[Cerek]

Originally posted by LennonCook: Ah, but this is exactly my point: in P&P, isn't it the DM's right to change the rules for any given campaign? This makes all of what the Many Handbooks say to be merely suggestion, and more importantly open to interpretation. Thus, everything I say is simply my interpreation of what I know of them. Disclaimer: "what I know of them" isn't very much. [img]smile.gif[/img]

The answer to your question about DM's changing the rules in their games is basically "Yes AND No". A DM could run a "closed" campaign in which HE got to set all the rules. For instance, the guy that taught me to play the game had us play in a "closed" campaign and he did NOT allow weapon specialization - even though that was an "official rule" of the AD&D world. The other rule of a closed campaign is that the characters in that game could NOT be played in any other game. They were restricted to that DM's campaign alone. In this instance, MOST of the official rules were still followed, but the DM did have the discretion to modify or nullify any rules he/she didn't like.

The other type of games were "open" games - which meant you could play the same character under several different DM's. In an "open" game, the DM had less authority to play around with the rules because it was expected by the players that the same rules would apply to their character no matter WHO the DM was. Now DM's did have the right to disallow any items or abilities a character might have that they considered to be too powerful, but they still had to follow the "official" rules of AD&D more closely than if they were running a game set in their own world. The only rule I disallowed on a consistent basis was the use of psionics. It was just too difficult for me to figure out how they worked and how to intergrate them into the game, so I just told any character that had psionics that those powers did NOT work in my game. On the flip side of that, I never ran any monsters that had psionic abilities either, so I applied the restriction evenly.

Originally posted by LennonCook: Again, I see and agree with the fact that this can happen, but I disagree with the justification behind it. I don't see it so much as being so because it is in violation of the player's handbook, but rather because that character's attitudes and loyalties have changed (or atleast, may appear to have changed, and especially if the actions are many, rather than a one off). Thus, a Cleric for example, has ceased believing in their god, ceased doing as that god says, and this is immediately reflected in game in two ways: 1) The character's alignment changes to reflect the change in motivations. 2) The god takes action against this offense. They might simply stop fueling the character's spells; or in the case of a more vengeful god, or a more offensive change, more drastic action might be warranted. For a minor transgression, the god might forgive the Cleric if they can prove satisfactorily that they haven't completely disregarded the law. This to me explains the "penance quest".

OK, I can meet you halfway on this one. It wasn't necessarily because the player violated the Player's Handbook, but the PH DID give a definition of each alignment and a basic guideline of how a character of that alignment should act and what their motivations would be. Again, the player had access to this data BEFORE creating their character and then they presumably chose an alignment for thier character based on those official descriptions.

A good example of what happens when a character violates his/her alignment once too often is the ranger I mentioned earlier that had the evil steed. That was also in the "closed campaign" I mentioned above and I have to admit that the DM was very lenient with me. He took into consideration the fact that I was just learning the game, so I got away with a lot more then than I could now. For instance, if I had already played the game and knew the rules, then he probably would have punished my character the very FIRST time I ever dared mount an evil steed. When my luck finally ran out, I had jumped on the Nightmare to chase a genie that had attacked the party and then fled. We couldn't catch him on foot and the Nightmare was the ONLY chance we had of catching him at all before he escaped. But the horse had a different plan and - instead of chasing the genie - he took me straight down to one of the Planes of Hell where I was given an immediate audience with a major evil diety (can't remember which one). He basically gave me two choices - convert to evil and begin worshipping him on the spot OOORRRRRRRR get cast into the Lake of Fire we were standing next to and be tormented for eternity. It took me almost 3 full seconds to make my decision. Actually, it wasn't too bad. I got a new set of enchanted armor out of the deal and my character got to start doing nifty things like buying poison to coat his weapon. Our cleric caught me buying the poison and questioned me about it. I tried to lie to him and he didn't believe me, so I finally told him it was none of his business and let it go at that. The cleric considered his options and chose not to confront my character openly about it anymore.

Originally posted by LennonCook: But what happens if those contradict one another? Especially if they repeatedly contradict one another (say, a paladin in a generally oppressive land), this is not a good situation. They may have to break one or the other law in order to do anything at all - even stay out of it. I would call the Knights of the Round Table Lawful Neutral: they followed the laws of their worship, which involved protecting other followers from the enemies. To this end, we see that the founded a city where they might better protect the people, and created the laws of it as a model of the greater good they worshipped. It is a slightly different situation for a Forgotten Realms Paladin: they are subject to the law, rather than creators of it, and so it can contradict other laws they follow. And so I see a Paladin as favouring the laws of their God when a decision in this is necesary, which makes them Lawful Neutral with respect to their god's laws.

Yes, you're right that there would be times when the Laws of the Land would conflict with the Laws of Religion that the paladin followed, and in that case he/she would HAVE to follow his personal laws instead of the laws of the land (though he might suffer repurcussions for breaking the law). The Knights of the Round Table were either Lawful Good or Neutral Good (for the most part) in their official AD&D write-up (from the Dieties and Demigods handbook, 1st Edition). Most were paladins, though a few were just straight fighters. I don't believe ANY of them were Lawful Neutral because they ALL fought for the cause of "Good".

The bottom line is that the rules in AD&D were guidelines, so DM's could make exceptions to them occasionally. But in order for the games to be successful, the rules had to be followed more often than not so that there would be consistency for the players and they would know what to expect when they brought their character to a new game under a different DM. But if a DM set up his/her own world in which the characters were not allowed to be played anywhere else, then the DM could ignore a great many more rules and could establish more rules of their own.