GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Lawful
Nov 16, 2008 13:59:07 GMT -5
Post by GT on Nov 16, 2008 13:59:07 GMT -5
Uhhh... who are users "72.30.87.107" and "208.111.154.16" (asks GT, with paranoid sweat running down forehead) ^__^
|
|
|
Lawful
Nov 16, 2008 15:54:17 GMT -5
Post by geneweigel on Nov 16, 2008 15:54:17 GMT -5
The age of those characters is lawful versus chaotic alone. When things said chaotic-evil in any OD&D product it was just a reiteration that chaotic was evil. I hardly think that they subscibed to Gary's article for spicing up the game in September 1977 by mixing up alignment variants so that leaves converting all these guys to AD&D in 1978. Do you think they converted any of those characters to AD&D? Probably not. I think the AD&D was going on in the Hommlet campaign test but I don't think they would've retroactively altered their characters from the Castle. So Tenser's "lawful" is actually mostly good in OD&D and translated it might have just fell into the cracks by the peanut gallery who did the ROGUES GALLERY.
|
|
|
Lawful
Nov 17, 2008 7:13:33 GMT -5
Post by Scott on Nov 17, 2008 7:13:33 GMT -5
I'm sure they were converted, at least partially to AD&D. And I think the nine option alignment system was in place before they converted, based on the stories of their conversions.
|
|
|
Lawful
Nov 17, 2008 9:16:29 GMT -5
Post by geneweigel on Nov 17, 2008 9:16:29 GMT -5
Yeah, it had to field tested but the 1977 article has Gary talking as if its strange and new even he doesn't feel comfortable with it yet at this point and is trying to see the future in Greyhawk:
Its almost as if he's trying to ret con that the "law versus chaos" pattern that was is now considered to be a more specific "lawful good versus chaotic evil" affair all this time. Now with all this greed for power rampant in the campaign (players versus DM mentality) who's going to nail down to the DM any thing thats going to give them less on the take? Nobody. They probably went with anything that wouldn't dilute their current position at the head of "law" which is now "lawful good" in the war against "chaotic evil".
|
|
|
Lawful
Nov 20, 2008 20:27:21 GMT -5
Post by GRWelsh on Nov 20, 2008 20:27:21 GMT -5
I like the "temptation plot," and I agree it's very Gygaxian. The werewolves hiding behind the crystal artifact in the ToEE do exactly this -- appeal to the greed of players. It's one of those tricks where you could just imagine EGG chuckling to himself, as it should obviously be too good to be true... This is one of my favorite Gygaxian encounters of all time. I just love the way the angelic beings are described in that scene, and their choice of words.
I've always felt that encounters with devils could take this kind of tone... contrasted with demons, who tend to be vicious, impulsive, slaughtering monsters, devil encounters could involve trying to tempt players, appeal to their vices and weakness, and corrupt them rather than kill them outright.
|
|
|
Lawful
Nov 20, 2008 23:46:37 GMT -5
Post by geneweigel on Nov 20, 2008 23:46:37 GMT -5
Over all the alignment diversity was an obvious move away from the original game's openness towards product identity which wasn't a bad thing to get it all rolling although it did give the bad guys something to "take" eventually screwing us all over.
Bunches of alignments has had its fun though!
A) I'm chaotic neutral. B) Chaotic. A) Chaotic NEUTRAL. B) Thats chaotic. A) No I'm chaotically neutral. B) You mean chaotic neutral leaning towards neutral? A) I'm neutral in chaos. B) Thats chaotic. A) No, neutral but in a chaotic way. B) Neutral with chaotic neutral tendencies? A) Yes, neutrally chaotic tendencies. B) No, thats a separate alignment chaotic neutral with neutral tendencies or the other side is neutral with chaotic neutral tendencies. A) No, neutral of chaos. B) You have to pick one that is going to mean something in the game. A) Chaotic but neutral. B) Oh forget it.
|
|