Clerics choose Law vs Chaos

[Finarvyn]

The following represents a conversation that occured on a board and I have removed the names becasue that part doesn't matter. My text occurs normally, while others' replies are bold and blue.

I just would like to retain the "you don't have to choose Law or Chaos until 7th level" rule, like the LBB.

Um ... where is that in the LBB?

On pg 7: "Note that Clerics of 7th level and greater are either 'Law' or 'Chaos', and there is a sharp distinction between them."

What edition of the LBB are you reading from? My fourth printing does not contain the "of 7th level" part.

I'm not sure which edition I have; it's almost certainly one of the later ones, since it has halflings rather than hobbits.

This presents an interesting philosophical problem for us that I had not considered before. As there are different editions of the OCE, there is technically no single interpretation of certain rules.

I had always assumed that the real difference between 4th printing (mine) and later printings was simply the hobbit/halfling, ent/treent, etc. Tolkien reference changes. Clearly this is not the
case and I need to find my 5th printing copy and do a line-by-line comparison one of these days.

[name deleted] wants to retain the option to be a neutral cleric in levels 1-6 because it's in the LBB and he's always done it that way. (And actually I did look it up in my 5th printing and yes, it does really say what you guys said was there. No mass hallucinations going on.)

I had no idea what he's talking about because it's NOT in the LBB that I have and had never heard of the rule before.

So ... is it really a LBB rule or not? If it's a "5th printing and later" rule then technically it was written after the supplements.

Anyone have a thought on this?

[James Maliszewski]

Nov 11, 2008 7:05:35 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

So ... is it really a LBB rule or not? If it's a "5th printing and later" rule then technically it was written after the supplements.

Anyone have a thought on this?

It is a rule -- and one I personally like -- but it's one that, given the date of its insertion, puts it on a "lower" level than the original reading of the text. That is, I'd allow it in my games, because I think it has some interesting consequences, but it's not one that I'd argue is "essential" to OD&D the way other rules are. To me, it's a bit like folks who insist on calling halflings hobbits. There's ample textual support for doing so and, while I don't personally like it, there's no basis for my saying that it's "not OD&D." I think the same general approach applies here.

[dwayanu]

I think the essential thing is that you have to choose before getting the goodies of a Patriarch/E.H.P..

(My take is that the "fanatically loyal" men at arms owe allegiance more to the Cause than to the character. Neutrality is untenable, and switching sides is ruinous!)

[Finarvyn]

Nov 11, 2008 7:37:49 GMT -6 James Maliszewski said:

Nov 11, 2008 7:05:35 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

So ... is it really a LBB rule or not? If it's a "5th printing and later" rule then technically it was written after the supplements.

Anyone have a thought on this?

it's not one that I'd argue is "essential" to OD&D the way other rules are.

While I wouldn't argue that it's an "essential" rule, it certainly does change (to me) the entire characterization of the cleric class.
1. If a cleric can be "neutral" for levels 1-6, why should that cleric get to turn undead.
2. Also, if one argues that cleric spells are given by a particular god, what happens when that neutral cleric opts to choose a lawful or chaotic alignment? Does that mean that a different god is now supplying the spells?

I don't have "the answers" to this, which is why I thought I'd start a discussion. It just threw me that in 30+ years of playing pre-5th printing OD&D I'd never even heard of the rule, but that others clearly have played it that way for years and liked it.

[makofan]

A priest can be ambivalent in his faith; but sooner or later, he has to choose, thus the level 7

[badger2305]

I'm going to appeal to a higher power*: you should do what you want in your own game. This sort of "by-the-book"-ism is the wrong way to go, philosophically speaking.


(*do I really have to point to the last page of The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures?)

[sham]

I just wrote about the whole Cleric/Anti-Cleric thing for a post I've scheduled on my blog, so I found this thread interesting in that I am clearly using a later edition of the LBB's for my ramblings there.

Fin, or anyone else with an earlier printing: Does the three-column Law-Neutrality-Chaos table appear the same way in those earlier editions? With Men in all three columns, Patriarchs in Law, and Evil High Priests in Chaos?

My such table is on page 9 of M&M. The table seems to infer that Men are not restricted to one particular Alignment, except in the case of 7th level and higher Clerics.

I agree that you should do want you want in your own game, but I also find that trying to sort out the original intent of the authors in providing the guidelines in the LBB's can be an interesting exercise.

[coffee]

Nov 11, 2008 8:28:43 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

1. If a cleric can be "neutral" for levels 1-6, why should that cleric get to turn undead.

I don't think they should, but you'll probably get players screaming about that one...

2. Also, if one argues that cleric spells are given by a particular god, what happens when that neutral cleric opts to choose a lawful or chaotic alignment? Does that mean that a different god is now supplying the spells?

Well, strictly speaking, if you follow the books exactly, that doesn't come up in the way you'd think.

There is no "holy symbol" noted on the equipment list, but there is a cross (actually, two). This implies to me that we're in a fantasy version of 'our' world, i.e., you're not being granted spells (which I think of as miracles) by a god, but rather by God.

So, when you become an Anti-Cleric, you would be getting your powers from Satan.

The neutral cleric is a 'selfish' version of the Christian priest. The Anti-Cleric is one of those who works inside the church to bring it down from within.

Note how you can't tell visually what alignment a character is...



Anyway, as far as "by the book" for what it's worth, that's my take on it.

[korgoth]

I prefer to require that they choose Law or Chaos from the outset. That makes more sense to me.

[snorri]

I'm currently trying to finish an od&d clone in french (as od&d never has been published in french and very few people know it - red box was the first d&d version here), so I follow all debates of "by-the-text" od&d.

My printing has still a hobbit p.6, but halfling everywhere else. The rule of 7th level cleric being law or chaos is there too. And evil-priest is chaotic - but there is no description of alignements, so nothing tell that all chaotics are evil...

It suggest several possibilities ("Character types are limited as follows by this alignment", p. 9)

1) clerics can't be neutral, just as halflings can just be lawful , and dwarves, elves and gnomes can't be chaotics).

2) OR, a neutral cleric can't go up to 7th lvl

Nothing tell clearly that undead turning is linked to law and impossible for other, even if the fact that undeads are chaos suggest it. Only Evil priest lose this power (but once again, chaos = evil is unclear).

The rules states only that 7th lvl cleric must be Law or Chaos, and lose his henchmen if he changes side (which seems to be possible anyway).

The words Deity, Gods and Religion don't even appear in the text, even if titles like "village priest" clearly suggest they're religious-type. Evil is refered, but good is not (apart a qute stating that detect evil don't detect poison because it's not good or evil...).

Many people suggested od&d had some christian background asumption (monk-type cleric with cross, use of cross against vampires and so on), and the fact high-level have Turcopoles serving them (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turcopole) makes them crusaders organised into military orders like Templars and Hospitalers (Chainmail suggest the same thing).

The only problem being the Lama, which suggest an influence of Buddhism (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama). So our law priest is probably a Buddhist Templar.

I note also the evil "village priest" (3d level) is a shaman, which could involve that evil (chaos?) is shamanism.

I had a quick also on chainmail, where : "It is impossible to draw a distanct line between "good" and "evil" fantastic figures." Here's the Wizard (but it includes all Magic-users from 2d level), can't be neutral as well. And a 8th level m-u is a necromancer, no matter if he's good, evil, law or chaos... (same thing as poison, necromancy is nor good nor evil...).

A few other points on men :

*Brigands and pirates are chaos, but bandits and bucaneers don't seems so.

*Derviches are always lawful (so law have connexion with Sufism : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dervish)

*Caveman are neutral (but what's the definition of neutrality?)

I do'nt know if solves the problem, but it pose many questions

[Finarvyn]

Nov 11, 2008 10:12:40 GMT -6 sham said:

Fin, or anyone else with an earlier printing: Does the three-column Law-Neutrality-Chaos table appear the same way in those earlier editions? With Men in all three columns, Patriarchs in Law, and Evil High Priests in Chaos?

Yes, my 4th printing has the same 3-alignment table.

Nov 11, 2008 10:51:12 GMT -6 coffee said:

There is no "holy symbol" noted on the equipment list, but there is a cross (actually, two). This implies to me that we're in a fantasy version of 'our' world, i.e., you're not being granted spells (which I think of as miracles) by a god, but rather by God. So, when you become an Anti-Cleric, you would be getting your powers from Satan.

Nov 11, 2008 11:27:01 GMT -6 snorri said:

clerics can't be neutral, just as halflings can just be lawful , and dwarves, elves and gnomes can't be chaotics).

In my own mind I always thought of the Christianity element in OD&D, which is why I made characters choose Law/Chaos from the onset and I never allowed neutral clerics except for Druids. Obviously, different DMs have differing ideas on how this should work.

This whole thing is pretty wacky, as “By The Book” clearly means “By My Book”. I bet that most players pre-5th printing interpret it one way and post-5th printing interpret it another way, and both argue that it’s “by the book” for the edition they own.

Makes me wonder what other changes might have been made and I never noticed…

[coffee]

Part of the problem with printings is that each successive printing was more. That is, the first printing was 1000, the second 2000, and each successive one went up from there. So there are probably a lot more 6th printings (the OCE) than all others combined.

And the pdfs for sale are 6th printing too, aren't they? All of which means that the '7th level' thing is taken as 'gospel' (if you'll pardon the expression!) by the majority of players.

[sham]

This whole thread is coming on my 'D&D By The Book' series, which is up to 10 parts (scheduled, anyway) now over at my blog. I wish I could change the name to 'By My Books', but it doesn't have the same ring. I knew that Hobbits and Balrogs were culled from the OCE's, but I didn't realize that further notes, clarifications and/or changes had been added.

I'll be sure to wrap all the Men & Magic posts up with a disclaimer in regard to using the OCE printing (which yes, is the printing for the PDF's).

I'm sure many of many conclusions will be debatable, but the whole thing is a challenging exercise for me. It's making me actually read, line for line, the LBB's in a different manner.

In the end, most of the opinions I reach are just my own filtration of ideas I have gleaned here this year. I hope at the end of the exercise I will feel 'closer to the authors intent' than before, and succesfully distanced myself further from my AD&D mindset.

End of thread hijack, carry-on!

[snorri]

As I was intrigued by this question, I had a look on the list of "True law", ie. creatures which are always lawful - so can express the true essence of Law. There are very few :

Halflings, Treants, Unicorns, Pegasi, Hippogriffs, Gold dragon

Then, I verified what we know 'from the books' about them and their behaviour (nothing on Halfling, anyway) :

1) Treants “Although Lawful in nature, Treants are not prone to involve themselves in affairs which do not directly concern them: ."

2) Unicorns : "Only a maiden (in the strictest sense of the term) of pure and noble heart may approach the fierce and elusive Unicom. Unicorns may be ridden by maiden-warriors and will obey them. Otherwise, they will avoid human contact, unless pressed."
3) Pegasi : "Winged horses are wild and shy, being most difficult to capture. They will serve only Lawful characters"

4) Hippogriffs : "They are otherwise similar to Pegasi in nature, although the two creatures do not herd together and will normally fight each other."

5) Golden Dragons : "the only Dragons which are Lawful in nature although this exception is not noted on the Alignment table. They will often appear as human or in some other guise."

So :
1) Law tend to involve themselves in affairs which do not directly concern istelf (but not always do so).

2) Law is about purity, noble hearth and virginity (in the strictest sense)

3) Law is fierce and elusive, and avoid human

4) Law supporters fight with each other

5) Law can disguise itself when necessary.

It could seem a strange reading, but it makes sense:

1) Clerics of the Law consider the Law is not only for them, but for everybody. They could be proselytes and inquisitive. Privacy is not their affair, because Law is above all. They could have an inquisition.

2) Law has knightly ideals, care about chastity and purity – literally, this question of purity could lead to alimentary interdictions [it fits with the Purify food and water spell – another way we could follow to understand law]. Knights also fit to the religious orders from Chainmail.

3) Law is an abstract concept, somewhat theological. Its theology is faraway from human understanding and daily life, and its clerics have a very strict lifestyle (about chastity, purity and training to fight), which makes them far from ordinary people, both physically (they live in strongholds) and in their behavior.

4) Supporters of Law can have arguments and fights between themselves. It can go from rivalry between orders (like between Templars and Hospitalers), to religious schism (as Law is Law, it can be only One, one understanding, one interpretation. The unity of Law leads to schisms and heresies). [Templars could have pegasi and Hospitalers hippogriffs, both as favorites mounts for elites troops and as blazon].

5) The use of disguise suggest several possibilities, but considering the “crusades” mood which fits to military orders, It make me think to the Taqiyya (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiyya), ie. the right, for a shia muslim to hide his faith to save his life. Law clerics could use this dissimulation when traveling in unbelievers lands. It fits to the fact that all means are allowed in support of Law, as it shown by the example of poison (spells like Stick to snake)

[this is already a long post… I keep some ideas from the next one, and I’ll put it all-in-one file soon]

[blackbarn]

I wasn't aware of that rule, but I kind of like it. It seems like the cleric is just a cleric until 7th level, and then he is initiated into the inner circle of how the universe works. Enlightenment, and a choice...

[philotomy]

My take:

For a personal game, it's the referee's call, like always.

For a retro-clone that aims at being a clone, retaining ambiguities and "options" that are present in the original is a better approach than clarifying those ambiguities. In this case, the situation is muddy because the rule in question isn't present in all versions of the LBBs. However, the most commonly available version of the LBBs (the OCE, which is also apparently the source of the PDFs), does include this rule. My preference would be to include the rule as an option, which works with both the "try to retain fidelity to the original, including ambiguous areas" and "leave it up to the referee" approaches.

[Deleted]

Nov 11, 2008 11:15:40 GMT -6 korgoth said:

I prefer to require that they choose Law or Chaos from the outset. That makes more sense to me.

I agree. At 1st level, the cleric is "initiated", so to speak, into the rites & mysteries of their order. As they progress in level, they learn even more regarding the dogma of their church.

If they decide to start batting for the other team, that's going to cause a whole host of problems - both spiritual & temporal.

As for the sidebar discussion regarding Neutral clerics, I use them; as members of an order teaching moderation & prudence on all things, they are opposed to the all or nothing philosophy of law & chaos.

For my OD&D campaign, there IS only one god, with each differing alignment offering a divergent precept; indeed, each sect believes themselves to be correct in their article of faith, & they all certainly clash, very violently at times, on these key differences.

In regards to turning undead, Neutral clerics don't, at least IMC. They command undead. Only lawful clerics channel enough of god's positive energy to truly "Turn" them. Where chaotic clerics command undead for their own twisted, nefarious purposes, neutral clerics command undead to banish them.


Just my opinion. Great topic, Fin!

[coffee]

Nov 11, 2008 20:33:28 GMT -6 @oltekos said:

In regards to turning undead, Neutral clerics don't, at least IMC. They command undead. Only lawful clerics channel enough of god's positive energy to truly "Turn" them. Where chaotic clerics command undead for their own twisted, nefarious purposes, neutral clerics command undead to banish them.

I like this and may well steal it.

[snorri]

Nov 11, 2008 20:33:28 GMT -6 @oltekos said:

For my OD&D campaign, there IS only one god, with each differing alignment offering a divergent precept; indeed, each sect believes themselves to be correct in their article of faith, & they all certainly clash, very violently at times, on these key differences.

It could fit with the absence of any known or named god in lbb, and the fact Chaos has a a reversal version of law Hierarchy.

On Neutraly, things aren’t so clear as for Law. If we except animals and non-intelligent at first, creatures five creatures are “true neutral”: Berserkers, Cavemen, Dryads, Nixies & Pixies. About Pixies and Cavemen, we got no “behavourial” elements. So,

1) Dryads : They are shy and non-violent”, “Anyone charmed by a Dryad will never return from the forest. Dryads have exact knowledge of the woods around them”

2) Nixies “These water sprites are neutral in nature, but they will always seek to lure humans beneath the waters to enslave them for one year.”

3) Berserkers are simply men mad with battle-lust.

So we can deduce :

1) Neutrality could have a link with forest (and probably with underwater in 2). But it doesn't mean neutrality is nature-loving.

1&2) Neutrals could enslaves people, for one year or forever, but 2) It’s not really a part of its nature.

2&3) Neutrality is not about violence, as it could be non-violent or mad with battle-lust. But curiously, neutrality lead to extreme choices.

One could suggest that neutrality is just an absence of choice between Law and Chaos [which fits to Blackbarn view : at 7th levl, understanding of universe makes a non-choice impossible].

This is possible, but if so, why would it be Neutral swords with neutrality as a goal? And they don’t keep out the melee, but seems to be free to choose to support either Law or Chaos (as suggested in Chainmail).

Statement 1) could also explain that animals and their like are neutrals, not because they don’t care about alignment, but because they’re part of the nature.

Elementals are neutral in chainmail, but they don’t seem to have anymore alignment in OD&D. The only mention is about Efrits : “These creatures are similar to the Djinn, but their basis is in fire and they tend to be Chaotic”. Could this suggest a possible evolution from neutrality to chaos? [by the way, it seems there are five elements in OD&D, lightning being one, and Dragons are linked to elements – but that another question].

So, as Oltekos, I first think that neutrality was "an order teaching moderation & prudence ", but it on't seems so, as the statement couln't apply to slavery nor to berserkers.

Wouldn't be the question of Neutral Swords (and some other historical points I will raise later), I would not be far to think OD& world is the battlefield between Law & Chaos- neutrals just haven't choose yet.

[badger2305]

Nov 11, 2008 8:35:30 GMT -6 makofan said:

A priest can be ambivalent in his faith; but sooner or later, he has to choose, thus the level 7

*grump*grump*grump*

So here I stake my position on "it's up to the ref!" and surely that's so, and implicitly question the entire idea of this alignment choice at 7th level business - seems fishy, it does.

Then I'm over at Grognardia, trying to track down some of the "implicit morality" that James has been talking about, and I run into this:

Clerics of either good or evil predisposition must likewise remain completely good or totally evil, although lateral movement might be allowed by the dungeonmaster, with or without divine retribution. Those top-level clerics who fail to maintain their goodness or evilness must make some form of immediate atonement. If they fail to do so they simply drop back to seventh level. (emphasis mine) The atonement, as well as how immediate it must be, is subject to interpretation by the referee.

Druids serve only themselves and nature, they occasionally make human sacrifice, but on the other hand they aid the folk in agriculture and animal husbandry. Druids are, therefore, neutral — although slightly predisposed towards evil actions.
- "The Meaning Of Law And Chaos In Dungeons & Dragons And Their Relationships To Good And Evil" by Gary Gygax, The Strategic Review, Vol. II, No.1.

....so I have to admit there must be some sort of basis for this interpretation of the rules. (Even if I never played that way. So there. *grump* )

[stonetoflesh]

Interesting poll question; I had never seen that passage before. In my games, I have always assumed that a.) the gods themselves are aligned to Law or Chaos, and b.) a PC cleric has a personal faith serious enough to have been invested at a level beyond that of a mere acolyte or brother-- only a small percentage of the various priesthoods' initiates are favored by the gods and capable of regular spellcasting. Thus, the PC's alignment choice of Law or Chaos must occur when the character is being created, as it is a fundamental aspect of their magical abilities.

[snorri]

Among true Chaotics, we find Trolls, Gorgon, all undeads, and the folowing creatures :

1) Goblins/Kobolds “When in their lair the "goblin king" will be found.”

2) Hobgoblins/Gnolls “The Hobgoblin king will fight as an Ogre”

3) Gnolls “Otherwise they are similar to Hobgoblins, although the Gnoll king…”

4) Wights “Wights are nasty critters »

5) Medusae « As it is intelligent it will cleverly attempt to beguile victims into looking at it. » (The same could apply to Vampire’s charm)
6) Manticores « Their favorite prey is man”

7) Gargoyles « They are hostile and generally (75%) attack with no provocation regardless of the fact that they
may be attacking other Chaotic creatures. They are at least semi-intelligent, and usually can be relied upon to behave with forethought and planning.”

It makes sense too, like for Law, and helps to understand Chaos.

1 to 3) Chaos has kings. It’s unclear if Law has. The only other kingdom is the great one, about which we have no other clue (Dwarves and Elves have lands which are not stated as kingdoms, so they could have any other political system). So Chaos isn’t about individual freedom . It includes a strong hierarchy (as do anti-clerics, whose leaders at least are chaotics) and support the power of one above all – we don’t know if these kings are despots, but it could fit.

4) Chaos is nasty. There’s plenty possibilities to be nasty, but they’re for draining levels, and all drainers are actually chaotics. So drain a level is a mark of chaos. I note that all undead are chaotics (it’s unclear for skeletons and zombies, who are unintelligent; but in Chaimail times, zombies were part of the wights family). So Chaos as something to do with “undead”, which are not clearly “living deads” but people whose life was drained (even vampires drain life, not blood). Undead are protected against charms, but can be trapped in a mirror of life trapping – suggesting they’re not dead, but rather they can’t die (this is more or less the eternal state of non-death that Bram Stoker designed as undead) [as Law seems to be concerned with life and healing, and his priests turns undead, it could suggest avoiding death is important for Law. The “Buddhist” influence of Law (Lama!) could include a purity taboo about death and blood – a non-christian explanation for use of “bloodless” mace.

5) Chaos use tricks to seduce or trap its victims and 6) Chaos favorite prey is man : chaos is seducing, beautiful and dangerous for those who look it in the eyes (any comparison with the dark side of the Force is possible, as long as it suggest that SW took it from OD&D chaos). That’s why Law is so inquisitive and defiant, and why there’s always a risk of Law patriarchs going to Chaos: it’s always try to attract them on an individual way, by tricks and seductions.

7) Chaos is hostile, attacks even chaos, is instinctive but able to plan and forethought. As Law, but probably for different reasons, Chaos struggle with itself: it’s a force that drives individuals. They may be able to plot in support of chaos, but chaos itself is not a plot, it’s a raw force.

Still unclear to me is the connection of Chaos with Shamanism [but if Law has connections with Buddhism / lamaism, couldn't have Chaos with Taoism], but in the crusades mood, it evocates strongly the Teutonic knights crusades against pagans…

[I'll continue with spells, later]

[Zulgyan]

I'm loving your aligment musings. I don't know if I'll applythem, but they are certainly entretaining to read!!

Have an exalt for your efforts!

Also, note that in Elric IIRC, the empire Elric rules is mainly a servant of Chaos, while the Barbarians -or the younguer less civilized nations- are Law!!!

Your conclusions seem to be quite in line with the Elric stories (of which I;m no expert)

[snorri]

I begin with the reading of spells, asuming that the cleric spell lists is basically for Lawful cleric.

Adept (& Acolyte)

The Adept is not part of the Christian background and titles. It could be accepted in wide sense, but its place in second level, for someone who’s already able to cast spells, suggest it’s a specific title. It appears mostly in Initiates orders (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adept), suggesting law could have initiatic ceremonies and grades progression – something which fits well with the use of titles.

By its spells, Law is connected to curing, purity, protection from evil and detection of evil, detection of magic and light. I already noted that aspect of purity. Curing is linked not only with life but with body integrity – something which the relation between Law and Buddhism could also suggest. Light could be understood as a refusal of darkness or a link with Sun. I remarks that no True lawful creatures does have infravision, and that night dwellers like undead can’t be Lawful. It could suggest the Law deity is a Sun god (or goddess, I’ll clarify that point later). Its enforced by the fact that 1st lvl of Law hierarchy is the Acolyte, a title for the Candle-bearer during the ceremony: first task of a cleric is to bear light – before he’s able to do it by magic.

So law is against evil, but the nature of evil needs to be clarified, as it seems to apply mostly to enchanted creatures, evil high priests and evil thoughts and intends. The latest category fits well with the idea of inquisition and confession (“did you had evil thoughts, my son?“). Enchanted creatures are a wide category, which should be clarified. Evil high priest is a recurring problem: anti-clerics does exists at lower level, but they’re not clearly described as evil… It seems Evil is a wide non-Law category: impure creatures, impure thoughts, unbelievers and heretics.

[Finarvyn]

Nov 11, 2008 17:26:31 GMT -6 philotomy said:

In this case, the situation is muddy because the rule in question isn't present in all versions of the LBBs. However, the most commonly available version of the LBBs (the OCE, which is also apparently the source of the PDFs), does include this rule.

That's what is so wacky to me, that it's written one way in one printing and then is changed in a later printing even though they're both supposed to be the same.

Gary is probably laughing at us right now.

[sham]

Nov 14, 2008 12:05:01 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Nov 11, 2008 17:26:31 GMT -6 philotomy said:

In this case, the situation is muddy because the rule in question isn't present in all versions of the LBBs. However, the most commonly available version of the LBBs (the OCE, which is also apparently the source of the PDFs), does include this rule.

That's what is so wacky to me, that it's written one way in one printing and then is changed in a later printing even though they're both supposed to be the same.

Gary is probably laughing at us right now.

LOL - very true! Theorizing, debating, and waffling are some of my favorite pastimes, though!

That said, I prefer the Law or Chaos approach, but part of me is screaming that my AD&D mind is taking over and telling me that True Neutral = Druid.

[philotomy]

Nov 14, 2008 12:05:01 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

That's what is so wacky to me, that it's written one way in one printing and then is changed in a later printing even though they're both supposed to be the same.

Gary is probably laughing at us right now.

Yeah, probably.

The quirks and ambiguities like this are one of the big draws of OD&D, to me. I love the fact that so much if left up to the referee and players, and that a "by the book" approach can end up in so many different permutations -- all of which are technically "by the book." I love that my assumptions about the game aren't necessarily shared by everyone else. To me, "retaining options" is all about preserving that "uninterpreted" wide-open sense that gives full reign to individual referees and their groups.

[snorri]

I didn't read Elric for a long time, but I think about doing it again (& again). But the idea of a dying chaotic empire under the blows of young, faithfull and fanatics Law warriors-monks would fit me....

And I hope it makes Gary laughs!

In my last post, I forget to speak of the Village priest, which also use only 1st level spells - but he's abble to turn a wight, which is not bad.

So our candle-bearer acolyte [which is probably also the group torchbearer], then initiated as Adept, is now a Village Priest. Not only he gain Priesthood (which is the real reason why the class is cleric and not priest), but he's a village priest, a very interesting detail.

According to book I and II, it seems that a Patriarch stronghold is like a Lord barony : it's in the wilderness, surrounded by monsters, and it has 2-8 villages of 100-400 inhabitants in a 20 miles hex aera (I'll don't discuss demographical effects now). So we got an idea of the Law hierarchy pyramid : at least in wilderness, a Patriarch leads 2-8 village priests [prehaps it's otherwise in towns and civilized lands, but we got no clues about it).

As far as I can understand, the 3d level cleric is send to a village. His mission is not easy, as most villagers are not necessary happy to have a Priest, with his stritc Law enforcment, purity and chastity precepts, military discipline. I guess the Priest is not only a pastor, but also a judge and a cop*. If the villagers were happy, they wouldn't be an "angry villagers rule"....

*Nicolas Eymerich, Solomon Kane and Judge Dread all-in-one ?

[shadowheart469]

I'd say it's ref's call, but my inclination is to say that a Cleric ought to choose at character creation ... but that once 7th level is reached the decision has to be made and stuck to in order to avoid upsetting the Higher Power(s).

I also don't tend to put much stock in the level labels, beyond the fact that it makes it rather more interesting to write "An Acolyte, a Seer, and a Hero walk into a bar" as opposed to "A first level Cleric, a second level Magic user and a fourth level Fighting man ...."

Then again, I also don't tend to consider real world religions in D&D much, so the 'Christian' and 'Buddhist' level labels don't strike me as being anything more than poetic. So just because a Cleric becomes a "Village priest" doesn't mean (to me) that he (or she!) suddenly becomes a "priest" or must be sent to a "village."

[Finarvyn]

Nov 15, 2008 16:04:23 GMT -6 shadowheart469 said:

I'd say it's ref's call, but my inclination is to say that a Cleric ought to choose at character creation ... but that once 7th level is reached the decision has to be made and stuck to in order to avoid upsetting the Higher Power(s).

The other issue that comes up in my game is the fact that 7th level is really high in my campaign. I go on the idea that "hero" is a 4th level character and "super hero" is 8th level, and the relative terms apply no matter the class of the character.

So, if I have a party of characters they tend not to advance much beyond 4th level. If I have a player doing a solo (or two-player) game I tend to allow them to advance to 8th.

My thinking is that you can compare a "hero" or "super hero" to the protagonist of a book. If there is one character (or maybe two) you can have a really strong person and not upset game balance, but if there is an entire party than 8 levels each is simply too many.

In other words, very few of my clerics would ever be faced with this decision if I allowed them to wait until 7th level. That's part of my rationale for having them pick at 1st level. (Also the fact that I had never heard of the "7th level rule", of course. )