HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:33:14 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <92236.173749CC100PG@GITVM1.GATECH.EDU> CC100PG@GITVM1.GATECH.EDU (Paul Goodwin) writes:

>I think that's why the Anti-Paladin was an add-on, not original, and why
>the silly thing was finally done away with in 2nd ed.  (Now, a Lawful Evil
>anti-paladin is entirely another thing...seems much more reasonable to me...)

Now that's not a bad idea, actually.  You can have paladins of good,
neutrality, and evil, but they must all be lawful.  That might even 
be workable.


-- 
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."
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 09:01:34 -0400 
From: "Douglas F. DeJulio" <ddj+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
	<67022@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Distribution: na

ccoprmd@prism.gatech.EDU (Matthew DeLuca) writes:
> Actually, I'm considering not permitting wizards to multi-class in future 
> campaigns I run, partially because of the armor issue...if you want to be a 
> wizard, you're going to be a *real* wizard and run around in your bathrobe!

In AD&Dv2, multiclassed wizards can't wear armor (with the special
exception of elf wizards wearing elven chainmail).
-- 
Doug DeJulio
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: edb892rsft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: A word on Mages
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 06:26:30 GMT


And now a few words on mages........

In previous campaigns of mine I have been extremely reluctant to let
players have magic-users for characters. Especially at low levels they
tend to cast one spell for the entire adventure, then cringe behind the
fighters and clerics and siphon off xp. With the advent of specialists
this has changed slightly with the offending mages getting two spells.
Even with good role playing and various dirty tricks (ie throwing dust
into monsters faces, throwing flaming oil etc) the contribution of the
mage a low levels still tends to be very little. Has any one found ways
of getting low level mages to have a greater role in low level
adventures?

And now a few more complaints about mages..........

Currently i am running an adventure in a ruined city, but this next
comment is also relevant to out door adventures as well. I have found
that the PC mage in my party has a habit of casting his spell then
telling the party to wait while he gets another. This problem is easliy
counter acted in the dungeon with random monsters every turn or so but
in the wilderness or ruins adventure random monsters tend to be
sparse... The time to memorize a spell in the first edition was 1 hour
per spell level but in the 2nd ed I was told it was 10 mins per spell
level! This means that a low level party in a ruins can effectively cast
many spells in a day. 

           Any thoughts on the matter.....

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hugh Jenkinson
Monash University
Australia
warlock@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
edb892rsft@vx24.cc.monash.edu.au

       "Me suffer from indecision.............probably"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: query@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Samuel Green)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: IRC DND GAME FINAL NOTES...
Date: 24 Aug 92 07:37:17 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.frp.dnd
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.


	Thanks for all the responses to the request for players...
	I have a full list, and anyone being included has been notified to
make their chars and all that goodness.  Sorry to anyone who wants to play,
but was too late.  Perhaps through normal attrition, there will be an
opening or 2.  If so, I'll post here.

	So far the time looks like either friday between 5-6 pm central
time, or saturday between 5-6 central for the start.  As for when the
sessions would end.... Who klnows? :)  Bring munchies, and all that
goodness when you sit down to play.
	Should start on this coming friday, the 28th of august (I think its
the 28th... :)).  
	One lsight snag, tho.  I start school on the 1st, and thus, will
only have access when I come home on the weekends. SO, some weekends, if I
dont go home, there might be a cancellation of the game for that week.  I
dont expect it to happen often, or maybe at all, but the possibility is
there.
	Should be very consistent playing, if everyone can make it! :)

	The channel will be:  DNDGAME
	My nick on IRC iwll be: IRCDM
	And you will probably have to send me a /msg for an invite, so that
I can keep it relatively ordered, with only actuall players on the channel.
	I will be on on friday, starting at 5pm central, so I guess that
that will be the official start of the campaign.  Please try to make it, if
your char was approved...  
	Thanks,
	Sam
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:04:03 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <BtM93z.3LK@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
> The LN character is actually the one more likely to take the thief in to
> the proper authorities. It's the paladin's good side that is more likely
> to lead him to kill this larcenous bandit. If the paladin moves in alignment
> at all, it's going to be away from Law not towards it. Killing someone who
> steals without a trial is a good act, not a lawful one.  Lawful neutral
> characters are very strict about following the letter of the law.

	Like I said in an earlier post, this isn't getting anywhere. The
morality you use in your game world is very different than what many of us use,
and there isn't enough common ground for posts like this to have meaning. For
example, killing someone who is stealing without a trial (example, national 
guardsman ordered to fire on any looters) is lawful, but not good (a person's 
life is worth more than material goods to me).

	I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the morality you have in
your game world, but it simply has little in common with most campaigns I know
of.

Brandon Cope

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Subject: Re: Fact or Fiction
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:53:07 GMT

ba446@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Todd M. Hanson) writes:

>>2) You are +4 to hit and damage against an unarmed opponent.

>Definately NOT a house rule.  Check out players handbook, page 98, under
>'Weapons in Non-Lethal Combat'.  Now that Im reading it over (no, I DONT
>have the books memorized, I had to look this us) it gets even worse.
>Not only do you get +4 to hit and damage - you also go first automatically,
>regardless of initiative rolls.

Yes, but remember this only applies if the weaponless one is attempting
to use barehanded attacks. If he/she isn't attacking you, you don't
get the bonuses. The bonuses reflect how easy it is to hack someone who
is trying to close the range with you.                                   

Axly

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: z_copeab@ccsvax.sfasu.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:25:21 CST
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University

In article <BtM7Lw.340@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly) writes:
> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
> 
>>Sorry, but I can't consider any god 'good' who would say "be good to
>>each other, and do whatever the hell you want with people not of
>>our religion."  Any god who would allow killing, raping, etc of people
>>just because they worship a different deity is not good in my book.
> 
> *shrug* Your book is only one in a large library. The brutal treatment
> of people not of a religion is common in our history. 
> 
>>Besides, some gods actually get along with each other or work together.
>>What would paladins from these gods do then?
> 
> They would most likely get along then. I'm not saying all gods would bump
> heads. However, most religions with pantheons don't seem the type to
> have paladins. 

	Paladins, no. Holy Warriors, yes. Difference? The name.

	The problem here seems to be applying our history of single diety
religions to a world where most religions have multiple, distinct dieties. I
don't think using medieval europe for a code of conduct would work that well
for a paladin. Roman or Greek society, oddly enough, would be more appropriate.
However, I have no problems writting up my own code for paladins anyway.

Brandon Cope

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: mrmarcel@eos.ncsu.edu (MICHAEL RONN MARCELAIS)
Subject: Re: Evil PC's without "Just hack-n-slash" and other problems?
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:46:32 GMT

In article <BtpMrC.Jys@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, jsivier@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jonathon Sivier ) writes:
|> 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.
|> > 
|> 
|>

Well, If any of you have read the _Belgariad_ or the _Mallorean_ by David
Eddings, there is a very good example of an 'evil' type character in a good
party.  Silk (Thief/Assassin/Spy, etc) does rather devious things, but usually
to help the party.  Occasionally he'll get out of hand and start murdering
people that he doesn't like, but he keeps it separate from the activities of
the party.  He's a very good example of an evil character interacting with a
good party and having a well thought out personality.


-- 

+-------------------------------------+------------------------------+
|  Mike Marcelais                     | mrmarcel@eos.ncsu.edu        |
|  353 Tucker, Box 04780, NCSU        | Fourth Bryan Productions     |
|  Raleigh, NC  27607                 | #include <disclaim.h>        |
+-------------------------------------+------------------------------+
| if the above address bounces, then try the address below:          |
| mrmarcel%eos.ncsu.edu@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu                              |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Note:  I might be moving to a different dorm room so the above     |
| Real mail address might change.                                    |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: rnmg1200@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (A Lady and her Walrus)
Subject: Re: What is with these Katana's?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 01:34:15 GMT

In article <BttGxK.D72@news.cso.uiuc.edu> maxson@cerl.uiuc.edu (K R Maxson) writes:
>
>  [Lots of nifty stuff about the swordmaking styles of Japan deleted.]
>
>Katana and tachi generally had blades between 24 and 30 inches long,
>with hand-and-a-half sized hilts.  [The wakizashi was largely a ceremonial
>weapon, used for hari-kiri or seppuku, although also used as a
>supplementary weapon in combat.  It was not used by the peasantry, and
                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is the only point where what I have read disagrees with you.  The wakizashi
was,
as you say a largely ceremonial blade _for the upper classes_, but according
to the book I mentioned earlier (can't find the bloody thing, or remember the
full name, or I'd give it), and various and sundry other books on the topic
(I think Dunn's Everyday Life in Traditional Japan also mentions it), it
was the primary weapon for the lower classes in Japan, since anything bigger
would be too costly to mass-produce, and anything smaller was too concealable,
and thus easily used as an assassin's weapon.  This is similar to the way most
European militia used the shortsword, mostly because it was cheaper.
Everything else sounds quite the same as I've heard it (although God knows I
couldn't memorize all those blade-making styles. :))

>was generally more ornate than the accompanying katana as it would be
>carried with its owner even inside another's house.]
>
>It is generally acknowledged that the Japanese swordsmith's blades
>were among the finest ever produced.  Traditionally, the tests of a
>fine blade were (1) cut a common blade in two without having its edge
>nicked, and (2) cut the stem of a lotus floating down a stream, the
>blade held erect in the running water.  There is a great deal of
>documentation on the first, but not the second test.

And there are several myths about dropping paper on it; if the blade cut the
paper in half, it was sharp.  I have no idea how much documentation there is
for this, however.

>But, more specifically, to answer your question in terms of Dungeons
>and Dragons -- just because.  The entire weapon damage system is so
>intensely moronic that I gag thinking about it.  1D6 from a longbow
>arrow?  Retch.

I tend to agree with the poster who said it had to do with the mysticism
surrounding the katana; there are so many legends that it's almost impossible
to distinguish truth from fiction.  Someone (sorry, I forget who) emailed me
mentioning that, during the Russo-Japanese war, the Russian soldiers supposedly
were told to block swords with their gun barrels.  When they tried it,
the swords just cut through their rifles.  Neither one of us is willing to
say whether this is true or not. :)  (Personally, I haven't the foggiest,
but anybody who's willing to say one way or the other, please, speak up.)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Tarresque - Anyone killed one?
From: gajensen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Date: 23 Aug 92 16:49:18 -0500
Organization: Miami University Academic Computer Service"

>I'm interested in knowing if anyone has ever actually killed a Tarresque in a
>non-Monty Haul campaign.  Any stories?

Well, not being a player, I don't have any stories on how I've killed a
Tarrasque, but I do have my own philosophy behind how an encounter with them
should go. As far as I'm concerned, the Tarrasque is simply a DM hint that the
party is starting to get a bit too powerful, or that they really, really
shouldn't go to the black mountain of unspeakable darkness just yet. 

I really get a kick out of players who write that they dish out so much damage
per round, and an even bigger kick when they start adding up the damage that
all the characters have done to the monsters in question. The first time my
current group did that, I started adding zeroes onto the end of the monster hit
point totals, and told the players I was doing so. They got that hint rather
quickly as well. 

In short, I really doubt that there could be a legitamate killing of a
Tarrasque. I seem to recall way back when we were novices at AD&D, and we were
using a monty-Haul type system. As soon as we heard of the monster in question,
we set out to prove it was nothing. It iced our party of five in just over
three rounds. We averaged about 20th level. Ah, the good ol' days.

Greg Jensen, aka:
	Silk, thief extraordinaire!!
From: dv52151@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Axly)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Selling Clerical Services
Keywords: Dosh for healing
Date: 28 Aug 92 16:12:11 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

nsecomb@metz.une.edu.au ( Nige.) writes:


>   In a party of adventurers, a party where the individuals share
>a working relationship rather than being friends, should the cleric be
>entitled to payment for his (sorry, their) healing services? or should they 
>just give the benefits of their divine faith to the heathens in the party
>who's contributions take the form of muscle and swordsmanship, arcane 
>abilities, or rogue attributes. If the Cleric does get paid, then should the 
>warrior also get paid for each physical threat to the party they eliminate, or
>each spell the mage casts etc, or should the cleric once paid for services
>rendered just not be entitled to the rewards or booty from a successful
>adventure.

If the other members aren't of his religion, it gets real sticky on whether
he should heal them period, unless they are willing to convert to his religion.
If they don't want to, I'd say it's within the cleric's character to ask
the heathens to fill the church's coffers. The cleric tends to due a good
deal of fighting in addition to his abilities as a healer, so I'd say he/she
was entitled to a full share. We all know the rogue isn't giving you his
abilities free of charge, he's pocketing everything he can get away with.

>(2) I personally hate evil dietys and the concepts behind them, and so 
>really don't care that much about them, (but still I accept as part of AD@D 
>and rpg's for reasons of game balance). BUT, for the benefit of those who 
>don't mind having evil PC clerics, please share your thoughts on this matter 
>because hopefully I won't be the only one interested in the correspondance on 
>this issue.

Hmm. I think evil clerics seldom come right out as "evil clerics". It's more 
likely that they'll play the good guy and be your buddy until you owe them
in a major way.

Axly
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: stefano@hal.astro.uiuc.edu (Stefano Casertano)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Deities
Date: 26 Aug 92 23:46:05 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.frp.dnd
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

In <1992Aug25.155525.28415@walter.cray.com> lrg@crud.cray.com (Lee Gordon) writes:



>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.

>Agreed (although I was a big offender in a recent post).  Our group (for no
>good reason) pronounces deity and piety the same way.  DEE-It-Ee, PEE-It-Ee.
>Evil gods are also known as Dietys (as in to die... :-) ).  This tends to
>mess me up in real life though.  The strange part is that my spell checker
>recognizes diety as a word.  Is it an adjective form of diet?

>	-Lee
Well, according to both Oxford Learner's and Webster's Unabridged,
it's DEE-It-Ee, not Day-It-Ee.  For once British and Americans agree...

Neither dictionary records a `diety'

Stefano Casertano
stefano@sirius.astro.uiuc.edu
From: boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Weapon Specialization
Date: 31 Aug 92 15:27:05 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <67301@hydra.gatech.EDU>, ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge A. Diaz)
   writes:
> I was reading over weapon specialization, and I noticed somehint that
> seemed kind of strange.  The way weapon specialization is described in
> the PH, I got the impression that a fighter can only specialize in
> ONE weapon.  He may become proficient in others, but he can only
> specialize in one.

   I think that depends on which rules you are looking at, 1st ed. or 2nd ed. 
In the 1st ed. rules, only one weapon could be specialized in, while in 2nd ed,
more than one weapon can be specialized in if the fighter has enough slots to
do it with.

                                        John "Nightwind" Boelter

--
*******************************************************************************
* John Boelter        a.k.a. Nightwind            boelter3945@iscsvax.uni.edu *
* Organizational Manager and contact person for everything and then some.     *
*******************************************************************************
* The individual who said we only use 10%  * "I hit it with my Sword+10 of    *
* of our brain's mental capacity, was      *  Super Slaying" - "It laughs" -  *
* probably 90% incorrect.                  * "I give the DM the rest of my    *
*            -Unknown comic on A&E-        *  pizza" - *munch* "It dies"      *
*******************************************************************************
From: acsoedf@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Eric Frohnapple)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Two Weapons
Date: 25 Aug 92 18:18:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	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?

Akryn
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: mgates@entiat.boeing.com (Michael Gates)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Why are their level limits?
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:21:22 GMT
	<1992Aug24.142442.12248@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Bellevue, WA
In-reply-to: gajensen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu's message of 24 Aug 92 19:24:41 GMT

>>>>> On 24 Aug 92 19:24:41 GMT, gajensen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu said:

gajensen> (kevin mcfadden) writes:
> 	Ok, this may be a faq but it has been a nagging problem.  What
> justifies the limiting of levels and classes of non human race
> characters?  Certainly not their racial benefits.  The way I see it
> is if you want a Dwarven Ranger, go for it.  Sure I can see why
> there would not be a dwarven Ranger just because of their lifestyle
> (mountains and rocks and such.)
> but it is still no reason for a dwarf to not be able to be a ranger.
> 
> So does anyone have a REAL good reason other than "the book says so"
> for all this?

gajensen> The best reason I can think of at the moment is that if you
gajensen> start to allow any race to be any class, plus let them
gajensen> advance as high as they want, no-one in their right mind
gajensen> would ever play a human. Think of it, Dwarf Paladin, immune
gajensen> to just about everything, plus save bonuses, other race
gajensen> combos, ad naseum. Plus, if you will note, Demi-humans live
gajensen> forever, at least as far as the average human is concerned.
gajensen> They would be in their adventuring prime for so long that
gajensen> you would quickly have a planet controlled by elven magic
gajensen> users using powers of ten to describe their current level.
gajensen> Think about it before you make such a drastic deviation from
gajensen> the guidlines outlined in the books.
 
	I long ago discarded various restrictions such as level limits
due to race, classes available due to race, stat requirements for classes,
and multi-class and dual-class restrictions. I have had no problem with
abuses of power. If a character is particularly strong then they will be
particularly challenged. If a character makes no sense in my campaign I
just tell the player so. And I have had plenty of human player characters.
--
et tu mgates?
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: maxson@cerl.uiuc.edu (K R Maxson)
Subject: Re: Role Playing in Middle Earth
Organization: UIUC Computer-based Education Research Lab
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:41:36 GMT

In article <5361@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>	Of course it would, since that's the way it worked in the books. MERP
>is a very down-scaled version of RoleMaster. If you want to know how the
>Ring works and how Sauron worked and all that, buy the MERP supplements
>like Lords of Middle Earth and so on; they are well worth the money if you
>want to do a middle-earth campaign. VERY well worth the money.

Although this doesn't really have anything to do with DND, I must say that
the ICE products dealing with Middle Earth completely and utterly fail to be
true to the JRRT's creation.  One look at the magic (both the game system's
mechanics and the implementation with players and NPCs) alone should tell
you that.  Not saying it might not be a worthwhile product in its own right
(although I don't think it is), but as a simulation of Middle Earth it is
right out.