Leaving aside the forgettable "Notes from HQ," the issue properly kicks off with "Dominion" by Jon Pickens, which introduces a new type of spell for use by AD&D magic-users. Unlike previous collections of new spells by Pickens, this one looks not to magic items for inspiration but rather psionics. All of the dominion spells concern "controlling the victim's voluntary muscles and sensory linkages." This is not mind control but rather bodily control of another being (with the senses being considered part of the body). It's an interesting approach and ultimately, I think, a better one than AD&D's psionics system, which, in addition to being mechanically dubious, didn't really mesh with the overall feel of the game.
"The Thorinson Clan" by Skip Olsen presents five dwarves, related by blood and marriage, from his Norse mythology-inspired AD&D campaign. These are the characters Roger Raupp portrayed on the cover. They're an interesting bunch and I must confess I appreciate the fact that Olsen's campaign is multi-generational, a style of play I think is under-appreciated (and one of the reasons I think so highly of Pendragon). Almost certainly coincidentally, this issue's installment of Errol Farstad's "The Critical Hit" offers a very positive review of Pendragon, which he calls "the stuff of which legends are made." Needless to say, I agree with his assessment.
Next up is "She-Rampage" by Susan Lawson and Tom Robertson, a scenario for use with Marvel Super Heroes. As you might guess based on its title, the scenario involved She-Hulk but also a number of other female Marvel characters, like Valkyrie, Spider-Woman, Thundra, and Tigra. There's also an original character, Lucky Penny, who's based on the Polyhedron's editor, Penny Petticord. The background to the adventure is rather convoluted and involves alternate Earths where one sex dominates the others. The male-dominated Earth, Machus, has learned of the existence of our Earth and sees the existence of super-powered women as a potential threat to be eliminated. This they attempt to do by traveling to our world and then – I am not making this up – releasing doctored photos and scurrilous stories in the pages of "a girlie magazine known as Pander." Naturally, the superheroines take exception to this and it's clobberin' time. I have no words.
Michael Przytarski's "Fletcher's Corner" looks at "problem players." More specifically, he's interested in two different types of players who can cause problems for the referee. The first is the "Sierra Club Player," who's memorized all the rulebooks and uses his knowledge to overcome every obstacle the referee sets before him. The second is the "Multi-Class Player," whose experience is so wide that he tells other players the best way to play their class. In each case, Pryztarski offers some advice on how best to handle these players. Like most articles of this sort, it's hard to judge how good his advice would have been at the time, because most of what he says is now commonsense and has been for a long time.
"Alignment Theory" by Robert B. DesJardins is yet another attempt to make sense of AD&D's alignment. Like all such attempts, it's fine to the extent that you're willing to accept its premises. DesJardins argues that "law versus chaos" is a question of politics, while "good versus evil" is a question of heart (or morality). He makes this distinction in order to fight against the supposed notion that some players believe Lawful Good is more good than Chaotic Good – in short equating "law" with "good" and "chaos" with "evil." Was this a common belief then or now? I suppose it's possible players who entered the hobby through Dungeons & Dragons might have carried with them echoes of its threefold alignment system, but, even so, how common was it? I guess I long ago tired of alignment discussion, so it's difficult for me to care much about articles like this.
This month, "Dispel Confusion" focuses solely on rules and other questions about Star Frontiers, which surprised me. Meanwhile, "Gamma Mars: The Attack" by James M. Ward offers up a dozen new mutants to be used in conjunction with the "Gamma Mars" article from last issue. Most of these mutants are mutated Earth insects, but one represents the original Martian race, whose members have been lying beneath the planet's surface in wait for the right moment to strike against human colonists to the Red Planet. I find it notable that Ward was long interested in introducing extra-terrestrial beings into his post-apocalyptic settings, whether Gamma World or Metamorphosis Alpha. I wonder why it was an idea to which he returned so often?
As you can probably tell by this post, my enthusiasm for re-reading Polyhedron is waning. I'm very close to the end of the issues I owned in my youth, so I may simply be anticipating the conclusion of this series. On the other hand, I also think there's a certain tiredness to the newszine itself. The content has never been as uniformly good as that of Dragon and it's become even more variable as it has depended more and more on submissions by RPGA members, few of which are as polished or imaginative as those to be found elsewhere. The end result is a 'zine that's sometimes a bit of a chore to read, never mind comment about intelligently.
Ah well. I'll soldier on.
“ Was this a common belief then or now?”
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, absolutely. I think it might have to do with the assumption that “Lawful Good” was automatically the closest to the Christian conception of morality, and therefore was often seen as the “most right”. It also led to other prejudices, like how Chaotic Neutral meant “the alignment of whatever I want to do”.
As for now though, I’ve played a number of 5th Edition games and it’s rare that anyone mentions alignment or even has one on their sheet. And it seems the game is tending more towards being written from a “you are heroes who do hero stuff” assumption. Which is fine, but it doesn’t mechanically prevent anyone from being evil or chaotic or whatevery.
Having almost no direct experience with 5e, that's very interesting to hear.
DeleteI'm not sure how pervasive it was, but I think it was/is common to think of Lawful Good as "extra good" because that was the alignment of paladins. Whereas Chaotic Good sort of encompassed antiheroes who maybe are more prone to doing things like lying or stealing if it's for the greater good.
ReplyDeleteMore recently, the Cursed Edition (4e) used a five-fold alignment that was a single linear track: Lawful Good - Good - Neutral - Evil - Chaotic Evil. So for a few years, Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil were officially considered "Super Good/Evil".
4th also seemed to default to “unaligned” in Character Builder, which I suspect is where the lack of emphasis on alignment really took root. And that 5 aspect system never made much sense (not that the 9 aspect one is a ton better).
Delete"This they attempt to do by traveling to our world and then – I am not making this up – releasing doctored photos and scurrilous stories in the pages of "a girlie magazine known as Pander." Naturally, the superheroines take exception to this and it's clobberin' time. I have no words."
ReplyDeleteWorth noting that we're only two years past the rather (in)famous Fantastic Four #275, where She-Hulk (who was part of the FF at the time) gets photographed topless and (after various shenanigans) winds up having them published against her will in a sleaze tabloid called the Naked Truth. The printer "fixes" the images by color-correcting her green skin tones (ala the Orion dancer scenes in the Star Trek pilot, which is referenced in the comic) and probably accidentally bankrupts the tabloid in the process.
Pretty likely that was an inspiration for what sounds like an exceptionally dumb and sexist adventure.
"I find it notable that Ward was long interested in introducing extra-terrestrial beings into his post-apocalyptic settings, whether Gamma World or Metamorphosis Alpha. I wonder why it was an idea to which he returned so often?"
ReplyDeleteHe was trying to covertly warn us about the alien reptoids, obviously.
Although 5 e has a short explanation of alignment, it’s more-or-less unnecessary. Even Paladins are no longer reigned-in by alignment.
ReplyDeleteRather, characters are defined by their Ideals, Motivations, Background, etc. And truthfully, in that context Alignment in unnecessary. I should add, there are actual game mechanics attached to playing your character in line with these personality traits.
Alignment is great as a shorthand way to flesh out NPCs. Greedy LN Merchant vs Greedy NE Merchant. Helps me know how they react and operate. One buys your stolen good one turns you in for the reward.
ReplyDeleteRemoving the in game mechanical effect in latter eddtion is in my opinion one of the few thing they got right.
100% agreed. It's great as a tool for a DM, but I pretty much have always ignored strict alignment *rules* since the OD&D days. Characters are assumed to be heroes or "leaning good" But they act how they act, and they may have consequences for their actions in the game fiction. I dont run evil campaigns and Im not the alignment police there to slap rules mechanic punishments on them. But if they do bad things , it may come back to bite them.
DeleteIf I have a preference for an actual alignment system, it's 4E.
This alignment discussion once again raises the point that Gygax was operating with assumptions and understandings different from most of his later audience. AD&D is a lot more elaborated than OD&D, but both are written assuming that the readers are old hands at miniatures war gaming and connoisseurs of pre 1974 fantasy fiction (i.e., Appendix N). The epic, cosmic struggle between Law and Chaos is pretty obviously influenced by Moorcock, among others, but I would wager most of the kids starting out playing D&D were NOT familiar with any of that. Since Gygax never spelled out his assumptions, a lot of things in the rules became the source of endless player confusion and complaints (not just alignment, but also the highly abstract nature of combat).
ReplyDeleteEver read older fiction where the characters behave according to the existing psychological theories of the time, and therefore, completely unlike how real a real person would behave? I'm thinking of books like The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester, for example.
ReplyDeleteThat's how I view alignment in D&D. "I'm Lawful Good so my character would do this" is just a silly approach to roleplaying.
We didn't pay too much attention to alignment and had LG clerics adventuring alongside CE fighters.
ReplyDeleteNowadays I am in the camp that sees the Law-Chaos axis as form of government and the Good-Evil axis as your morality.
Yawn. Opinions on alignment are like assholes. It’s best to keep yours hidden from view.
ReplyDeleteCharming. You must be Chaotic Evil.
DeleteYes, LG (basically a priest or knight irl) was considered more good than CG (the notion of Robin Hood). it is one reason why it was so shocking when GG said LG characters have a moral imperative to kill orc babies and moms.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, alignment is explained much clearer in the older books.