Alignments in AD&D

There are numerous rules in the AD&D volumes about alignment. The most blatant of these are those restricting the varying classes. I've never really been a fan of restricting a class based off alignment, but then again I've rarely seen anyone actually play their alignment correctly unless they were doing so overtly (completely out of character and stating they were doing something strictly based on alignment). There are dozens of interpretations of alignment (almost as many as there are house rules for AD&D initiative) but only a few of these seem "right."

One of the biggest restrictions on alignment targets the paladin class. They are allowed to ONLY be Lawful Good. In this case I believe that the restriction is appropriate - so long as the gods of the world MATCH this alignment. I remember not having a paladin appropriate deity in the beginning, and everyone ended up worshipping Athena from the Greek pantheon or Tyr from the Norse Aesir (some of the few LG deities in Deities & Demi-Gods). Since the paladin's power comes from divine sources, having a campaign-specific deity for their alignment was sort of a necessity. Although we nominally ran adventures in Greyhawk, few if any of us actually knew of the gods presented therein except for the list presented in the back of the Glossography.

Assassins were required to be evil only, but had the choice of being Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic. I viewed assassins as the antithesis of paladins, if not their opposite number. Where the paladin had to be truthful and forthright, the assassin struck from the shadows and was purposefully duplicitous and stealthy in his behavior by necessity.

Druids were required to be Neutral (and only Neutral). This seems to be a lame requirement. I'm much more in line with the 3rd edition method of keeping the druids at least partially neutral (NG, LN, CN, NE) to better reflect variations within the sect.

The AD&D rules also state that clerics cannot be True Neutral! Yet, there are a number of Neutral deities that have nothing to do with animals, plants, or nature. Do these have clerics? This was never stated anywhere. The most common examples of this were clerics of Boccob and Istus.

Finally, the ranger, who is supposed to be some form of Good alignment, may be the real antithesis to the assassin, although I don't see the contrast. Rangers are spell casters at higher levels who, despite being able to cast druid spells, are good-aligned. I'm not really sure if all these facts were taken from Tolkien or not, but the class has always bugged me, even more now that I know that the XP charts are completely wrong according to the original development of the class (4/3 xp gain from levels 1-9, normal thereafter).

Fighters and magic-users (including illusionists) have no restrictions on their alignment at all. Thieves must be non-good in alignment (but the occasional NG thief always seems to sneak in). Monks are supposed to be Lawful only, but how often will one be able to actually roll up a monk legally? The bard is an appendix class and not really run by many people so I won't even bother to mention it here.

So it seems that Gygax gave most of the sub-classes an alignment restriction. I wonder why? The sub-classes mostly evolved in the early game where there were only 3 alignments - the common 9 alignment system of modern times only came into existence with 1st edition AD&D. Originally the only two alignments used by player characters were Lawful and Neutral, since Chaotic was the alignment of the enemy. Having alignment restrictions in a game where only 2 alignment choices were relevant seems a bit goofy. So some of the sub-classes got altered to have specific alignment requirements and higher stats to qualify. Of course, when you make it a challenge to roll a certain type of character, you know that's the one everyone wants to play. Given the number of ILLEGALLY rolled paladins, druids, monks, and rangers in numerous campaigns, it appears that alignment is the ONLY restriction that sticks.

It's interesting to note that most people play all their characters as Neutral Selfish - in other words they seek out the best circumstances to fit their own style of play and seek to further their own needs over others. Some people see this as being True Neutral in alignment, but I see this as being more Chaotic Neutral (since Chaotics are only concerned with personal gain and benefits). You can tell when a player is abusing the alignment system when they quote the "I'm Neutral, I don't care!" line. This is a breach of alignment since the True Neutral stance is perfect balance between all the alignments where everyone gets along and no one steps on anyone else's toes. It's not that the druid seeks to avenge any wrongdoing done to HIM, but rather seeks redress against a person for despoiling nature or disturbing the balance. Neutrality is actually one of the hardest alignments to play because it is so difficult to remain absolutely neutral while adventuring in a dungeon. Some people take the eco-terrorist angle with druids, and this is wrong too according to their description in the Player's Handbook. They do not seek immediate vengeance, but rather plan and plot a subtle revenge over time, usually connected to the crime committed. In essence, druids believe in Karma - what you do in life is brought back to you in the end.

The REAL Guardians of the Galaxy

I'm starting to notice a trend in the comics - they have no regard for what went before, no idea of history or nostalgia. They have now become as "trendy" and forward thinking as the other media forms. The latest casualty? My beloved Guardians of the Galaxy from Marvel Presents.... The new movie seems to be a comedy. Those aren't the Guardians I remember fondly from the 1970s, the Avengers of Tomorrow and saviors during the Korvac saga.... Rocket Raccoon was a failed one-shot from the 1980s that Marvel tried (desperately) to raise sales on. Same with the Starlord comic. Gamorra was an assassin from the pages of Warlock (who curiously enough isn't present, and is likely to show up in the next Avengers, since Thanos is the villain and the Infinity Gauntlet seems to be the theme.

Here are the TRUE Guardians of the Galaxy in their debut:






Notice that there are no talking raccoons, walking trees, or goofy guys in rocket packs. The whole origin of the Guardians was that they were natives of the Earth solar system during the 33rd century, after the alien Badoon took over the solar system. All were humans modified to exist on all the planets. Some were aliens from other worlds where the Badoon held sway. The original members were:

Vance Astro - a "Buck Rogers" type found floating in space. He wore a form-fitted space suit that was his life-line. He had spent centuries in the suit and the controlled environment preserved him while in stasis. If he ever tore a hole in the suit he would die, aging in minutes. His power was telekinesis that developed during his extended hibernation. He later acquired a symbol of freedom from the past  - Captain America's indestructible shield - which became a symbol for freedom from the Badoon.

Martinex - a native of Pluto who had been bioengineered into a crystalline form to withstand the extreme cold. He could project heat from one hand and extreme cold from the other. His crystalline form allowed him to exist in the vacuum of space for a while.

Charlie-27 - a native of the moons of Jupiter and former miner, this brute was bioengineered to withstand the crushing gravity of the Jovian system. In normal gravity he possessed enormous strength and endurance.

Yondu - the blue-skinned, red-sailed mystic alien from Alpha Centauri, the nearest system to Earth. He was empathic and was a skilled archer. His arrows could be directed in flight with whistle commands.

Starhawk - a fused being (consisting of a man and woman) from Arcturus. Starhawk had cosmic awareness and could tell when something threatened the very fabric of the multiverse. He could fly at tremendous speeds, even in deep space. His suit allowed him to survive the rigors of interstellar travel. Apparently he also possessed some sort of solar blast.

Nikki (not pictured above) - A junior member, this female from Mercury had fiery hair and gray skin. She was heat resistant and was a distinguished thief.

I first encountered these heroes in the Korvac saga presented during the Avengers in the late 1970s. They arrived from the future to warn the heroes of the cosmically powered criminal from their time (a man who had been surgically attached to a machine from the waist down). I believe it had something to do with the cosmic cube and how it had empowered the villain so that he could remake reality at a whim. In any case, the series showed the deaths of every Avenger of the time as they assaulted Korvac's hideout. It was a very dramatic story and ended with Korvac recanting the power and restoring life to all the heroes before dying himself.

I'm fairly certain that NONE of that made it into the movie. The movie is more likely based on the ill-conceived REPLACEMENT Guardians developed in the early 1990s. This band consisted of a motley crew of Marvels lesser known heroes and villains from the 1970s and early 1980s, probably done in such a way that they didn't lose copyright on any of them (in the comic business, it's "use it or lose it" as far as character names and concepts go). So this is the direction the producer chose to take and now I'm boycotting it on this fact alone. Is it really so hard to use the material as originally presented? Couldn't this movie be made with at least some relation to the original heroes? Some alteration for time difference is to be expected, but there's no reason to rewrite decades of Marvel history to make a buck!

DMG: Like a Needle in a Haystack...

Have you ever tried to find a specific rule in the Dungeon Master's Guide in the middle of play when lives depended on it? It's nearly impossible! I spent almost 20 minutes DURING PLAY last weekend trying to find the exact distance one can withraw/fall back from melee. In the end I defaulted to the distance listed in 2nd edition (1/3 movement rate) since I could not find the rule anywhere! This is SOOOO frustrating to me.


However, now that I've encountered this problem again, it's time to re-read the DMG. That's right, the whole damn thing, cover to cover! This time, however, I'm taking notes and saving the notes on my computer so that when this happens again I can at least have a decent index to use to find the information I need. The index in the DMG is a god-awful mess of useless information! Half the terms used in the DMG aren't even listed and most of the info printed in the Player's Handbook doesn't match the rules in the DMG!

Looks like I have my reading list set for the next couple of months at least.

Reminiscing: Old Greyhawk Adventures

I remember a time when AD&D was all I wanted to do - all day, every day. When I woke up, found my friends, and we just played all day into the late hours of the evening with only meal breaks and occasional exercise at the beach or the playground. Granted that was like 30 years ago, but it still has stayed with me all these years.

Those were great times. We knew only a smattering of the rules in the AD&D books and still managed to play the game. My first "campaign" I ran involved a generic adventure in the town of Woodwych in Greyhawk. There, a wizard had become leader of the town and was trying to enslave the populace. The heroes, Nicholas Lornallow (fighter) and Chong-Hing (a monk) were later joined by Dread Delgath (a thief), and Kendrick Magnus (cleric of Odin). It was just some friends sitting around a table and playing characters we had just rolled up. Little did I realize that this early taste of being a DM would change my views of the game forever.

I remember these heroes involving themselves with a winged-folk magic-user shoppe owner, a devil-worshipping cleric whom Nicholas took to bed, tracking her down and later running from said devil-worshipping cleric, and assisting elves in he Celadon Forest rid themselves of nasty creatures from the Fiend Folio that had invaded their tree-homes. During their many adventures they found some awesome magic items - a medallion of teleportation, a ring that could conjure light on command, a defender sword, and some others that I don't remember. We actually played these characters in a linear campaign for a while until we went back to the published adventures and new characters in the late 1980s. The last thing we did in Greyhawk was blow up the planet in a great cataclysm between the demons and devils. Basically, we were stepping on each other's toes as DMs, switching back and forth and using the same place names in different ways. So, if we couldn't share it, we destroyed it.

It was a great afternoon and seemed really weird. In sort of a "Crisis on Infinite Earths" scenario, Greyhawk ceased to exist and everyone's characters were blown through portals into new worlds. One was the Forgotten Realms (run by Steve), the other Primordia (run by Nick), and I made up the proto-Thuin which would later be renamed Sturmgard. College beckoned and we turned to other gaming, namely other campaigns in my case and other activities for the other two DMs.

I spent the last few weeks of summer before college reading the DMG from cover to cover, trying to make sense of the combat rules. It was then that I learned a 2nd edition would soon be released. Finally, we would be in on the ground floor of D&D! All the work I had done on Harn and Thuin would have to be re-done in this new edition. I decided to abandon Harn because the feel of that campaign was more suited to wargaming or historical re-enactment than fantasy role-playing. I focused all my attention on Thuin and came up with sort of a dark sword & sorcery wilderness packed with perils. I was trying to recreate the dark and gritty D&D of my youth. But the new rules that came out for 2nd edition would not allow it. All the "political correctness" irked me. Gone were the terms I had come to know. The combat system was better, but less stream-lined. It was easier to adlib though and I did that liberally after a while.

We had an awesome time playing D&D in college. All the campaigns were exciting, mainly because it was more than just the three of us playing. By finding all these other people to play with, the experience was heightened from fun to thrilling. We would talk about D&D all night in the dorms, formulate plans for overcoming obstacles in the game, and discussing plans of how our own campaigns would work with the new rules.

When I came home from college I was adrift without a D&D campaign. Sure, I was able to rejoin one of the side campaigns I played in, but I was really hoping to DM again. Shortly after joining up with the "Sunday Dorks" from work, I found my calling - permanent DM for a 2nd edition Greyhawk campaign paying homage to Gygax's vision. We had some awesome moments and made memories that I will be able to take to my grave, knowing that we had created something special. I later revisited Thuin and had a long-running Thursday night game that splintered apart after losing one of the key players to marriage. Although there have been starts and stops with these campaigns in the past 30 years, I still keep trying to recapture the fascination and wonder I had playing AD&D at Steve's house all those wonderful summers ago.

In an attempt to do so I hijacked the players from another campaign and in 2000 we started running the Known World with AD&D rules (mostly by the books with written house rules). It was very fun in the beginning and we played religiously every weekend for a good long while. But then real life began to intrude. One friend suffered a stroke. He was the inspiration for the adventures and he could no longer understand what was being said. It took a long time for him to recover enough to play again. The other players have aged and now it becomes more difficult to get together. Medical problems, children, work problems - all have affected the campaign.

I am trying to get myself back to the happy times of summertime AD&D. All this planning and organizing just to schedule time to have fun really sucks. I just want to have a week of nothing to do or worry about and simply play - like we did when we were kids....

Super-Detailing Adventures

I was busy working on my next AD&D adventure last weekend when I came to some sort of epiphany. I've been DMing now for almost 3/4 of my lifetime and it never fails that no matter how much information I place into the module, I still end up having to make "on the fly" descriptions of rooms and NPCs that have the opposite effect to what I anticipate. If I have only an empty room, that's the place where all the searching occurs. If I place an interesting room chock full of stuff, people walk in and then leave without so much as a glance. If the NPC is not named, it's meant to be nothing more than window dressing. My named NPCs rarely if ever survive 3 rounds of an encounter. Those NPCs with important information are ignored, while those who are mere pawns with no information are grilled for hours. No matter what I plan, my players always do the opposite.

So I'm contemplating a "super-detailed" adventure based on the original Greyhawk module T1: The Village of Hommlet. What I mean by this is taking the original description and expanding upon it to the degree that no matter what is asked I will have the information in front of me. This may require up to a page of fine print text per encounter area and possibly two to three pages for additional histories, descriptions, and diagrams for areas not covered in the original module. For instance, detailing the reticulated patterns on the snake in the moathouse may allow the players to come to the conclusion that the snake is not poisonous, but rather a constrictor (should that information be pertinent, say for a druid character able to identify animals). I could describe the chipping plaster and the mortared stone of the corridor walls. Sketches of the rooms and buildings on 1"-square graph paper would allow the players to better visualize the space they have to work with, along with ceiling heights, floor conditions (rubble, dust, dirt, cobwebs, dead bodies, etc.), and positions of the monsters when first encountered. Most of the combatants in the moathouse are static - they don't move around much. However, according to the wandering monster table one could encounter creatures from the various keyed areas on the map and their positions should be noted.

Can this be done for EVERY adventure? Surely not. But careful planning of the base town (in this case, Hommlet) with sufficient details and explanations (including motives, names, and physical descriptions or personality quirks) could allow the setting to come fully alive for the players. Players will often come to erroneous conclusions or make strange leaps of logic based off minimal information and mental "filling in the gaps." If given enough information they might be able to more easily come to the proper conclusions or even be better fooled by those trying to conceal their motives.

Super-detailing takes some time, to be sure. However, the DM is the sensory input for the players. Without a detailed description the players are basically deaf and blind in their world, being assaulted without reason by their environment, and reacting with brute force against any obstacle regardless of level of threat. More information might allow them to become diplomatic, cautious, and reactive in positive ways that will promote good gaming practices and hopefully allow better choices to be made. Of course, this assumes that the DM has a full grasp of the material and the wherewithal to complete such a project. It requires a good grasp of using visual aids and a talent for explaining "hard-to-explain" features of some modules. Of course, the players may not even care that the air smells of urine and rat feces before they attack the giant rats in the corner, but at least you can have the information at hand if, say, the torches get blown out and the party suddenly has to fumble around in the dark. By playing up the atmosphere, I believe that the D&D experience can be positively exciting if not mind-blowing! The trick is to explain to the fullest without going overboard. All five senses should be detailed if possible. Obviously taste would not necessarily be used in a  dungeon setting, but one never knows when one will find a storehouse of food and taste-testing may come into play (soured wine, dry biscuits, bubbling stew, etc). Sight would by necessity be the first and most important sense to cater to, with smell and sounds being next. Textures and vibrations are important for the sense of touch. How efficiently these senses can be processed would require some "super-detailing" of the characters as well. Detailed records of what is being worn and where would come into play. Usually unimportant details, like the the thief wearing fingerless gloves, would then become important in describing the prickly surface of a splintering chest, or the minute protrusion in the wall that activates the secret door. The DM must also answer the basic questions of any description: who, what, where, when, why, and how.

X-Men: The Real Ones

I just got back from seeing X-Men: Days of Future Past and I have to say that I was a bit disappointed. They may as well call it WOLVERINE (and those other mutant guys). It never ceases to amaze me how the public latches on to the most insane, homicidal, and mentally disturbed characters and make them the popular ones. Wolverine, Punisher, Deadshot, the Joker, etc. All of these characters are seriously flawed and most began their careers as villains - many of them remain villains. Now Marvel was notorious for making classically flawed characters; it's what set them apart from the DC Heroes and other "shining examples" of heroism in the Silver Age of comics. But they've taken it a step too far in my opinion.

What is wrong with telling the story of the mutants from the beginning, in sequential order, as it was done in the comics? Obviously there were elements of good storytelling there or else it would never have become popular. But, the funny thing is that the X-Men title was never all that popular. It was almost cancelled many times during its initial run in the 1960s and 1970s. It wasn't until the team was revamped in 1975 with Giant-Sized X-Men #1 that the team became popular as the "Uncanny X-Men." I started with this new team when I first got into comics at the tender age of 5 or 6 years old. My uncle had bought me many comics before this - the Invaders, Captain America, the Fantastic Four, Super Friends, Aquaman, Batman, etc. - but this team of mutant heroes seemed more dramatic, more powerful, and even dangerous. They were outlaws, apart from society and feared by many but still fighting the good fight against the mutant menaces in the world. In essence, they were still heroes. Anti-heroes were only just becoming part of the comic scene.

With the coming of more flawed mutants - Wolverine, Thunderbird, the ex-criminal Banshee, the bizarre-looking Nightcrawler, and the arrogant Sunfire - came a host of new personalities. One of the greatest tools of the comic-book writer was the "non-background." It enabled characters with "cool costumes" to be inserted with little or no back-story, to be fleshed out during the telling of the comic book serial. Wolverine started as little more than a beer-swilling runt with an attitude. All we X-Men fans knew was that he originated in Canada and had unbreakable metal claws. If you were lucky enough to have read his introduction in the Incredible Hulk you might have had more information, but for the majority of us readers, he was just a man in a blue and yellow tiger suit with metal claws. Let's face it, not the most interesting of powers or abilities when his teammates could hurl lightning bolts, become solid metal, blast things to pieces with eye beams, or teleport in a puff of smoke.

When I first read of Wolverine I was less than impressed. I was much more eager to learn of the other, older X-Men rescued from Krakoa Island. These mutants looked interesting! Angel, Polaris, Havok, Iceman, Marvel Girl - all of these characters seemed to have a history, a reason for being there and behaving the way they did. The dramatic battle with the mutant-island Krakoa demonstrated teamwork, interpersonal relationships between the various older X-Men, and just how ineffective some of the newer X-Men (namely Wolverine, Thunderbird, and Nightcrawler) really were in a battle of powers. Although I can't really say much for Angel, the other original X-Men all had very definite, visually appealing abilities when it came to raw power (and the most important for a comic book story). Even Beast, the least visually appealing of the X-Men (big hands and feet, some mutation) was later altered to be blue and furry, and then quickly ushered off the team and into the Avengers as a support character at the mansion.

The new movie sought to correct some previous story lines that they had taken in weird directions - killing off main characters, altering storylines, and confusing origins. I have to ask why the original stories behind the characters weren't enough? They could have started with Giant-Sized X-Men #1 and just covered the older X-Men in flashbacks. Magneto as a villain is really downplayed in the original movies, but the current young version of Magneto portrayed in Days of Future Past is more on the mark with what he was like in the original comics - seeking mutant domination over humanity and proclaiming that Homo superior was the next evolutionary step. I actually liked the X-Men: First Class movie, not because it was true to the comics, but rather it was true to the time period and made some sense in the story told thus far.

Now we come to the part of the movie that irked me. They just undid the entire story of the X-Men told thus far in the previous movies. The ONLY movies that were relatively unaffected were the Wolverine movies. Again, the X-Men comic was the vehicle that catapulted Wolverine to stardom; now the movies have done the same. I'm glad that the older X-Men are shown more respect in this movie, but at the same time I feel that the previous movies are now completely disrespected. Again, starting over with GS X-Men #1 would have been the way to go. They don't have to follow the story to the letter, and once it is told they could have taken it in other directions. However, it's hard to feel for Scott and Jean during the Phoenix saga when you really only just met the characters in the last movie. This mucking with the story is one of the reasons why I hate stories with time travel. Not only do they undo the past, they muck up the future and make the present a very confusing thing. One needs to know where they've been before they can see where they're going. History and continuity are very important to stories and the human condition!

Despite all my criticisms and complaints, I believe that the X-Men franchise of movies has done good things for the comic industry. It has rekindled interest in the characters and brought another generation of children in touch with heroes of my childhood. The casting of the X-Men has been phenomenal for almost every character, although I wish they got their info right on the main characters (Alex Summers was not older than Scott, Angel and Iceman were original members with Hank "Beast" McCoy, etc.). It would be awesome to see a computer-animated X-Men series that introduces the younger generation to the ACTUAL story of the X-Men in chronological order. Some of the less important or non-essential stories could be skipped or seen in flashbacks, but the major points of the X-Men history should be told!

High Level Character Woes

What does one do once the upper levels of AD&D are gained? Having survived the beginning levels of play and reached the pinnacle of adventuring power is quite an achievement in and of itself. Unfortunately, the danger of losing one's character increases dramatically at the higher levels. So when do you call it quits? When do you say enough is enough?

In essence, as with all dice games, AD&D is a game of chance; call it "gambling" with the lives of your characters in the balance. If you keep tempting fate, eventually you will lose and your character will succumb to death. Although not technically the end of the game, it can be considered an indication that your luck is running out. High level creature abilities and spells are typically of the "save or die" variety, leaving little chance for a character to survive indefinitely (that 5% chance of instantly failing a saving throw coming up with startling frequency regardless). No matter how high your Constitution, continued deaths and constantly decreasing Resurrection Survival percentages will eventually result in the death of the character once and for all. How you treat the outcome of the roll really is a measure of your personality.

As a DM of nearly 30 years experience it dismays me to think that players are being misled down the primrose path with promises of high level spells, potent magic items, and vast riches only to learn that they have to make a choice between retirement or final death. Recently, I explained this philosophy to my players and they seemed to absorb the information without much care. One of the players will surely stop playing if her 11th level magic-user succumbs to final death. The other player, who stated that he was "so happy to finally be playing a high-level druid" also stated upon his character's near death that "it's such a great big waste of several years" if his character dies. The final player in this trio has already seen the death of two characters prior to his current almost-high-level ranger, one of the hardest character classes to level quickly. Of all of them he seems to understand the way the game works the best.

But these attitudes are not unique to this group. I've had players throw tantrums upon the death of a beloved character. Others seemed not to care enough about their characters to even try to save them from almost certain death. The DM has to perform a delicate balancing act to keep the game running without playing favorites or giving in to bad behavior. As I've posted in the past, people need to stop fixating on levelling their characters and amassing vast amounts of wealth and simply enjoy the ride. The time playing is what counts as the enjoyment - time spent exploring, challenging monsters, discovering hidden treasures, etc. If you're playing AD&D to achieve some sort of "endgame" or "prize" then you're doing it all wrong.

So what are those high level characters supposed to do? Obviously, if you're proud of your accomplishments and want your character to live on, then retire the character from active play and settle down as a name-level landowner. There are plenty of rules on how this is accomplished. That character could be dusted off and brought back in as desired, or perhaps running side campaigns dealing with politics and warfare could be fun. If you like to tempt fate, then be aware that sooner or later your luck WILL run out. It may not be in the next adventure, and you might make several more levels adventuring, but since you need to face tougher and tougher opponents to get enough XP, you chance failing an important saving throw, falling victim to a death trap, or being defeated in mortal combat with a superior foe. The game is DESIGNED to do this. It is the only other way to conclude a campaign without a defined ending.

So what do the players do next? They can assume the roles of their henchmen, newly freed from service to their master and either continue to adventure as PCs or in service to the remaining original party. Alternately, in the case of a TPK (total party kill) or mass retirement, the players can start a new campaign, rolling new 1st level characters to enjoy the game from a different perspective. Both are viable options, but require a certain mindset from the players in how they approach the game.

AD&D: End of the Line?

I've been testing the waters recently in my 1st edition campaign to see if the players are truly ready for high level play. We started the "Against the Giants" series last year and finished G1 after a number of very long and involved "power sessions." They seemed to have completely defeated the hill giants using tactics atypical of a standard D&D group. I added a few new elements to the old module (setting a series of ogre caves down slope of the steading, hinting at other underground locations nearby off-map, etc.) but the players more or less followed the clues provided, missed almost all the hidden treasures (as expected) and did manage to foil the alliance with the cloud giant who wisely left after the chieftain was slain in his sleep (taking his enchanted blade with him).

From there they were to go to the frost giants. However, they balked at using the magic chain to get there, citing that they had no idea where it was and they could not form an exit strategy or bring their mules. So they decided to head north through the mountains in the first month of winter (yeah, I know....) and made it through the pass without much incidental violence. When they arrived in Reedle I decided to up the ante. Using a converted 3rd edition module (specially designed for 11th level characters) I introduced them by means of attacks on the town. Then I hooked them by having a little girl ask them to rescue her daddy taken by the giants before the attacks began. The father was a member of a patrol lost north of town. Enter the border fort....

The party made some interesting tactical decisions, and the monsters I used were non-standard, although faithful to the module as written (roper, bulette, wereboar-hill giant, etc.). They managed to bypass most of the deadly creatures (and the hidden treasure) because they were looking for survivors from the patrol. Assuming that the patrolmen were still alive, they pressed on through combat after combat, taking heavy hits from the giants they encountered and wasting all their spell resources. Realizing that they had only a single shot at this, they pressed on through adversity, even losing one of their fighter henchmen, the dwarf Gustav, to a hill giant shaman's scarab of enraging enemies. They realized that they were most deadly against themselves!

The frustration of that battle was compounded when they located a drow skulking in the ruins of a former cell. I tipped my cards early with this one, but it was written into the module and I wanted to test them. The drow held his own fairly well, taking out the ranger and the thief with his poisoned dagger. It was what happened AFTER they dropped the dark elf that threw everything into a tizzy. Instead of keeping the elf alive for interrogation, the magic-user killed him with a quick dagger thrust. She then helped to loot his body and decided to smash his demon-head amulet made of terra cotta. I had written in an escape plan for the drow (one that he was loathe to use) in which it would summon a demon when the amulet was broken to teleport him back to his "mistress." Well, the dark elf was dead and the demon was summoned (type III) but since his contract for service was altered by the elf's death, he decided to have some fun before returning with some random soul. A terrible combat began, and the party was already down three members (1 slain, and 2 poisoned into unconsciousness). When it became clear that the party was in trouble, Chow-Lin sought to escape using a teleport, taking Hamlin with her for support while the others retreated. They were only supposed to teleport back to the bodies down the hall, but she blew the roll and teleported "too low". This would have meant instant death except for the fact that there was void space below this level. She ended up in mid-air falling to a stone floor in the dark, completely unsure of where she was. Thus two more party members were lost.

This left the druid (11th level), the cleric (8th level) and the 6th level fighter henchmen to face off against the demon. Needless to say they ran. But they didn't go far. They got just enough distance between them and the demon for the druid to start summoning a fire elemental. He finished the spell as the demon found them hiding in an empty room at the top of the stairs. We ended on a cliffhanger, deep in the battle with the demon. The demon was injured by the elemental and the holy water the party managed to throw, but he was hitting them more than he was being hit (having a -4 AC). It's fun to use a creature that I have never used before, but also demoralizing since having to play in character as the demon and taunting the characters leads to the party thinking I'm gonna end the campaign on a sour note. I honestly don't know how this is going to play out but I will be surprised if they don't all die.

On a side note, I finally found, in a single paragraph in the original module D1, the duration of drow sleep poison! It's listed as 3-12 turns, much too long to be of use in this round-by-round combat, although if they roll well enough, Falim and Katerina might be up and mobile just in time to save the party or bury the remains. The demon will be taking one of the party members back with him. I will NOT allow the party to simply slay the demon since the demon is not currently bound by its oath of service. Being EVIL and CHAOTIC, I've been rolling randomly for all choices such as attack targets and use of abilities, but at the same time being as cruel as possible with how they are being directed and used. For instance, I thought using pyrotechnics on the fire elemental would snuff him out and fill the whole dungeon with choking smoke. However, the spell seems too low to have such an effect on an elemental and I gave it a saving throw to see if only some smoke were generated (the elemental saved). I failed to summon additional demons when the elemental came into existence, so they at least lucked out in that regard. I'm surprised that the magic-user fled they way she did. Then again, I'm also amazed she killed the dark elf and broke the amulet. The thing is they have no one to blame for their current situation but themselves. The look of utter shock on their faces when the demon teleported behind the elemental to attack the party was priceless.... OK, so I am an evil DM at heart.

Once the party is defeated, what happens next? The player of the druid has already determined that he is not interested in "wasting time" playing "throw-away" characters. He sees the level-gaining as part of some ultimate prize to be won at the "end" of the game. The magic-user also does not want to see all the struggling and pushing to get a feeble magic-user to wizard level power go to waste. The ranger player is willing to re-roll and start anew, he has already died twice before. I don't know if I can go another 14 years to get a group to name level again. We're all a lot older now and time is the enemy. I shall defer judgment until I see the outcome. This very well could be the end of the campaign.

But seriously, how else are D&D campaigns supposed to end? There is always that next monster to battle, the next treasure to recover, the next trap to overcome. Ending a campaign happens either as a bang or a whimper. Either the players cut their losses and retire or everyone dies in one glorious battle. There really is no middle ground. The fun is the adventure itself, not the end of the adventure. Just like life - it's not when and how you died but how you lived that counts.