|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 9, 2015 12:57:32 GMT -6
Most people regard the thief (first widely published in 1975's Supplement I: GREYHAWK) as the 4th character class. After all, it says so right on the first page of GREYHAWK. But I think that is an unfortunate way to put it. Men & Magic already has four character classes: 1. fighting-men 2. magic-users 3. clerics 4. anti-clerics Consider the following facts: 1. Anti-clerics have different level titles than do clerics. 2. Anti-clerics have a different spell list than do clerics. 3. Anti-clerics cannot turn undead. 4. Anti-clerics must be chaotic, while clerics must be lawful. Imagine if I told somebody, "Sure you can play a cleric, but he can't heal anybody and he can't turn undead." Surely the response would be, "What kind of cleric is that supposed to be? That's not a cleric!" And he'd be right. Clerics worship the powers above, while anti-clerics worship the powers below, or... Clerics worship God, while anti-clerics worship the Devil, or... Clerics worship The Man Upstairs, while anti-clerics worship Old Scratch, or... Clerics worship the Gods of Pavar, while anti-clerics worship the Pariah Gods, or... Clerics worship the gods, while anti-clerics worship Cthulhu and other Old Ones, or... Clerics worship Mitra, while anti-clerics worship Set. Etc. Gimme that old-time religion!  |
|
skars
Level 6 Magician
Posts: 407
|
Post by skars on Jan 9, 2015 15:19:44 GMT -6
What makes the anti-cleric unique besides not being able to do the same things the lawful cleric does? Is there a particular schtick?
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 9, 2015 15:30:48 GMT -6
The idea that anti-clerics are a different class from clerics is only partially supported in the text of OD&D. It does say that clerics must choose Law or Chaos, unless you have a later printing in which the text is emended to move this choice to 7th level. Then in the spells section it introduces the Anti-Cleric, who casts the reverse of clerical spells (i.e. Cause Light Wounds instead of Cure Light Wounds). They also have unique access to the Finger of Death spell, which turns characters into anti-clerics, but no turning undead.
Also, anti-cleric level titles are just the cleric titles with "evil" stuck in front of them, except for Shaman (Village Priest), Evil Priest (Vicar) and Evil High Priest (Patriarch). It's one of the great missed opportunities in OD&D that "Shaman" is not used as a type for either enemy humans or for humanoids.
|
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 9, 2015 17:34:10 GMT -6
geoffrey, I like your point. I simply understand it to be the same class but w significantly different manifestations depending upon alignment. And I do not interpret the ban on turning for anticlerics to mean a simple loss, but, like their "reverse spells," I interpret to mean "command" and "dispell" to mean "create undead," from, say, dead characters laying around a battle scene. That makes them powerful and scary! Thanks for the thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by sepulchre on Jan 9, 2015 23:07:50 GMT -6
Tetramorph wrote:
I think 'command' catches the gist, in AD&D it is referred to as 'Beckon', though it does not encompass creating undead, rather bending their will to that of the 'anti-cleric'. That is, indeed, frightening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jan 10, 2015 1:35:47 GMT -6
On his blog (now in hiatus) Nicolas "Ungoliant" Senac suggested the idea of differentiating Chaotic clerics (that he called "Heresiarchs" *) which are basically just that : clerics who are chaotic i-e opposed to the "Law" as the order of man and civilization "as it is", and Anti Clerics, who are evil dark gods/demon worshippers. purpulpworm.blogspot.fr/search?q=clerics+*EDIT: "A tout seigneur, tout honneur" , he says he borrowed the title to Talysman |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 10, 2015 6:55:50 GMT -6
This is an awesome thread. While I've never really thought of cleric and anti-cleric being two different "classes" it's certainly been true in my campaign that they are clearly different options. On the other hand, I like the way you've built your case on this. Well thought-out. The idea that anti-clerics are a different class from clerics is only partially supported in the text of OD&D. It does say that clerics must choose Law or Chaos, unless you have a later printing in which the text is emended to move this choice to 7th level. Yes. My printing of OD&D going back to the 1970's implies the choice at character creation, which always seemed logical to me, and so that's the way I've always done it. I hadn't even heard about the alternate version of the rulebook until much later, when it was discussed on the internet. As the DM of low-level campaigns, where few characters ever even reach 7th level, holding off on the choice just seems to double the spell choices for the cleric and totally ruins the feel of the class. In my opinion. Then in the spells section it introduces the Anti-Cleric, who casts the reverse of clerical spells (i.e. Cause Light Wounds instead of Cure Light Wounds). They also have unique access to the Finger of Death spell, which turns characters into anti-clerics, but no turning undead. My house rules doc presents two similar spell lists -- one as per M&M and one with the "reversed" spell names replacing the regular ones. Sometimes my players will look at the Chaos list and decide it looks cooler than the Lawful one, but they have to sacrifice the healing aspect of the cleric in order to gain the coolness of the anti-cleric. I had an unplesent experience with this recently. I was running an adventure with a father and son, the son chose an anti-cleric, and the father spent the rest of the adventure saying "I wish we had a healer." Kind of ugly. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 10, 2015 9:11:03 GMT -6
One thing I've gotten from reading Alarums & Excursions is the sense that the Evil High Priest was one of the really classic D&D enemies, on the level of the Balrog. Losing this designation is one of the things that made later editions a lot less flavorful. (If I could go back in time and change D&D, the Monster Manual would've been a different than it ended up.)
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 10, 2015 9:37:14 GMT -6
On his blog (now in hiatus) Nicolas "Ungoliant" Senac suggested the idea of differentiating Chaotic clerics (that he called "Heresiarchs" *) which are basically just that : clerics who are chaotic i-e opposed to the "Law" as the order of man and civilization "as it is", and Anti Clerics, who are evil dark gods/demon worshippers. purpulpworm.blogspot.fr/search?q=clerics+*EDIT: "A tout seigneur, tout honneur" , he says he borrowed the title to Talysman Thanks for the link. I especially like his simple rules for controlling demons. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 10, 2015 9:38:03 GMT -6
One thing I've gotten from reading Alarums & Excursions is the sense that the Evil High Priest was one of the really classic D&D enemies, on the level of the Balrog. Losing this designation is one of the things that made later editions a lot less flavorful. (If I could go back in time and change D&D, the Monster Manual would've been a different than it ended up.) Details, please! How would you have changed the Monster Manual? |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 10, 2015 14:24:14 GMT -6
On his blog (now in hiatus) Nicolas "Ungoliant" Senac suggested the idea of differentiating Chaotic clerics (that he called "Heresiarchs" *) which are basically just that : clerics who are chaotic i-e opposed to the "Law" as the order of man and civilization "as it is", and Anti Clerics, who are evil dark gods/demon worshippers. purpulpworm.blogspot.fr/search?q=clerics+*EDIT: "A tout seigneur, tout honneur" , he says he borrowed the title to Talysman And I borrowed it from the Hexen PC game, although it turns out to be a actual term outside of gaming: a heresiarch is a leader of a heresy, just as a patriarch is the head of an order of clerics in D&D. The idea that anti-clerics are a different class from clerics is only partially supported in the text of OD&D. It does say that clerics must choose Law or Chaos, unless you have a later printing in which the text is emended to move this choice to 7th level. Yes. My printing of OD&D going back to the 1970's implies the choice at character creation, which always seemed logical to me, and so that's the way I've always done it. I hadn't even heard about the alternate version of the rulebook until much later, when it was discussed on the internet. As the DM of low-level campaigns, where few characters ever even reach 7th level, holding off on the choice just seems to double the spell choices for the cleric and totally ruins the feel of the class. In my opinion. Well, I assume that if you run with the implication of the later printing, clerics who haven't made a choice are neutral. So the question is: are Neutral clerics able to use either the standard or reversed spells, or are they restricted to the non-reversed versions just like Lawful clerics? I wasn't completely sold on Nicolas's splitting of heretics/heresiarchs from anti-clerics, but I'm beginning to see some possibilities, especially if you use the "Neutral clerics must pick a side before they can advance to 7th level" rule and add the "only anti-clerics can use reversed spells" rule. The way this could work: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic clerics all use the same spell list, no reversed spells. Chaotic clerics are heretics and lose the ability to turn undead, but still have healing. Per the note on Finger of Death, using that spell risks turning Chaotic and losing the turn undead power. Other reversed spells would have to be researched, but would carry the same risk. Anti-clerics can't use healing magic, only reversed spells. They can't turn undead, but they can attempt to bargain with infernal powers to gain a replacement ability, like command undead or curse living. The model for the anti-cleric is the demon-worshipper seeking personal power; all anti-clerics are Chaotic. If a heretic (Chaotic cleric) attempts to gain a replacement for the missing turn undead power, they become an anti-cleric and lose the power to heal. |
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 10, 2015 18:00:38 GMT -6
Details, please! How would you have changed the Monster Manual? Well, I would do a lot differently. My Monster Manual would have had short Holmes-style stat blocks to allow for more monsters. A lot of the things where Gygax made "systematic" entries would have been replaced with "generator with example" type entries; for instance, the whole hierarchy of demons would be pulled out and replaced by a few exemplar demons and a demon generator. Likewise with humanoids and dragons. Orcs and goblins would just be examples of how to make humanoids, and the whole color-coding of dragons would be gone. I would have human enemies with unique powers, like witches, Evil High Priests, and so on. There would also be ample science fantasy stuff in my MM - robots, androids, and alien creatures (probably adaptations of white apes, banths, and other Barsoom creatures), as were hinted at in volumes 2 and 3 of D&D. I actually think the standardization of creatures and the expurgation of science fantasy elements from AD&D had a narrowing effect on fantasy as a genre. But that deserves its own thread and discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 10, 2015 18:43:24 GMT -6
cadriel, please write that document up and I will be the first to buy it. I'm sure all the illustrators on this board could provide you ample and diverse images! I'm Not kidding! It just sounds amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Jan 10, 2015 21:07:15 GMT -6
cadriel, please write that document up and I will be the first to buy it. I'm sure all the illustrators on this board could provide you ample and diverse images! I'm Not kidding! It just sounds amazing. To wrap up the tangent, I wrote about this in more detail on my blog: Nuking the Monster Manual. |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jan 11, 2015 5:09:38 GMT -6
That sounds a lot like Seven Voyages of Zylarthen's Book of Monsters |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Jan 11, 2015 14:59:12 GMT -6
geoffrey, I thought I had read a comment on here to the effect that anti-clerics were the original evil kingpin. It got me thinking about your list of opposing powers in the OP. There was an interesting write up by Len Lakofka in Dragon #76 1983 for Leomund's Tiny Hut. The article was an NPC known as the Death Master- a subclass of Magic-users in AD&D. The opening paragraph was enlightening to how Len felt the overarching theme of the game should be viewed. Even though it's a sub-class of Magic-user, the Death Master may hold some useful elements to the roll the Anti-Cleric could have originally filled. His powers over the undead ring Anti-Cleric to me more then Magic-User to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 11, 2015 15:15:50 GMT -6
Details, please! How would you have changed the Monster Manual? Well, I would do a lot differently. My Monster Manual would have had short Holmes-style stat blocks to allow for more monsters. A lot of the things where Gygax made "systematic" entries would have been replaced with "generator with example" type entries; for instance, the whole hierarchy of demons would be pulled out and replaced by a few exemplar demons and a demon generator. Likewise with humanoids and dragons. Orcs and goblins would just be examples of how to make humanoids, and the whole color-coding of dragons would be gone. I would have human enemies with unique powers, like witches, Evil High Priests, and so on. There would also be ample science fantasy stuff in my MM - robots, androids, and alien creatures (probably adaptations of white apes, banths, and other Barsoom creatures), as were hinted at in volumes 2 and 3 of D&D. Some of this is what I was planning to do for the Liber Zero monster section, which may or may not still see the light of day. For example, I condensed the statblock down to two lines, something like:
Monstroso (Chaotic Enchanted Flying Beast)
up to 3, HD 5+1, Light Armor, Move 6/18, 1+2 damage, breathe fire
And I planned on bundling together different monster categories, like goblinoids, corporeal undead, skeletal undead, incorporeal undead, and oozes. Plus the infamous monster build tables, which I've linked to before. But what I'd really like to see in a monster manual is entries based on behavior and function rather than form. Those stat blocks are trivial to write or just make up on the fly, but that's what all monster manuals seem to be obsessed with: How fast would a monster with eagle wings fly? Does this monster breathe fire? But what I think is important is how a tomb guardian behaves and what its likely powers are going to be, regardless of whether it is a skeleton, a ghost, or a golem. The monsters should have names like "Ethereal Ambusher" or "Wish Granter" or "Tempter", and the exact stats depend on what the GM needs or whether the Ethereal Ambushers are concieved as one-off encounters or some kind of organized society with creatures of different ranks and possibly specialized squads. This isn't quite the same as the templates that I've seen in the WotC-era rulebooks. WotC is married to the statblock, so they see templates as requiring modifiers to every possible stat: the Fire-Breathing Ravager template should have +3 hit dice, Move x 1.5, -2 to save vs fire, and so on and so on, even when there's no logical necessity for these stats to be modified. What I think an entry like Fire-Breathing Ravager should say is how the damage scales with hit dice, how to handle the spread of fire, its typical attack behavior (raze some fields or forest and snatch a couple domestic animals every d6/2 days,) what might drive it off, things like that. |
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jan 11, 2015 15:25:34 GMT -6
But what I'd really like to see in a monster manual is entries based on behavior and function rather than form. Those stat blocks are trivial to write or just make up on the fly, but that's what all monster manuals seem to be obsessed with: How fast would a monster with eagle wings fly? Does this monster breathe fire? But what I think is important is how a tomb guardian behaves and what its likely powers are going to be, regardless of whether it is a skeleton, a ghost, or a golem. The monsters should have names like "Ethereal Ambusher" or "Wish Granter" or "Tempter", and the exact stats depend on what the GM needs or whether the Ethereal Ambushers are concieved as one-off encounters or some kind of organized society with creatures of different ranks and possibly specialized squads. Sounds a lot like the Animal Encounters tables from Traveller. They don't care what a creature looks like, but what it does/is in that environment. Those could be expanded/adapted for this purpose, and then you'd have a vast array of possible new creatures. |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jan 11, 2015 17:15:46 GMT -6
talysman: with all apologies due for derailing even further the originl post by talking about the Monsters, but I tried to find again on your blog the series of posts about "our infernal neighbours" , but with no avail. Are those posts gone ?
|
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Jan 11, 2015 17:31:54 GMT -6
talysman: with all apologies due for derailing even further the originl post by talking about the Monsters, but I tried to find again on your blog the series of posts about "our infernal neighbours" , but with no avail. Are those posts gone ? Yeah, looks like it, except for the first post that's actually called "Our Infernal Neighbors". It's one of the topics I actually keep meaning to edit and bundle up as a download. In this case, it would be infernal supernaturals rewritten for the simplified cosmology I proposed (ethereal and astral states, but no planes; infernal realms really are in the depths of the earth.) Speaking of my blog and getting back on target, I did a post about clerics/anti-clerics. Clerics, Heretics and Anti-ClericsPretty much a repetition of what I posted above, but I added some ideas about applying the magical research rules to clerics and anti-clerics. Clerics don't assemble a library and do spell research that way. Instead, they establish shrines and spread the teachings of their order, with the costs being the same as spell research. The new spell is a reward for their acts of faith. Anti-clerics build shrines to evil and perform sacrifices in order to acquire unholy gifts like Command Undead. |
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Jan 11, 2015 20:06:13 GMT -6
... And I do not interpret the ban on turning for anticlerics to mean a simple loss, but, like their "reverse spells," I interpret to mean "command" and "dispell" to mean "create undead," from, say, dead characters laying around a battle scene. That makes them powerful and scary! Yeah, that is the direction then game went in with later editions, so you have a lot of company for that sort play, but strictly speaking, that's not in keeping with the 3lbb rules. Referring to the turning ability we are told "evil Clerics do not have this effect, the entire effect being lost". I think that the reverse spell list is ample compensation though. Spells like curse and cause wounds are pretty powerful choices; moreso than their "normal" versions. |
|
|
|
Post by tetramorph on Jan 11, 2015 20:29:39 GMT -6
aldarron, thanks for engaging my post and sharing your interpretation. I think the rules, even the sentence you quote, are fairly ambiguous. What I love about 0e is the ambiguity and the empowerment for referees to make their own calls. I respect your interpretation as a referee.
|
|
|
|
Post by tkdco2 on Jan 11, 2015 21:28:23 GMT -6
Thank you. I am so going to use this idea for my own ends.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jan 12, 2015 1:34:09 GMT -6
I think that the reverse spell list is ample compensation though. Spells like curse and cause wounds are pretty powerful choices; moreso than their "normal" versions. I agree with Curses but I confess that Cause Wounds is somewhat of a "headscratcher" to me. In most versions of the spell, the way I saw it played, the range is a "touch" one, and most DM ask for a roll-to-hit. Except in the case of monsters imprevious to non magical attacks (or maybe a bad luck encounter with a rust monster), how is this really more useful than a simple mace (I know there is a +1 damage, but I'm not sure it's worth the spending of a spell slot)? Do you play (or have seen it played) the Cause wounds spell another way around? An automatic damage ,sort of like a clerical version of Magic Missile (after all the "revesed" version of Raise Dead is some kind of "death ray") ? |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jan 12, 2015 2:39:11 GMT -6
Nothings states it's a touch spell, nor it needs a roll to hit. Note that nothings prevents to make a saving throw to halve damage, too. It would make sense.
A possible reading is it removes 1d6+1 hit points, but not instanteanously : it takes one full turn to do so - maybe you slowly feel pain coming before it kills you. Or it affects only a wounded character, if he's wounded during the turn after you throw the spell, addding 1d6+1 to his wounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jan 12, 2015 10:26:20 GMT -6
A possible reading is it removes 1d6+1 hit points, but not instanteanously : it takes one full turn to do so - maybe you slowly feel pain coming before it kills you. Or it affects only a wounded character, if he's wounded during the turn after you throw the spell, addding 1d6+1 to his wounds. Darth Vader obviously is an Anti-Cleric. |
|
|
|
Post by snorri on Jan 12, 2015 10:39:03 GMT -6
Exactly !
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Jan 12, 2015 11:00:42 GMT -6
I have a question about raise dead.
I've always read the reference to time limit as the days that the raise dead spell would last before the raised person fell dead again.
Is there another reading of this that I'm missing?
|
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jan 12, 2015 11:28:22 GMT -6
I interprete it as how long has the dead been , well, dead, until you Raise him. But I probably am influenced by the reading of the following editions which state it clearly.
About the "touch" range of the Cause wounds spell, that also comes from readings of subsequent editions. I agree with snorri that nothing states such a range in M&M, but later versions of the spell all give a "touch" range to Cure light wounds (Like Swords & Spells also does).
Therefore, Cause wounds also is considered like a "touch" spell. The to-hit roll probably is a logical step for most players
"The anti cleric lies is clawed hand on you: an unholy aura radiates from his extended palm!
- No way I let him touch me! I try to escape him!
- Well , OK, let's see if you manage to "
At this point, the DM ponders and chooses to do a roll-to-hit. But I agree that a Saving Throw would do the bisness, too.
|
|
otiv
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 133 
|
Post by otiv on Jan 13, 2015 10:36:17 GMT -6
A couple of thoughts on the Darkness spell. Bear with me now.
1. If the clerical version of Light is equivalent to sun light, then what does that make the clerical version of Darkness? Could this spell be used to shield vampires and other creatures against the effects of the sun's rays? Could this spell be used to allow orcs to fight by day without penalty?
2. Later editions specify that Light will blind a creature if you cast it upon the creature's eyes. I would certainly allow this function of the Light spell to be used with M&M, but is this property of the spell also inverted? You cast Light when you are in darkness so that you can see, and cast Light on a creature's eyes in order to deprive it of its sight. If you cast Darkness while you are in light to deprive creatures of their sight, then does casting it on a creature's eyes give it the ability to see? Perhaps the Darkness spell grants a creature infravision when you cast it on that creature's eyes. That would make anti-clerics so much more viable.
|
|
