HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou)
Subject: Re: "human-level" evil
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:25:34 GMT

In article <08OCT92.13064383.0219@UNBVM1.CSD.UNB.CA> LRPR@UNB.CA (LRPR000) writes:


	I heartily agree that only the vampire in your example should be
   shown up (maybe the ninja, if he's an infamous assassin, comtemplating
   his next cruel kill...)
	After all, your other examples are arguably not EVIL at
   all. And the problems really start with a paladin in the party, who
   can do this on a regular basis.  If the third level evil thief
   hiding behind a curtain can be discovered, you can *never* sneak up
   on a paladin.  Note that the PHB says that extra-planar creatures,
   and powerful NPC's (or PC's!) intent on DOING evil or good can be
   detected.  Thus it's very useful for detecting a disguised fantastic
   evil creature, hiding behind a spell or ability
   (polymorph, change-self, alter-self, etc.) It's also useful for
   tracking down that evil high priest hiding in the mazelike temple,
   about to sacrifice the princess.  My players tried to argue that the
   paladin, by stopping every 60 feet to concentrate, would show up
   ogres lying in ambush, etc. I disallowed it for game balance, but I
   feel free to make it more powerful (like seeing evil through walls and
   when invisible) when they really need it.

It's easy: Were the ogres in ambush:

a) Intent on doing evil?
b) Just doing their job?
c) Protecting their territory?

I'd say detevil detects only VERY evil things, and it detects through
walls only if the evil thing is VERY evil (like a demon or vamire lord).

I use it's limitation as other detect/see spells:

10 foot of wood, 1 foot of stone or a small layer of metal (lead being the
best) completely stops the spell.

It's better to FEEL evil (I never give a precise location, unless the
character know what he's looking at) through the door to the main room than
through a wall, no?


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

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: barnett@mummy.agsm.unsw.OZ.AU (Glen Barnett)
Subject: Re: Trolls' regeneration
Summary: Trolls: does acid really kill them, or don't they digest food? 
Keywords: Trolls, acid, digestion, regeneration 
Organization: The Australian Graduate School of Management
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:26:15 GMT

If acid prevents a troll from regenerating (as well as doing enough damage
to kill them), then how do they digest food? - Either:

a) They have weak (or non-existent stomach acid), and either have
   *major* difficulty in eating, or a completely different digestion
   system (in which case you ought to work out how they do, it may be
   important - and no fair just saying "magic").

OR

b) They have acid resistant stomachs/stomach lining, that "regenerates"
   in the presence of acid (which is basically what our own stomachs
   do - rapid cell division to replace those lost to the quite strong
   acid - even through a protective mucus). This means acid doesn't
   quite kill them completely - unless its a lot stronger than stomach
   acid.

Similar questions arise with many other xdnd monsters, if you think
about it.

Glen (barnett@agsm.unsw.oz.au)
   
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov
Subject: Re: Lich / Holy Swords
Originator: kjenks@gothamcity
Keywords: holy sword
Organization: NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:09:05 GMT

In article <7065@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>	If you really want a level number, well, considering the power of
>the item, I'd guess around 20th.

Funny.  In one game I'm DMing, the Paladin got his two-handed Holy Sword
(NSA) at 17th.  He LOST it at 20th.  Three evil titans and an archmage
took it from him.  Boy, was he mad.

-- Ken Jenks, NASA/JSC/GM2, Space Shuttle Program Office
      kjenks@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov  (713) 483-4368

      "There is no doubt; you have come to a place of ineffable Evil.
       Still, it is most certainly a place for high adventure and 
       untold treasures.  It is time to ready spells, draw weapons,
       check equipment, and set forth into the maze of peril that
       awaits you."
         -- AD&D Module T1-4, Temple of Elemental Evil, p.36
From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: A question about dual class characters
Keywords: Losing abilities, XP gain, etc...
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:44:26 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


One thing I don't understand:

In the PH, it says that once a dual-class character changes class,
he may never again advance in level in the old class.  OK, not a problem.

Multi-class characters gain in all levels at once.  OK, that's not a
problem either.

Now, you have a multi-class 10th level mage/10th level priest, and you
have a dual class 10th level mage/10th level priest.

They go into combat with a spectre.

MC (multi-class) gets hit.  He loses one level as a mage, and one as
a cleric, so he's now 9/9.

DC (dual-class) gets hit.  He loses one level as a mage, and one as
a cleric as well, so he's also 9/9.  However, he cannot regain that
level that he lost as a mage, because he can't gain levels in the old
class!  What the hell kind of sense does that make?  If the act of a character
switching classes forever prevents him from going up in levels, it should
"lock" his level in that class:  ie, he cannot go up OR down in that class.

Instead, DC should become a 10/8.  If he gets hit again, he becomes 10/6.

If he gets lowered below 1st level, he dies, but he'll never have lost those
10 levels as a mage.  It's the only fair way, IMHO.

So, my question:  Why did TSR say in the PH that the DC should lose one
of each level, just like the MC????


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | "I want you to remember, Clark... in all
Georgia Institute of Technology  |  the years to come, in your most private
Office of Information Technology |  moments...my hand at your throat.  I want
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |  you to remember the one man who beat you."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: "Shawn M. Witzki" <switzki@peach.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: The TSR Trap
Reply-To: switzki@cs.indiana.edu
Organization: Working on it. . .
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 22:03:22 -0500

johnf@apollo.hp.com (John Francis) writes:

>Players who *insist* on using the handbooks?  Not in my dungeon they don't.
>I *allow* them to use the handbooks, but I have the final say on what goes.
>Just because it says so in the book doesn't mean it's true in *my* world.

This is as it should be.  In fact, this is how it is presented.

>Those who regard 1st edition as complete with just three books are going
>against the official TSR line - those who regard 2nd edition as complete
>with the corresponding three books are following the TSR guidelines.
>From my perspective that makes the 2nd edition a definite improvement!

Agreed!

>> In the 2nd edition, how can you ever have a 'complete' set if TSR comes
>>out with a new guide for this or a handbook for that every month? Sure its
>>great to add to a campaign,but there is such thing as overload, folks. I'm
>>sure most dms can't keep track of every new rule, situation, and protocal
>>spelled out in about 7 or 8 books!  Even if it was possible, that kind of
>>book keeping would surely lead to burnout...

That's why the extra books are *optional*.  Buy (and use) only what you want,
without carrying around all of the extra baggage.  Who would want a 700-page
players' handbook?

Unfortunately, a retailer friend of mine told me that he hears these kinds of
complaints all of the time.  "There's just so many books for the game now. . ."
Personally, I *enjoy* having a wide variety of supplements and such to choose
from, especially if they're topical (unlike Unearthed Arcana, which was a
mish-mash of EVERYTHING).  If I want extra ideas for fleshing out mages, it's
available.  If I don't want it, I don't have to pay for it, plain and simple.
Who sold you on the premise that you HAD to buy EVERYTHING that came out?
(I have an idea [XAGYG YRAG], but it would be imprudent to suggest. . . ;-)

BTW, I am a DM myself, so I am quite empathetic with the plight that you've
described.  We *can't* be expected to keep track of every new rule, but,
fortunately for us, we don't have to.

Thanks for the post, I've been meaning to mention these things to someone for
some time now.  Cheers.

-- 
============================================================================
I don't procrastinate.  I just spontaneously     \\          Shawn M. Witzki 
reorganize my time.                 -- Unknown    \\  switzki@cs.indiana.edu
From: n36ia@pnet16.cts.com (Et3 Francis)
Subject: Kobalds in large numbers
Organization: People-Net [pnet16], NCTAMS EASTPAC
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:56:13 GMT

In a previous message Bertil says that since the numbers are working for
kobalds they would still win even if they had a few deaths due to buckets of
slime killing them. Sure this might work in the numerical sense BUT, how are
you going to convince the kobalds it would be in their best interest to be the
slime holder for that month(or whatever). I know that if someone told me to do
something dangerous like that they better have a DAMN good reason that I was
chosen or they can just find another bucket holder and I'm sure the kobalds
would feel the same way.
                                Brian
                        Member of KHFT(Kobalds have feelings too)

TOP SECRET .sig (sorry you don't have the clearance neccessary to see it)

UUCP: humu!nctams1!pnet16!n36ia
ARPA: humu!nctams1!pnet16!n36ia@nosc.mil
INET: n36ia@pnet16.cts.com
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: brunborg@solan.unit.no (]dne Brunborg)
Subject: Re: Intelligent opponents (was Re: Lich & Demi-Lich...)
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 92 12:06:25 GMT

In article <Bw6G46.D0q@acsu.buffalo.edu>, v073pzuy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Face In The Sky) writes:
 > 
 >		[stuff deleted]
 > 
 > 
 > As to "all those paladins and other do-gooders," in the 2nd-ed., Liches are of
 > variable alignment--actually, not so much "variable" as "indechiperable."  
 > Surely a true paladin has better things to do with his time than hunt down some
 > reclusive, long-dead mage.  Doing so simply because the Lich is "an abomination"
 > doesn't seem like quite a good reason to me.
 > 
 >
 > 
 > 					---Chet Zeshonski

Concidering the fact that liches are undead, means that they are connected to
the Negative Material Plane, and (the way I see it) will eventually be turned
chaotic evil. They've sold their souls in order to become immortal, if you like.
I don't know about any good liches (good mages have other, more attractive ways
of retaining their health and vitality, at least in my campaign).

That is also reflect the fact that they are subject to turning, and as only good
priests and paladins can turn undead (evil priests control them, but I don't know
about many evil priests who survived an attempt of controlling a lich!), the lich
must have at least some (if not lots of) connection to the fearsome Negative
Material Plane.

And the lich is not a "long-dead mage", the mage is "long-UNdead", and any "true
paladin", as you put it, see it as his (or her) responsibility to protect the
world from (the worst of all) undeads.

So, mayby the paladin must go "lich-hunting", as any lich will eventally become
a (BIG) threath to the established society and everything he (or she) belives in.

So long!

		Aadne Brunborg
		Norwegian Institute of Thechnology
		University of Trondheim
		NORWAY

	"If ye can't see it, it's right behind ye..."
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: spenceb@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Brad A. Spencer)
Subject: Re: Intelligent opponents (Birth of Dracolich)
Keywords: Lich, origins
Organization: University of Cincinnati
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 12:40:10 GMT

In article <1blhvnINN60f@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu> parkerma@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Mark A. Parker) writes:
>In article <15121@chalmers.se> d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)  
>writes:
>> In article <1992Oct12.233914.3@vortex.gici.com> laut@vortex.gici.com  
>writes:
>> >In article <14954@chalmers.se>, d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil  
>Jonell) writes:
>> >> [Is there any D&D trivia master who knows when the lich was invented  
>and what
>> >> the first adventure involving a lich is named?]
>> 
>> >[Greenwoods dracoliches]
>> 
>>   Ok, perhaps I was unclear. I used the word invent in the meaning:  
>"Ernie
>> Gygax invented the Beholder" and not "Mordekainen invented many spells".
>> 
>>   The only reference to Lich I've found in mainstream dictionaries have
>> been the word 'lichgate' which is the gate in the wall around a  
>graveyard
>> where the corpses are taken in. 'Lich' is supposed to be an Old English 
>> word for 'corpse' 
>	
>>   I haven't managed to find a reference to a supernatural monster called  
>lich,
>> so I have to assume that it is an D&D invention that got an old word for  
>dead
>> body slapped on since a name for an undead was needed.
>
>	Sounds about right. I think they did this with the wight as well.
>
>	I don't know what module the lich first appeared in. I think a  
>dracolich was first mentioned in one of the S series modules (either S1 or  
>S3, I can't recall which); it wasn't DETAILED in the module (no stats, I'm  
>not even sure if there was a good description), but there it stands. I've  
>found the demi-lich only in one of the most recent modules ("Nightmare  
>Keep", talk about a death adventure!!), which just came out within the  
>last two years, so it probably appeared somewhere before that. The actual  
>lich creation process appeared in Best of Dragon II, where you can  
>probably get a reference to which issue the article appeared in. Role-aids  
>put out a sourcebook called Lichlords, but I think it's out of print  
>(blast!). "Lords of Darkness" contains an adventure with a lich in it,  
>although it, too, is fairly recent.
>	Hope this helps to confuse you.
>					   Mark Parker
>					(Zdellet Saud)


Module S3,  Tomb of Horrors,   contains the first  _demi_lich  and was
fairly detailed in its description.   The _draco_lich, I believe, came
[much?] later, as a resident of the Forgotten Realms.


With further confusion in mind,


Brad Spencer

Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: skomedal@solan.unit.no (Knut Torstein Skomedal)
Subject: Re: Intelligent Opponents (A summary of some email)
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 15:40:10 GMT

In article <1bi2upINNad3@master.cs.rose-hulman.edu>, parkerma@NeXTwork.Rose-Hulman.Edu (Mark A. Parker) writes:
 > In article <1992Oct14.073234.3023@usage.csd.unsw.OZ.AU>  
 > barnett@agsm.unsw.oz.au (Glen Barnett) writes:
 > > From: Knut Torstein Skomedal <skomedal@solan.unit.no>
 > > By the Way: If your players use that nasty Stoneskin spell, try this on
 > >  for size:
 > > Stoneskin protects from magical weapon attacks, but isn't powerful  
 > enough to 
 > > stop +5, +6 and Vorpal weapons(House Rule picked up at a convention  
 > duel)
 > 	If you take it the spell name as literal (i.e. the caster now has  
 > skin as hard as rock), wouldn't regular vorpal and sharpness weapons still  
 > cut them? These weapons still decapitate/dismember stone beings on high  
 > rolls, so would they still work on the mage?
 > 	Just an honest question.
 > 					Mark Parker
 Well, the PHB says that a sword of sharpness doesn't work. I included the ruling
 that the vorpal sword (not neccesarily a +5 vorpal) and straight +5 or better
weapons go through the stoneskin. I also allow very powerful monsters to
hurt a stoneskinned character. Additionally, I have developed more powerful 
versions of the stoneskin spell with better degrees of protection.
That is how I do it in my campaign. Does that help?

Knut Skomedal
From: kern@arecibo.aero.org (J.C. Kern)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Turning Undead
Date: 8 Oct 1992 19:59:47 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Organization
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: kern.aero.org

How often can a cleric turn the same group of undead?

AD&D v1.0 DM's Guide says that you only get one shot and that you'll turn
from 1-12 undead and that's it.  SSI, which make relatively consistent AD&D
computer game modules, allow you to continue trying to turn at the rate of
1 attempt/round.  Then what happens if you should successfully turn an
undead, they run away for half a dozen rounds, and then return?  Can you
attempt to turn them again?

Open to all suggestions...


J.C. Kern                            email:  kern@arecibo.aero.org
The Aerospace Corporation            phone:  (310) 336-3573
P.O. Box 92957                       vmail:  (310) 336-5454 x63573
Los Angeles, CA 90009-2957    

                 "May you live in interesting times."
From: dshaffer@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Donald A Shaffer)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Thri-Kreen and blowguns
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:52:30 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

zweldron@ruhets.rutgers.edu (Matthew Charlap) writes:

>I play a thri-kreen air-cleric in a Dark Sun game. I just got my (last) weapon
>proficiency- the only available weapon for an air cleric left was a blowgun.
>It was decided that a Thri-Kreen could use one, so don't start to argue this
>point.
>What we can't decide on is: since the blowgun dart is in the air for a fraction
>of a second (under normal circumstances) can the paralyzation poison from the
>Thri-kreen be secreted onto a blowgun shot, and still be potent when the dart
>hits.
>We agreed to let the net decide this question. Please, only people familiar 
>with thri-kreen respond.
  Actually, wjenever I had a thri-kreen character, it was ruled that the venom
was neatralized almost immediately on contact with air, else we started 
trying to do the same tricks with bows &crossbows&and chatka.(Why a thri kreen
would use any other mjissile weapon is beyond me :).
******************************************************************************
Fencers do it in the      *   Don Shaffer
  FLESHE'       :)        *   dshaffer@andromeda.rutgerws.edu
(keep fencing an olympic  *
   sport                ) *   
******************************************************************************
From: enc369l@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Mr BDJ. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Alignments: A new look
Keywords: Alignments
Organization: Monash University, Australia.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:12:24 GMT

Geoffrey@yvax.byu.edu writes:

>Keeping all of this in mind, alignments no longer are simply magic's way of
>judging your character's moral desires.  Alignment now shows the general
>"line", path or direction you have chosen to follow.  Therefore, if a detect
>evil spell is cast, the caster will notice you.  The spell doesn't go into your
>mind and research your current intents and general demeanor of the day...it
>only looks at who you are aligned to and what the moral content of your deity
>just happens to be.

What about those that do not worship dieties ??

In my campaign, alignment was tossed out. Detect Evil Spells etc. still existed,but they only detected evil creatures like demons, devils, evil weapons etc. ie.those things that are some way linked to the lower planes.
I feel that alignment restricts a character somewhat. For example, a CE character may have a love of little children (say), and if he goes around helping them,
then some DMs will say "You can't do that, you are evil!", even if your character will take advantage of every other situation possible. This is a fairly 
extreme example.
From: akostur@fraser.sfu.ca (Andre John Kostur)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Psionicists and non-psi.
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:39:17 GMT
Distribution: rec.games.frp.dnd
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada

In article <MAREK.92Oct15141347@freedom.nmsu.edu> marek@nmsu.edu (Marek) writes:
>Hiya
>like the fact that in a normal AD&D world (NOT darksun), psionicist is a 
>very weak class (IMHO). If you can only attack non-psionicists with one
>actual mental attack (mind blast) then what good are you in a fight? True, 

Is this 1st ed or 2nd (sounds like first, but I just want to be sure)

In 1st ed, yes, only Psionic Blast can hit non-psionics.  However, if you
psi-blast that group of orcs, they're pretty much paste.

In 2nd ed, there's only one psionic attack which _doesn't_ hit non-psis, namely
Ego Whip (I think), all of the rest will do 'damage' to a non-psi.  Id 
Insinuation is my personal favourite, it's kinda like a one-person hold
monster spell, with no saving throw (just hope that the monster you hit
isn't psionic, or it starts blasting back at you... nasty surprise).  I'm
personally a BIG psionic fan (yes, I do have Dark Sun....)



      ^ 
     ' ` 
  **'   `**         Andre Kostur
 ***  _  ***
  *''***``*         akostur@sfu.ca 
   `     ' 
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Intelligent opponents (was Re: Lich & Demi-Lich...)
Date: 12 Oct 92 07:23:04 GMT
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology

In article <9OCT199223095035@juliet.caltech.edu> aaron@juliet.caltech.edu (Packman, Aaron I.) writes:
>What's the difference anyway?  I always thought the idea behind a lich
>was somewhat silly.

  The idea behind the lich was obviously to make a very powerful monster that
has it's focus on magic use, it's place in the ecology wasn't a consideration.

  [Is there any D&D trivia master who knows when the lich was invented and what
the first adventure involving a lich is named?]

>Any decent arch-mage should be able to keep him/herself
>alive indefinitely without resorting to lich-hood.

  IMHC getting lichdom is easier (and cheaper in the long run) than relying on
the other semi-secret version where a potion of youth is boosted with various
spells (the latter version comes from an discussion with hobbit@ac.dal.ca) and
those who opt for lichdom are those who want the fast and easy way to power
without regards to the consequences.

  There is an even easier way, though, and that is unlife aka shade-dom, but
the existance as a shade is even more dreary than the existance as a lich
and most shades get a death wish that does them in after several hundred 
years unless they have a purpose in unlife that they strive for.

>Aaron

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
		"Revive the Swedish-Madagascan Brigand Pact!"
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd