From: gelinas@CAM.ORG (Daniel Gelinas)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: more clarification of Law-Makers
Date: 28 Dec 92 07:52:57 GMT
Organization: Communications Accessibles Montreal, Quebec Canada

Let me start off by saying thanks to those who have already replied.  From 
the few I've gotten so far, it seems I might have to explain myself a bit 
futher.

1- Limited Polymorph: Yes I agree on the surface it looks like a chaotic 
ability. I agree that being able to assume any form whenever you please to do
whatever you like is chaotic, in fact it is pretty much as chaotic as you
can get.  But that is not what this ability does.  Consider the facts

	1- They are Lawful Neutral and thus restricted to acting within
	   that alignment.  If they don't then it is not my problem. A
	   Law-Maker cannot change into anything he pleases whenever
	   he wants(as per magic user 4th level spell).  He is limited
	   to humanoid, he is futher limited by size, and further still
	   by number of times he can do this.

	2- They want to provide the world with as much order as they can,
	   since (depending on what world you play) only about 50 - 70%
	   of most populations are human then it *might* follow that they
	   would try and develope a means of influencing other races without 
	   disrupting them at the same time(and thus cause more chaos).	

	Considering arguement 2 I tried to provide them with a way to do
so without disrupting a society.  It would be impossible for any of them to
enter particular societies without doing thing.  Many elves, especially drow
are untrustworthy of humans, so are dwarves, and such.

2- What is this class all about, why did you make it?

	I made this class for a couple of reasons. The first is that it is a
unique class, the only other class which comes close is a bard.  Much of
my character planning was based on a bard.  The only problem is I HATE BARDS.
No offense to bard players I love them, but I don't like playing them.

	The reason I do not want to use clerical spells(sorry for those who
replied they think this might be more appropriate, I did do some thinking on
it) is because he then basically becomes a paladin.

	To date there exists no class of fighting wizards.  We have clerics,
who really aren't that bad at fighting, we have paladins, and we have rangers.
This is why I have avioded clerical spells.  I did however see the danger of
fighters being able to cast lightning bolts and fireballs( Yes I have DM'ed
players that just stand there with a wand and blow things away) so I wanted
to limit their spellcasting abilities.

	I also wanted to provide players with an alternative to the 
fighter/mage multi-class(the thieving abilities are minor and these guys don't
act like thieves).  The fighter/mage multi-class is much stronger than this
one (again they can cast any school they want namely Ivo/Evo and necromancy),
and I don't really think that this should be the only way. (BTW if you check
experience at 8th 9th and 10th levels you will notice that this is pretty close
to the multi class requirements)(At least I think it is those levels).

	I did by no means try to create a super class, I limited weapons, armour, spell level(which will probably be comming down to 5th), alignment, magic 
items, spell school and even their actions(as they are not free to do as they
please).  I even went to far as to make it very difficult for them to act in
any other way(mediation time doubles). I am still in the process of making more slight restrictions.

In short I wanted to give humans another possibility.


3- Notes on class abilities in respond to "I think it is too strong" and
   "what can't they do!"

Some people have responded by saying that this class can do too much, while
I respect what you have said, I would like to offer up several arguments.

1- What can this class do that a bard can't do.
Answere: They fight better, their saving throws are better(which I am thinking
to change to fighter only), they can polymorph.

2- What can bards do that this class cannot.
Answer: They can cast any school of magic(love those fireballs and lightning bolts).  They cast from first level on. They have charming abilities, and can be
of any alignment.

Comparison: For both classes the thief abilities are the same(execpt for read languages)(might I also add that rangers also have these abilites).  What I would
say is take a given amount of experience say 1 500 000 and give that to each 
lass and compare what they get.  I have done this and these are my results:

1- The bard can outcast the Law-Maker anytime.  He's got more spells and it 
takes his less time to study(Law-Maker must meditate 2 hours at that level
before studying his spells).

2- The Law-Maker will outfight the bard anytime.

3- The bard can charm the Law-Maker, and the Law-Maker can shapechange.

Conclusion: With same amount of experience on each side it is an interesting
fight to look at. ***Note** A Law-Maker would not fight without a reason, and
would not try to kill the bard unless absolutely nessecery(First section).

	I would like anyone who responded to me to read this(I should have put
this at the beggining, oh well :-) and if you still feel the same way please
let me know.  I might then consider any more changes you feel are needed.

	Let me also put emphasis on ALIGNMENT.  I agree that if these guys
could do as they pleased they would be too powerful.  Penalties are in
place if they go out of alignment. The penalties are very crippling as well.
They cannot attack without provocation, they cannot do whatever they please,
and they do not possess extremely powerful spells.  You will never see a
Law-Maker charging over a hill with a two handed sword in hand, casting
magic missiles, and fireballs.

NEW STUFF: One person who responded to me came up with something I had been
considering doing to solve the spell problem, that is redefine my own school
of LAW.  This is going to be pretty hard to do, but I have a lot of free time
right now so what the hey.  I will be posting this list as soon as possible
to get some feedback on it.  My reasearch will mainly be based on the clerical
sphere of law, along with the innate abilities of Lawful Monsters(some dragons
ect ..).

I would like to thank anyone who hast sent, or posted replies, for their 
critisisms and I hope to hear from you again.  ANY COMMENTS ARE APPRECIATED
ON ANYTHING WHATSOEVER DEALING WITH THE CLASS.
To note, my definition of lawful neutral is taken from dragon magasine #163,
which contains a explanation of alignments.  WILL POST THIS ACTICLE
IF REQUESTED, CONTAINS ALL ALIGNMENTS.


To the person who asked about leadership: Sorry lost your message, I read it
and it was then unfortunately purged from the system.
Lawful people put LAW above everything else.  They do not need a leader,
they could have one, but I feel that it is not needed.  The LAW is their
guide.  They also are very structured(which is Lawful), but IMHO I do not
think this means they must have a leader, but that they must act in a structured manner, collectively(as not to repeat things), and act as orderly as possible.
They do give each other orders(they do have hierchy) but there is no need to ONEruler.  At present(in my world) there and only 20 Law-Makers controlling the rest of them.  The more they spread out, the more I think they need to be able to
responsibly make descisions(which cannot be made by one man who sits on his but
all day, after all he can't be everywhere).  Thanks for you post and your evalu
ation. 

Yes, it's finished now, you may go on....

Daniel Gelinas