment) simply fading away.

Let me reiterate that last point: when I am immersed in playing, the character has MY personality, and makes decisions as I would, regardless of alignment. A couple of examples:

- A PC who stumbles across an opportunity to steal a bit of decent treasure (say a fist-sized diamond), unbeknownst to the rest of the party, is as likely to do so as the player playing, REGARDLESS of character alignment.  The lawful character might feel (selfishly) that this is something to be used for the good of her cause, church, etc. and best kept from the hands of her dastardly compatriots. A chaotic character might feel it’s best to share such a find with the other party members because the party is the character’s best ticket to survival (and eventual wealth and power). 

- A lawful character might feel it is best to put captive creatures to the sword as it benefits “the greater good” of protecting civilization from the monsters’ degradations. A chaotic character might feel that captives spared might make fine recruits for a motley horde at some future point…barring that, they may prove useful in some more immediate fashion (information or hostages, for example).

There is no rule that says a lawful character can’t act cowardly in the face of danger (despite what Moldvay writes…see page B11). There’s no rule that says a chaotic or neutral character cannot have a personal sense of honor. And even though the rules state “alignments give guidelines for characters to live by,” in my experience player personality trumps alignment every time, and it is always possible to justify one’s actions later, if and when called to do so.

The same holds true for ANY attempt to artificially create a fictional “persona” based on backstory, secondary skills (1^stedition), kits (2^ndedition), backgrounds (5^thedition), non-class professions (0-level DCC), etc.  Assuming the DM is doing his/her job, my attention is going to be held by the game, and I will act and react to the events of the game based on my personality, and the resources I have available. 

Playing D&D is not the theater. I have no need to understand my character’s background or motivation because I am not acting out a script and I am not reading someone else’s lines. In theater, these things (background, motivation) are immensely important to help put yourself in the headspace of a character, in order to deliver a performance that feels authentic. Acting always filters a character through the actor’s own person, but to get the right emotional beats, actors need to recreate (in their own mind) the circumstances that have led to the on-stage actions they are taking.

Playing D&D is not about delivering an “authentic performance;” that isn’t the objective of game play. The objective is to have one’s character survive and thrive in the imaginary environment provided by the DM. And if the DM is pressing the players hard, providing situations that make survival difficult and thriving complicated, then the player is likely to experience the immersive type of game play that is unavailable in any other medium, outside of certain “First Person Shooter” games (and those only provide a similar experience in a limited, restricted sense). When players experience this type of game play, all the pseudo-storytelling write-ups in the world have little impact on how a PC behaves. 

Why do we care about this character? The answer is: we don’t. At least, not for a good, long while. After a few game sessions…depending on the particular inclination of the player…we start to identify more and more with the scribbles and numbers on the character sheet as being “me,” i.e. ourselves. And it is at that point players start to form an attachment, sometimes a deep attachment, to this alternate identity we’ve created. Even our fellow players may begin to look at the character sheets as “us” (at least at the table) alternately calling players by character names and referring to characters by the names of the player.

But it’s never really the character that we care about. When the DM is doing their job, what players care about is the game being played. And the character as a vehicle is our means of interacting with that game. As characters develop over time, we players become more and more attached to the character sheet that represents ourselves in the game world…not only because of the character’s increased effectiveness (fighting ability, spell inventory, magic item stockpile, etc.) but because of the character’s impact on the campaign itself…the creation of a shared history for the fantasy world based on the adventures experienced, and the stories of past exploits experienced by members of the gaming table.

Losing such a character…this fantasy avatar to which we’ve formed a deep attachment…can be a devastating blow. Having that character diminished (in any number of a variety of ways) can cause us to suffer real anguish, even in those of us who don’t usually feel terrible losing a game of, say, Uno or Monopoly. And from my own experience as both a DM and as a player, I can say that the loss of a long-term character (beloved or not) can have a dramatic impact on the other players at the table as well, not just the player whose character was lost.

Personally, I think that all the additions to character creation over the years...additions that draw out the chargen process…has been done in part to facilitate us becoming attached to our character sheets, trying to make us care about these scraps of paper from Session 1. Yes, I know there are other reasons the designers will cite: providing players more options, adding interesting systems, giving players a means to distinguish themselves from the other characters at the table. Those things are part of it, sure. But really, that's all in aid of trying to make us CARE from the get go…and the thing is, what we truly cared about was never the character itself. What we cared about was what the character was allowing us to do.

And that only occurs with a competent DM and long term play.

All right, we’re preparing to land at SeaTac, so it’s time to put away Ye Old Laptop. I’ll post this to the blog sometime tonight or tomorrow. G’night!

: )