AD&D Magic Items: Rings

Among the most powerful of the magic items one can find is the magic ring. These legendary magic items are inspired by Norse and Germanic legends, and also inspired Tolkien to make the most legendary ring, the One Ring, which is the star of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. On the surface, rings are seen as just some magic jewelry, but their utility and use by any character class or race make them very potent. They are, however, notoriously difficult to identify and generally speaking they are generic and unadorned.

 

All magic rings will normally radiate magic, but they all look the same, so determination of a ring's power must be done by experimentation or trial and error. The ring must be properly worn on a finger to use. This process tends to drive players and DMs alike insane, as the item is useless unless the players are willing to play along, and the DM can keep the secret only so long before nearly bursting at the seams. Rings do not radiate good or evil (unlike the One Ring in Tolkien's saga, which would probably radiate evil as it possessed a portion of Sauron's immortal spirit). No more than two rings can be worn at any given time, and no more than one per hand. If more than two are worn, then none will function (consider this to be sort of a magical short circuit), and if two or more are worn on the same hand, the same result occurs. Rings worn in any other fashion (on toes, as earrings, or even as nose rings) do not function as magic rings. This is important to know, since I remember that at least one older module had a minotaur with a magic nose ring...

Rings function as one of the highest level powers in the game, operating their functions as if cast by a 12th level spell caster, unless the powers require a higher level of magic use. These powers would thus operate at the lowest caster level necessary to cast the spell/ability in question. For instance, a ring of three wishes utilizes the wish spell which is a 9th level magic-user spell. In order to cast a 9th level magic-user spell, a spell caster must be at least 18th level, so these functions of the ring operate as if they were cast by an 18th level spell caster (for determining if dispel magic and the like functions).

Magic rings, as stated earlier, can be used by all character classes, humans, demi-humans, and humanoids of all sorts. They can also be worn by monsters with digits who may actually benefit from their magical powers. An example of this is a troll wearing a ring of vampiric regeneration which will regenerate from its normal natural ability and also regain hit points from strikes made on targets. The caveat to this rule is that rings worn by gnomes, dwarves, and halflings have a 20% chance per use of malfunctioning due to their magic resistance. Such malfunctions cause the ring not to work. This also applies to cursed rings, so these can be removed if the ring fails to work, and the wearer is provided a hint of something being wrong with the ring (a cool way to bypass an otherwise sticky gotcha moment).

Some rings are so powerful that they are marked as such and the DM can modify these rings to reduce their potency by changing them. Such changes might include a reduction in range to touch (presumably with the hand wearing the ring), or providing only a limited number of charges before becoming useless. These rings include djinni summoning, human influence, mammal control, multiple wishes, telekinesis, three wishes, and the ring of wizardry (which is the only ring with a class restriction; usable by magic-users only).

There are only three cursed rings - contrariness, delusion, and weakness. As far as magic items go, that's pretty good odds against finding a cursed ring, until you realize that combined they make up a full 20% of the listings for random treasure rolls (yikes!). Yep, that means 1 out of every 5 rings should be cursed! Worse, these rings also function as a normal ring type of another sort, so the curse is not immediately recognized if role-played correctly. Most cursed rings require a remove curse to be rid of them. Only the ring of delusion can be removed at any time, but its comical curse is to have the player play along with the delusion, and few characters would willingly remove a magic ring if forced to by their companions when it is "obviously" working correctly.

The rest of the useful magic rings can do some pretty potent things. There are rings attuned to the elements (and corresponding elementals), some can protect you from falling or fire, allow you to move freely under hindering magic or circumstances, turn you invisible, protect you from physical attacks or spells, allow you to regenerate from death or catastrophic injury, store spells for later use (any class), reflect spells back to their caster, swim like a fish, stay warm in bitter cold conditions, walk on water, or see through solid objects. And these aren't even the most potent rings which can summon a djinni servant when desired, charm humans/humanoids at will, control mammals at will, cast multiple wishes, move things with your mind, or double a level (or levels) of spells for a magic-user. Of course, all of these powers can only be used once per round, and using them is the only thing a character should be able to do except maybe move or speak. Some require attention or concentration on the task at hand, so using the ring is all the character can do. Most rings are simply worn for the effect they provide, and it is continuous without activation (such as a ring of protection or fire resistance). Others require command words or mental activation. Some rings come with severe drawbacks if used too frequently - for instance, overuse of a ring of x-ray vision temporarily reduces the user's Constitution score (and thus might start to affect total hit points)! Many rings have only one power; some have multiple powers. Others sound like spells cast upon the person, but may also have some non-spell effect that works in conjunction with the spell-like effect. In any case, rings are very powerful and should be respected as such.

Creation of a magic ring should only be performed by the highest levels of spellcasters. Obviously enchant an item and permanency come into play here, along with the magic spells and abilities that one would normally imbue into the item. Few rings are clerical in nature, with the exceptions perhaps of the ring of regeneration and ring of free action which are both cleric spells, and perhaps a ring of mammal control since that deals with non-magical animals (which is clerical or druidic in nature). All other ring types are more or less permanent magical spells held in a ring. But don't believe that rings are trivial to make - most have several functions or spell abilities built in, and any DM worth his salt is going to make it very difficult to make a ring when you should be questing for such power in a deep dungeon or dragon's lair. Remember all the trouble Bilbo went through to get the One Ring....

The UNEARTHED ARCANA had a number of additional rings, including some that seemed just strange, unnecessary, or just weirdly specific. These new rings allowed their users to cast animal friendship on normal animals, duplicate specific functions of other rings, blink, blend into the background like a chameleon (or robe of blending), give one the non-magical powers of an elf, jump, shield your mind from spells and psionics, batter down obstacles with a ram-like force, cast shocking grasp up to 3 times per turn, sustain a person without nourishment or liquids, and reveal and prevent all lies in its presence. One additional cursed ring appears in the form of a ring of clumsiness, which disguises itself as a different type of ring and can be destroyed with a dispel magic spell. The ring of Boccob is a unique ring that does not detect as magic, and whose nature only reveals itself when some magical device contacts the wearer. Contact will prevent the magic item from working and may reduce it to a non-magical item permanently unless it makes a saving throw! This ring even has the power to affect artifacts and relics!

Rings that exist in other editions of the game, such as the ring of flying or ring of levitation, do not exist in AD&D. They do, however, exist as possible powers of the ring of contrariness, so that might be a clue that one is dealing with a cursed ring and not a bona fide magic ring. One other ring allows flight -  the ring of elemental air command. One ring has some bizarre functions that don't replicate spell powers - the ring of shooting stars. Outdoors at night, this ring is able to generate dancing lights, light, ball lightning, and shooting stars. Those last two functions are specific to this ring only. Indoors or underground at night, the ring can produce faerie fire or a spark shower. This last power has no spell equivalent, and is unique to this ring. I would assume that such a ring could be created by a cleric of Celestian the Far Wanderer, or perhaps an elven cleric of Corellon Larethian. The powers seem to be a combination of clerical, druidic, and magic-user spells. Some rings have unique sub-powers or effects that are tied to their operation, or variations of powers based on how they were made. For instance, the ring of regeneration has two varieties: the regular regeneration ring, and the vampiric regeneration ring. One enhances the healing powers of the wearer to regenerate like a troll, the other allows one to heal from attacking other creatures, absorbing half the hit points of damage caused as healing to the wearer's body.

There is no doubt that a magic ring is not a low-level magic item. Surely, there are some varieties  that could be presented to low-level parties - these include a +1 ring of protection, ring of feather falling, ring of fire resistance, ring of invisibility, ring of warmth, or ring of water walking. These items are not too overwhelmingly powerful but are very useful to survival at low levels. They also don't provide a terribly large XP value to those who keep them (but could mean a windfall if such were sold for the GP sale value). Most magic rings, however, are very powerful and useful magic items of a permanent nature, so a DM has to be careful when inserting one into their campaign. Also note that since up to two rings can be worn per individual, giving out multiple rings may backfire and make one character more powerful than they deserve. Luckily, the magic powers of rings do not stack with themselves, so no one can run around with two rings of protection +6 and get a -2 AC while basically naked. Effects also may not work in certain conditions - for instance, a ring of protection does not provide an AC bonus when worn with magic armor (although the saving throw bonus still works), however a ring of protection will work with other items of protection, such as cloaks of protection and bracers of defense. (NOTE: This is a big difference between original or Basic D&D and AD&D).

Rings, therefore, are some of the most powerful of the magic items in the game, playing second fiddle only to the most potent miscellaneous magic items or artifacts and relics. They are relatively easy to use for any class or race (including some monsters), but are a pain the ass to identify properly until many experiments and trials are done, sages are consulted, and divination spells are cast. Almost all are permanent items that one can use indefinitely (although some are charged and others have limits to use or penalties if one abuses the power). The only time a ring will not work perfectly is if it is worn by a dwarf, gnome, or halfling, or if it enters a zone of anti-magic. Although a dispel magic spell can destroy some rings, most rings are simply temporarily deactivated when in the area of such a spell, and since such magic must affect a 12th-level caster, this may not always affect them. Rings are some of the most useful and reliable magic items, with hardly any "gotchas" worked into them (something that Gary Gygax is well known for). Those that do have drawbacks are simply in place to keep abuse of the magic ring to a minimum.

AD&D: G1-2-3 Tournament Characters

 

One of the first adventures published with the ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rules was G1: STEADING OF THE HILL GIANT CHIEF, followed thereafter by G2: GLACIAL RIFT OF THE FROST GIANT JARL, and G3: HALL OF THE FIRE GIANT KING. I came to the game in 1983, roughly five years after these classic gems were published. My first introduction to this series of modules was through the adventure G1-2-3: AGAINST THE GIANTS, which I co-DMed with my friend Steve. I can honestly say that these were some of the best adventures I've ever used or played. The premise behind them is simple - giants are raiding the humans lands, cooperating in large numbers never before seen. Since these are stupid creatures of chaotic evil bent, the lords of the land want to find out who or what is responsible for organizing these raids and eliminate them to make the lands safe again.

Now there are some elements of this adventure that some may not be aware of. First, and foremost, these were the first adventures written with AD&D rules in mind. Gygax was in the midst of finishing the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE when these adventures were written, the last of the big three books that comprise the "core rules" of the game. He had already written the monster compilation from original D&D, calling it the MONSTER MANUAL under the pretext of creating a new version of D&D called "ADVANCED" DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. It was, however, more akin to D&D than AD&D. The PLAYERS HANDBOOK had already been finished in 1978 and detailed all the new races and classes the characters could choose, the new spells they could use, and the various sub-systems which were a relic of D&D supplements (namely psionics rules, surprise rules, CHAINMAIL combat rules, and wandering monster encounter tables). So, while completing this gaming masterpiece, Gygax managed to change the rules of the game midstream on a number of occasions. These changes are evident in the early (pastel cover) modules written during the finalization of the AD&D book line, and the contradictions concerning such things as death at zero hit points, or the pesky Combat rules.

It was obvious that the characters created for the adventure anthology G1-2-3 were not necessarily rolled using the same rules stated in the Player's Handbook. In fact, the characters were what one would normally expect given D&D rules plus the supplements and DRAGON Magazine articles written at the time. This allowed some errors to creep into the mix. Also, these pre-generated tournament characters are not legal according to the rules as written. There are a few glaring errors that players of AD&D would recognize immediately. First off, the number of spells that the clerics have are completely wrong. The chart being used for number of spells is coming from the D&D Greyhawk Supplement and does not include bonus spells for high Wisdom (as stated in the PHB). Clerics are all listed as having "silver crosses" as well, which is a Christian ideal taken from the little brown books of the original D&D boxed set. This was later changed to the generic term of "silver holy symbol" in the PHB. All characters are listed as carrying "wine flasks" (later renamed as "wineskins" in the PHB). Cloyer Bulse the Magsman is listed as having a short bow which, as a thief, he clearly cannot use per the PHB rules (but no such weapon restriction appears in the D&D Greyhawk Supplement). It may be possible that his 18 Dexterity simply allows him to use a weapon for which he cannot train with his non-proficiency penalty of -3. The alignment of the high elf, Fonkin Hoddypeak, is listed as LG, but he speaks CG (which is probably the alignment that should have been listed on the chart). Some of the cleric spells listed (such as "death touch") were renamed in the PHB ("slay living," reverse of raise dead). The use of rings of protection with magic armor was not forbidden until the DMG was completed in 1979, yet these seem to function as part of Fonkin Hoddypeak's AC listing (elf fighter/magic-user with magic splint mail +2). The final glaring mistake is the ranger, Beek Gwenders of Croodle. This half-elf ranger cannot possibly be 9th level as listed - the maximum level a half-elf can reach as a ranger is 8th level, and that is with a maximum Strength score of 18. He should be listed at 7th level which, with near max hit points, would still allow him to be useful against giants. Half-elves were introduced in the D&D Greyhawk Supplement, but the ranger was never a part of D&D canon rules. This class was written up in a DRAGON Magazine article, and most likely added to the list at the end as a last minute addition after the creation of the PHB introduced the class as an official rule (without editing, of course...).

The ability scores for these characters are ridiculously high - AD&D campaign characters were probably few and far between at this time (using method I - 4d6 drop the lowest, arrange as desired only came out in the DMG), and even less likely in an established D&D campaign with 3d6 used for ability scores rolled in order. I notice that Gygax tended to make superhero characters in his modules. The lowest Constitution of any of these characters is 15, and few have any scores in the 8-10 range (except the demi-humans, curiously enough). These humans were apparently the cream of the crop, civilization's best defense against the predation of monsters from the wilderness.

I find that there are other peculiarities in the listing of equipment which are not wrong, but indicative of how the game was played back in the day. There are quite a few instances of duplication of items (oil flasks, rope, spikes) which, quite honestly, would be seen as unnecessary in most of today's games. But the old school D&D mindset is different than modern play styles. Oil was used as a weapon or a deterrent in dungeon scenarios; it's also very useful for burning trolls, but risky to carry in large quantities with fireballs erupting around the party. Rope is used for more than climbing; one might need rope to bind prisoners, haul people or treasure out of pits, hold portals shut, or form trip lines across corridors. Curiously, the 10' pole is missing from the equipment lists of the tournament characters, but one of the clerics has garlic, wooden stakes and a mallet (presumably to tackle any vampires they might encounter). Iron spikes are carried by most characters, most likely for wedging doors open or shut in a dungeon. The generic term "sword" is used, when it is probably meant to be a "long sword" as in the PHB. It is not specified that the magic-using characters are carrying their spell books - but that is previously explained in the description of the "safe cave" that the characters find outside each adventure location. With their spell books "secured," they can prepare their spells and leave the books in the cave, freeing them up to carry more treasure back with them.

Now, I came to a realization the night before writing this article. I have been creating character sheets for these tournament characters from the list in the back of G1-2-3, mainly to see if I've been missing any rules over the years. While doing so, I noticed a trend in the levels of the characters. Most of the first five characters are near the high end of the level spectrum; the remaining four characters are all listed as being 9th level, with some class redundancies. This struck a chord in me, especially after having re-read the sections on wandering monsters in the Appendices of the DMG. Gygax had apparently "put his money where his mouth is" on this one! These characters were generated using his wandering monster list for encountered character-type parties! The rule I refer to is on page 175 of the Dungeon Masters Guide:

Number Of Characters In Party: There will always be from 2-5 characters in a character group, with men-at-arms or henchmen to round the party out to 9.

If one assumes that the first 5 characters listed are the actual player characters - Cleric 12th, Thief 13th, Cleric 12th, Fighter 14th, and Fighter/Magic-user 5th/8th, then the remaining characters at 9th level represent the henchmen of the player characters, with levels probably determined from the formulae on the wandering monster encounter charts as well. The level of the henchmen characters is supposed to be 1/3 that of the master +1 for every 3 levels of the master if above 8th (round down). In this case, the 12th level cleric or 13th level thief would have a henchman of 4th + 4 = 8th level (close, but not exact). The 14th level fighter would have a henchman of 5th + 4 = 9th level (spot on). The 5th/8th level F/MU equivalent level is calculated by averaging the levels and adding 1 for each additional class beyond the first, in this case 7th. However, such a character is very nearly at the limit of their levels anyways (9th in MU is the highest this elf could achieve) so I would assume that a single class henchman would equate to the others in experience. The average minimum level requirement for this adventure is 8th-9th, so it is likely that the characters were all bumped up to meet the minimum for the highest level of adventure (G3 at 9th level minimum). Just the fact that typical party size of nine characters was illustrated so well without additional explanation as to why there are nine characters (and not 6-8 or an even 10) just sort of hits the mark for me.

I like it when I can pick examples out of the modules and see where the rules came from that inspired these decisions. It makes sense, and I can see that the author was trying to create cohesion in the rules set. However, the decision to make the characters along the lines of original D&D and include them in the back of an AD&D adventure that had seen print without so much as an explanation of why they differ from the rules as written is confusing, and probably not the fault of the author (as I'm sure that most of the publications released at this time were a company decision to update previous products to the current rules and make more money). As one of the oldest examples of a module in the AD&D line, it is always useful to pick apart the decisions of the author and see how or why he came to his conclusions and how it would impact the adventure. For instance, it is obvious that if you are going against giants, you would recruit a dwarf with a dwarven thrower hammer +3 that does triple damage when thrown at giants, or a ranger with their damage modifier against giants based on their level. It's also a good idea to hire on a magic-user or two to do area-of-effect damage in large quantities, or have high strength fighters with multiple attacks and magic weapons. Low Armor Classes are a must when fighting against giants, since their HD alone allow them to hit all too well. It is quite possible that the first four characters are all rulers of lands in their own right, as they are all well above name level. Giant incursions on their lands, and the pressure of their lieges, may be why such an adventure was undertaken. And this is what you get when you think upon the origins of the adventure and how the pre-generated characters fit into the whole scenario. It would have been nice to get a little blurb as to why or how these characters were selected to perform the task from the author himself, or what motivated these particular adventurers to lead the fight "Against the Giants."

AD&D: Obscure Alignment Rules

Alignment is a touchy subject in the realm of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. It has evolved quite a bit over the last 50 years, from the three-alignment rule of Original D&D, to the five-alignment rule of later Original D&D and Holmes Basic era, to the nine-alignment model of AD&D and D&D 3E. It was also derailed by the strange alignment line of D&D 4E and then restored somewhat as an ambiguous add-on in D&D 5E. In fact, the game could be played without alignment, except when it comes to alignment requirements or magic item interactions which require a certain alignment or damage those of opposite alignment. In the end, alignment is nothing more than a tool that the DM uses to enforce certain behaviors in the game and reigns in the otherwise destructive behavior of most immature players.

Alignment came about as a way of limiting certain sub-classes that emerged after the creation of the game. Originally, there were only three alignments - Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic. Since Chaotics were seen to be the "bad guys" who oppose the civilized races, this meant that there were really only two choices for most players in an Original D&D game. By the time the supplements were released, alignment came to be used as a requirement for becoming a member of the new sub-classes like Paladin, Druid, Assassin, or Monk. The alignment system was a line with two points, one at each end, representing Law and Chaos, and one in the middle representing Neutrality.

The Holmes Basic re-write of the original rules seemed to take the original alignments and add in another depth to the structure. Now, if you were Lawful, you could side with good or evil, and if you were Chaotic, you could be good or evil. Neutrals, however, only remained neutral. This is viewed as the "X" alignment model, with Lawful Good and Chaotic Good at the top endpoints of the "X," Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil at the bottom endpoints, and Neutral where these two lines cross. Why did we need this addition? I think it became obvious that some characters could not be easily defined by simple Law vs. Chaos. The addition of morality to this issue is what most people now contend is the problem with alignment systems. How do you define good vs. evil? Everyone has their own views and opinions, and frankly I don't want to spark a debate on the matter.

Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert D&D returned to the simple Law-Neutrality-Chaos alignment system, and one can use this and it still works. But in 1977, Gygax was in the process of creating Advanced D&D, and the MONSTER MANUAL seems to have been written from the view of it being a reference for BOTH Original D&D and Advanced D&D. The alignments used in that book are mostly of the 5-alignment system seen in Holmes Basic, with a few exceptions showcasing the new 9-alignment model of more modern games.

When the PLAYERS HANDBOOK was released in 1978, the nine-alignment system model was finally defined. However, there were subtle nuances in the game that might be missed and seemingly contradicted the rules depending on when the books were written or read. I myself came into D&D through the 1981 Moldvay Basic Set, and then later learned AD&D in 1983, not even aware of Original D&D or the fact that these were two completely different game systems at this point. It was obvious to my mind that AD&D grew out of Basic D&D (which is mostly true), but the printing dates were somewhat confusing (as were the references to the "previous" version of the game in the Cook Expert Set). 

Some of the strange rules regarding alignment were in the fine print and foot notes of the various tables for character generation. The fact that alignment is almost inextricably linked into the AD&D game is very apparent when one begins to make a new character. First off, alignment plays a huge part in the selection of any of the sub-classes. One could play any of the basic classes and never bat an eye at alignment (with the exception of the cleric's alignment matching their deity's, and the fact that a thief was never LG or CG). Sub-classes were notoriously difficult to apply for anyway, so most of the classes one ended up playing were base classes, or demi-human multiclassed characters. The assassin is the exception to this rule, with very low requirements for becoming that class, and only an alignment restriction to keep most players from using this class in home campaigns.

So what are these hidden rules? Well, most apply to sub-classes as I suggest, but one in particular recently cropped up while I was creating new characters for a solo-play campaign. Since I was using ONLY the rules in the PHB, DMG, and MM, I went over everything with a fine-toothed comb and noticed a peculiar restriction on page 13 of the PHB. On Character Race Table I there is a footnote to the alignment code of the Cleric being (A)* which normally would mean "any alignment", but in this case it reads, "a cleric cannot be true neutral unless of the druid subclass." Huh, I do remember seeing this long ago, but I have ignored it for many years. This rule makes no sense for any Neutral deity that has nothing to do with nature. In particular, I refer the gentle reader to the WORLD OF GREYHAWK boxed set in which many of the iconic Greyhawk deities are listed as being of Neutral alignment - Beory, Boccob, Istus, Geshtai, Joramy, Obad-hai, Xan Yae, Xerbo, and Zuoken. Of these, Beory, Geshtai, Joramy, Obad-hai, and Xerbo most likely have druidic followers, but Boccob is a god of knowledge and arcane magic who has no ties to the natural world. Istus is a goddess of fate and destiny, having little to do with nature. Xan Yae and Zuoken are monk or thief deities who have nothing to do with animals and plants. Many NPCs of the Greyhawk Campaign are said to worship Boccob, including Riggby the Cleric of Mordenkainen's Fantastic Adventure fame. So, it seems that this rule was even ignored by the author of D&D himself. (Not to mention the fact that Gary states in the Guide to the World of Greyhawk the following: "In general, the greater gods are too far removed from the world to have much to do with humanity, and while they are worshiped, few people hold them as patrons.")

In any case, that is the ONLY instance of such a rule affecting Cleric alignment being stated in the PHB or DMG. The only other place one finds an alignment restriction on Clerics is in the Deities & Demigods Cyclopedia, page 6, under the definition of WORSHIPER'S ALIGN. Here it clearly states, "This refers to the general alignment of those who worship, adore or propitiate the deity. This does not necessarily apply to the alignment of the deity's clerics, which must be identical with their patron's." This book was the last released (1980) and is thus the final word on clerical alignments.

Even the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE (published 1979) refused to pin the cleric's alignment restriction under the general heading of Alignment, and instead tucks away its ruling on clerics and alignment on page 38 under the unassuming subheading of Day-to-Day Acquisition of Cleric Spells: "Each cleric must have his or her own deity, so when a new player opts to become a cleric (including a druid), you must inform them as to which deities exist in your campaign milieu and allow the individual to select which one of them he or she will serve. This will not necessarily establish the alignment of the cleric, so at the same time the cleric player character should also state his or her ethos (not necessarily to the other players)." It seems that alignment was not so strict in Gary's own campaign, but he made a big deal of graphing each character's alignment and tracking the changes in behavior to penalize them when it was obvious that they no longer followed what they wrote down. He may have stated the ruling this way to account for some deities who allow clerics of more than one alignment, or who straddled the lines between two alignments. For example, there are plenty of lesser gods and demigods who list three alignments in their listing, chief among these being Erythnul: CE(N), Pholtus: LG(N), St. Cuthbert: LG(N), and Iuz: CE(N). Although this is not clearly defined in the rules, I take this to mean that there can be clerics of either alignment of these deities. Some deities are listed as N(G) or N(L) and I take that to mean that there are druids of these gods and normal clerics with a non-Neutral alignment.

On a side note, if Gary did not mean for there to be any clerics of the Greater Gods, then Beory, Boccob, Istus, Nerull, Pelor, Rao, Ulaa, Wee Jas, and even Tharizdun would have no followers. And according to later material, worship of these beings worldwide or plane-wide is what made them Greater Gods to begin with. So it makes little or no sense for the Greater Gods not to have many clerics.

So, what about the Druid subclass then? They are True Neutral, and it should follow then that they can only worship True Neutral gods, but Beory is a Greater Goddess and thus has few clerics. Seems that most would then worship Obad-hai as the druidic ideal, or perhaps Phyton if of the Suel culture. There are plenty of seasonal gods, but most are not purely Neutral in alignment. Some that would be a dead-ringer for druidic worship, like Phaulkon, CG god of Air, Winds, and Clouds, are of extreme alignments and are not Neutral in any way. I believe that the footnote in the PLAYERS HANDBOOK is an archaic rule that has been ignored by many over the years and generally forgotten.

I find it strange that sub-classes all have alignment restrictions. It seems that there is little else to keep people playing the base classes unless they disagree with alignment restrictions. The most strict are the LG requirement of paladins (well, that and the requirement of 17+ in Charisma) and True Neutral for druids (which is harder to play than most people assume). Rangers only have to be of Good alignment which allows leeway between Law and Chaos. The same applies to Assassins who can only be Evil, but can run the gamut between Law and Chaos. Illusionists are the ONLY subclass without an alignment restriction, but they need ridiculously high Intelligence and Dexterity to qualify. There are alignment restrictions for some of the base classes as well including Thief (any alignment except LG or CG), and Monk (any Lawful alignment). Bards (if allowed in the campaign) are limited to remaining some flavor of Neutral, but that means they get 5 choices and still get all the powers and spells of a druid at higher levels (and are able to use metal weapons and armor as well).

So what happens if you change alignment? In the grand scheme of the game, it makes little difference if your LG character suddenly decides to be NG instead, but it should have some repercussions in the grand scheme of the campaign. Remember, the outer planes (and thus, your chosen afterlife) is tied to alignment. A shift of one degree has little effect on what happens to your character's soul, but a second shift could mean condemnation or redemption. In a world where life is cheap and death lurks around every corner, it would concern almost every individual as to what happens to you when you die. Look at the religious obsession of those folks living in the Middle Ages, when war, plague, famine, and other disasters (natural or man-made) meant that life expectancy was not long. They strove to remain on the straight and narrow to ensure they did not end up frying in the pits of Hell, but were instead rewarded in Paradise. Even the warlike Vikings tried to live up to their warrior ideals in order to make it into Valhalla. So, although alignment might not have a powerful effect in the game, it would be very important to most of these fictional characters.

In order to keep the players on track with their chosen class (and alignment), certain restrictions had to be put in place to enforce proper behavior at the table. Hence, you could only continue to be a paladin if you behaved in a manner according to your vows (Lawful) and benevolent faith (Good). If you no longer wanted to behave correctly, or ignored your vows and obligations to your fellow men, then you would no longer receive the blessings of the gods and would fall from grace to be a fighter from then on. Interestingly, the rules do not say that he cannot then advance in experience as a fighter - the ex-paladin simply has none of the powers of his former class. It also does not say if his experience points are converted downward to be those of a fighter. After all, a fallen paladin with 140,000+ experience points at 7th level, would actually become an 8th level fighter, thus gaining an extra 1d10 + Con bonus in hit points. However, I think one has to use the Alignment Change rules in the DMG along with this rule to make it work.

Changing Alignment is listed on page 25 of the DMG, and it warns that changing of alignment is a serious matter. For clerics and druids, it is very serious, as changing alignment might mean a change of deity or loss of druidic powers. The last sentence of 2nd paragraph is most curious: "Change of alignment will have an adverse effect on any class of character if he or she is above the 2nd level." I take this to mean that new characters have a grace period to lock down their alignment. Sometimes it's not easy to decide how to play a character until the game begins. A decision made during character creation may suddenly seem like a bad idea once you start adventuring and "finding your character's voice." Of course, your class choice in some cases is tied to this alignment, so you really should do some research before agreeing to play a role that you are uncomfortable in. The penalties for alignment change thus do not really apply until one is 2nd level or higher.

Again, stability of the character is key here. Sometimes players are in a strange mood when they begin a session and their character is made to do some hilarious or "out of character" things that can bog the game down or create bizarre conditions when interacting with NPCs or monsters. Since the game should be fun for all, and Gary seemed to have been a fan of verisimilitude, characters should not act silly or insane in most instances.

So what are the consequences of alignment change? Well, it depends on whether or not the character intentionally changes alignment or is forced to do so through magical means. It is stressed here that radical alignment change is only the result of magical means or insanity. Normally, alignment change takes place in gradual steps and is considered voluntary. Radical alignment change is usually involuntary and the character usually wants to return to their former alignment. Thus the first is a permanent change with a penalty; the latter is a temporary change with a temporary penalty.

Upon changing alignment, the character loses a level of experience, dropping experience points to take them to the very beginning of the next lower level. This is worse than being energy drained by a wight or wraith, since in that case the character only loses enough XP to drop to the middle of the next lowest level. If the alignment change is involuntary, then the character can regain the lost level upon returning to the former alignment as soon as possible, and after making atonement through a cleric of the same alignment (and sacrificing treasure equal to 10,000 g.p. per level of the character - depending on the generosity of the DM - or performing a quest). The alignment must be restored before the atonement can take place.

Characters who voluntarily change alignment (or drift into a new one) can only change it one place, and the level loss is permanent. They also must suffer a severe disability when using their alignment tongue until they regain their former level of experience. A True Neutral character must become one of the Neutral alignments on the outer wheel of the alignment graph first. A character will suffer level loss and other penalties each time they change alignment. Gary recommends that this penalty NOT be explained to the characters at the start - he wants to let them know the ramifications of the change only AFTER it has occurred. This shock value hopefully keeps those who "seek to use alignment as a means of furthering their own interests by conveniently swapping one for another when they deem the time is ripe" from being fickle, and penalizes those who do.

Now you understand why this penalty only kicks in at 2nd level and above. Alignment change effectively resets a 2nd level character to the beginning of 1st level. If this occurs to a paladin or druid, then they simply stop being their former class and begin again as a 1st level fighter or cleric. It also prevents the nastiness inherent in level loss; namely the loss of adventurer status if reduced to 0-level (such as can occur if surviving a strike by a wight or wraith).

Alignment comes into play for most other classes when they attempt to use magic items with alignments that differ from their own, or encounter magical spells or effects that have different effects based on the caster's own alignment. For instance, when using aligned weapons opposing your own (or touching certain tomes or aligned items of a diametrically opposed alignment), the result is usually damage or subversion. Characters of a particular alignment can affect those of an opposing alignment with certain spells (like holy word or repulsion). It is really unclear whether protection from evil affects mortal creatures of the Prime Material Plane, or if it only really affects extraplanar creatures who are intrinsically of the same alignment as their outer planar home. Paladins and clerics are very tied to alignment, so I assume that such spells would affect them, but a common person deemed to be good or evil might not be affected. Again, alignment is an unclear indicator in this case. The detect evil spell (or paladin ability) seems to indicate that evil alignment is detected, but also states that there must be evil "emanations" to detect. A demon would decidedly detect as evil, as would an evil-aligned artifact, but a common person with bad intentions? This is not clearly explained in the rules, and has caused much confusion over the years.

The DMG tries to clear this up on page 60. Here it states that only a know alignment spell can definitively determine the alignment of a character or creature. It must be great evil or good to be detected with a detect evil/good spell. Characters who are strongly aligned, do not stray from their faith (alignment), and are relatively high-level (at least 8th) might radiate evil or good if intent upon appropriate actions. Powerful creatures of an extra-planar nature always emanate their evil or good. Aligned undead (not unaligned or "Neutral" undead) radiate evil, since it is this negative force that animates them. In any case, no emanations are detectable without magical means to do so.

Magic items of an aligned nature will naturally detect as evil or good, but neutral ones will not. Holy water detects as good, while unholy water detects as evil. The same can be said for sites or items consecrated or desecrated to be used by those alignments. But normal items will never radiate evil, even if their use is considered evil (poison, for example).

Alignment has many uses in an AD&D game. Ignoring it means changing whole sections of the rules, including character classes, monsters, the cosmology of deities and outer planes, and how certain magic items and spells work. The subtle nuances that alignment brings to the game are interesting and usable if the players and DM can simply understand why it exists and how to use it properly. Don't think of it as a straight-jacket, but rather a guideline for how to play the game in the manner the rules were intended.