Gary’s Clarifications When I saw the Zagyg’s Wisdom super-thread on Dragonsfoot, I thought what a great idea it was to have a section where Gary answered questions about D&D and offered clarifications and interpretations about the game he created. And if he isn’t around to answer more questions, at least we can benefit from what people asked him when they had the chance. Reading through the thread, it occurred to me that all these clarifications could be gathered up into a single document for easier reference, sorted by category. Steve at Dragonsfoot liked the idea, so I got started…and found that sorting them wasn’t as neat and easy as I’d expected. I’ve had to make a lot of judgement calls: for instance, should a question about true neutral clerics go under Classes or Alignment? So I apologize if the organization of this document seems a little haphazard, but I’ve done what I could with it. There are a very few posts from one category that I copied into another, but for the most part I tried to make a single choice and hope it was the right one. I’ve included some categories that aren’t exactly D&D or that wouldn’t be relevant to every campaign (Greyhawk, for example), but they’re in their own sections so they can be ignored by those not interested. These “related” sections are generally unsorted, as they didn't lend themselves as well to discrete categories. In the interest of keeping it short, I generally removed people’s greeting remarks (“Hi Gary,” etc.), though I left in whatever Gary said in case it should be helpful in assessing his “gut feel” reaction to the question. I also left all typos, wrong words used, etc. so as to show all posts verbatim, though I did add some editorial remarks—in brackets—for misspellings and grammatical errors that people now seem to think are correct English (“glad to see your doing well”, “I was mislead”, etc.). Leon Baradat Alignment elementalawe wrote: Gary, thanks for your reply, but I want to know what you think about generality and true-neutral. Can generality be related to the alignment of true-neutral instead of nature connected to true-neutral? Well Amigo... I think my definition of [True] Neutral alignment in the DMG is sufficient, and the neutral isn't a generalist but one who belioeves in the harmony of creation and a balance between all of its forces. It's up to you to rationalize any changes you wish to make in the alignment for your own campaign. SOURCE: http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10004&start=90 richardstincer wrote: Gary, in my signature below, I have the belief that TN is a general alignment--am I correct? All of the other 8 alignments seem to be more specific. hi richard, TN is True Neutral, those that believe that all other alignments are simply a part of the whole picture, each necessary to counterbalance the others. To maintain the cosmos, the True Neutral holds than each of the other eight ethoi must remain viable and active. for example, this view holds than one can not know good without evil. richardstincer wrote: Thanks for your response, Gary. In your 1979 DMG for ADandD 1st edit., it is printed that the TN alignment is narrowest in scope or focus. Does 'narrowest in scope' mean it is easy to follow the alignment of TN? I like a simple, tit-for-tat equality whereas Mordenkainen likes the alignment of TN to be complex. Simply put, alignments are for the use of the DM in the development of the nations and the peoples that inhabit them, principally the dramatis personae that will interact with the group of player characters. It is meant to serve the DM as a measuring stick against the performance of the PCs in the campaign, after each has elected an alignment as a general template for the ethical and moral views of their game persona. In the same secondary role, they are meant to be useful in regards use of magical spells and magic items that require the imbuing of some spirit (force) in their making. As compared to the reasons for which I created them, alignments are generally misused by DMs and I am sorry that I did not originally stress their principal meaning and uses. SOURCE: http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10004&start=450 richardstincer wrote: Gary, a druid of early ADandD 1st edit. is the only adventurer-class profession that is required to have the TN-alignment. Why were nondruid general clerics not allowed to have the TN-alignment? Is it because TN is not a divine enough alignment for a nondruid cleric to have? Well... Considering that the entities served by the Evil clergy are far from divine, I wouldn't say that the deities of the druid class are not more divine than demons and devils, but... The general concept conveyed by the admonition regarding the ecclesiastical servants of the [True] Neutral alignment position is this: In the fantasy milieu, only the druid class adheres to the precepts of this alignment. thus only druids, not other sorts of clerics can claim this alignment. In short, if a cleric is truly neutral, he is per se a druid. SOURCE: http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10004&start=480 richardstincer wrote: Thanks, Gary, and I think I understand your answer above, but I'm not sure. Another thing that I don't understand in the alignment section of the 1978 ADandD 1st edit. PHB is: "naturally, there are all variations and shades of tendencies within each alignment." I understand the shades of tendencies part, but I don't understand what variations can there be. Can I say that my variation of TN is practical, philosophical, simple, or nonphilosophical for example? Remember that the alignments as set forth are primarily for the use of the DM. In any brief survey of moral and ethical considerations meant for a game, that describing the treatment of Alignments you refer to, no complete metaphysical discussion of the moral compass shown is set forth. As with people, if you lined them up for visual grading there would be great fifficulty, as each would be at least margnally different from those to either hand, even though they seemed to look alike. The variation within a moral and ethical grouping is as diverse as the people that fall within its paramaters. In light of that, it is virtually impossible to answer your general question. SOURCE: http://dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10004&start=480 richardstincer wrote: Gary, when you mentioned dichotomies in the neutral paragraph of the alignment section in your 1979 ADandD DMG, does that mean the opposite things of nature or TN-alignment can exist at the same time? I mean if purity and defilement, good and evil, life and death can all exist at the same time so that I can be a TN-alignment undead PC. With all your learning get understanding... Any creature or person centered on one aspect of balance, True Neutrality, cannot perforce, be of that ethical belief. That the True Neutral holds that there must be opposites does not by any leap of imagination mean that one is of any such opposing forces it in itself of balance, only that the True Neutral understands their role in the cosmos. A graphic example might be darkness and light. both are necessary for balance, but neither is balance per se. SOURCE: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11762 richardstincer wrote: Thanks for for your reply, Gary. I have always had trouble with reading comprehension and quick learning. For ADandD 1st edit., can there be a TN-alignment undead character, creature, person, or humanoid? I'm thinking that positive energy and negative energy can both be used to animate the dead. Also, the state of undeath has a balance of life and death at the same time, so should that allow a TN- alignment undead? No problem, Richard. I have trouble with higher mathmatics The short answer is no. All undead are of negative plane energy, and can not be of neutrality. SOURCE: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11762 Driver wrote: Another "just curious" question. If you were going to assign an AD&D alignment to Cugel the Clever from Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" stories, what would it be? He doesn't seem to *actively* seek to promote evil, or any other ethos for that matter, but then again he's a git, and does some pretty nasty stuff in the stories. I'd put him as Chaotic Neutral, but I'm curious how you'd rate him. Cugel is Chaotic evil--note the small e there. He isn't demonic, but he is malign, never seeking to do good for anyone but himself, never hesitating to sacrifice anyone in search of his self interest. SOURCE: http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&start=60 Bombay wrote: I had a situation come up. The group had been ambushed by a group of Ogres, and managed to fight them off and capture the remaining one. They questioned it(By tying it upside down and hanging it by its feet from a tree.) They learned that it was part of the assualt group that had just attacked a keep some days before. And this PC group was part of the defense of the keep.