HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsivier@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jonathon Sivier )
Subject: Re: Evil PC's without "Just hack-n-slash" and other problems?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:11:22 GMT

impster@ais.org (Charles Budensiek) writes:

>In article <BtpG7p.M79@acsu.buffalo.edu> dudek@acsu.buffalo.edu (David T. Dudek) writes:
>[stuff deleted]

 [more stuff deleted]

> 
>Put some life into your evil characters, it's fun. And remember, evil 
>characters can have friends too.
> 

   Also remember that there are degrees of evil (good as well).  Some creatures
are very evil, always doing bad things, and others are only a little evil, only
occasionally doing something bad.  The same is true of good, some characters
do good deeds at long intervals and some are paladins (or the equivalent) and
are constantly doing good.

   I currently am running a Half-Elven MU/Assassin in a very mixed party, goods
neutrals and evil.  He is Lawful Evil with True Neutral leanings.  He sometimes
steals from the party but usally doesn't.  He sometimes uses poison or torture,
but usually doesn't.  He sometimes abuses PCs and NPCs, but is usually a team
player, and supports the party's goals.

   I have his evil nature come through in little ways.  Using other party
members and innocent bystanders (IBs) as sheilds when there is danger, nothing
overt, just stand behind them when possible.  Use poison, torture or
assasination when no one is looking.  Take a few nice baubles from the treasure
before the rest of the party gets a chance at it.  Let others do the dangerous
tasks.

   Being evil doesn't mean you will kill your friends, just that you will
cheat them and take advantage of them occasionally.

Jonathan Sivier
- Lederhosen : Half-Elven MU/Assassin
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Date: 27 Aug 92 13:05:43 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <BtM93z.3LK@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:

>Killing someone who steals without a trial is a good act....

This is where I leave this discussion, Axly.  Anyone who can say that it is 
good to kill someone who has stolen without first giving them a trial and
*mean* it...well, let's just say that you and I have *NOTHING* in common.

>The mindcontrol issue: I think you're reaching.

No, I was bringing up one example where your "Kill 'im now and be done with
it" attitude would have gotten you into trouble.  But you don't seem to
realize it, so I'm outta here....


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Stelter)
Subject: Re: An Interesting Question
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 18:16:53 GMT

knight@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Lindsey Lambert) writes:



>While gaming the other night we ran into a perplexing problem...


>	A party of five summoned a greater beholder (via
>	his true name and a book on summoning) who had been 
>	presenting some problems for a nearby elven forest.
>	During the course of the fight, the paladin was
>	polymorphed into a garden snake (he maintained his
>	personality). *Here comes the fun part* (evil grin ;^)
>	Then the Paladin's +3 intelligent long sword was
>	polymorphed (via polymorph any object) into a hawk
>        (the intelligent sword also managed to retain its
>	personality). At some point in the combat the inteligent
>	sword turned hawk was killed via a blast of magical
>	energy.

>		The question is this...
>	
>	Would a speak with dead work on the hawk since the
>	sword managed to retain its personality when polymorphed?	

     "Speak With Dead," as far as I know, implies that the entity
being spoken to has a soul.  The sword may or may not be considered
to have had a soul, depending on how the sword became intelligent in
the first place.  If it was actually infused with the soul of an
actual person, then I'd say, sure, you could use "Speak With Dead" to
rap with it.


>	What happens if the Paladin has someone (high level
>	church member) cast dispel magic cast upon the dead hawk?
>		(Does the Paladin then have a +3 unintelligent sword?)
>	What happens if the Paladin has a resurrection cast upon
>	the dead hawk, followed by a dispel magic?

     Again, the question here is whether you consider the sword to have
actually had a real soul, or whether it was enchanted to simulate
intelligence without actually having a spirit (golems and such are
examples of such "intelligent" but soulless entities).
     If the sword did have a soul, we can safely assume that that soul
went to the Great Beyond when the hawk was slain.  "Dispel Magic" would
return the hawk to sword form, I guess, but the sword would be nonmagical.
However, you could resurrect the spirit of the sword and then turn it back
into a sword.
     If the sword didn't have a soul, then its intelligence and powers
would probably remain intact after the hawk had been turned back into 
a sword.


                                 --Steve Stelter
                                   sjs28257@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

>	
>	Note - The party was successful, although at great loss,
>	       and managed to kill the greater beholder with an
>	       arrow inscribed with his true name.

>	
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Subject: Re: Two Weapons
Reply-To: dclayton@bnr.ca (Don Clayton)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:59:23 GMT

In article <BtJur3.A5x@acsu.buffalo.edu>, acsoedf@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric Frohnapple) writes:
|> 
|> 	One thing I can not understand is the reason why Rangers and
|> Warriors can only use a smaller weapon in their off hand when fighting
|> with two weapons.  Having some experience with full contact weapon martial
|> arts, I can assure you that it is not by any difficulty to use two 
|> long swords at the same time.  (In fact it is FAR more effective than
|> fighting with a long sword and a dagger.....)
|> 	Is this just perhaps a "balancing rule" to keep warriors from
|> getting an 18/51+ str, specialization, dex of 16+, two weapons proficiency,
|> and at first level having something like 5/2 attacks at +3 to hit and +5 to
|> damage?  Or, perhaps, something else?

Probably just to make the game playable.  I had one fighter who had 2 scimitars
and a 18/89 strength.  He just walked around and slaugtered everything in sight.
It depressed me and the other fighters, so we made a new rule :

  You can fight with two weapons, both being the same size, but Strength
  bonus only apply to the first attack.

The reasoning : you put all of you strength into your first hit and on
the second one you just glance.  It seems to work pretty good.  Now the 
extra weapon isn't so deadly, but comes in handy.

Don
My brain, my thoughts, my words.
Let's pretend that protestants and catholics are friends.
   Northern Pikes
From: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:41:42 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Dorsai Grey Captains

In article <1992Aug27.135619.703@ccsvax.sfasu.edu> z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
>In article <67022@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:

>> Because cleric spells are different than wizard spells.  

>	Except it doesn't say this anywhere.

The fact that clerical spells don't specify the three kinds of components 
indicates that they are fundamentally different, at least to me.

>	This is an extremely silly statement. Does this mean that if a bardiche
>did less damage that a dagger, it would be okay, since its _fantasy_ ? 

Obviously, there should be at least some kernel of reason behind the rule; 
I'm not saying that fantasy means that you can be completely and utterly 
ridiculous.  None of the examples presented to date in this discussion have
been completely wacky, like your example.
-- 
Matthew DeLuca                      "I'd hire the Dorsai, if I knew their 
Georgia Institute of Technology      P.O. box."
Office of Information Technology                - Zebediah Carter, 
Internet: ccoprmd@prism.gatech.edu              _The Number of the Beast_
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: rworkman@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Ryan Workman)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: An Interesting Question
Date: 30 Aug 92 17:02:02 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

>
>
>   While gaming the other night we ran into a perplexing problem...
>
>
>	   A party of five summoned a greater beholder (via
>	   his true name and a book on summoning) who had been 
>	   presenting some problems for a nearby elven forest.
>	   During the course of the fight, the paladin was
>	   polymorphed into a garden snake (he maintained his
>	   personality). *Here comes the fun part* (evil grin ;^)
>	   Then the Paladin's +3 intelligent long sword was
>	   polymorphed (via polymorph any object) into a hawk
>	   (the intelligent sword also managed to retain its
>	   personality). At some point in the combat the inteligent
>	   sword turned hawk was killed via a blast of magical
>	   energy.
>
>		   The question is this...
>
>	   Would a speak with dead work on the hawk since the
>	   sword managed to retain its personality when polymorphed?	
>	   What happens if the Paladin has someone (high level
>	   church member) cast dispel magic cast upon the dead hawk?
>		   (Does the Paladin then have a +3 unintelligent sword?)
>	   What happens if the Paladin has a resurrection cast upon
>	   the dead hawk, followed by a dispel magic?
>
>
>	   Note - The party was successful, although at great loss,
>		  and managed to kill the greater beholder with an
>		  arrow inscribed with his true name.
>
>
>I do polymorph this way: as soon as the creature dies, it reverts to it's
>original form.
>

Well, Patrick, if you read p.191 of the PHB 2nd ed., it reads that when an 
object changes kingdom, it is only for a limmited (hours) duration.  So 
even if the sword wasn't killed, it would have eventually retured to its
original form. (even if it was dead)

Although your idea of death = original form has it's merits, polymorph any
object is a higher level magic and perhaps should be given some more 
permanent affects.

Just some thoughts...






>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  Runfirst  <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
                                          
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: oles@kelvin.uio.no (Ole Swang)
Subject: Re: Deities
Organization: University of Oslo, Norway
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 19:52:47 GMT

johnf@apollo.hp.com writes:

>Please, everyone:  It's "deity", not "diety".  Say it out loud:
>
>"Day-It-Ee  --  deity"    not   "Dye-Et-Ee  --  diety"
>
>Thank you.

Hear! Hear! (or is that "Hair"?)


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ole Swang     assistant lecturer, Dept. of Chemistry, U. of Oslo
oles@ulrik.uio.no
------------------  ._.. ._ ..___ ._ __..   ---------------------------
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Chromosonally-Challenged Characters
Date: 26 Aug 92 16:02:36 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <BtLHwv.Fy2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:

>Yes, but he's not playing elves for the roleplaying experience, he's playing it
>because he can multiclass. If his GM allows humans to multiclass, then his
>desire to play elves wouldn't be as large.

Maybe he wants to ROLEPLAY a multi-class.  You call that min-maxing?  What
if the guy just enjoys playing multiple classes at once?


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."
From: thg@cam-orl.co.uk (Tim Glauert)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: A new version of Familiars
Date: 27 Aug 92 14:29:16 GMT
Organization: Olivetti Research Ltd, Cambridge, England.

In article <BtLrJz.1q2@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, morpheus@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Morpheus Nosferatu) writes:
|>      In D&D, familiars can be used as spys for the mage because of their
|> telepathic link, but they do not increase the mage's magical powers, just
|> his hit points, which has nothing to do with magical power (unless you
|> use one of those spell point systems where spell points are related to
|> hit points).  The only exception are quasits and imps, which are rare, and
|> you only get them if you are evil (more or less), so then it actually
|> pays to be evil.

Well, not really. I play a CG MU who has just rolled a genuine 15 for Find
Familiar, and I can assure you that a pseduo-dragon is a pretty powerful
creature to have on your side.

Unfortunately for me, the way my DM runs things the MU doesn't get any HP or
reaction bonus from the Familiar, but pseudo-dragons are more powerful than
the MM version in this campaign, so things pretty much balance out.

[ I'm glad we play 1st edition :-) ]
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: donm@cs.UAlberta.CA (Don Murray)
Subject: Re: Tolkien (was: Re: Elven Chain Mail (Why?))
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:09:35 GMT

chadwick@world.std.com (Chadwick Ngan) writes:

>In article <1992Aug22.002917.5005@ccu.umanitoba.ca> thorntn@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Duncan Peter G. Thornton) writes:

>>people who read Tolkien after reading piles of genre
>>fantasy are at a disadvantage because Tolkien _isn't_
>>genre fantasy; it's literature. 
>>

>	I agree.  I read Tolkien after reading several *good* fantasy series
>and I fould him ... boring.  I don't meant to put down Tolkien here, but
>quite frankly I don't like his style.  It is, as Duncan said, literature
>rather than fantasy.

I think the problem is, we can take fantasy for granted NOW, and there is a lot
of good stuff out there.  But when Tolkien was writing this stuff, it was new,
and he had to come out with a lot of new ideas.

It is sort of like movies.  I find a lot of Hitchcock stuff boring, but that
is because I have seen so many movies based on his techniques, that his
techniqes aren't so amazing anymore.

I think the way you can still read Tolkien and enjoy it, is to deliberately
put yourself into a naive, self-indulgent frame of mind, forget about all
the stuff you have read, and just enjoy it for what it is.  The difficulty
is:  the Lord of the Rings is just too long, and I can't make it.
Sooner or later I give up.  However, I re-read the Hobbit once a year and find it
really refreshing.... my nth childhood I guess.

(ps I read the Lord of the Rings about 7 times when I was a teenager.  When I had
a 'beginners' mind.  Now I can't make it through once.)
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: prayers vs wizardry (was Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:33:37 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <1992Sep1.142039.89949@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>, phs431d@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
> In article <1992Aug30.232858.737@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>, z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes:
> 
> But "fumbling for spell components" is not the only reason for armour
> interfering with mages' spellcasting.  They also have to "draw arcane
> signs/sigils (in the air and on the ground)" and armour DOES interfere
> with this.  A priest (I think) only has to hold up his holy symbol most
> of the time and call down the power of his/her god, thus eliminating the
> need for complex hand movements.  (The spells still are the same magic -
> it is the source that differs)
> 
> I also don't require spell components but I still consider bulky/heavy
> armour a hindrance to mages' spellcasting.

	Ah, I should have said something about this. I never went in much for
the compex-movement bit, either with hands, arms, or legs. The only rule I have
regarding this is that the mage must be able to move his arms, and make some
minor hand gestures. Wearing most armor will not interfere with the arm
movements, and only very heavy gauntlets will cause problems with the hands.

Brandon Cope
From: switzki@hammerhead.cs.indiana.edu (Shawn M. Witzki)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Scrolls and spells
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:22:34 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington

In article <1992Aug31.124141.6372@iscsvax.uni.edu> boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>   Yes, scrolls are just meant to be read (i.e. No S,M components needed),
>because inscribing a scroll binds those two components up into the scroll
>spell.  A scroll can be inscribed into a spell book as well, but not by just
>sitting down and copying.  After using Read Magic, I believe it takes 1 hour
>per level of spell to inscribe into spellbook (may be wrong, but I have always
>used this number).

Don't forget that the mage must also have access to a magical laboratory, if
you're a stickler for rules and other picky details.  ;-)
-- 

============================================================================
A penny saved is a Congressional oversight.      \\          Shawn M. Witzki 
                                    -- Unknown    \\  switzki@cs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: spzkny@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (JAMES ZAKANY)
Subject: Re: Scrolls and spells
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 31 Aug 1992 08:57 EST  

In article <1992Aug30.223309.734@ccsvax.sfasu.edu>,
 z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu writes...
>In article <RANNOU.92Aug29030456@zuse.info.polymtl.ca>,
 Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug28.014141.17465@latcs1.lat.oz.au>
 barton@latcs1.lat.OZ.AU (Douglas P Barton) writes:

>>>(Doug Barton)
>>>    Can an MU copy a spell from a scroll to his spell-book?

>> (Pat Rannou)
>> So a scroll CAN'T be copied, but it can be used to gain INSIGHTS on a
>> spell, and thus helps spell reasearch. The rules say using "up" a spell
>> specifically to gain insight on it halves the time and cost used for spell
>> reasearch.

>(Brandon Cope) 
>	I have to agree with this. Scroll spells are specifically made for 
>casting, not learning. The scroll spell is basically a 'compiled' version of 
>the spell, ready to run and with a fixed effect. 

Well...  I guess I'm a bit more liberal as DM.  I allow the use of a first-
level spell ('write') to copy a scroll to a spellbook.  The scroll is 
obliterated in the process.  That does not confer "knowledge" of the spell, 
however.  One must roll to see if one can "learn" the spell after spending 
several weeks studying it (approx. 1 week per spell level).

Scrolls present one of the easiest methods to gain spells in my campaign.   
I rule that spellbooks are only completely readable by their owners.  
Before a captured spellbook can be of any use, one must spend time studying 
it.  And, of course, 'read magic' is required to read any scroll or s'book.

                                                  James S. Zakany
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Wednesday, 2 Sep 1992 20:00:17 EDT
From: The illustrius Pat Ellis (the DM) <IO11330@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Greyhawk (was Re: Tales from the Floating Walrus)
 <67389@hydra.gatech.EDU> <Btx8AJ.5wF@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

I too have been playing and Dming in Greyhawk since around 1986, and
I too have had the pulse quicken when I read some of the stuff that
TSR is selling in Greyhawk.  It has been apparent since Gary Gygax
left the company that the remaining staff at TSR would try to remove
everything with his name on it, I believe that as of right know the
only two items that still have his name on it are T1-4 (elemental evil)
and the original Greyhawk boxed set.  This will all change when from
the Ashes is released, I believe that the original set will be
discontinued.  Oh well, the good news is if you are a real DM, as you
must be two have been DMing in the same world for so long, it shouldn't
matter.  The Greyhawk wars are supposed to be devestating to the world
and thats how the world has always appeared to be, unsteady.  If you are
willing to make minor changes to each of the Greyhawk modules as they
comeout nothing will change.  You can pretty much dictate what is going
to happen at the end of the war.  Just because the Great Kingdom looses
doesn't mean it splinters into petty fiefdoms.  If you as a DM are willing
to do the work the Wars set will only make things more enjoyable for all.
I personally don't believe in following plot in a module, i prefer to
use the adventure in the module and overlay my own plot you can do the
same with the wars set.  ENJOY

                                        HIS ILLUSTRIUOUSNESS
                                             PATRICK L. ELLIS
                                                PHERAGUS
                                                    THE DM
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: thanh@marsh.cs.curtin.edu.au (L Y Thanh)
Subject: The gate to hell ?
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 06:05:19 GMT


Hi, we are trying to discover if there is a name for the
gate that stands at the entrance to hell (we are trying to 
name our research room).  Any suggestions from any religions,
mythologies, or fictional worlds, etc would be welcome.
Any other ideas for a name for our room would be appreciated as well.
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Set to talk about Set
From: alvalent@husc9.harvard.edu (Alvin Valentine)
Date: 26 Aug 92 18:02:13 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

I've heard all sorts of bloody variants on Set.  Half portray him as some
strange lookin' dude with some strange head.  Others portray him with the
jackal head which I thought belonged to Osiris' right-hand man Anubis, and
others portray him as some force of evil whose symbol if not head is that of
the cobra, and he is portrayed with Scorpions and Vipers of all sorts.

What the heck gives?  Clue on this subject would be appreciated.  Who is the
god?  What's he look like?  Does he have anything to do with venomous thises
and thats?

 
Later,
 
Lee Valentine
From: sbrogii@copernicus.Tymnet.COM (Scott Brogley)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?(not like the others)
Date: 28 Aug 92 23:08:34 GMT
Organization: meselfthankyou


	WHY ASK WHY?!

couldnt resist(no appologies for the waste-o-band-width)
sbrogii@Tymnet.Com for flames
Scott Brogley
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou)
Subject: Re: Chromosonally-Challenged Characters
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada
	<BtLHwv.Fy2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <66912@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:10:05 GMT

In article <66912@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:


   In article <BtLHwv.Fy2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:

   >Yes, but he's not playing elves for the roleplaying experience, he's playing it
   >because he can multiclass. If his GM allows humans to multiclass, then his
   >desire to play elves wouldn't be as large.

   Maybe he wants to ROLEPLAY a multi-class.  You call that min-maxing?  What
   if the guy just enjoys playing multiple classes at once?

Fine by me if he weants to roleplay a multi class. But ifd he choose an elf
BECAUSE he wants to mutli-class, something is wrong.

And if he wants to mutli-class BECAUSE of all the (as he said) habilities
this gives his PC, then something is VERY wrong.


Pat.
--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Rannou@info.polymtl.ca    |
\---------------------------/