81

EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION
Welcome to the first installment of a new
feature in DRAGON® Magazine, one which
we hope will serve our readers in two ways.
?The Forum? is a place where we can print
your opinions and observations, about
articles that we?ve published or about other
subjects or issues of a more general sort.
From now on, the ?Out on a Limb? letters
column will be reserved for short letters,
primarily those that ask direct questions
requiring a response, and ?The Forum?
will be the home for long letters containing
detailed commentary or criticism. Forum
letters will not be accompanied by direct
responses, although as time goes on their
questions and criticisms may be ?an-
swered? in some other place and some other
way in the magazine.
 

As a writer, you don?t have to be as con-
cerned any more about whether your letter
is going unnoticed. We do read every letter
we receive ? honest! ? but until now we
haven?t had a convenient way of getting
many of the long ones into print, to
?prove? that we got ?em and that we aren?t
reluctant to share them with you.
 

And, as a reader, you now have an op-
portunity, more than ever before, to find
out what sorts of things are on the minds of
the other people who share your interest in
DRAGON Magazine. Not everyone who
has an opinion or an idea also has the confi-
dence, or the time, or the skill to form that
idea into a publishable article manuscript
? but that doesn?t necessarily mean they
shouldn?t be printed anyway And that?s
what ?The Forum? is all about. Here,
printed just the way they were written, are
the thoughts that this issue?s writers want to
share with you.

* * * *

It would be wise to devote a major portion of
the Forum to new ideas rather than criticism
which is mostly superficial and based largely on
personal opinion. Instead of hearing about what’s
wrong with an article, let’s hear about new cam-
paign ideas, magic items, and monsters. “Out on
a Limb” seems naturally suited towards criticism,
while The Forum could be used more produc-
tively as an idea exchange between Dungeon
Masters and players. I encourage other readers
who agree — or disagree — with my suggestion
to write in.

Peter Bregoli
Braintree, Mass.
(Dragon #84)

*    *    *    *

It would be wise to devote a major portion of
the Forum to new ideas rather than criticism
which is mostly superficial and based largely on
personal opinion. Instead of hearing about what’s
wrong with an article, let’s hear about new campaign
ideas, magic items, and monsters. “Out on
a Limb” seems naturally suited towards criticism,
while The Forum could be used more productively
as an idea exchange between DMs and players. I encourage other readers
who agree — or disagree — with my suggestion
to write in.

Peter Bregoli
Braintree, Mass
(Dragon #84)
 
 
 

* * * *

THE CHARACTER WITH 2 CLASSES
While rolling up a friendly neighborhood
arch-villain this afternoon, inspiration
struck. What would happen if I gave this
7th level assassin a single level of experience
as a fighter first? I tried it. The result pro-
duced a staggeringly powerful NPC that
exposed a serious flaw in the current
"Character With Two Classes" rule.

As many players realize, at low levels the
fighter is one of the most powerful classes
around. In fact, a first-level dungeon party
can be composed entirely of these and real-
ize no noticeable difficulties. Most fledgling
magic-users, thieves, and even clerics are
kept going only by the promise of far
greater things to come. Why, resourceful
players may reason, should the entire party
not begin as fighters and switch to the de-
sired class after one level? The DMGs
?cheating? methods for generating abilities
usually provide the high stats required to do
this. It sounds okay, but look at the results:

1. Non-fighter characters normally re-
stricted to 18 strength could receive scores
of 18/50, 18/75, or even 18/00!

2. They would receive four ?starting
weapons? immediately, as well as a gamut
of others upon beginning their new class a
mere 2,000 experience points later. As if
after this weren?t enough, they would ever
fight at only -2  for non-proficiency.

3. They would be able to obtain high hit-
point scores at low levels (why fight a giant
rat when you can take on a hydra?), throw-
ing the game off balance.

4. Upon reaching so much as second level
in their new class, things would get really
out of hand. The now non-fighters would be
able to carry all sorts of extra goodies nor-
mally restricted to fighters to prevent other.
classes from becoming self-made godlings. I
have nightmares of sword-swinging clerics
who sport girdles of giant strength, or of the
warlock with two javelins of lightning, a +3
battle axe, and a rod of lordly might stuffed
in his pack, ?just in case.?

This isn?t the only situation, either. What
about the monk with but one level of magic-
user experience who discovers a wand of
fire in some forgotten crypt. . . ?

Most players, including my own, have
not yet discovered this overly effective strat-
egy, but you can see my problem. Minimal
levels of experience in a class can bestow
such advantages that the whole ?Two
Classes? threatens to fall apart. Is there any
way to correct this rule, or to dilute some of
the superhumans it creates? What about
allowable weapons? Should a two-classed
character be permitted at all?

David Hutton
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
 

While reading through my copy of DRAGON
#81, I came across an article by David Hutton in
the Forum section concerning the power of the
character with two classes, and I felt obligated to
express my feelings on the subject.

I feel that the current system of the character
with two classes is very accurate and adds flavor
to the game. I see no evidence in what Mr. Hutton
has written that the character with two classes
is so "staggeringly powerful," as he puts it. In the
example he gives of a Cutthroat
who was once a fighter of first level, I see a
character who wasted two thousand experience
points to gain the ?benefits? of better armor in
combat, which doesn?t come in too handy if the
NPC is attempting to sneak up and assassinate
someone. If you examine the two characters, it is
obvious that an assassin has a better chance to
hit, an equal number of weapons (with just as
many to choose from), and an equal nonproficiency
penalty with his first level fighter part.
The only good which comes out of the whole deal
is that this character can use all the magic weapons
a fighter can use, instead of just most of
them, which other thieves and assassins can use.
And I would rather have an assassin in nice quiet
leather armor with a girdle of fire giant strength
than an assassin/first level fighter with a potion of
the same name.

Also, if there is still a reluctance on the part of
you DMs out there, consider this: the more the
power, the greater the risks most players can and
will usually take. In most cases, when characters
die it is because they bit off more than they can
chew. Your characters with two classes are just as
likely to make ridiculous mistakes and blunders
as are your "normal" characters. To enhance this
swelling of pride is easy; a few peasants falling on
their knees in front of the heroes pleading for
salvation from the local dragon or wizard, or a
king offering a nice, fat ransom to anyone who
can infiltrate the castle of one of his enemies
should blind the characters to all caution and
send them headlong into doom, if for no other
reason than to save their precious reputations.

One final point to consider: If the characters
are that great, sooner or later some deity will call
on them to give eternal service. Former player
characters who have been divinely called do make
great right-hand men and women for most Dungeon
Masters. . . .

Eric Odgaard
Lincoln, Neb.
(Dragon #82)
 

*    *    *    *    *
 

Some years ago, when creating the first character
I would play, a third-level magic-user, I was
distressed by how slim his chances of survival
were. Then I recalled the "Character With Two
Classes" section of the Players Handbook. Suddenly
I could create a character with a chance.

However, I still didn't have a character of great
power. In "The Forum" of DRAGON issue #81,
David Hutton said that by giving a character one
level as a fighter, one would get someone who was
"staggeringly powerful." I noticed that possibility.
However, having been a DM for some time, I
realized that such problems might be avoided
without a tremendous amount of difficulty.

The key concept in the change of class is the
amount of time necessary to spend in training for
the new class. (Lenard Lakofka thankfully detailed
this in DRAGON #51; hopefully that
article will be reprinted in BEST OF DRAGON
IV.) It is on the order of years. This tends to keep
most characters from switching. Also, with this
information the first of David's problems -- that
a character switching from fighter to another class
could cause non-fighters with 18/01 to 18/00
strength -- is easily solved. Since no other class
has the need for as much physical strength as
fighters, the muscles that were carefully honed
during fighter training, and vigorously kept up,
will go slack, say at a rate of 05 every other
month, until finally, after 18/01, a strength of 18
is reached, there to remain. (Certain exceptional
individuals might keep their muscles in shape
while training for another class, at the DM's
option. Training times would be considerably
lengthened.)

David's 2nd problem was that of weapons of
proficiency. First, he said that the fighter (first
level fighters switching to another class was his
main concern) would have 4 weapons, and
then would gain even more upon entering the
new class. Again, this is a question of training.
Most people won't spend the time and money
necessary to learn to use additional weapons (say,
darts if becoming a M-U) if they can already
wield 4 weapons (say, a long bow, a mace, a
long sword, and a two-handed sword).

He also said that they would ever after fight at
-2 for non-proficiency. This is only true to a
point. They would fight, as a first level fighter, at
-2 (assuming they switched from being a first
level fighter). As an example, let's take my favorite
character, Zephyr, a first level fighter who,
after long years as a wizard's apprentice, became
a magic-user and then gained 3 levels (this
first/third level human, having never been unnaturally
aged -- yet -- was already almost forty
years old). Let us say he found a long sword, with
which he was proficient as a (1st level) fighter.
He could use it as a 1st level proficient fighter,
or as a third level non-proficient mage, at -6
(don't tell me a mage can't swing a sword, albeit
poorly). He would, of course, swing as the
fighter. Even if it was a bastard sword, with
which he was non-proficient in both classes, he
would still attack as the fighter.

Now let's say that Zephyr, after many, many
years of adventuring, has become a 22nd level
Archmage (he hasn't). Now it is much to his
advantage to swing that +3 sword he made, as a
21+ level M-U, at -6 (as opposed to a proficient
1st level fighter).

David's 3rd problem was high HP
scores. I am not certain if he meant "scores" as
in a number of HP or "scores" as in "hits
for damage." The latter would basically rely on
exceptional strength, which we've already discussed,
so I'll address the former.

As everyone knows, a high CON can
give a character extra HP (sometimes a lot
of extra HP). Non-fighters can, at most,
only get +2 per HD, but fighters with a CON
of 18 can get +4 per HD. Add to this the
common practice of giving maximum HP
for the 1st level's HD (see Len Lakofka's
article), and one has problems. Fortunately, one
doesn't gain additional HP after changing
classes, until the level of the new class exceeds the
level of the old. 2nd, only the fighter HD
will get a +4, the others only getting +2.
Take the 1st level/3rd level fighter/M-U again.
With an 18 CON he would get 14 HP (maximum
10, +4 constitution bonus) for the fighter
level, and 6-12 HP for the M-U levels (1-4
for each level after the first, +2 CON. for each level
after the 1st), for a total of 20 to 26 HP.

Finally, David wonders what would happen if
special "classed" magic items were used by the
wrong class, say, monks using wands of fire
(because they have 1 level as a magic-user).
The wizard Zephyr wields the very highly enchanted
long sword Firefrost -- technically
speaking, it's an intelligent +5 flaming vorpal
frostbrand. And despite all that, he's more likely
to hit an opponent with a 2 gp dagger than with
Firefrost.

To sum up, the ?Character With Two Classes?
is not so much a veritable godling (like an ?official
? bard), but rather is an interesting change
from the typical stereotypes (a wizard with a
sword ? unheard of!) to a more fantastic, more
all-encompassing system wherein a character can
be what he wants to be.

Scott D. Hoffrage
Miller Place, N.Y.
(Dragon #83)

<^House Rule^: When changing class to a class that is not able to have exceptional STR, each game month, drop your exceptional STR by 5%, until 18 is reached.>
<Zephyr: fighter>MU>
 

*    *    *    *    *
 

PSIONICS
I believe the article by Mr. Schroeck in
issue #78 has pointed out a major problem
in psionics; specifically, low level characters
automatically getting their full calculated
value of psionic points rather than going
through a system of controlled progression.
I would like to present this idea for general
consideration.

According to page 3 of Eldritch Wizardry,
"Psychic Potential" is gained at 10% incre-
ments, plus or minus a bonus or penalty as
determined by a d% roll. Putting things
together with some modification, the table
could read as follows:

Psychic Potential

D% roll	Rate of progression per level
01-10	4%
11-25	5%
26-50	6%
51-75	10%
76-90	11%
91-99	12%
00	13%

This table may be usable in the current
psionic system. For illustration, let?s say a
character has a calculated psionic ability of
200 points. As Mr. Schroeck has suggested,
this would be a ?goal.? How fast will the
character progress toward this goal? We
make a d% roll on the table given above.
Let?s say the d% roll comes up 55. The
character will get 10% of 200 points, or 20
points, each level, half for attack and half
for defense. Any fractions can be rounded
up or down as the DM desires.

This table may be usable in the current
psionic system. For illustration, let?s say a
character has a calculated psionic ability of
200 points. As Mr. Schroeck has suggested,
this would be a ?goal.? How fast will the
character progress toward this goal? We
make a d% roll on the table given above.
Let?s say the d% roll comes up 55. The
character will get 10% of 200 points, or 20
points, each level, half for attack and half
for defense. Any fractions can be rounded
up or down as the DM desires.

Psionic points can fluctuate with changes
in wisdom, intelligence, or charisma. On
the other hand, the rate of progression can
remain as a fixed value or be adjusted up or
down to follow any such fluctuation. If the
initial point acquisition is low, it might
prevent usage of a discipline at 1st level. I
would not expect this problem to have much
effect on game balance.

Ed Zmitravich
Meadow, Utah
Dragon #81

*    *    *    *

Although my AD&D group has used
psionics for quite a while, there have been a
few questions along the way. The articles in
issue #78 helped to clear much of these
away. One question still: Why relate psionic
progression to class progression at all? No
doubt it lessens the DM?s ?not another item
to keep track of? blues, but I can?t find the
logic behind it. A character?s mental abili-
ties (i.e., psionics) have little relation to the
character?s class. When you realize that the
acquisition of psionic disciplines depends
upon the progression within the character?s
class and moreso upon which  class is cho-
sen, it makes even less sense.

Comparisons of the separate class pro-
gression tables shows that a druid wound
gain disciplines quicker than any other
class. Why? Logic along one line would say
that a magic-user or illusionist (who uses
naught but his/her mind normally) would
acquire them faster. Along another line of
logic, a fighter (who uses mostly his brawn
with less mind) would acquire them fastest
as the ?spell users? already have their
minds busy holding spells. Yet the druid
gains them faster than any other class be-
cause he/she is a druid. Either way you
lose.

One suggestion would be to have a sepa-
rate progression for the gaining of disci-
plines and attack/defense modes. This could
possibly be modified by the pertinent ability
scores (intelligence, wisdom, and charisma)
and/or the character?s total psionic ability
score. A bonus/penalty might be added per
the class that is chosen.

Another suggestion might be to create a
new class along the lines of Mr. Collins?
Psionicist. A character who showed  poten-
tial  (per the previous roll of the dice) could
opt for this class only  to develop the talent.
Choosing a class other than this one would
mean that the talent was never developed
and would not be available to the character.

Rodney L. Barnes
Albany, Ore.
(Dragon #81)

*    *    *    *

The issue on psionics was very well re-
ceived. There could have been more on the
political side of the psionic endowed. For
those who wish to find out more of the
political side, I suggest reading  To Ride
Pegasus  by Anne McCaffrey. The book is
very good in dealing with the psionic com-
munity and their dealings with the ?un-
gifted.? The problems they encounter are
similar to the Deryni. And with a little
imagination, a scenario could be built
around a town in need of saving from suspi-
cious neighbors. . . .

Mark Kadas
Allentown, Pa.
(Dragon #81)

*    *    *    *

In reference to Theresa Reed's letter
about male orientation published in issue
#74 of your magazine, I would like to say
that I find your articles are in general very
good, but there are occasions when they are
downright terrible. In the much maligned
issue #72, for instance, there is an article
called "A new name? It's elementary!?"
Quite handy to have for naming characters,
but what if those characters are female? I
see in this article a word for "prince," but I
see no sign of a word for ?princess.? Simi-
larly, there are words for ?man,? ?god,?
and ?warrior, man? but the female equiva-
lents are not even mentioned.

This oversight was bad enough, but the
article about the new Duelist NPC class in
the next issue of DRAGON Magazine (#73)
was even worse. In this article the Fenc-
ingmaster's school is described as a "male
gossip shop" and there is no hint whatso-
ever of the female pronoun throughout the
entire article. It is true that the profession
on which the Duelist NPC class is based
was entirely made up of males, but that is
no reason for it to be limited in the AD&D
world. After all, fighters, cavaliers, and
most thieves were male, but Gary Gygax
has had the good sense not to restrict the
game in that area, and in so doing has
attracted many women to the game. (No
doubt many men find the "him/her," "he/
she" approach of Mr. Gygax's writing
cumbersome, but women resent being
referred to as "he," just as most men would
resent being referred to as "she.")

There are a few other examples I could
give of this male orientation, but as they are
relatively minor I won't cloud over the
major issue by getting picky. I would like to
emphasize, however, that I do not want
articles written from the female perspective.
They are just as bad as articles written from
the male perspective, as they too alienate a
large proportion of the readership. What I
do want is for all articles to be written from,
an unbiased perspective.

Elizabeth Perry
Wellington, New Zealand
(The Forum, Dragon #81)

P.S. Sorry this letter came so late after the
subject of male orientation was raised, but
issue #74 only arrived in this remote part of
the prime material plane three weeks ago.
 

Many moons ago (in DRAGON issue #74)
Theresa Reed wrote a letter to the editor stating
that she felt that DRAGON Magazine was
?ignoring? women. I have played AD&D
for two years and read the magazine for
nearly as long, and I do not feel that AD&D
is a ?male-oriented? game, nor is
DRAGON a ?male-oriented? magazine.
For example, in the Players Handbook,
most of the entries that can refer to
either male or female characters are stated
as ?his or her.? I also think that a slight
strength penalty for female characters is not
sexist; it is actually rather generous, if you
consider that the AD&D game is based on a
medieval society, in which women were
rarely allowed out of the house! Compare
this to a game like the one described in the
book Fantasy Wargaming, in which female
player characters suffer penalties such as -2
to charisma and -3 to social class!

I must also commend DRAGON Magazine
for its fairness. The women we frequently
see on the covers of the magazine
have been anything but weak and helpless,
and are certainly clad in more than chainmail
bikinis. I can even remember that one
old issue of DRAGON contained an article <Dungeons aren't supposed to be 'for men only'>
which strongly discouraged the use of rape
and pregnancy in campaigns.

Laurel Golding
Grosse Ile, Mich.
(Dragon #82)
 
 
 

CONVENTIONS
I would like to discuss two items that may or
may not be related, depending upon a particular
point of view: DRAGONmagazine and the GEN
CON game convention. Assuming that they are
related to a goodly degree, inasmuch as both are
results of concentrated efforts of divisions of
TSR, Inc., I’ll make my comments with that in
mind.

I’ve attended the last four GEN CONs and
have also read DRAGON during that same
period. In that time, I have never understood
why the magazine published. by TSR has virtually
ignored any extensive follow-up of the game
convention presented by TSR. (I seem to recall a
photo and a small article concerning GEN CON
XII, and I know you now publish the preregistration
schedule in the June issue.) With the
exception of Kim Eastland’s fine follow-ups on
the miniatures’ competition, there have been no
articles of any depth that concern the last four
GEN CONs. With the wealth of subject matter
that would be available from such an event, it
baffles me as to why DRAGON has not plundered
this treasure trove of game tournaments,
seminars, exhibits, art shows, ad infinitum, and
turned your magazine into a complete publication
tion. Without articles, reviews, results and photos
of TSR's convention, TSR's magazine is, indeed,
incomplete.

Now, I know (as you have stated in your
editorials several times) that you do not want to
be known as a "house organ," and maybe this is
why you haven't done any follow-ups on TSR's
convention. As far as I'm concerned (and you
said you wanted to hear our opinions) it doesn?t
really matter if you are hung up on what you
consider to be a derogatory title, your magazine
is published by TSR, so why not take advantage
and have one division of TSR link hands with
another. Of course, I am not aware of what ethics
might be involved here, if any, but it appears
painfully logical that if TSR puts on the biggest
game convention around, why not use their own
magazine to further both the convention and the
magazine?

And if you're worried that "house organ" will
attach some sort of stigma to DRAGON, you
need fear not. With the influx of gaming magazines
in the past four years, DRAGON still
retains (and constantly improves on) its quality
and professionalism. You truly lost the "house
organ" monkey on your back when you stopped
printing E. Gary Gygax's diatribes against the
entire gaming industry. Gary Gygax's war with
his competitors has absolutely no bearing on any
of us average gamers.

But, GEN CON does have a bearing on readers
of DRAGON: it presents what you publish,
live. Articles, reviews of seminars and exhibits
and art shows, some tournament results, and
photos would not only renew memories and give
news to those of us who attend, but it would give
valuable information and stir the interest of a
gamer who may be reluctant to attend. In the
end, it means more and more satisfied DRAGON
readers, as well as new convention attendees who
can find out how much fun a large scale convention
can be.

Anyway, these are just one man?s comments
and opinions on a couple of subjects that could
and should complement each other, and I hope
you take this constructive criticism in the light
that it was given and deal with the situations.

Bill Cavalier
Rolling Prairie, Ind.
(Dragon #84)

*    *    *    *

I'm shocked at the RPGA Ranking System. <link>
All points of it are well thought out except the
placement of fun as a bonus point area when fun
is the only reason I play. If the players are boring
the game is boring, no matter how well they
execute their characters? actions of work together.

James Brewer
Lebanon, Pa.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I found some cause for disagreement in Ka-
tharine Kerr?s December article, "Who lives in
that castle?"

Contrary to what Ms. Kerr states, the average
serf did not live in a constant state of near-
starvation, except in times of drought and fam-
ine, when  everyone  tightened his belt. Serfs ate
quite well, if somewhat monotonously. While the
lord and his guests dined on such delicacies as
peacock (very tough, I?ve heard, and served more
for its looks than taste) and other game, rare
foods and spices such as pepper, white bread, and
sweets . . . his serfs were downing copious
amounts of ye olde standbye ? potage (pea
soup), cassoulet (bean and sausage stew), por-
ridge, bacon, eggs, black bread, and any small
game he managed to poach without getting
caught.

A smart lord would not take so much that his
serfs would starve. After all, it?s bad land man-
agement ? a  serf who is dead or otherwise too
weak to work is not getting his lord any richer.

Nicki Perdue
Morgan Hill, Calif.

*    *    *    *

Both EGG and Ed Greenwood have suggested
that the Nine Hells be stripped of non-devil
deities, which begs the question of where to put
absolute lawful evil deities who aren?t devils.

Actually, the problem extends through all the
afterlife planes, inasmuch as there are far more
pantheons of gods in any alignment than there
are known planes. If we discard the basic axiom
of the afterlife astral planes, however, we can
easily dispose of the problem and not really affect
the known planes too much in playability.

As it stands, there is one afterlife plane per
major and/or minor alignment, with official stats
given for 16 of the 25 possible alignments. If we
remove this concept and say that there is (with
exceptions) one afterlife plane per manifestation
of godhead and these planes have alignments, the
current problems disappear. In the case of the
Nine Hells, those nine planes occupy only a part
of what I call the Astral Space  of Absolute Lawful
Evil. Since the planes are determined by the
intersection of the Good/Evil and Law/Chaos
axes and are afterlife planes, it can be presumed
that the third dimensional axis is the Life/Death
line. (Astral continuums using the Light/Dark
axis?) The plane which orcs and goblinoids battle
for possession of lies parallel to the hells, stacked
within the Astral Space of lawful evil, along with
the planes ruled by other lawful evil deities.

Removing the one-plane-to-a-customer rule
makes it easier to make the astral planes able to
be consistent with established mythology. Olym-
pus can and should be in the same astral space as
either the Twin Paradises or the Seven Heavens.
The Greeks and Romans had civilized (lawful)
societies, and their gods should reflect that.
 

It might be convenient to name the 25 spaces,
but caution should be used to have names which
do not reflect any particular inhabitant of the
space. Mr. Greenwood used the phrase ?The
Infernal Regions? in his article when talking
about the various hells of legend and literature,
and I for one nominate it for the name of the
Absolute Lawful Evil space.

S. D. Anderson
Whittier, Calif.

*    *    *    *

I?m glad to hear you?re allowing more space
for readers? opinions in DRAGON. I?m also very
glad to hear that you call such opinions ?letters,?
as letters can be handwritten while other manu-
scripts have to be typed, and I hate to type. So,
here?s my opinion on one question ? I trust it
will be legible.

Why There's No Such Thing as an Anti-
Paladin:

Gods differ greatly in how easy it is to serve
them. The lawful good gods are the hardest to
serve, since their service goes against so many of
our natural instincts. A couple of examples:

Self-preservation.  Modern policemen are
taught that if the choice is between shooting the
villain when the shots might hurt innocent by-
standers, or holding your tire and maybe getting
shot yourself, you  don’t shoot.  And if an evil man
takes hostages and demands that you surrender
or he?ll kill them, you surrender. (Of course, you
may negotiate, but not to the point where he kills
one of them to add to the pressure.) A chaotic or
neutral good character might argue that killing
the hostage-takers, no matter what happens to th
hostages, will ultimately be the better course in
that it will deter future hostage-takers. A lawful
evil or neutral character might argue that every-
one is responsible for their own actions, so if the
hostages were dumb enough to get captured,
that?s their worry; I?ll just kill the villains. But
neither of these is the lawful good way. For the
lawful good character, defense of the innocent
must come first; self-preservation is secondary.

Self-enrichment:  Too much wealth in the hands
of too few people is a hallmark of lawful evil ?
get all you can and hold onto it, and don?t think
about all the impoverished peasants who average
your money out. Lawful good people can live
comfortably, but any extra money goes to im-
prove the lot of their less fortunate fellow crea-
tures. Hoarding and ?flaunting it? are alike evil
traits; lawful good people take what they deserve
and need, but no more. They are good as well as
lawful.

I could go on ? for one thing, I haven?t
touched on when killing (i.e., vengeance) is
justifiable  ? but you should have the picture by
now. Being lawful good requires great restraint
and goes contrary to many of our basic instincts.

Therefore, the lawful good gods give considera-
ble benefits to their more loyal followers, both as
inducements to serve them by following this
basically unnatural way, and as rewards for
arduous services (suitable recompense for services
rendered is definitely a lawful good virtue).

Now, consider how one serves the cause of
chaotic evil. It?s a  lot  easier. If you have foes, you
can kill them, torture them, enslave them, or do
what you will. If innocent bystanders get you
don?t care. You can pile up all the money you
want, not caring how many people get impover-
ished in the process. In short, being chaotic evil
places you under no restraints whatever. It?s  fun
(for those with the ?right? ? by which I mean
wrong  — mentality, of which there are very
many). So why would the chaotic evil gods want
to reward one for having fun?

And  that’s why there is no such thing as an
anti-paladin (or an evil saint; see issue #79).

Ralph Sizer
Providence, R.I.

*    *    *    *

While reading through my copy of DRAGON
#81, I came across an article by David Hutton in
the Forum section concerning the power of the
character with two classes, and I felt obligated to
express my feelings on the subject.

I feel that the current system of the character
with two classes is very accurate and adds flavor
to the game. I see no evidence in what Mr. Hut-
ton has written that the character with two classes
is so ?staggeringly powerful,? as he puts it. In the
example he gives of an assassin of seventh level
who was once a fighter of first level, I see a
character who wasted two thousand experience
points to gain the ?benefits? of better armor in
combat, which doesn?t come in too handy if the
NPC is attempting to sneak up and assassinate
someone. If you examine the two characters, it is
obvious that an assassin has a better chance to
hit, an equal number of weapons (with just as
many to choose from), and an equal non-
proficiency penalty with his first level fighter part.
The only good which comes out of the whole deal
is that this character can use all the magic weap-
ons a fighter can use, instead of just most of
them, which other thieves and assassins can use.
And I would rather have an assassin in nice quiet
leather armor with a girdle of fire giant strength
than an assassin/first level fighter with a potion of
the same name.

Also, if there is still a reluctance on the part of
you DMs out there, consider this: the more the
power, the greater the risks most players can and
will usually take. In most cases, when characters
die it is because they bit off more than they can
chew. Your characters with two classes are just as
likely to make ridiculous mistakes and blunders
as are your ?normal? characters. To enhance this
swelling of pride is easy; a few peasants falling on
their knees in front of the heroes pleading for
salvation from the local dragon or wizard, or a
king offering a nice, fat ransom to anyone who
can infiltrate the castle of one of his enemies
should blind the characters to all caution and
send them headlong into doom, if for no other
reason than to save their precious reputations.

One final point to consider: If the characters
are that great, sooner or later some deity will call
on them to give eternal service. Former player
characters who have been divinely called  do make
great right-hand men and women for most Dun-
geon Masters. . . .

Eric Odgaard
Lincoln, Neb.

*    *    *    *

Many moons ago (in DRAGON issue #74)
Theresa Reed wrote a letter to the editor stating
that she felt that DRAGON Magazine was
?ignoring? women. I have played AD&D
for two years and read the magazine for
   nearly as long, and I do not feel that AD&D
is a ?male-oriented? game, nor  is
DRAGON a ?male-oriented? magazine.
For example, in the Players Handbook,
most of the entries that can refer to
either male or female characters are stated
as ?his or her.? I also think that a slight
strength penalty for female characters is not
sexist; it is actually rather generous, if you
consider that the AD&D game is based on a
medieval society, in which women were
rarely allowed out of the house! Compare
this to a game like the one described in the
book  Fantasy Wargaming,  in which female
player characters suffer penalties such as -2
to charisma and -3 to social class!

I must also commend DRAGON Maga-
zine for its fairness. The women we fre-
quently see on the covers of the magazine
have been anything but weak and helpless,
and are certainly clad in more than chain-
mail bikinis. I can even remember that one
old issue of DRAGON contained an article
which strongly discouraged the use of rape
and pregnancy in campaigns.

Laurel Golding
Grosse Ile, Mich.

Some years ago, when creating the first charac-
ter I would play, a third-level magic-user, I was
distressed by how slim his chances of survival
were. Then I recalled the "Character With Two
Classes" section of the Players Handbook. Sud-
denly I could create a character with a chance.

However, I still didn?t have a character of great
power. In ?The Forum? of DRAGON issue #81,
David Hutton said that by giving a character one
level as a fighter, one would get someone who was
?staggeringly powerful.? I noticed that possibility.
However, having been a DM for some time, I
realized that such problems might be avoided
without a tremendous amount of difficulty.

The key concept in the change of class is the
amount of time necessary to spend in training for
the new class. (Lenard Lakofka thankfully de-
tailed this in DRAGON #51; hopefully that
article will be reprinted in BEST OF DRAGON
IV.) It is on the order of years. This tends to keep
most characters from switching. Also, with this
information the first of David?s problems ? that
a character switching from fighter to another clas
could cause non-fighters with 18/01 to 18/00
strength ? is easily solved. Since no other class
has the need for as much physical strength as
fighters, the muscles that were carefully honed
during fighter training, and vigorously kept up,
will go slack, say at a rate of 05 every other
month, until finally, after 18/01, a strength of 18
is reached, there to remain. (Certain exceptional
individuals might keep their muscles in shape
while training for another class, at the DM?s
option. Training times would be considerably
lengthened.)

David?s second problem was that of weapons of
proficiency. First, he said that the fighter (first
level fighters switching to another class was his
main concern) would have four weapons, and
then would gain even more upon entering the
new class. Again, this is a question of training.
Most people won?t spend the time and money
necessary to learn to use additional weapons (say,
darts if becoming a M-U) if they can already
wield four weapons (say, a long bow, a mace, a
long sword, and a two-handed sword).

He also said that they would ever after fight at
-2 for non-proficiency. This is only true to a
point. They would fight, as a  first level fighter, at
-2 (assuming they switched from being a first
level fighter). As an example, let?s take my favor-
ite character, Zephyr, a first level fighter who,
after long years as a wizard?s apprentice, became
a magic-user and then gained three levels (this
first/third level human, having never been unnat-
urally aged ? yet ? was already almost forty
years old). Let us say he found a long sword, with
which he was proficient as a (first level) fighter.
He could use it as a first level proficient fighter,
or as a third level non-proficient mage, at -6
(don?t tell me a mage can?t swing a sword, albeit
poorly). He would, of course, swing as the
fighter. Even if it was a bastard sword, with
which he was non-proficient in both classes, he
would still attack as the fighter.

Now let?s say that Zephyr, after many, many
years of adventuring, has become a 22nd level
Archmage (he hasn?t). Now it is much to his
advantage to swing that +3 sword he made, as a
21+ level M-U, at -6 (as opposed to a proficient
first level fighter).

David?s third problem was high hit point
scores. I am not certain if he meant ?scores? as
in a number of hit points or ?scores? as in ?hits
for damage.? The latter would basically rely on
exceptional strength, which we?ve already dis-
cussed, so I?ll address the former.

As everyone knows, a high constitution can
give a character extra hit points (sometimes  a lot
of extra hit points). Non-fighters can, at most,
only get +2 per hit die, but fighters with a consti-
tution of 18 can get +4 per hit die. Add to this the
common practice of giving maximum hit points
for the first level?s hit die (see Len Lakofka?s
article), and one has problems. Fortunately, one
doesn?t gain additional hit points after changing
classes, until the level of the new class exceeds the
level of the old. Second, only the fighter hit dice
will get a +4, the others only getting +2. Take the
first level/third level fighter/M-U again. With an
18 constitution he would get 14 hit points (maxi-
mum 10, +4 constitution bonus) for the fighter
level, and 6-12 hit points for the M-U levels (1-4
for each level after the first, +2 con. for each level
after the first), for a total of 20 to 26 hit points.

Finally, David wonders what would happen if
special ?classed? magic items were used by the
wrong class, say, monks using wands of fire
(because they have one level as a magic-user).
The wizard Zephyr wields the very highly en-
chanted long sword Firefrost ? technically
speaking, it?s an intelligent +5 flaming vorpal
frostbrand. And despite all that, he?s more likely
to hit an opponent with a 2 gp dagger than with
Firefrost.

To sum up, the ?Character With Two Classes?
is not so much a veritable godling (like an ?offi-
cial? bard), but rather is an interesting change
from the typical stereotypes (a wizard with a
sword ? unheard of!) to a more fantastic, more
all-encompassing system wherein a character can
be what he wants to be.

Scott D. Hoffrage
Miller Place, N.Y.

* * * * *

REVIEWS

Issue #81 was great, but I take exception to an
article that I have always considered my favorite:
the game reviews. Ken Rolston is generally a
very good reviewer, but here I think he gave too
much away concerning the scenarios.

"Call of Cthulhu" is a game which must have
almost complete secrecy. Things such as revealing
the deity (Cthulhu) or telling that there is an
exploding door and a shoggoth in scenario two
does not work well in this game system (or any
other, for that matter). Giving away important
facts takes away the horror from the scenarios.

"Ravenloft" was not such a giveaway, but I
still think some fun will be taken out of the scenario.
I know I won't have as much fun as I
would have now that I've read the review.

In further issues, review either new games or
supplements -- but please don't give away hints
like shoggoths and death traps. Reviews are
needed to express a writer's opinion (a well
valued one); however, reviews should not give
away plots or hints. Ken Rolston is an excellent
writer -- but this time maybe he wrote just a bit
too much.
 

Jon Paulson
River Falls, Wis.
(Dragon #85)

Mr. Rolston's response:
Jon,

It's difficult to make public judgments without
citing specific examples. I have to balance the
damage of revealing one or two plot elements
against the virtue of communicating and substantiating
my judgment for the reader.

I agree with you that where the element of
suspense is critical, details should not be revealed.
I even agree that the specific references in the
review of Shadows of Yog-Sothoth should have
been less explicit.

I propose one possible solution to this problem,
subject to the editor's approval. In future adventure
reviews I will warn readers when I'm about
to discuss specific adventure details. ("<WARNING:>
The following explicit discussion of plot elements
may diminish a player's pleasure if he anticipates
participating in this adventure.") I also suggest
that such explicit discussions of plot elements be
printed in italics, to make it easier for the reader
to skip sections that he wants to avoid. [Editor's
note: Sounds like it's worth a try]
 

Thank you for bringing this matter to my
attention. Review readers should regularly give
reviewers feedback on the usefulness of their
reviews. Writers address an INVISIBLE and inaudible
audience as they sit typing their articles. To
see and hear what you have to say helps us directly
address the needs of our reading audience.

Ken Rolston
Tabor, N. J.
(Dragon #84)
 

* * * * *