|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Apr 14, 2020 15:11:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Apr 14, 2020 15:19:41 GMT -5
The Cleric picking Alignment was originally at 1st level, the 7th level thing was a later change to the rules. I dealt with this by providing a path for some Clerics to become Paladins. Also in original D&D (the 3LBBs) there were no neutral Clerics in the beginning. As for monks and Druids I never like them. If I were to have Druids now it would be a complete re-write from scratch. |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Apr 14, 2020 22:35:57 GMT -5
The Perilous Dreamer that is not explicitly stated and I will quote paragraph two of Clerics section on page 7 of Men & Magic. “Note that Clerics of 7th level or greater are either “Law” or “ Chaos”, and there is a sharp distinction between them. If a Patriarch receiving the above benefits changes sides, all the benefits will immediately removed!” It is inferred that a Cleric can be Neutral up until they reach 7th level in which they must choose to be Lawful or Chaotic. Only if they change sides does a Patriarch lose their abilities. The only other restriction is in the third sentence of the paragraph under the Clerics vs. Undead Monsters table on page 22: “Also, note the Clerics versus Undead Monsters table, indicating the strong effect of the various clerical levels upon the Undead; HOWEVER, Evil Clerics do not have this effect, the entire effect being lost.” Unless you equate Chaos with Evil even Neutral Clerics can turn undead. Only name level Clerics are limited by the Character Type Alignment Chart on page 9. Part of the vagueness of OD&D, especially in the 3LBBs. A lot of the old guard often quote Poul Anderson & Moorcock in defense of the trope that Law doesn’t = Good and Chaos doesn’t = Evil. Since the text of the game only states that name level Clerics are restricted by Alignment it allows the INTERPRETATION of the possibility of Neutral Clerics thus my inferred reading and noting of Clerics as being able to be Neutral in my blog post TPD. Anyway what were your thoughts on the post and Warrior-Priest?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Apr 15, 2020 12:48:53 GMT -5
The Perilous Dreamer that is not explicitly stated and I will quote paragraph two of Clerics section on page 7 of Men & Magic. “Note that Clerics of 7th level or greater are either “Law” or “ Chaos”, and there is a sharp distinction between them. If a Patriarch receiving the above benefits changes sides, all the benefits will immediately removed!” It is inferred that a Cleric can be Neutral up until they reach 7th level in which they must choose to be Lawful or Chaotic. Only if they change sides does a Patriarch lose their abilities. It is explicitly stated in the original 1st print of the rules and also in the print that I started with the 4th print. See my blog post: 2020 - The Year of Blackmoor - 50th Anniversary - Day Fifty-EightThe only other restriction is in the third sentence of the paragraph under the Clerics vs. Undead Monsters table on page 22: “Also, note the Clerics versus Undead Monsters table, indicating the strong effect of the various clerical levels upon the Undead; HOWEVER, Evil Clerics do not have this effect, the entire effect being lost.” Unless you equate Chaos with Evil even Neutral Clerics can turn undead. Only name level Clerics are limited by the Character Type Alignment Chart on page 9. Part of the vagueness of OD&D, especially in the 3LBBs. A lot of the old guard often quote Poul Anderson & Moorcock in defense of the trope that Law doesn’t = Good and Chaos doesn’t = Evil. Since the text of the game only states that name level Clerics are restricted by Alignment it allows the INTERPRETATION of the possibility of Neutral Clerics thus my inferred reading and noting of Clerics as being able to be Neutral in my blog post TPD. Anyway what were your thoughts on the post and Warrior-Priest? The original game did not have Neutral Clerics as an option, that only arose in the 5th print of the game. Which I did not see until the early 2000s. I played about 30 years not knowing about that change. So I have never adopted that later revision. Now when the Supplement Eldritch Wizardry came along later it added the Druid as a Neutral Cleric. I have always felt they were poorly implemented and I have used them enough, I will tackle re-writing them one of them days. But Druids - the only official Neutral Cleric in the rules I was aware of could not turn Undead. I do not accept Monks as any type of Cleric, I see them as a poorly implemented Fighting-Man. There are Chaotic creatures who are not evil at all, but I have always see Undead as steeped in evil by their very nature. Now Warrior-Priest is how I see Clerics, and I more recently provided a path for exceptional Clerics to become Paladins in my Paladins of the Mace write-up. They are the cream of the crop for Clerics. Just as Paladins of the Sword are the cream of the crop for Fighting-Men. As for heal-bot that did not happen IMC back in the '70s, Heal-bot IMO is a player choice not driven by the rules. I like your write-up of the Warrior Priest and I have been thinking about tinkering with the Cleric for some time. IMO the Cleric was more defined in the rules because that was a PC, but I never allowed Chaotic characters and just required them to be Lawful. The other two core classes, Fighting-Men and Magic-Users, could be Lawful or Neutral. IMC in the '70s, it was always about 70% Lawful and 30% Neutral as the party makeup. |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Apr 15, 2020 13:22:49 GMT -5
Well that explains the discrepancy. I wonder why they made that change The Perilous Dreamer? Concerning the Heal-Bot thing, I think that concept was born out of 2e AD&D. 2e basically turned the Cleric from a Warrior-Priest to a generic Speciality Priest. You also have to remember that I am 47yo and mainly played 3.5 & 5e D&D, though I owned 1e & 2e AD&D plus BECMI. I wasn’t introduced to OD&D or B/X D&D until 2017. So most of my D&D gaming career has been with the water downed Cleric & redundant Paladin. I still don’t care for the Monk, Druid, Cleric & Paladin as written... whatever the edition. I love how OD&D & AD&D are toolboxes to tinker with and make your own. I can tweak the rules as I wish and create whatever kinds of worlds that I want. I will be creating house ruled versions of the main classes and races like I did with the Cleric turned Warrior Priest. As I was writing that post and finally putting my ideas down for the class I found that an implied setting was taking shape. Something a bit different than how I usually develop my settings. It feels more organic. Some people may accuse me of creating unnecessary changes or class bloat but I see it as creating classes that fit my setting better. One development that I did love about 2e AD&D was the Kit system. They added flavor and role play advice instead of a bunch of mechanical additions. |
|
|
|
Post by The Perilous Dreamer on Apr 15, 2020 13:55:40 GMT -5
You also have to remember that I am 47yo and mainly played 3.5 & 5e D&D, though I owned 1e & 2e AD&D plus BECMI. I wasn’t introduced to OD&D or B/X D&D until 2017. So most of my D&D gaming career has been with the water downed Cleric & redundant Paladin. You are in the majority. Some people may accuse me of creating unnecessary changes or class bloat but I see it as creating classes that fit my setting better. One development that I did love about 2e AD&D was the Kit system. They added flavor and role play advice instead of a bunch of mechanical additions. Ignore those accusations and make it your own! I did like the kits, not how they are written, because IMO they are written for NPCs not for player characters. I am currently exploring how to do kits in a more OD&D way. Flavor not lots of crunch, more of a guide of how you take an OD&D Fighting-Man or Magic-User or Cleric and give him a direction from the gitgo. Bitd we completely developed that during play. Now most people do not do that, so I am working on how to help them do that or at least give them pointers on how we did that and how they can do that. |
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Apr 15, 2020 18:09:41 GMT -5
Concerning kits I can see that but I haven’t read them in over a decade so going off my memory of what they were like. Bitd they seemed nifty. 5e D&D tried to emulate them via backgrounds and to a degree archetypes. Archetypes basically a mechanical kit you adopted at third level and granted you powers often that mimicked another classes.
Kits had skill suggestions and role play advice if I remember correctly. But many didn’t fit players now to think of it like the Savage. Since Cavemen & Tribal types usually were listed as monsters.
|
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on May 2, 2020 4:09:16 GMT -5
That would be some good stuff to post if you have access to it. Oh and PD really enjoying your blogs posting series. It is quite excellent.
|
|
