|
Post by aldarron on Apr 16, 2012 12:00:48 GMT -6
Men and Magic is famously vague on XP and how to divide them and this has been discussed a number of times.
When I wrote up the version of Champions of ZED published in Fight On! (12 IIRC) where XP are covered, I relied in part on the Ryth Chronicle method, derived from discussions with Gygax, as one of the oldest published explanations - occuring almost concurrently with Greyhawk. (there's a mistake in the FO article regarding cleric/MU XP btw but that's not important at the moment).
Anyway I mention CoZ, because the rule I give there is to divide XP among all participants.
That is to say all participants including the dead ones.
I thought this only made sense considereing the possibility of a case of only one or two characters surviving a near TPK and then getting the XP that was earned by the whole group, which didn't seem right - even though that's what is supposed to be done in Classic D&D.
As far as I can tell, the explicit rule to divide XP among only surviving characters originates with Holmes.
The 3Lbb's say nothing as far as I have noticed, nor does the FAQ. Greyhawk (feb '75:12) has "dividing experience equally among all characters" and the Ryth chronicle (March '75) has "divided by the number of characters in the expedition"
None of the these say anything about leaving the dead out of the calculation.
So I'm wondering what the good folks of the forum think about this. Is it implied that only survivors get XP? Should it be only survivors or should the PC's and henchmen who don't make it back alive also figure into the XP calculation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2012 13:37:42 GMT -6
XP comes from gold. Who gets the gold, gets the XP.
|
|
paulg
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by paulg on Apr 16, 2012 14:00:48 GMT -6
With the "all participants" method, what happens if party members die in multiple different fights? The referee would have to keep a running tally of XP, or else keep track of when characters died and sum the fractional XP after the game.
But if the bulk of XP comes from treasure *removed from the dungeon*, surely only the surviving party members still alive to remove it should share that XP. Dying after finding treasure means you played less well, right?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 16, 2012 14:09:06 GMT -6
XP comes from gold. Who gets the gold, gets the XP. While fundamentally I agree with this, I found a campaign with a similar philosophy for magic items and I found this to really disrupt party unity. What happened is that we found a magic sword and the guy with the sword got the XP. Except that he already had one (better than the one we found) and the player wouldn't give it up because of the XP totals. This caused a lot of bickering. Of course, gold is a lot easier to divide up than swords are.
|
|
paulg
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by paulg on Apr 16, 2012 14:18:29 GMT -6
Hmm. I've never awarded XP for magic items. What's the usual practice?
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Apr 16, 2012 14:27:04 GMT -6
Hmm. I've never awarded XP for magic items. What's the usual practice? The AD&D DMG give xp values for kept magic items. The values are kinda all over the place. A sword +1 is worth 400 in xp with a 2,000 gp sale value. The manuals are worth around 5-8 thousand xp, with sale values around 40-50k. Potions are worth about 50% of the gp sale value. Of course, that's AD&D. But the tables might give you a good idea on how you want to proceed with OD&D or B/X type games.
|
|
|
Post by Ynas Midgard on Apr 16, 2012 16:12:11 GMT -6
Here is how I award XP: - a small fraction is gain by killing monsters (by B/X or LL) - 1 XP is awarded for 1 gp worth of treasure carried out of the dungeon, divided among the surviving party members equally - 1 XP is given for 1 gp spent on carousing; that is obviously an individual reward
I chose this method because this way everyone gets an equal share and may decide if he wants more XP or buy stuff.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 16, 2012 20:05:49 GMT -6
With the "all participants" method, what happens if party members die in multiple different fights? The referee would have to keep a running tally of XP, or else keep track of when characters died and sum the fractional XP after the game. Yes, absolutely. I didn't think to mention that because I habitually do it anyway and let my players keep track of it. After every fight, you have to run a calculation of the XP earned from kills, but that's not any harder than suming encumbrance or much of the combat math since all the info is right in front of you anyway. (Personally I find it too be more difficult to try to figure this stuff out all at once a day or two after the game is over and usually end up guestimating that way) But if the bulk of XP comes from treasure *removed from the dungeon*, surely only the surviving party members still alive to remove it should share that XP. Dying after finding treasure means you played less well, right? Well, if you are using the 3lbb 100 xp per HD, often the bulk of xp does not come from treasure. Hmm. I've never awarded XP for magic items. What's the usual practice? From the SR FAQ: "Low value should be placed upon magical items as far as experience is concerned, as such items will be highly useful in gaining still more treasure. Thus, in the Greyhawk campaign a magic arrow (+1) is worth a maximum of 100 points experience, a +1 magic sword with no special abilities is valued at a maximum of 1,000 points, a scroll of spells at either 500 or at 100 points per level per spell (so a 6th level spell is worth a maximum of 600 experience points), a potion is worth between 250 and 500 points, and even a genie ring is worth no more than about 5,000 points maximum." The XP Gygax specifies here is related closely to the cost to manufacture (in GP) these items, and that can be used to infer the XP of items not mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by nizrad on Apr 17, 2012 1:45:58 GMT -6
I tend to go by the 100xp/HD for monsters defeated divided amongst all combatants(this is rewarded after each combat encounter). Treasure must be extracted from a dungeon and split among those who made it out in equal or near equal shares(these shares are then equated into earned XP). Magical items are, if usable by multiple players are auctioned off, that is players can pay off the rest of the party in equal shares, whomever offers the best deal gets the item and the corosponding XP value to go with it(the remaining players receive XP equal to the share they got to "buy" the item in question) If there is only one player who can use an item in question they respectively pay off the remaining players as compensation. This is a common gentlemens agreement I make with my players at the start of any campaign to prevent excess bickering and keep things moving.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 11:57:29 GMT -6
Back in the OD&D days, there was no XP for magic items; their value was in their utility. That's how Gary and Rob ran it, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 17, 2012 13:01:27 GMT -6
Back in the OD&D days, there was no XP for magic items; their value was in their utility. That's how Gary and Rob ran it, anyway. XP for magic items is problematic in many ways. Such as the differing XP values for keeping the item vs. selling it. Personally, I prefer no XP for a magic item you don't sell immediately before identifying or using.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 17, 2012 14:50:41 GMT -6
XP for magic items is problematic in many ways. Such as the differing XP values for keeping the item vs. selling it. Personally, I prefer no XP for a magic item you don't sell immediately before identifying or using. I've frankly never understood why AD&D provided XP for kept magic items anyway, except perhaps to improve the rate at which characters gain levels. Fortunately, it's not an issue in OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Apr 17, 2012 16:09:23 GMT -6
I've frankly never understood why AD&D provided XP for kept magic items anyway, except perhaps to improve the rate at which characters gain levels. Fortunately, it's not an issue in OD&D. It is a issue. Because gold is a fungible item for wizards. 1000gp is 1000gp/xp for a wizard, but 1000gp is also a sword+1 as a wizard can turn gold into magic items. Giving the fighting-man XP for his found magic sword simply balances things out. Not considering the fact that "gold" found in a dungeon is a cipher for "treasure" in epic Anglo-Saxon/Norse stories which is the marker of a heroes "experience". And getting a sword+1 out from under the nose of an ogre is the same as stealing 1000gp from the same. The XP is not for the magic item per se (just as xp for gold is not for gold per se) you are awarded xp because a sword +1 is generally as difficult as looting 1000gp either guarded (aforementioned ogre) or hidden. To not give xp, is to say it took no risk and therefore was worth no experience. Also the idea that "magic items are their own reward" is also a non-starter (notwithstanding the Wizards ability above), why isn't gold it's own reward? If you are measuring te ability of the sword+1 to help in further adventures, You can do a lot more with 1000 men at arms, or a ship than with a +1 to hit! Furthermore! henchmen and hirelings can be paid with magic items (see elf henchmen), precisely because they are risky to attain and worthy of the task. So the magic items are worth X amount of gold in lieu of normal payment to an elf. This too comes from the Anglo-Saxon tradition of a Jarl (anglo-saxon lord or minor king) heaping treasures, ancient armors and weapons upon their housecarls/theigns/thanes/henchmen (Beowulf literally had an ancient and magnificient chainmail shirt dumped in his lap by a greatful Jarl and a gold hilted sword, the makings of which were lost in time). Gold and magic items are indicators of level of risk of the adventure. A fighting man earns a total of 12,000xp from 12k gold because that amount of gold required a significant amount of risk and adventure, so too acquiring an intelligent vorpal sword+5 from the tomb of a lich represents the same danger. This is also a fundamental misunderstanding of the root of the hobby. These were medieval enthusiasts who started as children or young men playing historical battles and reading about polearms. D&D at it's most basic is recreating the life of an anglo-saxon hero, Gygax and Arneson weren't "game designers" looking for rules to make a game, they were making the world they studied into a game. It wasn't "game design" or "character level acquisition rates". Everything in the LBB is rooted in English/Norse Mythology. That's why it grips us. It isn't a game of the modern players goals, it's a game of understanding the goals and fantasies of a 7th century man listening to the Beowulf saga. What does that young man want? He wants a golden sword, he wants fantastically made armor, he wants to slay trolls, he wants thanes (henchmen) a retinue of men at arms, to become Jarl of a small fastness, to slay dragons. To read the LBB is to enter that world. To be rewarded for what a fighting-man would consider worthy of reward.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 17, 2012 17:49:01 GMT -6
D&D at it's most basic is recreating the life of an anglo-saxon hero I have to ask: is this Gygax or Arneson ever talked about? On the face of it, the idea seems unlikely to me, but I'm quite willing to be schooled if either man discussed OD&D's experience system in these terms.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Apr 17, 2012 17:55:09 GMT -6
I've frankly never understood why AD&D provided XP for kept magic items anyway, except perhaps to improve the rate at which characters gain levels. Fortunately, it's not an issue in OD&D. It is a issue. Because gold is a fungible item for wizards. 1000gp is 1000gp/xp for a wizard, but 1000gp is also a sword+1 as a wizard can turn gold into magic items. sneep It's all very nice to speculate that Gygax and Arneson gave magic swords and other items an xp value to simulate the way an Anglo-Saxon hero increased in prowess the more risks he took, but in point of fact, there is no xp for magic items in OD&D, which is the point that James was making. At the very best, you could argue that Gygax thought this way, but that Arneson didn't, since xp for magic items was added in AD&D. Although I think there is something to Anglo-Saxon and other ancient heroic literature as the model for improvement, I don't think gold for xp is meant to model risk at all. You get the xp even if you don't take the risk, but secure the gold anyways. If an adventurer figures out where all the unguarded treasure is, they increase in level with zero risk. What it models, in my opinion, is reputation. The opinions of the townsfolk improve the more money the hero flashes around. This is why you don't get a barony until you reach a certain level, even if you build a castle and clear land beforehand; you have to be seen as worthy by the population before they will pay taxes. And wizards never get a barony, because (a) they get to make magic items, and (b) the kind of reputation you get from casting spells is more akin to fear than to admiration. So, xp for monetary value only, not for magic items. And xp gets divided however the treasure gets divided. If three first-level types find a ton of treasure, but the magic-user finds a wand of fireballs and threatens to kill the other two unless they agree to a 5-5-90 split, then the magic-user gets 90% of the xp on that adventure, even if the other two took most of the risks.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Apr 17, 2012 18:19:45 GMT -6
Henchmen: The anglo saxon Huscarl or thane was the loyal body of retainers to a jarl(lord/hero). Absolutely loyal and were expected to die in battle with their lord. A Huscarl (later: knight) was loyal unto death.
men at arms: normal retainers or "fyrd" (a term used by Arneson in his First Fantasy campaign) raised by the lord during time of battle. Did not have the loyalty of a house carl.
gold as a focus of wealth: Golden treasure was often buried with the jarl at his death. It was not golden money, rather tokens of conquest, golden trophies of exploits, not currency.
on dragon slaying (needless to say the slaying of ogres as of being important)
Tolkien's analysis of Beowulf becomes the alignment system of D&D. This is the Law (christian) neutrality (pagan) and Chaos (monsters) that tolkien talked about in his essay, "beowulf: his monsters and his critics. This is the reason clerics--which belong in D&D; are lawful and druids are neutral. Anglo-Saxon England in the 7th century was a post-apocolyptical world where the civilization of the roman empire had once been, and was now gone.Where the men of anglos-saxon christian law mingled without strife with the old celtic pagan norse religion. The Christian god vs. devil, whereas the norse pagans may have fought monsters, but monsters were not diametrically opposed to their gods (indeed, some monsters were the favored children of some gods).
On magical weapons and armor
On leveling
Beowulf is also expected to deal with the normal things of man (building a castle, ruling a kingdom).
Origin of the "fighting-man" The standard of the last English king at the battle of hastings was the double standard of "the dragon" and "the fighting-man"
magic items: It is in the underworld where magic swords, lamps and potions are found.
Everyone argues about tolkien's influence. But they are arguing the wrong writings. The hobbit and the lord of the rings are incidental. Tolkien himself said his goal was to rekindle a Anglo-Saxon renaissance of mythology as he feared it would be lost under the weight of Greek Mythology. Why isn't dungeons and dragons about Perseus and the greek mythologies primarily? Because of tolkien and the work of the other oxford professors who brought 7th century anglo-saxon life and mythology back into our stories.
Gygax and Arneson are children of Tolkien in this regard. The LBB follow the life of a would-be-beowulf, a fighting man. Not as a modern gamer would play one, but from the id of a 7th century fighting man! What does he covet? magic swords and armor, monsters to slay in the underworld, housecarls and theigns, and retinue of men at arms and a kindgom to carve out.
Even Conan's author Howard, followed in these footsteps, for what is Conan but a pagan retelling of the Beowulfian hero? Why does Skyrim and game of thrones feel so much like D&D? Tolkien is your answer. Conan is an anglo-saxon pagan without the christian veneer provided by the old christan monks who cultivated beowulfs story.
Gygax and Arneson often talked about that the best D&D games were 1:1, where the player with his hero went on adventures with his henchmen...this is the anglo-saxon saga. Beowulf told over and over in variation after variation.
1) Get henchmen and retainers 2) fight men 2a) specifically NOT about rescuing princesses. 3) find magic items and golden treasures in the underworld 3a) split your loot with your henchmen 4) fight ogres 5) found a barony and slay a dragon
This is 0d&d. It shouldn't be a great surprise, afterall, CHAINMAIL is anglo-saxon wargaming with a heavy dose of tolkien added into the fantasy section. I mean, we take all of this nuts for granted! Of course we know about ogres and dragons and magic potions of strength. Tolkien resurrected this stuff! The oxford professors of anglo-saxon history, the beowulf scholars, this is all their work. Gygax and Arneson made it into a game; Beowulf played out on an infinite loop.
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 17, 2012 19:39:09 GMT -6
Great post cooper!
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 17, 2012 19:42:17 GMT -6
It's all very nice to speculate that Gygax and Arneson gave magic swords and other items an xp value to simulate the way an Anglo-Saxon hero increased in prowess the more risks he took, but in point of fact, there is no xp for magic items in OD&D, which is the point that James was making. At the very best, you could argue that Gygax thought this way, but that Arneson didn't, since xp for magic items was added in AD&D. Well, no, on both counts. If you look to the FFC you'll see that Magic items, and specifically magic swords were the way to get XP in early Blackmoor. Arneson referred to magic items as the games "prizes". Ths is why the Great Svenny went from zero to hero when he was the only character to bring a magical sword out of the depths of Blackmoor Dungeon. As for the 3lbb's, they are silent on the matter, which is why Gygax had to make it clear in the FAQ that Magic Items give XP and, though he doesn't say so, those totals reflect their cost to manufacture as only makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 17, 2012 19:52:32 GMT -6
D&D at it's most basic is recreating the life of an anglo-saxon hero I have to ask: is this Gygax or Arneson ever talked about? On the face of it, the idea seems unlikely to me, but I'm quite willing to be schooled if either man discussed OD&D's experience system in these terms. I think the influence was more secondary than direct and includes at least as much Arthurian influence. Tolkien's influence on D&D is immense and Tolkien is a direct reworking of Norse/germannic myths (with spiders and demons tossed in). The hobbit is a based in part on part II of Beowulf. Its also true that much of the fantasy fiction of the day is rooted in the same enchated sword and magic mead mythos of northern european cosmology. but this is a whole 'nother topic.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 17, 2012 20:35:02 GMT -6
As for the 3lbb's, they are silent on the matter, which is why Gygax had to make it clear in the FAQ that Magic Items give XP and, though he doesn't say so, those totals reflect their cost to manufacture as only makes sense. Certainly the FAQ states that, "in the Greyhawk campaign," a small amount of XP was given for magic items. However, this contradicts what Mike Mornard reported earlier in this thread. So what are we to make of that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 20:36:04 GMT -6
It's all very nice to speculate that Gygax and Arneson gave magic swords and other items an xp value to simulate the way an Anglo-Saxon hero increased in prowess the more risks he took, but in point of fact, there is no xp for magic items in OD&D, which is the point that James was making. At the very best, you could argue that Gygax thought this way, but that Arneson didn't, since xp for magic items was added in AD&D. Gary probably read Beowulf, but he never mentioned it. I never heard it spoken about at all in all the discussions of D&D. I honestly don't think Dave ever read it. There is some INCREDIBLE mythologizing going on in this thread, by a number of people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 20:36:31 GMT -6
As for the 3lbb's, they are silent on the matter, which is why Gygax had to make it clear in the FAQ that Magic Items give XP and, though he doesn't say so, those totals reflect their cost to manufacture as only makes sense. Certainly the FAQ states that, "in the Greyhawk campaign," a small amount of XP was given for magic items. However, this contradicts what Mike Mornard reported earlier in this thread. So what are we to make of that? Start by bearing in mind my experience in Greyhawk was over 40 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by James Maliszewski on Apr 17, 2012 20:53:04 GMT -6
Start by bearing in mind my experience in Greyhawk was over 40 years ago. True! Even so, I think your memories, however fuzzy on this point, are invaluable.
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Apr 17, 2012 21:10:27 GMT -6
XP comes from gold. Who gets the gold, gets the XP. If I give the gold to someone else, can I transfer XP to them? Or is it just "the person carrying the gold when we reach civilization receives the XP"?
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 17, 2012 21:19:12 GMT -6
It's all very nice to speculate that Gygax and Arneson gave magic swords and other items an xp value to simulate the way an Anglo-Saxon hero increased in prowess the more risks he took, but in point of fact, there is no xp for magic items in OD&D, which is the point that James was making. At the very best, you could argue that Gygax thought this way, but that Arneson didn't, since xp for magic items was added in AD&D. Gary probably read Beowulf, but he never mentioned it. I never heard it spoken about at all in all the discussions of D&D. I honestly don't think Dave ever read it. There is some INCREDIBLE mythologizing going on in this thread, by a number of people. Cooper tends to get carried away, but the basic principle is sound, that being that D&D reflects the northern european mythos of lust for gold, dark magics, mighty weapons and kingmaking. As I said I think it's mostly absorbed second hand through Tolkien, Howard, and king arthur tales, but this would not be the focus of the game if it were based on greco-roman mythology, frex. Let me also just echo James and say it is invaluable to me to hear your input Mike, fuzzy memory or not.
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on Apr 17, 2012 22:47:23 GMT -6
I would guess they just used gold in early days because it was easily quantified/tracked. Magic items had to wait until Gary worked up the tables for AD&D.
What would have been interesting if the original "level" system for monsters and spells had also been applied to magic items. Level 1 items 100 xp, Level 2 items 200 xp, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2012 15:13:07 GMT -6
XP comes from gold. Who gets the gold, gets the XP. If I give the gold to someone else, can I transfer XP to them? Or is it just "the person carrying the gold when we reach civilization receives the XP"? Well, only one person could get the XP for that gold; however, we could and did do unequal shares, especially since parties varied in level. Low level people or somebody close to going up a level might get a large enough share to guarantee going up. Or sometimes three or four experienced characters all declined to take a share of the gold so the first level character would be ready to go to third level. How this worked in terms of the world was something we never worried about; it was a game artifact. I could give you my share of the gold and its XP. If you gave it back, you'd give back the XP too; you couldn't pass 1000 GP around in a circle and all get XP for it. Again we didn't bother with "in the world" justifications, more like "That's dumb. We aren't going to do that."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2012 15:13:52 GMT -6
True! Even so, I think your memories, however fuzzy on this point, are invaluable. Thank you. Also, git offa my castle green.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Apr 18, 2012 16:25:10 GMT -6
There is some INCREDIBLE mythologizing going on in this thread, by a number of people. Indeed. It's gone beyond reasonable speculation into gimme-a-break territory. You get experience points for gold because it's a convenient, genre-appropriate way to keep score. There is no higher metaphysical or literary thinking going on here. The inspiration isn't Tolkien or Beowulf; it's Leiber and Conan.
|
|
|
Post by cooper on Apr 19, 2012 13:19:30 GMT -6
There is some INCREDIBLE mythologizing going on in this thread, by a number of people. Indeed. It's gone beyond reasonable speculation into gimme-a-break territory. The inspiration isn't Tolkien or Beowulf; it's Leiber and Conan. Really? Greyhawk and Ad&d Perhaps, but 0d&d fighters are all about becoming a landed lord, henchmen, building castles. That certainly isn't lieber--I've already mentioned that Conan is a beowulfian figure, Howard himself describes him as a northern early Englishman and his primary enemies are often "Picts" which were an English tribe. Conan is simply Beowulf in a world without Christianity, where gods like Crom will rule perennially. Even the ending of the story (minus the dragon) matches Beowulf somewhat--both men after years of adventure, reluctantly settle down back home to rule their people as king. To be fair, not even Beowulf is original--himself coming for Even more ancient stories of "bears-son". Or "bees-foe" heroes of ancient man. AnachronismsNow, given that our place of reference is 5-8th century England, obviously things like paladins, castles (instead of mead-halls), and certain types of magicians don't fit. But from our premise we can see how they are integrated. For example, what's the difference between a cleric and a paladin? The designers of 5e would like us to treat this questions in game terms, (should the paladin get a smite ability? A defensive shield bonus to allies? Should the cleric be better at healing?) These are all interesting "game" questions, and they may define characters in a video-game, but they don't answer an archtypical question no matter how much they (the designers) would like it too. The paladin comes from a 13th-19th century idea of what a christian soldier would be like. Pious, chivalrous, romantic. The Wagnerian Lohengrin, as opposed to the grim and determined norse god worshiping fighting-man or recently converted christian cleric with strong cultural ties to a rugged life style of anglo-saxon culture, the paladin is a romantic idealized christian knight. Therefore what does Gygax and Co. do to define the Paladin? special powers? No, not really. He is defined by role-playing restrictions. The actions of the character are limited to his romantic ideal. Fitting given the romanticism of the ur-paladin archteype. The paladin saves princesses, there are no princesses in Beowulf. Beowulf loves fame and gold and magic items, and henchmen, the paladin eschews these. The ranger easily answered by stating it's inclusion in the later game by Lord of the Ring enthusiasts and so their character and powers are easily put into game form by transcription from the relevant text. magic users Since Anglo-Saxon culture and beowulf didn't have much to say, gygax defaulted to a system he like. Dying Earth stories by jack vance, specifically Mazirian the magician and Turjan of Mir. The druid of course does appear in Elderitch Wizardry. His shapeshifting borrows directly from Merlin who was said to be able to change his form (with of course, as with so many things in d&d a bit of Tolkien LotR Radagast the Brown thrown in). King Arthur was a beowulfian anglo-saxon king, that got a remake in the 13th century to model the more romantic notion that the paladin covers. He retains his Henchmen (lancelot, percival etc) but their remake heavily christianizes and romaticises them. It is no accident that the druid is of course neutral alignment, as neutral in the Law/N/Chaos spectrum represents pre-christian religions and peoples. The barbarian This is the pre-christianized beowulf (bears-son). A more primitive fighter even than the anglo-saxon fighting man. The idea of the shapechanger. The were-wulf ("wulf" meaning foe, the enemy of man) or the Bee-wulf (the honey loving bear), The barbarian, in Tolkienian terms is "beorn". A wild heroic figure. The berserker. plate armor Granted, anglo-saxon men had a chain byrne and a helm. We can chalk the plated mail, two handed sword, etc to the later Norman age. Castles This one is interesting. The stone castle of motte and baillie is of Norman invention and post-dates beowulf by some 600 years. So, like the paladin we can see how later periods are included in our original game, but that is not to say that the Anglo-Saxon mead hall isn't hidden in the game still....the place where a jarl kept court, the location of the very begining of Beowulf's adventure. No, What more fitting place to start an adventure, one that is a tried and true trope of D&D? The Tavern. Dragonlance itself begins with this trope, indeed, Goldmoon's poem in the tavern---the act that begins the adventure, itself is an echo of the poet of Beowulf, singing , Listen!. We can now understand why every other Tavern is owned by a retired 9th level fighter! Ha! It's the Jarl's meadhall. 3 axis Alignment and alignment languagesThis is actually not an anachronism, as it lays right smack dab in the era of Beowulf's Anglo-Saxony. It is pure tolkien. For those interested, I cover Tolkiens interpretation of Anglo-Saxon 3 part alignment system (Law/Neutrality/Chaos) HERE. Poul Anderson and Michael Moocock, aren't really the ones who inspired gygax. Best evidence of course being that the 3 alignments exist in CHAINMAIL and directly mimic Tolkien's Hobbit and Lotr (putting werebears/beorn in the neutral camp for example). Anyway, I'm way off topic. So I'll stop. I'll leave with one closing comment. It is no accident that both the iconic heroic level monster and the iconic super-heroic monster are the ogre and the dragon!
|
|