Religion of the Cleric: 7th level Spells

An examination of the highest powers given to a Cleric by his Deity and how those powers might influence the theology of the Cleric's Church. This spell list is spread across the Companion  and the Master sets. In the future I will be combing through these analyses to look at what are common threads in order to draw definite conclusions about the Church of the D&D cleric.

The OD&D Cleric
Analysis of Level 1 Spells
Analysis of Level 2 Spells
Analysis of Level 3 Spells
Analysis of Level 4 Spells
Analysis of Level 5 Spells
Analysis of Level 6 Spells
Conclusions

From the Players Companion:

Earthquake
This powerful spell causes a section of earth to shake, and opens large cracks in the ground. A 17th level caster can affect an area up to 60’ square, adding 5’ to each dimension with each level of experience thereafter. For example, an 18th level cleric affects an area up to 65’ square; 19thlevel, 70’ square; and so forth. 
     Within the area of effect, all small dwellings are reduced to rubble, and larger constructions are cracked open. Earthen formations (hills, cliffsides, etc.) form rockslides. Cracks in the earth may open and engulf 1 creature in 6 (determined randomly), crushing them. 

This is an extremely powerful spell, though the major effects only occur within a relatively small area the quake can most certainly be felt from a distance even if no damage is caused. In my opinion this represents power over the earth itself is possessed by the Deity. To cause a quake with the magnitude described here the Deity would certainly need to be able to control the tectonic plates and cause them to spontaneously move. Normally an earthquake occurs after pressure has built up between plates over a long period of time, and once that pressure reaches a certain threshold the plates will snap out of place into a new alignment. On a global scale these movements are minuscule, but they appear to be huge earth shattering events to us.
      In the real world I might explain an earthquake caused by god to be something that he had planned a long time ago and set the plates in motion in just the right way to have the desired effect later. That is if I was trying to say an earthquake was an act of god. I view this spell as an entirely different case. I see this as the Cleric praying/making supplication to their Deity to cause an earthquake at this moment and location. This necessitates that the Deity can spontaneously cause the tectonic plates to shift and possibly even create new fault lines. That is unless we also give the deity the power to predict every single moment that a cleric might pray for an earthquake, and even then we'd still have to accede that the deity has power over the tectonic plates and also the power of infinite foresight.

Holy Word
This spell affects all creatures, friend or foe, within a circular area of 40’ radius, centered on the caster. When the cleric casts this spell, all creatures of alignments other than the cleric’s are affected as follows: 
     up to 5th level: Killed 
              level 6-8: Stunned 2-20 turns 
            level 9-12: Deafened 1-6 turns 
            level 13+: Stunned 1-10 rounds 
Any victim of 13 levels or more or of the same alignment as the caster, may make a Saving Throw vs. Spells to avoid the effect entirely. 
     This powerful spell cannot be blocked by stone, nor by any other solid material except lead. (It can be blocked by an antimagic shell.)

This spell seems very vague to me. Looking at the description in other editions it seems that This spell is cast by saying/shouting a single holy word that is meant to banish/kill the unholy. The rewrite done by Alexis is the most clear version I have seen, I would just change his version to say it affects any who are not of the same faith as the cleric, not just those malevolent towards the cleric. So having established how the spell is cast, what does it mean? One interesting thing of note is that this version doesn't banish extra-planar creatures like described in most other versions. Thus it is not a method of banishing the wicked, but punishing them.
     This spell is intended to kill any unbeliever nearby, the only survivors being those who are extraordinarily experienced or superhuman in physical properties. Given the intentions of the spell and its effect on the majority of the populace, this is pretty strong evidence that the Deity is not merciful to his enemies. We've already established this in the past analyses, but this spell also implies power over life and death. The Deity and his followers have the power to take away life when necessary. The lack of mercy is of more interest to me; if we are trying to compare the cleric to medieval Christianity, the Deity seems more to fall in line with the 'Old Testament' version of god than the 'New Testament' version. This Deity is a 'jealous god'; any unbeliever may be killed for the simple reason of believing in another god/philosophy.

Raise Dead Fully
This spell is similar to the 5th level raise dead spell, except that it can raise any living creature. Any human or demi-human recipient awakens immediately, with no wounds (full hit points), and is able to fight, use abilities, spells known, etc., without any penalties except those existing at the time of death. For example, a victim cursed or diseased at death would still suffer the affliction when raised fully. If any other living creature (other than a human or demi-human) is the recipient, the guidelines given in the raise dead spell apply (including time limitations, rest needed, etc.). 
     A 17th level cleric can use this spell on a human or demi-human body that has been dead up to 4 months; for each level of experience above 17th, 4 months are added to this time. Thus, a 19th level cleric could cast raise dead fully on a body that has been dead up to 12 months. 
     If cast at an Undead creature of 7 Hit Dice or less, the creature is immediately destroyed (no Saving Throw). An Undead creature of 7-12 Hit Dice must make a Saving Throw vs. Spells, with a -4 penalty to the roll, or be destroyed. An Undead of more than 12 Hit Dice takes 6-60 (6d10) points of damage, but may make a Saving Throw vs. Spells to take 1/2 damage. 
     The reverse of this spell (obliterate) will affect a living creature just as the normal form affects Undead (destroy 7 Hit Dice or less, et al.). If cast at an Undead creature of any type, obliterate has the same effect as a cureall would on a living creature (curing all but 1-6 points of damage, or curing blindness or feeblemind, etc.). 

Very much the same implications as the standard Raise Dead spell. Here are implications of power over life and death, the disassociation of the spirit from the body becoming greater after longer periods of time, and the focus of this Deity on human life above all others.

Restore
This spell will restore one full level of energy (experience) to any victim who has lost a level because of Energy Drain, whether by Undead or some other attack form. It will not restore more than one level, nor will it add a level if none have been lost. Furthermore, the casting of this spell causes the cleric to lose 1 level of experience, as if struck by a wight; however, this effect is not permanent, and the cleric may rest for 2-20 days to regain the loss.
     The reverse of this spell (life drain) will drain one level of experience from the victim touched, just as if touched by a wight or wraith. The casting of this spell does not cause any loss to the cleric, nor does it require any rest, but it is a Chaotic act, avoided by Lawful clerics.

I don't have much to say here. This is a simple case of the cleric giving a portion of their 'life force' to heal another's. I guess we could say that sacrifice and helping those in need is implied here, but I see this as more a counteraction to the effects of evil/the undead than a general principle of sacrifice.

From the Master Players Book:

Survival
This spell protects the recipient from adverse conditions of all types, including normal heat or cold, lack of air, and so forth. While the spell is in effect, the caster needs no air, food, water, or sleep. The spell does not protect against magical damage of any type, breath weapons, or blows from creatures. It does protect against all damage caused by natural conditions on other planes of existence. Examples: A cleric might use this spell in a desert or blizzard, preventing any damage from the natural conditions; underground or underwater, enabling survival without air; or in space, to magically survive in vacuum.

This just reinforces the idea that the Deity has power over life and death. it doesn't seem like this spell creates biological changes that allow a person to grow gills and breathe underwater, or adapt in other ways to harsh environments; they just get to ignore the consequences normally inherent in venturing into those harsh environments. It also doesn't seem like there is a bubble surrounding the character with ideal conditions keeping the dangerous conditions at bay. Because a Cleric/the Deity wills it the recipient of this spell doesn't die when they should. Also the fact that this spell protects against the effects of being on another plane of existence tells me that the Deity has power over more than just the material plane.

Travel
This spell allows the cleric to move quickly and freely, even between the planes of existence. The caster (only) may fly in the same manner as given by the magic-user spell, with a movement rate of 360 feet (1 20 feet).
     The cleric can also enter a nearby plane of existence, simply by concentrating for one round. A maximum of one plane per turn may be entered. If desired, the cleric may bring one other creature for each five levels of experience (rounded down; for example, a 29th-level cleric could bring five other creatures on the journey). All others to be affected must be touching or touched by the cleric while the spell is cast and the shift is made. Any unwilling creature may make a Saving Throw vs. Spells to avoid the effect. The cleric must take the others, and cannot send them while remaining behind.
     While this spell is in effect, the caster (only) may assume gaseous form by concentrating for one full round. (If interrupted, no change occurs.) Unlike the potion effect, all equipment carried also becomes part of the same gaseous cloud. In this form, the caster may travel at double the normal flying rate: 720 feet per turn (240 feet per round). While gaseous, the cleric cannot use items or cast spells, but also cannot be damaged except by magic (weapons or certain spells). Also, a gaseous being cannot pass through a protection from evil spell effect or an anti-magic shell.

I don't know what to make of this one. The effects are very clear and plain, but the underlying meaning of those effects is a little harder to pin down. If we're looking for some real world inspiration, there is the incident where Jesus is being chased by a crowd of people and is carried away by the holy ghost. Also I'm pretty sure there have been similar stories in other religions. I guess the ability to transform into a gaseous cloud could mean that the Deity has power over matter/the structure of atoms. He can change how matter is structured and connected to benefit his servants. I might also he can suspend the laws of physics when necessary also because of the ability to fly like the wizard spell. Gravity is suspended on a whim. And the power to travel between planes of existence shows the domain of the Deity is not limited to the material plane. I guess I got something out of it, though I'm not entirely sure of the validity of everything I just said.

Wish
A wish spell is usable only by a cleric of 36th- (maximum) level with 18 (or greater) Wisdom.
     A wish is the single most powerful spell a cleric can have. It is never found on a scroll, but may be placed elsewhere (in a ring, for example) in rare cases.
     Extensive guidelines for wishes are given on page 10, with the magic-user spell description.

(From page 10)

     Wording the Wish: The player must say or write the exact wish made by the character. Wording of the wish is very important. The literal meaning will usually occur, whatever the intentions of the player.
     The DM should try to maintain game balance, being neither too generous nor too stingy in deciding the effects of a wish. Remember that wishes should be able to do quite a bit. Even a badly phrased wish, made with good intentions, may have good results. However, if the wish is greedy, or made with malicious intent, every effort should be made to find differing interpretations. If necessary, the wish can even be disallowed, having no effect. Whenever a wish fails or is misinterpreted, the DM should explain (after the game) the problem or flaw in the phrasing.
     Here are some examples of faulty wishes: “I wish that I knew everything about this dungeon” could result in the character knowing all for only a second, and then forgetting it.
     “I wish for a million gold pieces” can be granted by having them land on the character and then vanish.
     “I wish to immediately and permanently possess the gaze power of a basilisk while retaining all of my own abilities and items” is a carefully worded wish that’s out of balance. Characters are already quite powerful. This wish could result in the growth of a basilisk head in addition to the character’s own, or the growth of extra eyes-without eyelids, leaving the character extremely vulnerable to other gaze attacks.
     A wish can never be used to gain either XP or levels of experience.
     Possible Effects: If a wish is used to harm another creature in any way, the victim may make a Saving Throw vs. Spells. If the save is successful, the victim takes half the ill effects and the other half rebounds on the caster (who may also save to avoid it, but with a -4 penalty to the roll). A carefully worded wish can, however, move (i.e. teleport) another creature if no harm is done in the process, allowing no saving throw. The saving throw applies only to creatures, not their items carried or possessed.
     A wish may be used to gain treasure, up to a maximum of 50,000 gp per wish. However, the caster loses 1 XP per gp value of treasure gained, and this loss cannot be magically restored.
     A wish can be used, if the DM desires, to gain the use of a magic item for a short time. Generally, any magic item gained is borrowed from somewhere else, not created. Artifacts are beyond the power of wishes. The caster may usually produce any item up to + 5 enchantment. The item will remain for only 1-6 turns.
     A wish can be used to temporarily change any one ability score to a minimum of 3 or maximum of 18. This effect lasts for only six turns.
     Wishes can also be used to permanently increase ability scores, but the cost is very high. You must use as many wishes as the number of the ability score desired. All the wishes must be cast within a one-week period. You may raise an ability score only one point at a time. To raise your Strength from 15 to 16 takes 16 wishes. To then raise it to 17 will take an additional 17 wishes. Wishes cannot be used to permanently lower ability scores.
     A wish cannot raise the maximum level for humans; 36th is absolute, enforced by Immortals. However, one wish can allow a demi-human to gain one additional Hit Die (for a new maximum of 9 for halflings, 11 for elves, and 13 for dwarves). This affects only hit points, and does not change any other scores (such as Hit rolls, elves’ number of spells, etc.).
     A wish can change a demi-human to a human, or the reverse. Such a change is permanent, and the recipient does not become magical. Halflings and dwarves become fighters of the same level. Elves become magic-users or fighters (but not both), at the choice of the wisher. Levels of experience can then be gained normally as the human class. A human changes to the same level demihuman, but no higher than the normal racial maximum. If the wish is made by another, the victim may make a Saving Throw vs. Spells with a + 5 bonus to avoid the change. Once a character’s race is changed, two wishes are needed to reverse the effect, and further changes each require double the previous number of wishes used (4, 8, 16, etc.).
     A wish can be used to duplicate any magicuser spell effect of 8th level or less, or any cleric spell effect of 6th level or less. This common use of a wish is not subject to the same close scrutiny by the DM, and is likely to succeed with less chance of error than other types.
     A wish can sometimes be used to change the results of a past occurrence. This is normally limited to events of the previous day. A lost battle may be won, or the losses may be made far less severe, but impossible odds cannot be overcome completely. A death in melee could be changed to a near-death survival; a permanent loss could be made temporary. The DM may advise players when wishes are near to exceeding the limit of the power.
     Important Note: Whenever an effect is described as being unchangeable “even with a wish,” that statement supercedes all others here. However, multiple wishes may succeed (DM’s choice) where one wish would not.

This at first seems to grant unlimited possibilities, however given the list of standard wishes I think this spell can be viewed as a series of separate spells all rolled into one. There is the spell for 50K gold, temporary increase in ability scores, species change, etc. I think what this really tells us about the cleric and his religion is is that the Deity worshiped by the cleric can have any degree of power the DM wishes to give him. Yet the definite powers of the Deity include the granting of the abilities of a magic-user to a cleric, changing the physical attributes of a person either through ability scores or species swap, the creation of items of monetary value, and the instant teleportation of items. I think all of these have been covered by other spells. What is important to remember here is that the presence of this spell specifically tells us that the powers a Deity can grant his servants, and thus he himself possesses, is literally limitless.

Wizardry
By using this spell, the cleric gains the power to use one item normally restricted to magic-users: either a device (such as a wand) or a scroll containing a 1st- or 2nd-level magic-user spell. (Spells of 3rd or higher level cannot be cast, though they may be present on the scroll.) This ability lasts for one turn, or until the scroll or device is used. The cleric magically gains knowledge of the proper use of the item, as if the character were a magicuser. For the duration and effect of the magicuser spell, the level of caster is treated as the minimum necessary for the casting of the spell.

This demonstrates the Deity's power includes the power of the magic-user. Simply the Deity limits the access his followers get to certain kinds of magic. It seems that The Deity limits access to his power as a way of encouraging a specific type of behavior and only entrusts the unfettered use of magic to his most trusted servants(this being a 7th level spell) and even then its use is still very limited. Despite these restrictions, this makes clear that the Deity has access to the same kind of manipulation of reality that magic-users make use of.

Tribes in The Book of Mormon

While watching this video I noticed his description of Native American communities bear a strong resemblance to the picture painted in The Book of Mormon. He talks about how kinship was more about belonging to a community of people and not about blood. From a European perspective, everything is about blood, literal ancestry and who your parents were. For Native Americans it was about contributing to the community and being accepted as part of that community, even slaves could rise to be important members of a tribe.

This describes the patterns of tribal associations on the BoM very closely. In the BoM, it's all about being associated with one tribe or another, the Lamanaites or Nephites. People dissented from the Nephites and became Lamanites, and Lamanites joined the Nephites. None of these people were treated differently because they were born among a different tribe; it was more about who they associated with.

I think this pattern of tribal association is evidence that supports the theories of some that the Nephites and the Lamanites weren't the only people in the Americas during the time of the BoM. We even have a case of this presented in the BoM; The Mulekites are discovered and then pretty much never mentioned again, they are just absorbed into the umbrella term of Nephite. Where association and community is more important then direct bloodlines, any other non-Lehite tribe would either be lumped into whichever group they associated with or not even mentioned because they are irrelevant to the religious narrative. It's something interesting to consider; applying the same basic societal structure of the Native Americans which we have concrete records of can reveal hidden patterns of why things are described in certain ways in the BoM

Perspectives in History and The Book of Mormon

I recently read the beginning chapters of 3rd Nephi in the Book of Mormon, and the lack of context really struck me, especially concerning chapter 3 and the letters exchanged by Giddianhi and Lachoneus. I think if there were more records pertaining to this conflict, that the whole thing would look less like a battle between the good guys and bad guys, and more like a civil war between political factions.

From a certain perspective, the Gadhianton robbers could be seen as the disenfranchised lower classes. They've been chased away from the rest of society and must live like beasts in the mountains. And when the natural elements force them out of the mountains, they try to survive off the produce of the agrarian society with a surplus of goods. Yet the 'civilized' people claim that these outcasts are robbing them, conflict happens and the cry of 'murder' is raised. And why do the numbers of these 'robbers' keep growing? Why would someone choose to forsake society and live as a hunter/gatherer in the wilderness? Maybe that situation looks better than their current prospects; I think it likely that most of the 'robbers' were the poor and disenfranchised and they took up arms in protest because they had nothing to lose.

And the fact that the law code was revised after the civil war was over is evidence in my mind that there really were legitimate grievances and the legal revisions were made to assuage any further political dissensions that might arise. This only acted as a stopgap though, because the government was overthrown just a few years later. I don't think such a drastic revolution would have occurred if the political and social situation were beyond reproach.

This just goes to show how much the Book of Mormon is a religious text, and not a historical one. It doesn't show an unbiased history of events, but instead highlights certain events as a method of teaching certain moral lessons.

Are We Good Enough?

A few months ago I discovered that I'm an anarachist, meaning I had developed certain opinions over the years and then a few months ago I came to realize they were in line with anarchist philosophy. In relation to this I was having a discussion with my father about the idea of communism in general and its relationship to the history of anarchists. He brought up something which I have often heard him say before, but which I now mostly disagree with. It relates to the United Order, a communist like organization Joseph Smith triewd to establish within the LDS Church in the 1830s, basically my father's argument is that men are imperfect and so we can't live without government, the failure of the United Order is evidence that there will always be corrupt/wicked men who take adavntage of others if there is no government to stop them. We need government because we won't be good enough to live under a perfect system until the Second Coming/Millennium.

I was going to draft a rather long rebuttal, mostly because I'm better at expressing my ideas through writing than speech, but then I found out someone had beat me to it by over 130 years! The perfect answer to this argument was written by Pëtr Kropotkin in 1888 and is titled "Are We Good Enough". I listened to the audio version today, and a copy can be found on the web here.

Sure people are imperfect, but that doesn't mean we should wait for revolution and/or reform until everybody will miraculously become perfect. I'm under no illusions that the current system of nation-states and capitalism/corporations will be overthrown in my lifetime. However, I do think that a public opinion will trend toward wanting/demanding a more direct form of democracy, and leaders/those in power will work even harder to consolidate the power they do have. I guess what I really want to say is that just because people aren't perfect doesn't mean we should hesitate to work toward the dissolution of corrupt systems that oppress us.

Religion of the Cleric: 6th level Spells

Continuing my discussion of how Clerical magic can help us understand his religious beliefs. With these spells the evidence that the Deity worshiped by the Clerics is the creator of the universe and or multiverse really begins to mount up. This spell list is spread across the Expert and the Companion sets.

The OD&D Cleric
Analysis of Level 1 Spells
Analysis of Level 2 Spells
Analysis of Level 3 Spells
Analysis of Level 4 Spells
Analysis of Level 5 Spells
Analysis of Level 7 Spells
Conclusions

From the Expert Rulebook:

Animate Objects
The cleric may use this spell to cause any non-living, non-magical objects to move and attack. Magical objects are not affected. Any one object up to 4,000 cn weight may be animated (roughly the size of two men), or smaller objects whose total weight does not exceed 4,000 cn. The DM must decide on the movement rate, number of attacks, damage, and other combat details of the objects animated. As a guideline, a man-sized statue might have a 3’’ movement rate, attack once per round for 2-16 points of damage, and have an Armor Class of 1. A chair might only be AC 6, but move at 180’ per round on its four legs, attacking twice per round for 1-4 points per attack. All objects have the same chances to hit as the cleric animating them.

At first this spell seems to be something that would fit the repertoire of a Magic-User better than that of a priest. It seems to be a random magical effect like wizards in fairy-tales might cause. However, given that it is included with the clerical spell list, maybe we can come up with a theological argument for its presence.
     It occurs to me that one argument made by LDS theologians might apply here. Some scholars in the LDS church claim that the reason Jesus was able to perform certain miracles is because he was also creator of the world; that some miracles were unique to Christ and that one of his apostles couldn't have done it if they had enough faith.  The argument goes like this: because Jesus created (or organized) the world, the particles/atoms that went into the world have a special relationship with him; essentially the atoms and molecules of earth obeyed Christ during his lifetime because he organized them into the earth at the beginning of time. Of course it is much more complex than that, but that's the gist of it, and no I don't personally subscribe to that line of thought. Certain miracles such as turning water into wine or calming the storm on the Sea of Galilee are explained away in this manner.
     So, how does that apply to this spell? I can see a similar argument being made; if the Deity worshiped by the cleric created the universe, then the Deity can also command not just living things, but also inanimate things, and that power can in turn be granted to the Deity's followers. Another thought is that if this Deity has command over life he is literally giving the cleric the power to breath life into something that was dead (or inanimate). Either way, I think this spell shows that the Deity has power over more than just living things; he can also command objects to do his will.

Find the Path
When this spell is cast, the cleric must name a specific place, though it need not have been visited before. For the duration of the spell, the cleric will know the direction to that place. In addition, any special knowledge needed to get to the place will also be gained; for example, locations of secret doors become known, passwords, and so forth. This spell is often used to find a fast escape route.

This is an interesting spell, somewhat different than most of the other clerical spells. It is reminiscent of the wizard's eye or clairaudience or other scrying spells. I guess the theological argument is fairly simple. The Deity knows everything (he is omniscient) and so it is simple matter to show a follower where a specific location is and how to get there.

Speak with Monsters
This spell gives the caster the power to ask questions of any and all living and undead creatures within 30’. Even unintelligent monsters will understand and respond to the cleric. Those spoken to will not attack the cleric while engaged in conversation, but may defend themselves if attacked. Only one question per round may be asked, and the spell lasts 1 round per level of the caster.
     The reverse of this spell, babble, has a 60‘ range, and a duration of 1 turn per level of the caster. The victim may make a Saving Throw vs. Spells to avoid the effect, but with a - 2 penalty to the roll. If the Saving Throw is failed, the victim cannot be understood by any other creature for the duration of the spell. Even hand motions, written notes, and all other forms of communication will seem garbled. This does not interfere with the victim’s spell casting (if any), but does prevent the use of many magic items by turning the command words to mere babbling.

This spell speak to both the omniscience of the deity, in that they can understand the languages and thoughts of all living things, and the Deity's connection to the natural world. The Deity is not just a the god of the humans, but also has a connection to every living thing. The Deity knows not just all languages, but the thoughts of every creature because this allows the understanding of even those creatures without a language. The reverse of this spell shows an even more interesting power of the Deity. He not only possesses understanding of a creature's thoughts, but may also change how it thinks. Language is irrevocably tied to how we process information; when our language changes, so do our thought processes. I can see why only an evil cleric would want to cast this spell; it gives the caster the ability to change the essence of who a person is. Even though it is temporary, the reverse spell has a powerful effect.

Word of Recall
Similar to a magic-user’s teleport spell, this spell carries the cleric and all equipment carried (but no other creatures) to the cleric’s home. The cleric must have a permanent home (such as a castle), and a meditation room within that home; this room is the destination when the spell is cast. During the round in which this spell is cast, the cleric automatically gains initiative unless surprised.

This is an interesting spell. It is similar to teleport in many ways, but the purpose behind its presence and use are vastly different. It speaks to me of a need for safety. Given that this is a 6th level spell, even the most valiant defenders of the faith sometimes retreat from danger or evil. Or another way of looking at it could be this is a way for a cleric to return to a holy site and defend it whenever danger approaches. The fact that the Deity can teleport his clerics to a specific holy site at a moment's notice demonstrates the power that the Deity has. The Deity is in possession of the same kind of power and abilities as any wizard, but he limits the use of these powers by his followers by providing specific circumstances and reasons for which they can be used.

From the Players Companion:

Aerial Servant
An aerial servant is a very intelligent humanoid being from the Ethereal Plane. With this spell, the cleric summons one of these beings, which appears immediately. The cleric must then describe one creature or item to the servant, or else it will depart. The approximate location of the target must also be named. When it hears this description and location, the servant leaves, trying to find the item or creature and bring it to the cleric. The servant will take as much time as needed, up to the limit of the duration.
     The aerial servant has 18 Strength, and can carry up to 5,000 cn. It can become ethereal at will, and thus can travel to most places easily. However, it cannot pass a protection from evil spell effect. If it cannot perform its duty within the duration of the spell, the servant becomes insane and returns to attack the caster.

This is interesting because at first it seems like the aerial servant might be a direct servant of the Deity worshiped by the cleric, but then it goes insane and attacks the caster if it can't complete the task? That doesn't sound like a willing servant; it sounds like maybe this creature was geased or quested or some similar effect. Maybe when this spell is cast the Deity of the cleric binds this creature from the Ethereal plane to do a task for the cleric, but when the task proves impossible the compulsion to complete the task is so strong that the aerial servant doesn't know what to do; the only way to free itself from its servitude is to destroy the taskmaster. If there is no longer a cleric to complete a task for, then the aerial servant no longer has to complete an impossible task.
     Aside form that, this spells demonstrates that the Deity has power not just over the Prime Material Plane, but also in the Ethereal plane, and most likely all the planes of existence. A creature from the Ethereal plane is just as easily controlled as a creature from the Prime plane. All living creatures are subservient to this Deity, and as representatives of the Deity, Clerics are given a portion of this power to command others.

Barrier
This spell creates a magical barrier in an area up to 30’ in diameter and 30’ high. The barrier is a wall of whirling and dancing hammers, obviously dangerous. Any creature passing through the barrier takes 7-70 points of damage from the whirling hammers (no Saving Throw). This spell is often used to block an entrance or passage.
     The reverse of this spell (remove barrier) will destroy any one barrier created by a cleric. It can also be used to destroy a magicuser’s wall of ice, wall of fire, or wall of stone spell effect. It will not affect a wall of iron.

What's remarkable about this spell is not the barrier itself, but the ability to create something out of nothing. Or maybe the hammers are transported from some other place? I doubt it. This Deity has the power of creation; it can create any object desired without the requirement of base materials. Granted a wizard can create a wall of stone or iron or other materials too, but a wizard is limited, whereas this spell only hints at the power of the Deity. This is the extant of the power that the Deity allows his followers to use, the Deity's actual power is most likely immeasurably greater. I think we can definitively say that the Deity the cleric worships has the power of creation and therefore most likely created the universe(the prime material plane) and possibly the other planes of existence as well.

Create Normal Animals
The cleric is able to create normal animals from thin air with this spell. The animals will appear at a point chosen (within 30’), but may thereafter be sent (by command) up to 240’ away, if desired. The animals created will understand and obey the cleric at all times. They will fight if so commanded, and will perform other actions (carrying, watching, etc.) to the best of their abilities. They are normal animals, and may attack others unless their instructions are carefully worded.
     The cleric may choose the number of animals created, but not the exact type; the DM should decide that (or randomly determine). One large (elephant, hippopotamus, etc.), 3 medium-sized (bear, great cat, etc.), or 6 small (wolf, rock baboon, etc.) animals can be created. “Giant” animals cannot be created. The animals disappear when slain or when the spell duration ends.

This really reinforces the ideas I've already discussed in this post. The Deity can not only create matter from nothing, but can also instantaneously breathe life into that matter. These animals aren't transported or summoned, they are specifically "[created] from thin air" and alive upon the instant of creation. These are flesh and blood animals; they are physically there and can die just like any normal animals. The short duration of their existence is more an evidence of the careful doling out of favors by the Deity than they show a limitation of the Deity's power. The Deity itself could probably allow these creatures to not disappear after a specific time period and the animals could live out normal lives, yet the Deity limits the amount of power that can be used by his followers.

Cureall
This spell is the most powerful of the healing spells. When used to cure wounds, it cures nearly all damage, leaving the recipient with only 1-6 points of damage. It will remove a curse, neutralize a poison, cure paralysis, cure a disease, cure blindness, or even remove a feeblemind effect. However, it will cure one thing only; if the recipient is suffering from two or more afflictions (such as wounds and a curse), the cleric must name the one to be cured. If cast on the recipient of a raise dead spell, the cureall eliminates the need for 2 weeks of bed rest; the recipient can immediately function normally.

The Deity's power over life and death is demonstrated by this spell. The followers of the Deity are given the power to cure nay ailment no matter how severe. The Deity clearly has power over the body's physical healing processes.

The Stars Like Dust

So, I just finished reading The Stars Like Dust, the first of Isaac Asimov's galactic empire novels. I've already read all the foundation and robot books, and just got my hands on the empire novels recently. in general I like Asimov's work, sure there are lots of criticisms that can be aimed at it, and justifiably so, but I like his stories because they are great science fiction. They don't just take place in the future and with advanced technology as part of the setting, Asimov uses the premise of a science fiction setting to explore some aspect of the human psyche.

As for The Stars Like Dust, it feels a little lackluster and overly convoluted to me. There are all these plots within plots that the characters are only able to navigate because they are characters in a book, and the character don't really act like people; yeah this problem exists in some of Asimov's other works, but it really stands out here. And then the ending just seems so ridiculous to me. The constitution of the USA is going to be this revolutionary document that will disrupt all the governments of the interstellar kingdoms, yeah right!

I get that Asmiov's galaxy is thousands of years in earth's future, and yeah I guess the US could be completely forgotten. But to have the entire idea of democratic or republican government forgotten, or not in use, or not to evolve naturally again is just ridiculous. And then there's the constitution, it's not really that revolutionary of a document, at least not enough to reform society all on its own. It's not like the US government is the best that's ever existed or could exist. If anyone thinks it is, they should look at the state of the US right now, where one man has so much power that he can openly violate that document that is supposed to be so special, and the people that are supposed to hold him in check are too cowardly to do anything about it. Or if that subject hits too close home, the constitution, this perfect and sacrosanct document, gave one man the power to forcibly remove an entire people from their homeland. And where was the constitution when the leader of this 'great' country invaded a neighboring one just to gain more territory? But that was okay because that was somehow part of this country's destiny. I could go on; my point is that the US constitution and our government is not as perfect as everyone is told it is. Persons will abuse power whenever given the opportunity.

So it is kind of ridiculous that the US constitution is supposed to be some kind of revolutionary document in this far flung future. At what point in history has any people discovered the political organization of a long dead state and had their entire society disrupted by that discovery? It just doesn't happen, sure people gain inspiration from the past, but it isn't going to change anything overnight because "There is nothing new under the sun."(Ecclesiastes 1:9) Sure I can see the USA eventually being forgotten, but the idea of democratic government, I don't think so.

The Cooperative DM

I was thinking about what I wrote in  my Why I DM post, and had some further thoughts to add.

I talked about the players giving me a constantly changing challenge that the AI of strategy computer games can't. Following that line of logic, why don't I just play multiplayer mode for those games? I would be challenging myself against a human opponent who I would have more difficulty predicting and manipulating. The answer lies in how the strategy game changes in multiplayer mode.

For me, these strategy games are a mental exercise and challenge. As soon as I enter multiplayer mode, it becomes a competition. First of all I don't like the hassle of setting up a multiplayer game in the first place, and second I don't like to lose (who does), which I often do because of how I play. I don't play strategy games to win; my goal isn't to 'beat' the AI. I will often draw the game out so it will last longer when I could have 'beat' the game fairly quickly. I don't care about competing, so when I do play against another human, my opponent often defeats me fairly easily because I'm not playing to win. So I usually stick to single player and spend the time to enjoy the game. My goal when I play a strategy game is to develop a strategy and see if I can execute it. It's an exercise of my mental faculties. I get enjoyment just from the play itself and the complex challenges that arise out of play.

I DM RPGs in the same way, I get enjoyment from the challenge of the play itself. In my last post about this, Scott Anderson said he doesn't see the DM as being oppositional or antagonistic. Well, I don't either, as I tried to explain in my reply. The reason RPGs are superior to computer strategy games is the human factor involved, as I explained in my previous post. And as I said above I don't play to compete. I don't take on a competitive stance when I DM. D&D is a cooperative game, and not just for the players. The DM has cooperate with the players just as the players have to cooperate with each other. I prefer to run D&D than to play strategy games because there is the human factor, but also because it is a cooperative game. I'm not out to kill the PCs, or stop their plans, my job is to cooperate with the players by presenting the setting as it is and narrating the consequences of player actions and how those actions affect the setting. My role is purely dependent on the players, so I have to cooperate with them to play the game in the first place. If I take an antagonistic role, the game will be over shortly and no one will have enjoyed themselves.

Star Trek

So lately I've been watching a lot of Star Trek. I keep telling myself I should work on D&D stuff, and then I decide to do it later instead watch a few episodes of Star Trek. Over the last year or two I watched Enterprise and the TOS and TAS with my dad sporadically until we had seen every episode of each series; it was interesting because my dad had never seen all of Enterprise, and I knew I had seen the animated series, but I couldn't remember most of the episodes. I started watching TNG about six months ago. About 2 months ago I found this website with a chronology of all the episodes and movies and began watching in chronological order from where I was in TNG, and I have been watching pretty intensively since then. I finished TNG a few weeks ago and am now watching both DS9 and Voyager in chronological order. It has been an interesting experience seeing how events connect between DS9 and TNG and voyager.

I've never considered myself a 'trekkie'; I'm not fanatical about star trek(or star wars either), I enjoy the shows, but I prefer other sci-fi shows/movies a lot more(like stargate). Both DS9 and Voyager have a very 90s feel, I think more than TNG is reminiscent of the 80s. Voyager really pushes the 'noble savage' message, and it can get really annoying.

I do think each series has something unique to offer. I still think TOS is the best series; the episodes are self contained and an example of what good science fiction can be. Science Fiction is a method of reflecting on the human condition, exploring what-if scenarios; the messages of many of the episodes may be a little trite, but I still think overall TOS is a very good model for what sci-fi shows should try to do.

Captain Picard is the best captain in my book. In TNG they kinda split Kirk's character between Riker and Picard, which proved to be beneficial for Picard and a detriment to Riker(though I never did like Jonathan Frakes). Picard is a model for what a federation captain should be: he is dedicated to his principles, passionate,yet disciplined, he keeps a distance from the crew, yet inspires unswerving loyalty in them.

Deep Space Nine is different from the other shows because it's on a space station, yet I think that is what allowed it's greatest quality to shine: the Cardassians. I think the Cardassians are the best villains in all of Star Trek. I think the stationary existence of DS9 allowed the show to have not just a recurring villain, but a constant one. What makes them great, is that they aren't always the villain, they aren't 2-dimensional paper cut-outs like so many of the other aliens on star trek. The Cardassians are the true villains of DS9, not the Dominion. The Dominion is more of some looming background threat for most of the show and not really villains; I guess in that way they are similar to the Borg in TNG. I know sometimes DS9 gets criticized for its religious overtones, but that doesn't really bother me; that's definitely a part of the show where 90s culture shines through.

Voyager is my least favorite Star Trek series; I don't like half the crew, the kazon, most of the episodes have lackluster plots, and the 'romance' is pretty atrocious. Oh, and we cant forget the 'noble savage' push with Chakotay and his 'vision quests'. However, the main redeeming quality of the show, for me, is Tuvok. Tuvok is the best Vulcan portrayed on any of the shows, much as Picard is the best captain. Tuvok is a better vulcan than Spock ever was, yes I said it. Tim Russ is a fantastic actor, and his role as Tuvok is what makes Voyager enjoyable for me.

I know a lot of fans don't like Enterprise, but it is one of my favorite Star Trek shows. The 3rd and 4th seasons are widely considered to be better than the 1st and 2nd seasons because the show switched to a long form story arc that spanned the entire season. I, however, prefer the 1st and 2nd seasons. I think Star Trek excels at the episodic format. This goes back to the standard of TOS, every episode has a self contained story that explores a different scenario/concept. The best quality of Enterprise is the camaraderie among the crew. There is an Esprit De Corps that is unique to this show. You get to really feel the bond present between the crew of the ship, and I don't just mean the bridge crew; other members of the crew are regularly featured. It actually feels like there is crew on the ship besides the main actors. So often in the other shows it seems like the 'crew' are just the bridge officers. It's hard to describe, and maybe it's just me, but it feels like the crew of the Enterprise really has a camaraderie that is special.

And what about the new Star Trek movies and Discovery? I don't consider them to be star trek, and I just don't mean they don't fit the canon; they don't feel like Star Trek. Several years ago I binge watched all the Star Trek films in order(just the movies, not the series), and ended with the JJ films. Many fans hate Nemesis, and don't include it in the canon, but when I watched it, the story may not have been great, but it still felt like star trek. There was continuity between Nemesis and all that had come before, and it was still Star Trek's specific take on science fiction. I had seen the JJ films once and didn't like them, but at this point I decided to give them a second chance and was thinking that they couldn't be that bad. So I watched the JJ films immediately after seeing Nemesis, and I could barely push myself to finish them. They  just didn't feel  like Star Trek; there was nothing about them that I would call science fiction. They are just big action movies that happen to take place in space. That's called space opera or space fantasy, not science fiction.

As for Discovery, I saw the first season when it came out and started the second season, but stopped midway through. I just lost interest. From the 1st episode though, something felt off. I liked the show, so it wasn't until the end of the first season that I had to admit to myself that Discovery wasn't Star Trek either. The continuity and technological errors could be explained away, but it just doesn't have the feel of Star Trek, or the classic science fiction that Star Trek has always been part of. Maybe the aesthetic of Discovery would have worked if they set in the future, sometime after voyager ended. Recently while watching DS9, there was an episode (I can't remember which one) where future versions of Dax and Bashir go back in time and have to use an old ship; one of them makes a comment about having become used to 3D consoles/interfaces. This got me thinking of how Discovery might be slightly changed to fit into the future: with experimentation into a new method of travel, the futuristic look of the show, the different uniforms, and the change in  klingon appearances. It wouldn't take much to bring the story of the 1st season of Discovery into the 24th/25th centuries. As for the second season of Discovery, I just don't care about it anymore; I don't need new adventures with Spock, I've already got plenty of opportunity to watch Spock in action. There's no need to retread old territory. I'm hoping the new Picard show will be better and more faithful than Discovery has been.

The Necessity of Rules in RPGs

I recently came across a discussion debating the validity of this quote by Gary Gygax, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." I'd just like to talk about my experience and opinions regarding the sentiment behind this. First off we should acknowledge that this was probably said in a business sense, meaning that if the DMs knew they didn't need rules or books published by the company, then RPG publishing wouldn't be a viable source of income.

Alexis Smolensk on the Tao of D&D blog has often explained the need for codified rules in an RPG with an emphasis on the Game aspect of Role-Playing Game. I generally tend to agree with what he has written on the subject. The more we treat RPGs as games and less as story-telling devices, the more varied and meaningful our game sessions will be.

However, some of my experience contradicts this sentiment. My best friend, Christian, invented what he called "Mind Games" before I met him or introduced him to D&D. These games were very similar in play to RPGS. He would take the role of narrator and anyone else would play a character. Before the game would start, Christian would describe the setting, and each player would describe their character. He would then describe events based on what we chose to do. There were no dice or paper or pencils or anything to keep records, except sometimes we would draw a map. Consequences of actions were decided by what is now called 'DM fiat' though we didn't know of the term at the time. In many ways it could be called a 'story-game'. Yet the game played out in a manner very similar to our D&D games run by my father at the same time. In my view at the time, it was D&D without any rules.

So, I guess the takeaway is that RPGs don't need rules if a certain style of play is wanted and if you have a good DM.

Fatigue and Exhaustion

Go to the Delvers and Denizens Index

Today I was pondering the problems of fatigue in D&D and how its effects have been modeled throughout the editions and in other RPGs, and a solution occurred  to me. This solution is specific to D&D and its relatives, but should be applicable to any edition.

There are specific actions which cause a character to become fatigued. These are called Fatiguing Actions. A Fatiguing Action could be sprinting for 30 seconds, marching/walking for an hour, participating in combat for 1 minute, or anything else the DM thinks would cause a character to tire.

When a character performs a Fatiguing Action that character loses a set value of HP (this could be variable based on the class of the character, 4 for a magic-user, 6 for a cleric, or 8 for a fighter, or based on HD, etc), 1 constitution point, and takes a -1 penalty to all rolls.

(When I run D&D, PCs don't die at 0 hp, they receive a wound instead. Hp represent the PCs ability to avoid wounds, so this loss of hp reflects a loss of combat ability without being a direct threat to their life. If you run the game so that PCs die at 0 hp, you may want to forego the hp loss depending on how harsh you want your game to be.)

Characters can recover from fatigue by taking a short rest of 10 minutes (1 Turn). (this ties into the rule that PCs have to rest for 1 Turn in 6, and also spend a Turn resting after every combat) This will restore the hp lost, the constitution point, and negate the penalty to rolls. If a character performs a 2nd Fatiguing Action without taking this short rest in between the actions, he must make a system shock roll. If he fails this roll he receives twice the penalty as normal; on a success only the normal penalties apply. This extra penalty also applies if the character has not rested to fully recover from their fatigue.

Example: If a character had performed 3 sequential Fatiguing Actions and had succeeded his system shock roll both times he would have a -3 constitution and a -3 penalty to all rolls. He rests for 1 Turn, bringing his penalties to a -2. He then performs another Fatiguing Action and must make a system shock roll. If he succeeds he receives only the normal -1 penalty, putting him at -3 again; if he fails he receives a -2 penalty bring him down to a -4.

When a character's constitution score reaches 3 they become Exhausted (PCs that start with a 3 constitution are always exhausted). A character will also become exhausted by being active (awake and doing stuff) for extended periods of time (16 hours for humans, if they are awake but physically inactive this period of time can be stretched out to say 24 hours). An Exhausted character will be so tired they have no energy to do anything; their movement rate drops to practically 0 and they can only perform basic actions which require little mental power and cannot perform Fatiguing Actions.

An Exhausted character can try to shrug off the effects of Exhaustion by making a system shock roll. On a success the character can function normally for 1 hour before making another system shock roll. If a character who has shrugged off the effects of Exhaustion wants to perform a Fatiguing Action they must make a system shock roll. On a success they are able to perform the Fatiguing Action and takes the -2 penalties. On a failure the character simply does not have the energy to continue on and isn't able to perform the action, and the character also takes another -1 penalty for their effort.

The effects of both Exhaustion and Fatigue will be completely negated by sleeping For a requisite number of hours (8 for humans). If a character ever reaches a Constitution score of 0, that character dies from exhaustion.

There are details that need to be filled in, like what actions constitute fatiguing actions. I also haven't taken food/water into account. The effects of dehydration and/or lack of food can be very similar to just being extremely tired. This is just an idea, and I'm putting it out there to see what others think of it.

Ruling Classes of Magic

This blogpost got me thinking about the nature of magic in D&D and its relation to social classes and the regions of the Known World. I've been thinking of treating D&D classes as social classes and vice versa for awhile now, but now I've come up with some new ideas that will really differentiate the different regions of the Known World.

The basic premise of my idea is this: each country/region of the Known World has a specific type of magic is common among an elite class which holds political power. This goes hand in hand with my continued attempts to differentiate the types of magic mechanically, Cleric magic works different than Wizardly magic, which is different than Elves/sorcerers, which is different than witchcraft, etc. Each country would have a ruling class which are these specialized magic user types, one country is ruled by magic-users, one country is ruled by druids, one country is ruled by clerics, etc., and any other form of magic is rare in that country and viewed with suspicion. Of course the magic user class may share power with another class, similar to medieval Europe where the church and the nobility ruled together. The clothes and attire and ritual accouterments of different types of magic users would make it immediately obvious that these characters are foreigners and there would probably be laws forbidding the use of 'foreign' magic in major population centers. Even in their native country magic users would have to follow strict rules of how and when they can use their magic.

So to apply this to the Known World there are a few obvious places I think this can apply. Glantri stands out first, as it is described in the expert set as being a magocracy. This would be where vancian magic user would originate and their center of power; each ruler in Glantri would have to be minimum of a 9th level wizard.The other easy choice is placing clerics as the center of religious and magical power in the empire (as designated in this post) similar to the status of the orthodox church in the Byzantine Empire. Alfheim and other centers of Elven population would obviously be ruled by their specific brand of magic and maybe a mostly human land could be ruled by Sorcerers (Humans with elven ancestry who inherited some magical abilities), maybe Wendar, I'll have to think about that.

That leaves the Northern Reaches, Ethengar, Atruaghin clans, Ylaruam, and Rockhome. Some form of Shamanism could be prevalent in Ethengar and Atruaghin. The northern reaches would use some sort of Runic magic, there's no shortage of D&D rules for that have been proposed, The northern reaches gazetteer and historical vikings setting for 2nd edition just to name two examples. Rockhome I would prefer to have a form of magic specifically tied to smithing somehow. A modified form of the dervish class from the gazetteer could be used for Ylaruam, or maybe a modified clerical class based on the Imam. Another option for Ylaruam, if I want to disregard most cannon information, is creating an entirely new religious ruling class based on Zoroastrianism.

I've also been considering the origin of Druids/bards and how to make them reflect their celtic origins better. We don't know much about the ancient druids, but it does seem they acted more as judges and priests and had authority covering political matters as much as spiritual matters, and the nature loving druids of D&D are completely unrelated to historical druids. Given that, I think maybe the best place for a druid ruled country might be the Isle of Dawn as it's supposed to be the Mystara analog to Britain/Ireland.

I also will probably have Hule be the origin of Necromancy which uses a form of Blood sacrifice powered magic. We haven't gotten there in our interview yet, but in one of the campaigns my dad ran for us, one of my sister's friends was given a special dagger and magical spells/abilities. He had to use the dagger on himself to draw certain amounts of blood from different parts of the body to enact his spells. I think this would go well with our version of Hule since the Master commanded hordes of undead we had to defeat.

The last option I'm thinking about is Alphatia. Since we already have assigned Vancian spell casters to Glantri, I think Alphatia should be different. One option that intrigues me is to make all the 'magic-users' of Aphatia be able to use psionics. We could keep the genetically different groups of Alpatians, and have the  purebloods have psionic abilities and that is how they maintain their rule of the less gifted natives.

Another option for Alphatia is to focus on the Mystara-Atlantis side of things. I always liked the culture and pseudo-technology presented in the Disney Atlantis movie, which I think ties in well with some elements from Eberron. I've been reading the Eberron Campaign Setting book recently and I really want to port the idea of the setting into Alphatia. The Alphatian Empire could be tweaked to be similar to the Galifar Empire. The common magic based technology is already present in a lot of the Alphatian material and fits my vision of what the Disney atlantis could have been like before they lost their tech. Both Alphatia and Ebberon have skyships. And I can see the dragon marks as being manifestations of pure Alphatian bloodlines. I think warforged would easily fit into this version of Alphatia. And Artificers could be the Alphation version of the magic-user, the council of 100 wizards are not vancian spell casters, but renowned artificers.

Why I DM

Over the years, I have heard other people explain why they like D&D so much, why they play and why they run. Some people like the social aspect, it is an excuse for them to hang out with friends; others like the world building and creative outlet, some like to see a story unfold. there are as many reasons as there are people playing the game. All of these explanations never really resonated with me, I always felt that  one particular reason might have some impact on on why I like to DM, but I was never able to pinpoint a singular aspect of the game that drove me to this obsession with D&D. Oh, I am able to say why I like to be a player in RPGs; I am there for the social environment, it is  somewhere where I can be myself and spend time with family and friends. when I act as a player in games where I don't know anybody I just don't really enjoy the game as much. But this isn't the case for me when I DM, sometimes I prefer to run for total strangers.

I was reading this post over at Paul's gameblog, and I had an epiphany; of course there are many contributing factors to why I like to DM so much, but the main reason I do so is the same reason I like to play large scale strategy computer games. I like to be challenged mentally, having to juggle several different variables and making on the fly judgement calls. It's all about strategy and planning and adapting to new circumstances. After so long playing these strategy computer games (Civilization, Age of Empires, Total War) they become stale and I begin to lose interest because even if the situations are new and the variables are never the same, the game engine is programmed and predictable. Once you learn how to manipulate the game, it is no longer a challenge. Even if the situation is different the solution will be the same. The game is programmed and therefore cannot have infinite variety and continuous challenge. D&D and other RPGs never have that problem, every situation is different and and every group is different. The challenge is always there and it will never seem stale.

DEM Cloud Cover

Discovered this NACIS talk and wanted to do some experiments

I applied this technique to my old DEM from the 490 project; it turned out all right, though not nearly as pretty as John Nelson's examples.

If anything I feel like this emphasizes everything that I think is wrong with this DEM, very dimply, and not really realistic contour grades, the river systems should stand out from the mountains more I guess. An interesting way to look at things

Fiction vs Fantasy

I was watching some more nacis lectures and came across this one by David Nuttal and wanted to just comment on something he said in passing.

I think his work is amazing and tend to empathize with a lot of what he says, yet I couldn't help but cringe when he said he makes fictional and not fantasy maps. First off his example of the LOTR map, while maybe the most recognizable, is not the end all be all of fantasy cartography. Also while it has been severely criticized is not as bad as many seem to think, you just have to realize that it is made in a certain stylistic manner; I may go into a deeper review of that particular map at a later date.

My real issue is the statement that he makes fictional and not fantasy maps; this is based on a false dichotomy. Not so long ago science fiction, traditional wannabe LOTR fantasy, sword and sorcery, and standard modern fictional stories were all lumped together under the label of fantasy. Arthurian legends were considered Fantasy. what separates the Oddyssey or the Illiad from Fantasy? Most scholars agree that much of the events described in those works probably didn't happen. Many of these older myths and legends are not considered 'fantasy' simply because of their date and their origin, not because of the stories they tell.

Definition of Fantasy from the 1963 Webster's Illustrated Dictionary

 - an erratic or fantastic mental image(fantastic references fancy and fanciful which both reference imagination and something that is 'not real')
Definition of Fiction from the 1963 Webster's Illustrated Dictionary 

 - something imagined or made up

Fantasy is fiction and fiction is fantasy. Categorizing works of fiction into all these uber specific genres may be useful for libraries and catalogs, etc, but let's not forget that these are all works that came out of our of the imagination. When making these fantasy worlds we should doing the same kind of research that Nuttal is doing with his 'fictional' maps. This is part of the reason no one takes fantasy seriously, because we treat it as just a fantasy. Maybe do some research, put in some hard work and we can hope to have something as good as Nuttal. Make your fictional worlds as well researched and presented as the real thing.

Map K Redux

So after my last post about the map from B10 I was looking at some other maps from modules which Geoff Wingate was credited on. Then I noticed on some maps from UK1 All That Glitters that both ridges/peaks and valleys/passes were shown in the same manner.

Then I began to second guess my earlier decisions and was all confused. After some research I found Geoff Wingate's contact information and emailed about my quandary and with an explanation of what I was trying to do. To my surprise I got a reply.

"Hi Lance... I had to google DEM... that's cool what you've done and I'm flattered you've used my old D&D illustrated maps as inspiration... it's true my drawn lines representing mountainous  ridges and valleys are the same... and where mountains meet a flat plain... I guessed people would 'read' that a ridge line ends in a stick-out headland and a valley line ends in an inlet... if you know what I mean... to be honest, I really think I sort-of invented this graphic technique because I can't remember copying it from anywhere... I had studied architecture and architectural graphics standards and I also loved drawing in art nouveau style or folk-like Celtic style... when I started freelancing for D&D in Cambridge... I found existing rpg maps diagrammatic and abstract so I wanted to draw a more pictorial illustrated map... more fun, more expressive but still scaled and accurate... I'm proud of those maps and pleased players enjoyed them... I was proud of my 'Eye of the Serpent' map where I managed to combine a flat map within a perspective landscape... I don't think I've particularly answered your questions... maybe my response a bit vague... but anyway, thx for your email and nice to meet you... GEOFF"

So from this, we can conclude that both ridges and valleys are represented and we can identify each by the overall shape of the mountains. Using this principle as a guide I have revised my previous outline:

The Expert Amateur

Alan McConchie has some interesting things to say about the work of so called amateurs; I recommend watching the whole video.

I think these ideas are also applicable to the RPG hobby, specifically the idea of the expert amateur. So much product in this hobby is put out by people who are basically amateurs; they haven't been trained in writing or publishing or game design or cartography. Despite this lack of training, many of these individuals are the best possible people that could be chosen to produce the material they work on because of their expertise. It is because individuals like Thorfinn Tait and Daniel Collins and Jon Peterson and Anna Meyer, among many others, are experts in their respective areas of interest that such great products can be made. It is through the work of these amateurs who are also experts that this hobby continuously expands and pushes new boundaries. You don't need to be a professional to be an expert, and sometimes the lack of training can be beneficial, giving the opportunity to see things from different perspectives.

Rethinking Sorcerers

I'm thinking of changing the rules for both elves and sorcerers. Keep the rules as they are for spells known, but change the spellcasting method. Why can sorcerers only cast so many per day? I'm thinking of changing it from spell 'casting' to more of a spell like ability. Whenever a spell is cast it fatigues the caster in some way, maybe spell level increases the fatigue potential.

Going off of the rules I already have for casting those 'extra' spells; every spell requires a saving throw against spells to be cast with a penalty equal to the spell level. Maybe the INT modifier, or whatever ability score being associated with sorcery, allows the caster to not have to make this check for spell levels equal to the modifier. Also rolls that are equal to the saving throw would result in some wild magic effect, maybe reuse wild magic effects from 3e or 5e. A failure just has the spell fizzle out, and a success has the spell work normally. The hp penalty, or maybe some other fatiguing effect, would apply to every spell cast whether successful or not. So the sorcerer would be limited to spells per day not by an arbitrary number, since they no longer have to 'memorize' them. but by their hp. HP damage could also be tied to spell level.

I'm also thinking making the sorcerer have less spells known than elves. Maybe have sorcerers with an innate number of known spells determined at the beginning of character creation. This could also apply to elves. Elves are naturally born with certain spell like abilities, and some can gain more spells through study and meditation. The standard elf would be more like a ranger, a fighter with a few magic abilities. The standard elf class could still exist following the standard spell progression, but these would be the elves who pursued the study of magic. I also want to update the elven, and sorcerer, spell list to differentiate it more from the wizard. maybe look at some of the spells in the Alfheim gazetteer.

I'm also looking at ways to revamp the spellcasting methods of the standard magic-user to make it more vancian/in line with the fiction. A post about that should be coming soon.

Elevation Data from Map K in B10

After finishing my poster and webmap at CSUN, I grew dissatisfied with the DEM I had created. First of all the plateau effect at the base of the mountains diminished the slope to the peaks.This particular quirk was caused by me placing a uniform value at the base of the mountains (I think it was 3200 ft), where the line on map K differentiates between mountain and hill. Also despite all my efforts to smooth the map out, it turned out a little too dimply to appear aesthetically pleasing or realistic in my mind. Therefore I determined a better way to move forward was to create a more detailed contour map and abandon the randomization method I used for the project; along with this I reevaluated how I had interpreted elevation from mountains displayed in map K.

So after some conversation at the the piazza, and looking at some other art pieces that Geoff Wingate  did to get some perspective on his art style, I came up with a satisfactory interpretation of the map K from B10. Basically I see it as a series of mountains with branching arms that collide into each other creating these north/south ridge lines.

I am planning on determining the elevation of each ridgeline more meticulously than last time. last time I picked a high point and generated a steady progression of numbers down to the bottom of the mountain range that I applied to a set of points along the ridge. this time each point will be individually evaluated, and I may have to introduce points in the spaces in between the ridges to get the valley/ridge dichotomy that I want from the spline interpolation.

Keying Dungeons

This One Page Dungeon made me realize a few things about dungeon design and map layouts. I find that most one page dungeons aren't something that I have an urge to to run, they may be creative and seem to be good ready to use tools, but it just doesn't get me fired up. It occurred to me, this has nothing to do with the content of this specific dungeon, simply the layout. I mentioned here some of the issues with maps associated with RPGs. Now I'm beginning to form a clear picture of what a good presentation for modules might be. 

The format of these one page dungeons should be reversed. The map should cover most of the page and the text descriptions should appear as footnotes. Maybe something like Courtney Campbell's key method. The Map should not be keyed with numbers, there should be a descriptive name label on the map in addition to symbols or labels denoting inhabitants and features that can be interacted with. the result of those interaction should be what is in the key below the map. This should all fit on one page, but the main feature should be the map.

This can also apply to more complex dungeons. The dungeon can be split into suites or zones; a large dungeon is simply an interconnected series on one page dungeons. Each page shows a section of dungeon, sort of like b2 with kobold and goblin and gnoll lairs all connected to each other in different ways, each lair would have its own page. Maybe also a include a general description of each lair on a separate page and an overview of the entire dungeon at the beginning. But the single page map and key is what should be used while running the game.

Maybe I'll try to create this with a an old TSR adventure; the main problem I see going forward is how to symbolize interactive features and NPCs.

On the Merits of B6

I normally don't have high praises for pre-fabricated adventures or settings. However there are some products that are well made, and some nugget of inspiration can be found in almost anything. In this comment on JB's post in revamping Specularum, he alludes to the poor reviews that B6: The Veiled Society tends to receive. This module is not alone in receiving negative feedback. Many older modules are criticized for various reasons, lack of detail, no motivation for the villain, too cliche, etc, etc. Many of these criticisms are made in contrast to newer modules that promote "story" and "narrative" elements. I am not attempting to say that B6 or any other module is without flaws, yet many criticisms are laid at the feet of such works by those who don't seem to understand the core components of running a game or the inherent nature of a module. Running a module well will take more time and effort than creating your own content for the game; making someone else's content your own so that it fits your game will always be more difficult than creating your own material. Running a module poorly will also take more time and effort than pulling nonsense out of thin air during a session; the DM still has to take the time to read the module.

Back to the Module. As I mentioned, this module is by no means perfect. The building and npc cutouts are really unnecessary and rarely used, evidence of this is confirmed in my interview of my father about this module. It is space that could have been better used. The Radu narration reads like someone failed to become a writer and so snuck in their fiction in this module. The mystery is not fully explained in one single location or how the PCs can unravel the mystery. We can nitpick and point out flaws all day, so why do I think this is an example of a good module, especially for city adventures?

The primary virtue of this module is that it is short, yet also contains a lot of material for adventure. It is concise unlike many other adventures or rule books. We are told the vital information and nothing more. Concordant with this it is set up in such a way that the mystery and adventure unfolds in dramatically different ways every time it is played. It has replayability that unlike that available in a good dungeon. This module is a good example of what a module should be. It is easily placed in any campaign setting, yet still doesn't leave out details in order to be generic.

As far as the mystery goes; it is not difficult for the players to solve. There is no one point at which the players can be stumped and the DM has to take action for the 'plot' to continue. In fact, the PCs don't even have to follow the mystery. There has been only one group which I ran though this module that actually solved the mystery in the expected manner and followed the event structure laid out. There is so much variation of where the adventure could lead; there is no defined single outcome.

Lastly, what happens in this adventure will affect the state of affairs of the city afterwards. The players will be able to see how their actions directly influence the game world. They can ally with a single faction and become enemies with others, or they may stay aloof from all the factions and work for their own benefits. Whatever they choose the balance of power will shift.

And all of this is accomplished in 10 pages of adventure and 2 pages of background/DM advice.

Podcast: Dungeons and Dragons and Duncanites

Because it takes so long to transcribe one of the interviews with my father, I've decided to record everything now while I have the opportunity and work on the transcriptions later. In order to allow people to listen to these interviews in the meantime, I have created a podcast where I will be posting the audio files. It's called Dungeons and Dragons and Duncanites and is available on Google Podcasts, Radio Public, Breaker, Pocket Casts, and Spotify, Hopefully it will be up on iTunes soon. Duncanites is a longstanding inside joke with my family based on all the ites people in The Book of Mormon (Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites, Zoramites, etc). So far I have posted interviews for B1, B2, B6, and the beginning of B10. I plan on going through all the modules we grew up on(X1, X4, X5, X6, X7, X9, XL1, O1, CM2, CM6, M1, M2, IM1, The Sword of Justice, The Treasure of the Hideous One, The Spindle), some of those we never used like War Rafts of Kron and Where Chaos Reigns, and others we only played as a lark with high level characters. I'll probably lump all of those into a single overview interview. After we've gotten through all the modules I want to go briefly go though the rulebooks, focusing on the adventures(mistamere and other suggested adventures), and houserules. From there I'm going to ask my dad to clarify things on some of his old maps. Finally we'll also talk about an overall timeline of the adventures we went through and how that changed the face of the known world. Oh, I also want to go over each of our old character sheets. I'm sure I'll think of more stuff to talk about before we're done.

Academic Parochialism

Many people have a disdain for universities and "academia" in general. So when Alexis proposes a college level course on how to become a better DM, and then lays out in depth well researched course work, there are of course many adverse reactions. This is not helped the behavior of many academics which fuels this disdain in the first place. Here is a perfect example of how Academics should not behave. Too often well educated, intelligent people will be passive aggressive and behave like children on the playground who can't get along. Academia is supposed to be a place open to debate, there should be an encouragement to voice dissenting opinions. Well reasoned arguments should be a common occurrence among intelligent individuals. Instead there is tendency to reinforce the accepted dogma and not to challenge anything. This is why many people don't want D&D in school/college. They are afraid a dogma will form, and anyone who disagrees will be hushed into silence. Instead of being afraid of what Academia might do to our hobby we should be having intelligent discourse about the game so that the ideas developed by these arguments may be considered on par with Academic studies.

Religion of the Cleric: 5th Level Spells

Continuing my discussion of how Clerical magic can help us understand his religious beliefs. This spell list is spread across the Expert and the Companion sets as will be the 6th level spell list.

The OD&D Cleric
Analysis of Level 1 Spells
Analysis of Level 2 Spells
Analysis of Level 3 Spells
Analysis of Level 4 Spells
Analysis of Level 6 Spells
Analysis of Level 7 Spells
Conclusions

From the Expert Rulebook:

Commune
This spell allows the cleric to ask questions of the greater powers (the DM, mythological deities, etc.). The cleric may ask three questions that can be answered yes or no. However, a cleric may commune only once a week. If this spell is used too often, the DM may wish to limit its use to once a month. Once a year the cleric may ask twice the normal number of questions.

I have always felt conflicted about this spell, being a religious person myself. Let's first lay out the doctrine of my church(The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) and my own experience with divine revelation. When praying for specific answer, whether it be about an important decision or a gospel related question, a person should study something first, come to a general conclusion and "then you must ask me[God] if it be right" (The Doctrine and Covenants Section 9 Verse 8) From there your decision is either confirmed when you feel the presence of the Holy Spirit(which is different for different people at different times, it's not always a 'burning of the bosom') or you receive a 'stupor of thought' as a negative answer. Now there has been much debate about what 'stupor of thought' means, but let me just summarize by saying that when you feel that Holy Spirit you know what course of action to take. Because of this scripture, and others that reinforce it, the Church teaches that we should ask God yes or no questions. What has been set forth above is the basic doctrine, my experience is somewhat more nuanced. Sometimes I have received answers that are more complicated than just an affirmation or negation, sometimes I receive an answer that basically says God doesn't care and to do what you want to do, and then there are times you receive answers to things you never asked, and all this is to say nothing of what is generally referred to as 'promptings' in the Church.
     So, how does all this relate to the Commune spell? Well, firstly I think the yes or no requirement is a good start implying that the Deity worshiped by thus order of Clerics answers prayers in a manner similar to my own experiences, plus it is very gameable. As far as limiting to to only 3 questions, and only being able to cast this spell once a week, I understand these rules were written to limit player abuse, but it still doesn't feel quite right to me. Speaking of abuse, it is heavily implied, but not directly spoken to, that the yes or no answer should be correct/truthful. I have seen too many DMs claim that they don't have to answer the questions truthfully, they just don't want the players to know the truth, or they want to 'trick' them. It's all just an excuse for a bad DM to lie to his players. If you don't want them to be able to receive revelation from their gods, don't allow the spell in the game. So back to this limitation of 3 questions only once a week. I think this implies some very important things as to the nature of the Deity and the faith of the Cleric. I see 2 options for what this means, 1) either the Deity is distant and it requires a lot of time and effort to summon his attention, or there is some other limiting factor on the Deity's ability to communicate with his servants, or 2) the cleric must take the time to study and prepare the questions for an entire week using special poetical form or special words or he has to build up his faith to an extent to be able to communicate directly with his god. There are a myriad of explanations I can think of to explain these limitations, one example that strikes me is when Moses was in the habit of talking to God face to face there was a time when God said that he would only show him his backside. Things like that make me think these limitations are due more to the faith of the follower than the power or ability of the Deity.
     One other thing I want to note is the fact that this a 5th level spell. That means [checking my charts] only a 10th level cleric can cast this. The level title for 9th level or above is 'Patriarch,' so basically the head of the church (ie the Pope) can use this and no one else (anyone else would go start their own church). This is not equivalent to personal divine revelation (all that stuff I was talking about at the beginning of this analysis); this is a prophetic calling. The cleric has a direct line to the will of god. So what happens when two clerics both can use this spell? They both become prophets with their own following and churches are built up around their legacy and their interpretation of the word of god, and remember it has to be an interpretation because they can only receive yes or no answers. Let's take a real world example: to confirm the doctrine of the Trinity, a modern christian might ask, "are the Holy Spirit, The Father, and The Son one God?" While in contrast someone from my church might ask, "Is the Godhead(the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) composed of three separate and distinct personages?" Both might receive an answer of 'yes' and interpret it to mean the other is wrong, but again this is all interpretation. For a Cleric with only this method of communicating with their Deity, it means there is no sacred text(the bible) that is the 'word of god.' The word of god only comes through as yes or no, so he could confirm whether something someone had written was correct or not, and then the cleric touts this piece of writing as the 'word of god,' but this never came directly as inspiration from god; there are no long winded, confusing prophecies direct from god. At least not in the form of a direct revelation, the next best thing would be an angel/messenger of god sent to declare his word.
     What can we draw from all this? Well even if the religion of the standard cleric is monotheistic as surmised by other evidence, it is a very different monotheism from what has existed throughout history. There are no biblical style prophets proclaiming to be the mouthpiece of God. The leaders of branches of the church, or churches of the same basic belief system(think protestantism) act as interpreters and final arbiters of the will of god concerning very specific questions. These leaders fulfill a role similar to the modern day Pope; he interprets and decides the general practices and policies of the Catholic Church, but he doesn't claim to be a prophet like Moses. The only way for members of this religion to know the true 'Will of God' are through direct divine manifestations, whether that be a visitation from the Deity himself or a messenger (angel).

Create Food
This spell creates enough food to feed 12 men and their mounts for one day. For every level of the cleric above 8th, food for 12 additional men and mounts is created.

This is complementary to the 4^th level spell Create Water. Again this allows a cleric to feed a small army. Mostly it brings to mind the tribes of Israel being fed by ‘Manna from Heaven’ for 40 years in the wilderness. This isn’t quite on such a large scale, but I could see a similar legend circulating among the modern followers of this religion.

Dispel Evil
This spell may affect all undead and enchanted (summoned, controlled, and animated) monsters within range. It will destroy the monster unless each victim makes a Saving Throw vs. Spells. If cast at only one creature, a -2 penalty applies to the Saving Throw. Any creature from another plane is Banished (forced to return to its home plane) if the Saving Throw is failed. Even if the Saving Throw is successful, the victims must flee the area, and will stay away as long as the caster concentrates (without moving).
     This spell will also remove the curse from any one cursed item, or may be used to remove any magical charm.

This reiterates the idea that magical creatures are enemies or an affront to the Deity of the Cleric, implying that the Deity is connected to the natural or mundane world. Perhaps there is also the implication that the Deity has jurisdiction over the Prime Plane. In function this spell is a suped-up turn undead, also being able to turn or destroy enchanted creatures. Why a Cleric might use this spell to remove a curse instead of the Remove Curse Spell seems confusing, unless perhaps the cleric doesn't know whether the something or someone is cursed or enchanted.

Insect Plague
This spell summons a vast swarm of insects. The swarm obscures vision and drives off creatures of less than 3 Hit Dice (no Saving Throw). The swarm moves at up to 20’ per round as directed by the cleric while it is within range. The caster must concentrate, without moving, to control the swarm. If the caster is disturbed, the insects scatter and the spell ends. This spell only works outdoors and aboveground.

This is another connection to the natural world. The Deity of the Cleric has the power to control the lower forms of life. The implications of this are numerous; maybe this control is the result of an inherent mastery through creation, or maybe the Deity has a hive like mind that can supersede the natural queen/hive mind of these insects, or maybe the nature of the Deity is in common with all living things so that even the insects will listen to requests. There are many possible reasons that the Deity has some measure of control over even the lowest orders of the natural world, and each explanation tells us more about the inherent nature of the Deity.

Quest
This spell forces the recipient to perform some special task or quest, as commanded by the caster. The victim may make a Saving Throw vs. Spells to avoid the effect. A typical task might include slaying a certain monster, rescuing a prisoner, obtaining a magic item for the caster, or going on a pilgrimage. If the task is impossible or suicidal, the spell has no effect. Once the task is completed, the spell ends. Any victim refusing to go on the quest is cursed until the quest is continued. The type of curse is decided by the DM, but may be double normal strength.
     The reverse of this spell, remove quest, may be used to dispel an unwanted quest or a quest-related curse. The chance of success is 50%, reduced by 5% for every level of the caster below that of the caster of the quest (an 11th level cleric attempting to remove a quest from a 13th level cleric has a 40% chance of success).

Unlike common Christian beliefs, this God can suspend the agency of an individual human. I see this as an extension of the command which the Deity has over all living things, there is nothing that separates man from beast. The saving throw does imply that intelligent beings with their own will may resist the commands of the Deity. Or are those commands weakened because they are channeled through a priest and don't come directly from the Deity? In either case the agency of man is not sacrosanct.

Raise Dead
By means of this spell, the cleric can raise any human, dwarf, halfling, or elf from the dead. The body must be present, and if part is missing, the raised character may be disabled in some way. An 8th level cleric can raise a body that has been dead for up to four days. For each level of the cleric above 8th, four days are added to this time. Thus, a 10th level cleric can raise bodies that have been dead for up to twelve days. The recipient becomes alive with 1 hit point, and cannot fight, cast spells, use abilities, carry heavy loads, or move more than half speed. These penalties will disappear after 2 full weeks of complete bed rest, but the healing cannot be speeded by magic.

The general implications of this spell are enormous. The Deity has complete power over life and death. Interestingly this spell also has some connection to real world Judeo-Christian tradition. As I understand it, the jews believed that the spirit left the body on the 4th day, which matches with the time limit on this spell.

     This spell may also be cast at any one undead creature within range. The creature will be slain unless it makes a Saving Throw vs. Spells with a -2 penalty. However, a vampire thus affected is only forced to retreat to its coffin, in gaseous form, to rest.

This effect upon the undead shows that undeath is the antithesis of life. The Undead have no spirits that can be returned to their bodies and are hence not returned to normal life when this spell is cast, they simply return to inanimate matter. If death is the absence of life, then undeath is the opposite of life.

     The reverse of this spell, finger of death, creates a death ray that will kill any one living creature within 60’. The victim may make a Saving Throw vs. Death Ray to avoid the effect. A Lawful cleric will only use finger of death in a life-or-death situation.

The reverse effects of this spell simply shows the depravity of Evil Priests; they will kill with impunity. Instead of giving life, the enemies of the church take life, and can be punished in  like manner by their counterparts in the church.

From the Players Companion:

Cure Critical Wounds
This spell is similar to a cure light wounds spell, but will cure one living creature of 6-21 (3d6+3) points of damage.
     The reverse of this spell (cause critical wounds) causes 6-21points of damage to any living creature or character touched (no Saving Throw). The caster must make a normal HIt rol to cause the critical wound.

As with other sure wound spells, this shows the healing nature of the Church. The message of the church is to bring healing and comfort, and the enemies of the church seek to cause pain and suffering.

Raise Dead
When cast at an Undead creature with more Hit Dice than a vampire, this spell inflicts 3-30 (3d10) points of damage. The victim may make a Saving Throw vs. Spells to take 1/2 damage.
     The revesre, finger of death, will actually cure 3-30 points of damage for any undead with 10 or more Hit Dice (phantom, haunt, spirit, nightshade, or special).

These details add little to what has already been said; it just provides more specific rules for specific situations.

Truesight
When this spell is cast, the cleric is able to clearly see all things within 120'. The spell is quite powerful; the cleric can see all hidden, invisible, and ethereal objects and creatures, as with the magic-user detect invisible spell (including secret doors). In addition any things or creatures not in their true form- whether polymorphed, disguised, or otherwise- are seen as they truly are, with no possibility of deception. Alignment is also "seen," as is experience and power (level or Hit Dice).

This speaks to the Omniscience of the Deity worshiped by the Cleric. The Diety knows the true nature of all things. There is more and more evidence that this Deity can see everywhere at once and knows all thins, and may impart to his servants on earth select portions of his knowledge.