Conan and Alignment

While I was bedridden last week, I spent quite a bit of time with REH and his creation Conan. Since the latest Hollywood version has been deemed a disaster by just about everybody, I had decided to get my Conan fix the old fashioned way. [BTW I myself do not have an opinion on the movie other than to say that I trust Hollywood about as far as I can throw California and I choose to spend my entertainment dollars on Netflix and the like, because it is has the wonderful side effect of changing customer expectation and therefore threatening the status-quo among our entertainment elite.]

One of the things that I found most fascinating is the way REH played with the theme of civilization vs. barbarism. My take on REH is that he sees both as necessary and as correctives for the abuses of the other. As they come into contact with each other, each must necessarily adapt or perish. This view flies in the face of the Alignment systems of D&D, which are more or less static. Personally, I believe REH is much closer to historical reality than D&D's alignment system.

Let me explain by first drawing attention to this simple diagram:

• LG = Lawful Good
• LE = Lawful Evil
• CG = Chaotic Good
• CE = Chaotic Evil

Every society goes through this cycle. If we begin with a benign government (the form does not matter) we have a LG society. Eventually, the need to maintain government control over society supersedes the welfare of the citizenry or the ruling elite simply lose touch with those over which they rule. Thus, society drifts toward LE. This transition can happen gradually over time or happen overnight, depending on the situation.

In response to an oppressive (LE) government, rebellions and revolutionaries rise up. These movements, at least in their beginnings, are CG. At their best they dip into the necessary evil of war (thus briefly becoming CE) and then replace the existing government with what they hope is a LG regime. At their worst, they drag society into anarchy (CE) which demands that someone rise up to bring order. This LG impulse will either result in benevolent stability (gradually devolving into LE) or it will dive quickly into another LE situation where order is more important than individual welfare.

For example: The Weimar Republic can be classified as a LE society (it played fast and loose with morality). Both the fascist and communist movements began as a positive alternative to the failures of the Weimar Republic (portrayed as the failure of capitalism). Both movements quickly dived into CE as they purposely fostered chaos and anarchy in the streets. The fascists used this opportunity to offer the Germans order and stability. The German people, in hopes of a LG alternative to the chaos of the Weimar Republic ushered in the Nazi era of Germany, which quickly became LE.

This cycle reflects the old adage that today's revolutionaries are tomorrow's establishment. Even Conan himself shifted from being the barbarian outsider to being the King of Aquilonia. Thus, people, movements and societies can shift from one alignment to the next over the course of a lifetime. It is not beyond the realm of possibility for these shifts to happen more than once.

This reality also suggests why the D&D alignment system rubs so many of us the wrong way. It isn't that it flies in the face of historical reality, it is the fact that it tries to do two things at once:

1. represent an attitude/belief/ethical system 
2. represent certain game mechanics

As I meditate on this, I am coming to believe that these two things are mutually exclusive.

Attitudes and beliefs are not static. Even in context of my own Christian faith, there is an expectation of growth — a lifetime is a journey whose goal is becoming more and more like Christ. This growth necessitates change. On the other hand, mechanics such as spell effects and alignment languages are static. Protection spells are designed to always help my guys against the other guys. One can't exactly forget an entire language just because one's attitudes or beliefs have changed.

I am inclined to answer this conundrum by going back to the wargaming roots of the game. Alignment was originally designed to mark which troops were available to which side. Lawful armies could take Lawful troops. Chaotic armies could take Chaotic troops. Both armies could use Neutral troops. In other words, it wasn't about behavior, ethical systems, philosophy, etc. It was simply about which side a troop type was willing to fight for.

I am reminded of Eddie Valentine, the mobster from the movie Rocketeer. Upon finding out that his employer was a Nazi spy, he and his cohorts immediately switched sides because when push came to shove, they were willing to fight for America but not Nazi Germany. In other words, the fact that they were criminals who we would label as evil was irrelevant in the question of his alignment with the U.S. over Germany.

Thus, a proper alignment system should be divorced from questions of good vs. evil behavior. Rather, it should have to do with sides. What those sides are depend upon the campaign world. They could have magical and/or supernatural elements — aligning oneself to the Church or to the College of Magic, for example. Most properly, alignment should bring with it mechanical advantages that are paid for through obligation — if the College of Magic is being persecuted by the authorities, characters aligned with the College would be obliged to come to its defense. Neutrality would then have a real meaning (as opposed to the meaningless nihilism that it usually is in most versions of D&D). By forgoing all of the mechanical advantages, characters become free agents with no obligations.

I am very tempted to explore this idea further, because like Prestige Classes, they are a means by which players can engage in the campaign world through play.

From Fevered Dreams

The word centaur comes from Greek Κένταυροι, which has an obscure origin. It has been suggested that it is a compound word formed from ken and tauros which would roughly translate as piercing bull-stickers, piercing bull or bull-slayer. Knowing enough history and Greek to be dangerous, I would like to offer another (more useful, though less authoritative) alternative.

One of the possible origins of the centaur is the first encounters of non-riding Minoans with horse mounted nomadic tribes. Given the dichotomy of civilized vs. barbarian culture, the word may very well have originally been a negative epithet.

One possible (and most likely a grammatically incorrect) translation of ken is absence. Built into this is a connotation that morality and civilized behavior is what is absent. Therefore ken can also be translated as depraved. Therefore, centaur might mean depraved bull — monstrous, barbarian beast men.

Given this understanding, centaurs cease being the idyllic, peaceful creatures that we have come to know them as. This makes sense in context of the story of their conflict with the Lapiths when centaurs tried to kidnap all of the Lapith women on the wedding day of the Lapith King, Pirithous.

All of this is a long-winded explanation of why I chose to name the halfling dog centaurs that invaded my fevered dreams this past week Censtyl and why I chose to make them Chaotic. The name can be understood to mean depraved dog.

Censtyl

Like a war club, a sword, or a sharp arrow is one who bears false witness against a neighbor. — Proverbs 25:17-18

Number Appearing: 2d10
% in Lair: 10%
Alignment: Chaotic
Movement: 150' (50')
Armor Class: 5
Hit Dice: 3+1
Attacks: 2d4+1/2d4+1/weapon or 1d8 (missile weapon)
Special: Attacks as a 6HD creature with missile weapons
Save: F4
Morale: 9
Hoard Class: XXII
XP: 100
Censtyls have the body and legs of dogs, but the upper body of halflings. While they are gregarious among themselves and those they trust, they live far from other humanoids in densely wooded areas which they fiercely defend from outsiders. They are able to attack with their front claws, as well as attacking with a weapon. Centstyls are expert marksmen, thus they attack as 6HD creatures when using any missile weapon and do 1d8 damage instead of the normal 1d6.

Saintly Saturday: St. Phanourios

Today is the feast day of St. Phanourios. He is a popular saint amongst the Greeks and his popularity stems from his name. Phonetically, the name is very similar to phanerono which means to reveal. Indeed, what we know of St. Phanourios was revealed in an icon discovered in the ruins of a Cretian Church in the 15th or 16th century. It depicts various events of his life and the tortures he endured as a martyr. He is depicted holding a tapered candle, because these were one of the tools used to torture the saint. Ultimately, it appears, he was burned to death.

Greeks, because of the similarity of Phanourios to the word phanerono, will often seek the saint's help when they have lost something. Such prayers more often than not reveal the lost object's location.

***

Candles of St. Dezvulaire

These objects appear to be normal beeswax candles; however, they give off an aura when Detect Magic is cast upon them. When the user lights the candle and makes an intercessory player to St. Dezvulaire to locate a certain object, the candle acts as Locate Object spell. The flame will "lean" in the direction of the desired object. Each candle will burn for up to 2d6 turns. Multiple uses are possible, as long as there is still candle to burn.

My Ideal Published Megadungeon

Over at Grognardia, James asks a question that I have spent quite some time thinking about:

So, today's question is this: assuming you're interested in megadungeons -- if you're not, please don't use the comments section to express your disinterest -- what would be your preferred format? Feel free and assume that there are no limits and go with what you would consider to be the ideal format for presenting a true old school megadungeon.

I have never been a huge fan of modules. Sure, I have used them and will continue to integrate them into my campaigns, but they are not even close to being a regular feature in any campaign I've ever run. The reason for this is utility.

The vast majority of modules have a huge amount of information about every single aspect of the dungeon — especially rooms. While I enjoy reading this stuff, all that information gets in the way of running the module. Instead of being able to quickly ascertain information about an individual room, I have to wade through a bunch of information I don't really need when interacting with players. The game slows down and I inevitably miss a key bit of information that gums up the works and makes my evening less-than-fun.

Therefore, my ideal megadungeon module would be something that I could easily utilize in play. There are four ways that I would do this:

1. Make the dungeon background interesting but easily adaptable. In a typical megadungeon of my own design, for example, I imagine that it has gone through three phases: the original builders; those that overthrew the builders; current occupiers. In my ideal megadungeon publication, the module would use this basic outline and then give an example of how to utilize it. Thus, I am invited to use it as written, completely overhaul it, or adapt it for my campaign — whichever is most useful for me and my current need.
2. Give visual cues on the map as to who and when certain parts of the dungeon were built and the factions that currently occupy them. Thus, at a glance I have enough information to describe a room and how it differs from the hallway the players just came from. This can be done simply by shading certain areas and keying the shading as Original; Conquerers; Current; (insert faction name here).
3. Have several different short entries for each room. Each entry should be a phrase that describes the utility of the room for each era. If released as a .pdf, using color would be ideal. For example: red = Original; blue = Conquerers; black = Current. For a printable version and/or a BW printed version, plain, underlined and boxed texts could be used. This way I have a wealth of information to give players with built-in layers. If the room was originally a vestry, used as a weapons room by the conquerers and a storage room by the current occupiers I have information for those that give the room a cursory glance (storage room); those that look closely at the contents (what is stored there); and for those that look beyond (weapons racks and religious symbols on the wall). All this at a glance.
4. Finally, as was done in B1, provide a blank space for customized monsters as well as a normal stat line for the monsters that the author envisioned for his own version of the dungeon. I realize that this adds space and therefore cost to a print run; however, given the space saved by having extremely short room descriptions I think it worth it.

Two final thoughts: for those that want crunch and background material, each level can have a summary of history and current factions at the beginning of each level (much in the same way that Michael Curtis did with Stonehell). Finally, have the maps in a separate file/booklet. This way, at the table I can have both the map AND the description right in front of me without having to flip back and forth between pages.

I've Been Sick...

...and I've been so dizzy that I have not been able to look at computer screen, let alone post anything. I am on the mend, and will hopefully be up and running soon.

In the meantime, in one of my fevered dreams, one of the major characters that took part was a halfling version of a centaur — half dog/half halfling. Besides being part of Greek Mythology (dog and deer centaurs co-exist with their more popular horse centaur brethren) has anyone seen something similar statted for D&D?

Finally, before I became too sick to see straight, I spent some time with my old AD&D books. As anyone who regularly reads my blog can tell you, I am far more interested in the decidedly non-"advanced" older versions of the game. If I am honest, even when I did play AD&D it was really Basic with Advanced bits added on. One of the reasons I so love Labyrinth Lord is that is a fantastic way to emulate this reality (using AEC). When I am ill; however, I generally pine for things nostalgic (like bad B-movies) and I decided to crack open my old books.

Therein I found this:

Only humans will normally have clericism as their sole class: thus they are the only clerics with unlimited advancement in level.

Herein is an interesting implication for all of those who don't like race-as-class. The reason that demi-humans have level limits is they are always multi-class. Therefore, it is theoretically possible for a demi-human to reach levels beyond their limit if they are willing to limit themselves to a single class. Given this reality; however, there would need to be some kind of limitation for demi-humans or advantage for humans otherwise why play a human? Two options come to mind:

1. Demi-humans only have one class that they can reach unlimited levels in.
2. Allow humans to multi-class (with their own higher level limits?)

I'd be tempted to do both, actually...

Saintly Saturday: St. Samuel the Prophet

Today is the feast day of Samuel the Prophet, of I & II Samuel (or as we Orthodox Christians like to call I & II Kings). Rather than doing my usual schtick of writing a summary of the life of the saint and riffing off of that (because most can simply read about him in the Bible), today I would like to highlight something that happens in the second chapter of I Samuel.

Of late, I have been concentrating on prayers and hymns, specifically those found in the Carmina Gadelica. I should, however, point out that Scripture is oozing with hymns and prayers. In fact, the entire book of Psalms is meant to be sung.

There are nine specific prayers from Scripture that the Orthodox Church uses as the frame work for an entire set of hymns called the Canon. One of these prayers is that of Hannah, Samuel's mother in that second chapter of I Samuel. Here is the complete list:

• The (First) Song of Moses (Exodus 15:1-19)
• The (Second) Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:1-43)
• The Prayer of Hannah (1 Samuel 2:1-10)
• The Prayer of Habakkuk (Habakkuk 3:1-19)
• The Prayer of Isaiah (Isaiah 26:9-20)
• The Prayer of Jonah (Jonah 2:2-9)
• The Prayer of the Three Holy Children (Daniel 3:26-56])*
• The Song of the Three Holy Children (Daniel 3:57-88)*
• The Song of the Theotokos (the Magnificat, Luke 1:46-55); the Song of Zacharias (the Benedictus, Luke 1:68-79)

* These are from those sections of Daniel that were originally written in Greek, therefore not found in the Mesoretic text of the OT — the basis of the OT for most modern English bibles. Most commonly these hymns will be found in what Protestants call the Apocrypha

For those that doubt that there are a plethora of potential ideas found within these prayers, take this from the opening verse of the Prayer of Hannah:

My heart is strengthened in the Lord;
My horn is exalted in my God.
I smile at my enemies.

The word horn is a symbol for strength and power and therefore plays off the word strengthened in the first line (which is a typical poetic form in Hebrew). It is also the inspiration for this:

The Horn of Strength

This rare magical item looks like a hollowed out ram horn fitted with a golden mouth piece. When the horn is sounded by blowing through the mouth piece, everyone in a 15'r. is granted the strength of an ogre (as per Gauntlets of Ogre Strength) for 1d6 rounds. This effect may be used once per day.

Jumping on the Better GM Bandwagon

Okay, I'll hop on the bandwagon. A gauntlet has been thrown down over at Hill Cantons and, like several others in the blogosphere, I'll pick it up. I must begin, however, with a quibble about the questions:

1. Name three “best practices” you possess as a GM. What techniques do you think you excel at?
2. What makes those techniques work? Why do they “pop”?
3. How do you do it? What are the tricks you use? What replicable, nuts-and-bolts tips can you share?

Note that he says GM, which implies a much more universal framework than I'm willing to concede, at least in context of my answer. I primarily play various flavors of D&D, and only run games using older editions or the retro-clones that emulate them. Therefore, my answers are going to be very specific to a style of play influenced by the rules and "genre" of earlier editions of D&D. Whether or not they can be applied to any other rule set or genre is up to you.

Premise: D&D is at its best when it is a pastiche, because that is where it originated.

Therefore: My best campaigns and the best sessions I have within those campaigns are those that embrace, encourage and enable that pastiche.

Why: James over a Grognardia made two interesting observations about his experience at the OSRCon in Toronto. Firstly, how comfortable it was for him to run a pair of Dwimmermount sessions. Secondly, how comfortable Ed Greenwood seemed running his session in Forgotten Realms. This comfort in both cases comes from familiarity — Greenwood from spending decades steeped in his creation and James from running a continuous campaign for a couple of years.

For those of us who don't have the luxury of that kind of time or suffer from bouts of Gamer ADD, the best way to simulate this familiarity is by filling our game worlds with the familiar — pastiche from all kinds of stories, movies and genres. This familiarity breeds comfort, which breeds confidence, which is essential for creativity.

Given this premise, here are three ways in which I embrace, encourage and enable pastiche in my games:

1. Unapologetically steal ideas from everywhere. If an idea, story, image, movie, adventure module, trap, monster, whatever inspires you USE IT. You will naturally put your own spin on it and by the time it emerges from gameplay it will have transformed into something entirely new — but it will come from a familiar place that allows you the confidence to own the idea. The fact that you liked it in the first place will just fuel the creative fire.
2. Allow your players to bring their creativity to the table. This is, in part, an extension of my first point — don't be shy from using ideas that come from your players. If they come up with a theory for why something exists, happened, etc. don't be shy about incorporating it in part or in whole. This allows players to participate in your world and allows them to own it as much as you do. This, however, is only part of how to make players comfortable and familiar with your world. If they expect gravity to work, allow gravity to work. If it doesn't, give them a viable explanation as to why. What I mean by this is that if you have a giant system of gears that the players want to sabotage by literally throwing a wrench into the works, allow the wrench to muck things up. If it can't, give them viable cues as to why (there is a force field; the gears are made of stronger material than the wrench, etc.). Don't be afraid to decide these things via caveat rather than a die roll.
3. Finally, don't be afraid of genre-bending. One of the primary themes of the game is exploration. One of the best ways to simulate this is by breaking genre. It helps bring about a sense of wonder. One of the most memorable sessions I've ever played was on board a derelict space ship…in space. It also forces you to be creative in order to justify how such a break in genre is possible.

Serendipity: Runes

I was perusing the Carmina Gadelica in search of something that might pass for "three lullabies in an ancient tongue" when I ran across an interesting term: rune. I, being a grumpy old RPGer, think of something like this when I hear that word:

I also associate runes with magic (being an old stand-by for explaining how Dwarves are so good at making magical weapons even in worlds where they can't cast spells).

However, Webster also defines rune as a song or a poem. Lo and behold, the Carmina Gadelica has several examples. What struck me about these examples is how Christian and Trinitarian many of them are. For example:

I am bending my knee
In the eye of the Father who created me,
In the eye of the Son who purchased me,
In the eye of the Spirit who cleansed me.
In friendship and affection.

After doing a little research, I found out that a runic alphabet was in use in Southern France several centuries prior to the assumed time frame of Averoigne (circa AD1100-1300). Therefore, not only do I have several possible "lullabies" but an ancient script with which they can be recorded.

I am not going to stop there, however. Take a look at this rune:

Today is the Day of Bride,
The serpent shall come from the hole,
I will not molest the serpent,
Nor will the serpent molest me.

Note the implied Protection spell (from Dragons? Devils?). It suggests that this rune (a poem) unlocks a rune (a letter carved into an item) in order to get a runic (spell) effect. This sets up a very cool built-in quest to magical items that also gives players a clue as to what an item does: the rune (poem) gives a clue as to the effect of the rune (letter) and these two can be in different locations.

In context of the Chateau des Faussesflammes, I plan on using this construct primarily with the Purple Piper, who will be a source of runes (poems), but not necessarily runes (letters).

Heraldry of Faussesflammes

I am a big fan of heraldry and intend to use it as a visual cue for players while exploring various levels of the Chateau des Faussesflammes. Thus, I spent some time putting together these designs as well as a brief explanation for each of the main characters of the Chateau:

Crimson King

I chose the image of a crow for a couple reasons. Firstly, it has pagan overtones, given their association with the Wotanic mythology. Secondly, it calls to mind the collective noun murder, as in a murder of crows. The color crimson is indicated by both the border and the crown.

Black Queen

I like the simplicity and starkness of this image. Since I plan on have the Black Queen being the most active of these background characters (by way of her various minions) I hope that the characters will be filled with dread when they see a black crown...

Purple Piper

The imagery here comes from the vestments of an Orthodox Christian monk. It represents Golgotha (the place of the skull) with the sponge of vinegar and the spear the pierced Christ's side. This is one of the most misleading of the images here. I plan to use the Purple Piper as a kind of patron — someone who passively directs the players and sends them on missions through hints and riddles; however, I don't necessarily want the players to immediately trust him. Thus, I have left off the Cross, which would normally be part of this image.

Pilgrim

The three birds at the top are peacocks and the ermine below is one that could pass for feathers. In Orthodox Christian iconography, peacock feathers are used to represent the (many-eyed) Cherubim. I felt this angelic imagery (where angel means messenger) was very appropriate for the Pilgrim.

Gardener

As I mentioned before, when King Clovis became Christian, he was granted the vision of an angel handing him a flower. I thought this image was quite apropos given this heraldic symbol is not only associated with French kings, but could pass for the symbol of a gardener as well.

Pattern Juggler

Coats of arms can get quite complicated, especially when trying to represent various lineages and individuals all at the same time (take a look at the heraldry associated with the English crown, for example). Thus, in order to represent the multiple personalities of the Pattern Juggler, I mimicked this heraldic trope of complicated patterns in quarters and the mini-shield in the middle.

Yellow Jester

Finally, this image pulls together some themes from both the Pattern Juggler (with the background pattern representing the chaos surrounding the last of the Merovingian Kings as well as their shrinking power) and the Crimson King (the crown, creating a visual bookend for the beginning and end of the line). The yellow lion is somewhat related to French heraldry and I thought it ironic that such a strong image should be associated with such a pathetic character.

Saintly Saturday: St. Maximos the Confessor

Today is the feast of St. Maximos the Confessor. Now known as an eminent theologian, he was the chief secretary for the Roman Emperor Heraclius in the seventh century. When the emperor's grandson (Constans II) came to power, the heresy of Monophilitism (the belief that Christ had no human will, only a divine will) became very popular in the court. Therefore, Maximos voluntarily left to become a monk of the Monastery at Chrysopolis, where he eventually he became abbot.

As a monk he taught, spoke out and wrote against Monophilitism. Eventually, the emperor tried to get the saint to stop. When Maximos refused, his tongue was cut out (to prevent teaching and speaking) and his right hand was cut off (to prevent him from writing). He was then sent into exile, where he reposed in the year 662.

As I've pointed out before, the title Confessor is given to to those who are imprisoned, tortured and/or sent into exile for the faith but are not martyred. And, as before, it might seem strange that St. Maximos would willingly choose to be tortured and exiled over what at first glance seems to be a minor point — especially when it was an attempt by the court to allow the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian churches to exist together under the same umbrella.

St. Gregory the Theologian (also known as Gregory of Nazianzus) famously argued in a letter to Cledonius:

That which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved.

Thus, anyone arguing that any part of humanity is not part of the human nature of Christ means that they are arguing that Christ's salvation is somehow incomplete. Monophilitism is a particularly insidious version of this argument, because it not only denies that the free will of man is healed or saved, but that it is not part of God's plan of salvation. Those of you who are familiar with this blog know that free will, choice and freedom are not only very dear to me, but that I will argue that they are the bedrock of the Christian faith.

***

The Tongue of St. Maxim

This bizarre item looks like the bronze casting of a human tongue. If it weren't for the divine magic that can be detected on it, the tongue would have little value. Even melted down, the metal seems to be of such poor quality as to be worthless. However, when a prayer for guidance is directed at the tongue, it functions as a Detect Lie spell. Should a lie be detected, the tongue changes into the forked tongue of a serpent. This power may be used once per day. Should a user ever try to use the tongue to cast the reverse of Detect Lie — Undetectable Lie — not only will the item be destroyed (turning to dust), but the user will be cursed. Every time they speak a lie, they take 1d6 damage.

A Sample Wandering Monster Table

Yesterday, after making much about how the sample Wandering Monster Tables in Holmes & Cook suggest "a living, breathing environment that is in constant flux, where creatures from different levels are, if not constantly interacting with each other, moving through each other's territory on a regular basis." A look at my working cross section for my version of the Chateau des Faussesflammes, however, reveals that the first level of the dungeon is largely isolated from the rest of the dungeon. Therefore the tables as implemented and modeled in Holmes & Cook don't make much sense in context of the dungeon I am trying to use them for.

This is, in part, why I wanted to do all that math — in order to understand the methodology in order to adapt it from three tables into one table. I want to paint the picture of a living, breathing environment but cannot logically do it in the same manner.

Holmes uses a d12 to determine wandering monsters. Cook uses a d20 — as will I because it gives be more entries to help emulate a larger population. As I noted yesterday, Holmes allows for a 25% chance for a 2nd level encounter and an 8% chance for a 3rd level encounter for every wandering monster roll on the first dungeon level. On a d20 this translates into five second level encounters and two 3rd level encounters; however, there is also one 2nd level encounter already present on Holmes' first level list — the Gelatinous Cube. Thus, I will up the number of 2nd level encounters on my list to six.

Conceptually, the idea that Holmes & Cook imply by having so much cross pollination between dungeon levels is that there are different factions that co-exist and/or are fighting over territory. Since there is very little interaction between the first level and other levels in my dungeon, one of the sources for interaction (and therefore factions) needs to be outside the dungeon.

Therefore of the two basic factions (in which there might be sub-factions — I haven't decided yet), one is native to the dungeon and one is an outside interloper. Since CAS specifically refers to goblins being one of the main dangers of the Forest of Averoigne, they will play the role of interloper. The natives I will simply call the Merovingians. They will include various undead (the first level being a crypt), berserkers (normal men who have been possessed by malevolent spirits) and red caps (the most likely of the goblin-types to be affected by the aforementioned spirits).

So, without further ado, here (closely cleaving to the math I did yesterday) is my Wandering Monster Table for the first level of the Chateau des Faussesflammes:

1. Jaques de la Lanterne  (1)
2. Fire Beetles (1d3)
3. Tettix (1)
4. Gelatinous Cube (1)
5. Giant Ticks (1d3)
6. Giant Rats (2d6) + Pookas (1d3)
7. Giant Toad (1) + Pooka (1)
8. Kobolds (3d6)
9. Goblins (2d4)
10. Bogies (2d4)
11. Skeleton (2d8)
12. Zombies (1d3)
13. Zombies (1d4)
14. Ghoul (1d2)
15. Merovingian Ghoul (1d6)
16. Merovingian Hound (1d3)
17. Berserkers (1d4)
18. Berserkers (2d4)
19. Red Caps (1d4)
20. Red Caps (2d4)

Holmes & Cook: Wandering Monster Tables

I am not a big fan of Challenge Levels/Ratings or whatever you want to call them. There is an implication that every encounter ought to be balanced so that the party should be able to handle it, etc. This, of course, runs counter to my own old-school upbringing where I expect there to be encounters well beyond the ability of a party of adventurers because running away is not only an option, but sound strategy.

Nevertheless, in describing how to create a Wandering Monster Table, Holmes strongly implies something akin to Challenge Levels/Ratings:

First level adventurers encountering monsters typically found on the first level of a dungeon should be faced with roughly equal numbers, i.e. a party of three would encounter 2-6 orcs, 3-12 giant rats, etc. However, if the party were second level, or the first level monsters were encountered on the second level of the dungeon, the number of wandering monsters encountered should be doubled. In a like manner, the number of monsters should be tripled for third level adventures or in the third level of the dungeon if the monsters appearing are first level.

This is not quite the modern conception of a Challenge Level/Rating, because the strength of the encounter is tied as much to location as it is to the strength of the party. Even so, in order to deconstruct the example Wandering Monster Tables found in Holmes and Cook, I need some way to quantify a monster's strength. Of course, this can be done roughly by means of HD, but a 2HD creature with four attacks per round and an AC of 0 can be a lot more dangerous than a 4HD creature with one attack and an AC of 7.

Enter Peter Regan's Oubliette Magazine. In Issue number 5, where Don Turnbull's Monster Mark System (originally published in White Dwarf Magazine in 1978/79) is updated for use with Labyrinth Lord, a couple of tables are provided with all the math necessary to come up with a rating system for most monsters. I say most because the math is based on HD, AC and attack damage. Thus, special abilities are not taken into account which makes rating monsters such as a Wight (which does no damage but does have a level drain) difficult, if not impossible to rate. However, given that LL closely emulates Cook's Expert and that the Monster Mark System is useful for rating most monsters I decided to use it as a means to examine the Wandering Monster Tables of Holmes and Cook.

I won't bore you with the math, but here are the approximate average Monster Mark Ratings of each encounter found in the Wandering Monster Tables:

• Level 1 = 5
• Level 2 = 15
• Level 3 = 35
• Level 4-5 = 95
• Level 6-7 = 175
• Level 8 = 635

In order to make this math cleave closer to Holmes' advice (where there ought be be more of a differentiation between levels 4 and 5 as well as levels 6 and 7), it is possible to extrapolate the following:

• Level 1 = 5
• Level 2 = 10
• Level 3 = 20
• Level 4 = 40
• Level 5 = 80
• Level 6 = 160
• Level 7 = 320
• Level 8 = 640

There are two interesting things about these tables. Firstly, the relative challenge of level progression is (roughly) exponential. Though this may simply be a quirk of the math involved, it is still fascinating. The other feature isn't immediately obvious in any of the numbers seen above. In each table, at every level there are always outliers whose Monster Mark Rating is much higher than the average. For example:

• Level 1 = 10
• Level 2 = 23
• Level 3 = 61
• Level 4-5 = 150
• Level 6-7 = 418
• Level 8 = 3410 (!)

Thus, there is a built-in expectation that every level of a dungeon will have an encounter that at face value is beyond the ability of a party to be able to deal with/survive. This expectation is reinforced by the fact that Homles allows for 1st Level Wandering Monster rolls to be made on the 2nd level table 25% of the time and on the 3rd level 8% of the time.

This paints the picture of a living, breathing environment that is in constant flux, where creatures from different levels are, if not constantly interacting with each other, moving through each other's territory on a regular basis.

Prestige Classes Old-School Style

One of the concepts in 3.5 that I do like is the prestige class. Conceptually, they are a great way to personalize a campaign world and to allow players to interact with that world in order to go down the paths necessary to become a member of a prestige class. In practice, however, it always seems to encourage optimization and a character progression divorced from what is actually occurring in the campaign.

Recently, I posited a couple of thought experiments. One of the more interesting comments was from Anthony who reminded me of the career system from WFRP. That got me to thinking if something could be tacked onto an older system of D&D.

Jeff Rients and Beedo, among others have pointed out that there is plenty of textual evidence to support the idea that the first several levels of character development are apprenticeship levels. In addition, around 4th level characters move beyond being an apprentice to some kind of hero status. Herein I see a means for understanding and implementing the concept of the prestige class. [BTW I am going to go human-centric here, but the concept is easily applied to demi-humans and demi-human classes.]

All characters begin the game with one of the basic three (four) classes. The first three levels are apprenticeship/proving ground levels. Those that survive and prove their worth then embark on one of several career paths depending upon the campaign, what has become available to them and player desire. The most obvious path is the class as written; however, if the character is willing to make a trade-off in powers/abilities/obligations for other class abilities, they can chose what amounts to a prestige class. They continue to advance as their original class in terms of XP requirements. Here are some for instances for each class:

Cleric

One interpretation of the normal class progression of the cleric is ordination. Prior to gaining 4th level, clerics are alcolytes — trainees trying to decide whether or not ordination is their path. Alternative career paths for cleric characters could represent choices made by those who decide either not to get ordained or ordained into a specific order/ministry. For example, one could become a Healer.

Disadvantage: Healers do not improve in their ability to Turn Undead beyond 3rd level; Healers acquire spells as a cleric one level lower (no new spells are gained at 4th level; at 5th level, they gain spells as a 4th level cleric).

Abilities: Healers may Lay on Hands at 1hp/level per day; they may spontaneously use any spell slot as a cure spell (they can prepare several non-healing spells but cast them as cure spells). The efficacy of the spell must be of an equal or lesser spell level as the spell slot used.

Fighter

At 4th level, fighters may choose to take the path of a Berserker.

Disadvantage: There is a 5% chance that every time a Berserker goes into a Rage that they will lose control and attack the nearest person regardless if they are friend or foe.

Abilities: In combat, a Berserker can go into a Berserker's Rage. While in a Rage, the Berserker can trade AC for a either a bonus to hit or a bonus to damage or a combination. That maximum bonus available is +4. Thus, at maximum, a Berserker could decrease their AC by 8 and gain a +4 to hit and damage. Note: this maximum is only achievable if the Berserker has the AC to give. For example, if the base AC of a Berserker is 6, the maximum number of AC they can give up for a bonus is 3 (where AC 9 = no armor).

Magic-User

At 4th level, a magic-user may choose to take the dark path of the Necromancer.

Disadvantage: Necromancy is illegal in most civilized lands; a necromancer sacrifices a level of spell progression in order to gain the ability to Control Undead. There also may be physical signs of necromancy (pallid complexion, yellowed eyes, sunken cheeks, etc.) that get worse as the ability to Control Undead increases.

Ability: The Necromancer can Control Undead using the Turn Undead table as a 1st level cleric. As the Necromancer progresses in level, they may choose to gain more spells or gain another level on the Control Undead table.

Thief

At 4th level, a thief may choose to pursue the path of the Assassin.

Disadvantage: The Assassin forgoes improving normal Thief abilities for each level that they wish to improve their Assassin ability.

Abilities: Assassins may use their backstab ability any time they attack from surprise (during surprise rounds as well as when using Move Silently and Hide Shadows) as well as any time they hit by 5 or more than they need. At additional levels, Assassins may sacrifice increasing their Thief skills in order to increase their backstab multiplier.

All of these can be fiddled with according the needs of a particular campaign world. In addition, there is no limit to the number of possibilities: monks, knights, paladins, battle mages, spies are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

R is for Old School Wisdom

I am not ashamed to say that I do not have a whole lot of disposable income for the purposes of purchasing material for the hobbyist in me. There are other folks in my life that are more important to me than the games I play. That being said, I do allow myself a purchases now and again. I mostly indulge in .pdfs because I can stretch my money more and they don't take up any room on my already overflowing bookcases; however, occasionally I do put a physical book on my wishlist. One such book was Michael Curtis' Dungeon Alphabet because this one of those resources that I felt I would get more out of by holding in my hands as opposed to being a bunch of electronic data (my instincts were correct). Unfortunately, this also meant I had to wait until such time I could give myself enough of an excuse to shell out the extra dough in order to get it.

Thus, I only received my copy this past weekend; however, its arrival came with it a funny story wrapped up in a little wisdom. When I opened the package containing the Dungeon Alphabet, my 6-year old son was immediately drawn to Erol Otis' cover art. He was especially enthralled by the fact it was so obviously an alphabet book (much cooler than anything he has seen at school) and very proudly started to identify the letters on the cover. Having not yet gone through all the illustrations to make sure they were age-appropriate, I stuck to the familiar cover art and started playing "A is for ____." We started at the bottom, because it was the first that entered by brain:

W is for Weird
V is for Vermin
U is for Undead
T is for Traps
S is for Statue

At this point I drew a blank. Therefore, I decided to see if my son could come up with anything surprising. So I asked him what he thought the R was for. His response was just awesome:

Run Away.

Out of the mouth of babes (Psalm 8:2; Matthew 21:16). It just goes to show that there is an inherent wisdom in at least some the ways we old school players expect to play our games...

Saintly Saturday: Transfiguration

David the ancestor of God, foreseeing in the Spirit Your coming unto men in the flesh, O Only-Begotten Son, from afar calls creation together to make merry, and prophetically cries out: Tabor and Hermon shall rejoice in Your Name. For when You went up into this mountain with Your disciples, O Savior, You were transfigured, making the nature that was darkened in Adam to shine like lightning once again, and transforming it into the glory and brightness of Your Divinity. Wherefore we cry to You: O Creator of all, Lord, glory be to You. — Great Vespers of the Transfiguration

Today is the Feast of the Transfiguration — the moment when Christ reveals his divine glory to the disciples Peter, James and John as recorded in Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8 and Luke 9:28-36. The crux of the feast is elucidated in the hymn above: the nature that was darkened in Adam is made to shine like lightening once again.

In other words, humanity is endowed with the image and likeness of God. We were created from the outset to be able look like this:

We don't because we refuse to see the image and likeness not just in ourselves, but in other people. So many of the problems that beset us today stem from this one sad fact.

I have been plodding away through almost three years and 300 posts on this blog and I keep coming back, I keep reading, I keep writing, I keep finding a reason to be creative and share what I create. A big part of the reason why is the people who exist in this part of the blogosphere. We are a contentious lot who have very strong opinions and who happily disagree with each other; however, I consistently find people seeing value in others and what they do. In its own, strange convoluted way, the OSR manifests what the feast of the Transfiguration is all about — finding that part of our fellow human beings that has value because we are made in the image and likeness of God.

Therefore, I'd like to take the occasion to thank everyone out there for making the world a better place.

On Playing a Cleric

Yesterday, there was a very interesting turn of events at Jeff's Gameblog. Jeff made (from my perspective) a wonderful journey from specifically excluding the cleric class from his Surfeit of Lampreys campaign to an understanding that they are, in fact, a perfect fit for his Wessex setting. As usually happens, however, when one starts talking about clerics and their place in D&D, the comments were a mix of those of us who like clerics and those who as yet can't get their head around them for a variety of reasons. As I've been meditating on this, I am beginning to wonder if (as more than one commenter and Jeff himself implied) the reason for the level of discomfort with the cleric is cultural more than anything else.

Most of us live in a largely secular and pluralistic society that is quite comfortable with the schizophrenia of 30,000+ denominations of Christianity, let alone all of the different flavors of other religions that coexist within our communities. Very few of us have any experience with the shared and assumed daily rituals of Medieval Christendom. Virtually none of us know the monastery and the Church as the center of civilization and learning. [As an aside, a good deal of what we know about classical philosophy and science was bequeathed to us by Christian monks.]

Jeff nicely sums up an outsider's view of the role of the cleric with this observation:

Have we crossed all the i's and dotted all the t's so that God doesn't get mad at us and sends us blessings rather than curses?

Being more an insider who has spent time living in and studying places where there is a shared cultural daily Christian ritual, I thought I'd dedicate some time to help shed some light on what it might mean to be a cleric in a D&D context.

Central to understanding the role of the cleric is the fallenness of man. We know good and evil — where evil is the absence of God. We are intimately familiar with a world that has no God — it is full of misery, disease, decay and death. In Goblinoid Games' Realms of Crawling Chaos, Daniel Proctor and Michael Curtis outline several literary themes found in the works of H.P. Lovecraft. They include:

• The Insignificance of Man — man is nothing in context of the infinite sea of space and time.
• The Vastness of the Universe — we are truly alone in an incomprehensibly large and unknowable cosmos.
• An Uncaring Natural World — nature will kill us many times over before it shows one ounce of compassion for our existence.
• The Reality of Man as an Animal — we are no better than the basest of animals.

In a world where there is no God, all of these things are true. More than that, all of the misery, disease, decay and death that overwhelms the world are all evidence that we are careening towards nothingness. These are the cold, hard facts of the fallen world.

Standing in defiance of this reality is Christ — where God and His creation are united in one person. He is the one point of historical reality where man is no longer insignificant, but the center of God's plan for salvation; where we have Emmanuel (God is with us) and man is no longer alone; where all of creation can and should be sanctified by the presence of Christ and His Church; and where man is the mechanism by which God works His salvation in the world.

The role of the Church in society is to bring the very presence of God into all of creation — to stem the tide of the fallen world by reuniting it with Christ. We do this by the ritual worship of everyday life. The curses that befall us all are not a result of God, but rather the absence of God. The blessing we experience and the miracles that we behold are the result of the intimate presence of God.

The cleric is the one who is trained in all of the prayers and rituals that the Church has to bring about this presence. His role is to teach and lead the people in these rituals and prayers. As an adventurer, the cleric would see it his duty primarily as stemming the tide of Chaos (the fallen world) by making the wilderness safe for Christian civilization and the sanctifying rituals that it brings with it.

Let me present a couple of examples of what I am talking about. Because Jeff is dealing with a fantasy version of England, let me present a couple of prayers found in the Carmina Gadelica — a collection of Gaelic prayers compiled by Alexander Carmichael.

PRAYER FOR TRAVELLING

Life be in my speech,
Sense in what I say,
The bloom of cherries on my lips,
Till I come back again. 

The love Christ Jesus gave
Be filling every heart for me,
The love Christ Jesus gave
Filling me for every one. 

Traversing corries, traversing forests,
Traversing valleys long and wild.
The fair white Mary still uphold me,
The Shepherd Jesu be my shield.
The fair white Mary still uphold me,
The Shepherd Jesu be my shield.

INVOCATION FOR THE BLESSING OF A HOUSE

God bless the house,
From site to stay.
From beam to wall.
From end to end,
From ridge to basement.
From balk to roof-tree,
From found to summit.
Found and summit.

INVOCATION FOR THE BATTLE TO COME

Jesus, Thou Son of Mary, I call on Thy name,
And on the name of John the apostle beloved,
And on the names of all the saints in the red domain.
To shield me in the battle to come.

To shield me in the battle to come.

When the mouth shall be closed,
When the eye shall be shut,
When the breath shall cease to rattle.
When the heart shall cease to throb.

When the heart shall cease to throb.

When the Judge shall take the throne,
And when the cause is fully pleaded,
O Jesu, Son of Mary, shield Thou my soul,
O Michael fair, acknowledge my departure.

O Jesu, Son of Mary, shield Thou my soul
O Michael fair, receive my departure!

Two Potential Thought Experiments

JB at B/X Blackrazor and Jeff at Jeff's Gameblog have inspired in me a pair of questions that could lead to interesting thought experiments. I am not sure I will have the time to pursue either of them in the near future, but I wanted to throw them out into the blogosphere to see if anything comes flying back.

JB did a fascinating summary of how various editions of D&D have described (and therefore utilized) traps. The observation that sparked my imagination has to do with what JB calls D20. He notes:

Unlike earlier editions, PCs gain XP from surviving traps, so it is in the adventurers best interest to find and set-off as many as possible.

This, in turn, drives the way the game is played. Thus, players are encouraged to optimize their characters for the purpose of surviving traps and killing monsters (the only other way to earn XP). This drive for optimization (and, in turn, the discouragement and downright punishment of not optimizing) is one of the reasons I find D20 incredibly frustrating. It doesn't leave a lot of room for organic development — players are not free to allow their characters to interact with the campaign world in any other way than to optimize them for more efficient killing and trap solving. To do otherwise would be to invite a nasty death.

So I ask the question:

What would happen to the D20 system if XP were rewarded as it was with older editions of the game — primarily with the accumulation of treasure? Would this reduce the pressure to optimize for combat and allow more player freedom to experiment with skills and feats according to what makes sense for the character rather than combat and traps?

Jeff posted a "to-do" list for B/X magic-users based on textual evidence in the rules. He pointed out how the first three levels are apprenticeship levels.

My question:

What happens when those apprenticeships don't go as planned? What if, for whatever reason, a magic-user is denied access to the goods that allow for the ability to cast 3rd + level spells?

Given how often Jeff intuits the phrases "Joins a band of Brigands/Buccaneers/Pirates" and "Lead up to 30 bandits" there is an implication that this sort of thing happens more often than not (how desirable is it to a bunch of cutthroats to have someone who can cast a couple of Sleep spells?)

Do they stop gaining XP? If they don't, what are the benefits for gaining levels when you cannot cast 3rd+ level spells? Would they start acquiring thief- or fighter-type abilities?

Let me know if anything comes flying back...

A Map of Averoigne

Here is the map I've been fiddling around with. Those of you who are acquainted with the works of Clark Ashton Smith will note that I have changed most of the place names. This, of course, is done on purpose. While I am quite inspired by Smith's work (obviously), I have little desire to traipse about the original version of Averoigne. Whether or not I like it, whether or not it is existentially true, I feel restricted by trying to stay true to someone else's creation. As I have noted before, running any RPG requires letting go of creative control. The truly rewarding part of play is the surprise of letting players do their thing. 

In order to permit myself the freedom to let go and just allow play to naturally develop as the creativity of various people affect the campaign world, I mentally need to divorce a world from its source material. Changing the name of Ximes to Ximera is a small and easy way to do this. This version of Averoigne stops being Smith's and becomes mine. In doing an homage, rather than a simulation, I have complete creative control and therefore the freedom to completely let go of that control. With a simulation, I never can get over the fact that though I play at having complete control, this world doesn't entirely belong to me.

Intriguingly, James over at Grognardia today tries to make the case that it is possible to play around in another's creation. The example he gives is a Judge's Guild module (The Nightmare Maze of Jigrésh) created for EPT. He argues that its relative banality proves that it is possible to run a campaign in Tékumel without getting bogged down in the minutia of Barker's creation.

I don't doubt that this is true. The number of successful Greyhawk campaigns through the years demonstrate its inherent truth. Despite the relative ease we all have with understanding the assumed culture of Greyhawk vs. the complexity of Tékumel they are both someone else's creation. 

I, for one, however, prefer the freedom of doing an homage rather than a simulation.

Holmes & Cook: Movement

I have been fiddling about with making a map for my own version of Averoigne. One decision that must be made at this point is scale — more specifically, what a single hex represents. In order to make things easier later on, I wanted to tie the size of each hex to movement rates. Herein I not only found a discrepancy between Holmes & Cook, but one between Holmes and his own set of rules.

Technically, Holmes stats for four different types of movement: Combat, Exploring/Mapping, Normal and Running. The latter three are directly related to each other, while Combat seems to be its own beast (more on that later). Holmes designates three different movement categories based on armor and encumbrance: unarmored & unencumbered; fully armored or carrying a heavy load; fully armored and heavily loaded. These categories have the following rates of feet per turn while exploring/mapping: 240, 120 and 60. Normal movement doubles this rate and running triples it (though running while being fully armored and carrying a heavy load is not allowed).

This is all rather straightforward, except that the movement rates of monsters are not comparable to those of the player characters. For example, a Riding Horse has the same movement rate as an unencumbered man exploring/mapping. This is ridiculous on its face.

Cook does not deal with either encumbrance or dungeon movement, other than to indicate that in a dungeon movement is measured in feet and outdoors in yards. He is primarily concerned, however, with how many miles per day a character can travel rather than yards per turn. He therefore provides a list of moves per turn in increments of 30, beginning with 30 and ending in 240, along with a conversion to miles per day.

Looking at Cook's monster list, it quickly becomes apparent that the faster movement rates are provided in order to calculate miles per day for parties who are mounted on horseback or similar creature (several of which are provided). Indeed, it appears that Cook intends for 120' per turn to be the max movement rate for humans (as suggested by the Devil Swine which has a move of 180 in its swine form but only 120 in its human form).

Looming behind all of these inconsistencies is Holme's combat movement rates — 20' per round for an unarmored man and 10' per round for an armored man. At first glance, this doesn't seem to be related to his other movement rates at all; however, noting that someone carrying a heavy load is not going to fight/fight well Holmes is probably assuming that it must be necessary to drop the heavy load in order to fight. Therefore, there are only two categories of encumbrance.

Since Holmes' max rate of 240 makes no sense when compared to monsters in his own edition as well as in Cook's, I shall err towards Cook for movement rates; however, I like how Holmes deals with different types of movement (exploring/mapping, normal and running) and combat as conceived by Holmes is very closely related to the movement rates of 10 and 20 feet, not 30+. I therefore want to figure out a way to make Cook's normal and outdoor movement rates jive with combat movement rates of Holmes.

If we equate Cook's 30' to Holmes' fully armored with a heavy load, a fully armored man would have a move of 60' while exploring/mapping. Since 120' seems to be the max move for a human, it is the base move for an unarmored, unencumbered man while exploring/mapping. This, however, leaves a gap at 90', and suggests that there ought to be a category of partially-armored.

Taking a look at Cook's stats for men, bandits, buccaneers, and nomads are all given a move of 120'. Their descriptions have a majority wearing leather armor. Merchants are the only man-type that has a move of 90'. Their description specifies that all of them wear chain mail. Thus we see the evidence of leather/unarmored = 120', chain mail = 90', and plate = 60'.

In order to make this all jive with the combat movement of Holmes, I am going to borrow an idea from Staples over at Grognardling, who has off and on tried to come up with a way to use the metric system in D&D. He uses the elegant idea of a Base Movement Rate of 1 to 4, which is then multiplied by various factors in order to get a movement rate in a particular situation. Here is my version of BMRs for use with Holmes & Cook:

• 4 = Unarmored/Leather + Unencumbered
• 3 = Chain mail + Unencumbered OR Unarmored/Leather Armor + Heavy Load
• 2 = Plate + Unencumbered OR Chain mail + Heavy Load
• 1 = Plate + Heavy Load
• Anyone with a BMR of 1 cannot fight or run.

The BMR is multiplied by the following factors in order to arrive at movement rates for various situations:

• 5 = Combat Movement
• 30 = Exploration/Mapping
• 60 = Normal Walking
• 90 = Running
• 6 = Miles per Day
• 2 = Leagues per Day

Thus the movement rates of a  character wearing chain mail but no treasure would be:

• Combat = 15' (BMR 3 x 5)
• Exploring/Mapping = 90' (BMR 3 x 30)
• Normal Walking = 180'  (BMR 3 x 60) 
• Running = 270'  (BMR 3 x 90)
• Miles per day = 18  (BMR 3 x 6)
• Leagues per day = 6  (BMR 3 x 2)