Zingers of Mass Destruction

In the hopeful eventuality that someone other than myself reads this blog, I suppose it might be a point of interest to know where the name comes from. It arose out of a night around the table playing Shadowrun, back when I went to a regular Tuesday game.

The atmosphere at those games was very relaxed, and there was the usual banter and friendly barbing common to a group of guys. The GM would often give out an extra character point to a player who managed to amuse him with out-of-game antics. I'm generally more of an observer type, and didn't really get into the banter as much. When I would get an extra point, it was usually due to some otherwise witty remark or music reference.

My best friend and his brother were also regular players at the Tuesday Game(tm), and because they were brothers and lived with each other, they seemed to relish the ability to go at each other's throat, verbally. They also were able to go a bit further with each other, comfort-level wise, because they were brothers.

I can no longer remember the words which were said that night, nor can anyone else who attended. The two brothers were going back and forth at each other with insults, rapid-fire style, and the rest of the players were watching the show as each tried to "zing" the other. It came as a surprise to everyone (myself included) when I stepped in and tossed down a line that managed to insult and top both of them at once, stopping the crossfire. Everyone broke up laughing, and a good time and memory was had by all.

It was because of this that later on, whenever something potentially worthy was said, it would get written down, Top Ten List style, on the whiteboard by the table. And after I'd stopped being a regular player, due to moving away, I came back to visit to find that one of the players had printed up business cards for everyone who had a permanent spot at the table, reflecting what they were known for, a nickname or tagline that best represented them. Mine stated:

The Bard

Zingers of Mass Destruction

They're standing in line

And now you know the rest of the story.

Dynamic vs Static power levels for casters

To my knowledge, pretty much all fantasy games which include magic users have a system where the amount of power a mage has is based primarily on the character's level, or at least is able to be increased by gaining levels/experience. D&D uses spells per day, DDO uses spell points, and the system I grew up on used a mana system, where the mana available was dependent upon your casting stat and level.

I've recently been considering the possibility of a static power level, mana that is directly based off of the casting stat and does not increase unless that stat increases. So far it seems like this would be very beneficial for low-level casters, but at around 10th level (for my present system) would end up starting to be less preferable than a mana per level situation.

At 1st level, a mage would have more mana than they could likely use in a day, but would still be limited by how many spells they know and what level of spells they can cast. Even so, this would be a godsend to most mages, as it would practically ensure their survivability at low levels, or at least their ability to contribute. One of the major things that gets argued is the fact that mages get the short end of the stick, at least at low levels. A fighter doesn't have to spend points to swing a sword, so why should a mage's primary weapon be limited to four "swings" in a day?

At about 10th level, the mage is about on-par with how they would have been in my present system of mana per level. But past 10th level, as the mage is running into higher- and higher-powered monsters, and gaining access to more high-level, high-cost magic, their mana pool is becoming more and more restrictive. I've come up with a way for mages to learn how to conserve mana, spending the equivalent of a Feat in order to gain a discount on mana costs, so they could eventually end up with, effectively, double their power (not really, they're just spending half as much per spell). I haven't been able to playtest it yet, but looking at the numbers it seems that this would allow high-level casters some leniency back, without being as nigh-invulnerable as the current system of mana per level. At present, it looks like a 20th level caster with this new idea/system would have about 2/3rds the power of a mana/level caster, if the mana conservation feats were taken.

On the one hand, it seems this could be a real balance issue, making mages even more weak than they are in D&D, at higher levels. On the other, it seems to reflect all of the fantasy literature on the subject of magic: the more you know and understand it, the less you want to use it.

Ability Scores and Casting - Intelligence

Intelligence as a casting stat is a much better fit than Wisdom, based on the idea that a Mage or Wizard needs to be able to understand and remember the arcane formulae used in their version of magic. My main complaint here is that Intelligence is used solely for both the number of spells an arcanist may know as well as how many can be cast. In most literature on the subject, it seems that using magic, channeling the power either through or from your body, seems to have a physical impact on the magic user. Raistlin, for example, though he's hardly the only one. Even Miyazaki's Howl had physical difficulties when performing more powerful spells.

My solution to this is rather simplistic: keep Intelligence for the number of spells known or learnable, but make Constitution govern the number of spells that can be cast. In retrospect, perhaps a similar thing could be done for divine magics, keeping Wisdom for the number of spells known, and Faith for the number that can be cast, to correlate with the idea that the power comes from the deity, while the cleric is responsible for applying the power through the proper use of the spells/prayers/whatever gained from reading their sacred texts.

On second thought, however, this works well for Clerics but not necessarily so aptly for Druids. Druids, as a part of Nature, seem to draw their energy from it or from within, so they seem more closely related to Mages in that manner. Perhaps Wisdom (knowledge of the cycle of life and nature) to determine spells known, and Constitution to determine spells per day.

3rd Edition Sorcerers are a strange creature. Per the way 3rd edition spellcasting seems to work, Sorcerers should, even moreso than Wizards, have their Constitution determine the power available since it is stated that their power comes directly from within, rather than channeling latent power through the use of mystic formulae. WotC explains this as being due (possibly) to dragon blood somewhere in the lineage of the Sorcerer, citing some Force of Personality as being the power behind the spells. Yet none of this really seems to indicate how or why Charisma should determine the number of spells known. It seems that Sorcerers learn through trial and error what they can and cannot do, mostly learning Wizard spells since those have a known effect that they can try to reproduce. Sorcerer as a class really doesn't have anything going for it in 3rd edition. A specialized Wizard could cast the same number of spells, have more powerful ones available, and even get some free metamagic feats, whereas a Sorcerer actually sacrifices effectiveness with the feats, and only gets a piddling amount of extra weapons to choose from, none of which are necessary or even desirable to most people. I think I'd just as soon drop the class entirely.

Bards are odd, as well. They actually have enough difference to stand as their own class, rather than being a variation of something else, but again they're Charisma based casters, and again there's nothing that explains why Charisma, whether it's Personality, Leadership, Beauty, or whatever, should have an effect on the number of spells known. At least Bardic Tradition, whether it's passed on from one generation to the next or learned at a Bardic College, can explain how those spells are learned, but I would almost think that Intelligence, serving in its capacity as Memory, would govern what a Bard could remember and cast.

Well, I've gone beyond Intelligence here. Let's sum up.

Clerics: Gain spells from Wisdom, gain power from Faith
Druids: Gain spells from Wisdom, gain power from Constitution
Wizards: Gain spells from Intelligence, gain power from Constitution
Sorcerers: Are silly
Bards: Gain spells from Intelligence, gain power from Charisma

As always, comments are welcome, and constructive criticism encouraged.

Ability Scores and Casting - Wisdom

Continuing from my last topic, it's quite apparent that Wisdom within the confines of the D&D system is inappropriately termed. While great wisdom would certainly be appreciated and desired in someone entering a faith-based profession, it seems to make little actual sense to base spellcasting ability on the Wisdom stat rather than, say, a stat called Faith. After all, what about all those evil clerics worshiping their dark gods? Are we supposed to gloss over the fact that they, too, have a high wisdom? And if wisdom is used to make good choices, why are they serving Bob the Unholy Terror instead of Bill the Nice Guy? Seems to me that as soon as it was pointed out they were on the Evil side of the fence, they'd immediately jump over to the hero's team.

Let's not forget, either, the typical image of Men of Faith. On the Good team, we have meek, pious men and women, selfless to a fault, who may or may not be the most beautiful, strong, intelligent, or even wise people, but who are devoted fully to worship and serving their god or ideal of choice. On the Evil team, we have something of a dichotomy, as there are two "typical" images that come to mind. One is the haughty, domineering priest who is as likely to gain converts by a show of power as through subtlety, trying to gain further power from the deity du jour by cajoling or even outright threats. The other is the sly, conniving sort, hiding in the background or posing as a member of a more reputable faith to slowly guide new souls to the Truth of Bob the Terror.

None of the above people are necessarily wise, but generally speaking they are all faithful, pious, or at least diligent in their servitude even if they do secretly plot to take over the deity's domain someday. Faith or pious diligence, then, makes more sense to base casting off of, rather than Wisdom. Even the ability to Turn or Rebuke would make sense to be related to Faith, as it is the belief in the symbol and the deity it represents which provides the power. Yet 3rd Edition has this ascribed to Charisma, I suppose to represent one's self-confidence and ability to strike fear into the unbeating hearts of the undead. Again, however, that seems to make very little sense, as it is faith in the god, not faith in oneself, which is the catalyst. Remember, practically every deity-based religion is about extolling the virtues of the god, and abasing your unworthy self to its perfect divine grace.

To be fair, most religious texts contain a great deal of wisdom, from day-to-day living to more profound concepts. Someone who is pious and diligent in reading their scriptures is likely to have something rub off, but it's no secret that memorizing directions doesn't make you able to follow them. Even if they retain the words, understanding them is different, knowing when to appropriately say them to sound wise is yet another matter, and actually living by them is something else entirely. Yet again, it is the diligently pious person who is most likely to achieve all of this, so that they may serve better, rather than the person who is naturally wise but faithless.

Another problem I have with Wisdom in D&D is 3rd Edition's use of it for the Spot and Listen skills. I understand that a wise person may be more intuitive, and have a greater perception of people's motives, understanding the nature of mortals. Yet I do not understand how this suddenly makes them more likely to see a trap, or hear a cat padding through a nearby room. Once again, it seems like a separate ability score is needed to measure a person's external perceptiveness, rather than the internal.

I don't have a problem with keeping Wisdom as a determination of the character's wisdom, as it can be a useful thing to know when trying to properly roleplay a character. And I'm certainly not trying to bash D&D - it was a wonderful game, and it's come a long way in its efforts to allow infinite customization and provide more realism in the gameplay. Since I'm actually working on a home-brewed system, however, it behooves me to figure out what it is I do and don't like about what is hands-down the most successful game of its type.

Next up - Intelligence

Intelligence vs. Wisdom in D&D

To start off, an article on the subject posted here: http://www.gamegrene.com/node/385
The article describes a situation (a trap) encountered by a party of four characters with varying Intelligence and Wisdom scores. Some of what it states I agree with, but other points I find lacking.

Now, I do think that the Cleric in the example is showing signs of intelligence by reasoning. However, the waters are further muddied by the idea that 'common sense' is simply a different level of reasoning. You aren't going to take a knife and stab yourself in the foot, because common sense dictates that it isn't going to feel good. Yet, you're showing reasoning abilities by understanding the effect of the action before you do it. Some people consider it to be something you know without having to reason, yet 'common sense' is learned just like anything else. A child under a certain age doesn't necessarily see this connection until it is taught, so we can't say that it requires no reasoning ability.

As far as aphorisms go, I've also heard, "Intelligence is the knowledge you possess. Wisdom tells you how and when to apply that knowledge."

You can therefore show intelligence by realizing that stabbing yourself in the foot is going to hurt. You show wisdom, then, by deciding not to stab yourself in the foot.

A Wizard with high Intelligence and low Wisdom may have at his disposal a wide array of highly destructive spells... but he doesn't necessarily take into consideration whether or not a maximized, heightened fireball is the best spell to use in a 20x20 room against a fire elemental.

In contrast, a Cleric with a high Wisdom but a low Intelligence may be well aware that something needs to be done, but may not know enough to do anything. They're not likely to act without knowing the full situation, and they may even realize that they simply don't have the knowledge necessary to enact any sort of plan.

The Cleric, in the example above, showed Wisdom by realizing that others in the party had more knowledge of the situation, and let those with the appropriate knowledge deal with the situation. Yes, sometimes the wisest action is to not take action.

It's also possible for someone to recognize that something needs to be done, and for them to try and do something despite having insufficient knowledge of the best path, which can cause problems on its own. This could be seen as someone succeeding at one wisdom check while failing the next, or even as a median level between 'average' and 'high' wisdom.

A person with low Intelligence and low Wisdom likely would react similarly to the fighter in the example: If they even recognize the problem, chances are good they only have a limited scope of how to deal with it, and they are likely to implement a solution without realizing (or caring) what the full effects would be.

A person with both high Intelligence and high Wisdom is the sort of person who can argue with himself endlessly, proposing argument and counter-argument, eventually making himself dizzy with circular logic.

Probably my favorite quote upon the topic, however, comes from an old movie, "The Seven Faces of Dr. Lao":

"Do you know what wisdom is?"
"No."
"Wise answer."

No longer using Orble

For a while I was cross-posting both here and on my former Orble blog, Gamer Bard. However, Orble decided I didn't post frequently enough and handed over my domain to someone else.

I understand that's part of their policy, and that new bloggers are encouraged to choose a "dead" domain from their list. And I will admit I'd somewhat expected it, since I hadn't posted there since February. The redistribution wasn't recent, though. It was taken over back in April, a mere 2 months past my last post

Now, in the competitive blogging world, I suppose that's a freakishly long time. But every time previously that I'd taken a while to post, I'd gotten an email telling me so. This time, no email, no warning, nothing saying "we have someone who wants to take over your blog, post now or else".

So, whatever. Just bear in mind, if you happen across that site, that anything past February of '09 isn't mine.

Lying, and its place in the D&D Alignment Table

Before we get into this, a quote from the Book of Exalted Deeds:

Ends and Means: When do good means justify evil ends to achieve them? Is it morally acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract vital information to prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents? Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but the goal of preventing a thousand deaths is undeniably a virtuous one, and the neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in such a circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most virtuous characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe? A world-shattering catastrophe? In the D&D Universe the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an evil act no matter what good it may achieve. A Paladin who knowingly commits an evil act in pursuit of any end no matter how good still jeopardizes her paladinhood. ... Whether or not the good ends can justify the means they certainly cannot make evil means any less evil.

Several years ago, this quote was used to express the idea that lying is, according to D&D rules, an Evil act and would therefore be anathema to Paladins and anyone else wishing to keep a Good alignment.

So the Gods of Goodness would rather have you tell a demilich where the last sanctuary of all that is Good is, truthfully, rather than lie and throw it off course, thereby saving the world (not to mention all of their worshipers, that, y'know, give them their power by worshiping them...).

Or, you could just not talk to the demilich at all, despite being tortured a million ways till Sunday. That's *perfectly* alright, because simply not revealing information, rather than lying, is listed as Good. Never mind that it means the demilich is going to kill you slowly and painfully. If you'd lied, there might have been a better chance of escape, but no... That would be Evil.

Because, of course, if you can't have a world without lies, you might as well not have a world at all...

Nice to know how much the Gods of Good love their worshipers. Veritable suicide is not the best way to serve one's deity. If nothing else, it means you can't serve any more.

As a side note, I have a history of disregarding things that WotC tries to pass off, and using my own common sense instead. Not just here, but in all the games they've produced that I've played, because WotC has a history of making some rather ridiculous rulings in the past. These are the same people that spent months playtesting their cardgames, only to ban a large number of those cards they produced from tournaments they sponsor.

One of the things I specifically remember from the old, 1st Edition AD&D books was the disclaimer that the handbooks were all meant as an aide to the creative process, and were not necessarily to be taken as the end-all, be-all of how things are. They had that, as I recall, in the introduction page at the front of the Player's Handbook. Seems to be lacking in 3rd Edition, strangely enough.

Lying is capable of hurting people, yes. So is telling the truth.

One of the first lessons given in first aid training is to reassure the patient. No matter what their condition is, you always tell them they're going to make it. It's called psychological first aid. Why is this done? Because if the person believes they'll pull through, they have a better chance of doing so. If the person knows they're likely to die, they may give up hope, losing the will to live, when they could have been saved. To say to them, "Hey man, this looks pretty bad. I don't think you're gonna make it." can be lethal.

I personally believe that lying should not be considered Evil. If it has to be aligned to any extreme, I think it should be considered a Chaotic act. Even that, though, I disagree with. It may not be lawful according to the laws of a nation, but I don't consider a person's Lawfulness, as it applies to the game, to be based upon their adherence to the laws of a nation. Lawfulness, to me, is simply adherence to a set of rules/laws or a code, which may be based upon the laws of the character's environment, or may be a personal code they developed. As long as they stick to it, I consider them Lawful. If there's nothing in their code which prohibits lying, then lying is not unlawful.

Personally, I see the act of lying as akin to a tool. A hammer is not in itself lawful, chaotic, good, or evil. It is the purpose to which that tool is put, the effect it causes, and the intent of its use which determine the alignment of the action taken. At that point it is not the tool which is attributed with the alignment, but the person who used it.

Unless the Paladin had taken an oath never to tell a lie, or unless their deity had lying as a particularly abhorred act (up there in the Unforgivable Deeds list), I don't see that a Paladin telling a lie should cause them to Fall. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be any Paladins, or at least not for long.

If there is a particular deity that specifically has a problem with lying, fine. Paladins of that deity should get penalized for lying. But that's why there are other deities. Just because one God says that lying is bad, doesn't mean another does, despite having many of the same goals and possibly the same alignment. Don't confine all Lawful Good characters to the dictates and dogma of one deity, especially when it may not be that character's deity.

Further, any deity that has War as one of their domains cannot honestly claim to be free of lies.
Misdirection is a part of combat. Any time a person makes a feint to throw off the enemy, they're lying. Should people who are Good (or Lawful, if you prefer) start calling out their shots to the enemy?

"I'm aiming for your head now! ... Good block! Now I'm going for your right leg..."

Quite honestly, without some measure of misdirection and deception in combat, a person's moves become predictable to a fault, and they are going to fail. But... at least they won't be lying to their enemy.

That's the type of thinking that gave rise to the term 'Lawful Stupid'. You don't have to fight your enemy on their terms.

Indiana Jones. You know the scene. The burly guy with the scimitar spends a good minute showing off. Rather than take out his whip and get into a contest of skill based upon the enemy's groundrules, Indy whipped out his gun and shot him. When that movie showed for the first time, theater audiences cheered.

You don't think of Indiana Jones as a Paladin type? *shrugs* He had his faith, and it protected him. The Ark didn't kill him. He was crusading for goodness, and for his code of law, putting holy relics and artifacts where they belonged, "in a museum," rather than leaving them in the hands of the thieves and murderers that stole them.

At any rate, feinting in combat, whether it's a one-on-one duel or the tactical false retreat of an army, is lying. I'm not arguing that violence itself is evil, although there are enough arguments out there for that. What I'm saying is that using misdirectional tactics is lying. Acting is lying. Roleplaying is lying.

Actually, as for violence, the Book of Exalted Deeds actually tackles that quandary, stating that it is the intent of violence that determines whether it is a Good or Evil act. Yet, lying is not given the same relativistic treatment?

Yes, D&D is a game originally based on moral absolutes. Yet, it's a game which gets constantly criticized and remodeled in order to make it 'more real'. Well, if we want to make it 'more real', we're going to have to realize that the original black & white ground-rules may be in need of some Crayolas.

I'm not asking for the system of alignments to be thrown out. All I'm saying is that I believe lying, in itself, is not inherently of any given alignment. I'm asking that people, from DMs to Players, have an open mind and allow for a wider interpretation of the alignments, especially when considering extenuating circumstances.