Jeffx wrote:
With all the talk of bad groups and bad players people have seen. Do you think giving them 2E books would change anything? If you have no imagination, the game rules are not going to help.
The ones I'm talking about? Hell no. Most of them claim to have read/played 2E, but arguments with them have exposed the truth...that they didn't understand most of what they read. They were usually completely wrong when trying to state rules from the books, they were confused when I tried to explain it to them (even speaking slowly and using baby words), and they refused to admit they were wrong no matter how many facts were thrown at them to prove they were wrong. Below is a cut and paste from ADNDCampaigns.com where I summarized (in a slightly humorous way) the entire 12 page debate in a single page. This is almost literally how the "debate" went.
______________________________
"You can have a paladin/assassin in AD&D."
"You
can't have a paladin/assassin in AD&D. Paladins must be
lawful good, assassins must be
evil.
You cannot be both evil and lawful good at the same time. 1E explains it clearly. It's a logical impossibility."
"Yes you can, because how do we know that all assassins are evil or that all assassinations are evil? What if they're done in a neutral manner?"
"
You can't have a paladin assassin in 1E AD&D. The rules clearly define assassins as uniformly evil, and assassinations are defined as taking intelligent life for monetary gain, which is the antithesis of weal and thus by default evil acts.
"Well, ok, you can't have a Paladin/
Assassin, but you can have a Paladin
assassin, which is just a paladin who commits assassinations! He's not an assassin
class, just an assassin in
name. Yeah, that's it!"
"No, you
cannot have a paladin who commits assassinations in 1E AD&D because by definition
assassinations are evil and an assassin is by definition
an evil person who commits assassinations. If a paladin commits an evil act he is not a paladin.
You cannot have a paladin/assassin in 1E AD&D."
"Fine, but you can have a paladin/assassin in
2E AD&D! So there!"
"No, you
cannot have a paladin/assassin in 2E AD&D either. The paladin would still lose his alignment
even if you consider assassination a neutral act, as he would be performing neutral acts and would thus lose his LG alignment due to
alignment drift and would therefore no longer be a paladin. Besides,
assassins are not even a PC class in 2E AD&D."
"Well, all that doesn't matter. I still insist you can have paladin/assassins in 2E because there's this kit, and this kit claims that you can be a paladin/assassin in 2E."
"While the
other assassin kit in 2E
specifically bars paladins from taking it. Either way, whether you consider assassinations to be chaotic, good, or neutral acts, the rules specifically state that they are
neither lawful nor good acts. Therefore, a paladin who commits chaotic, neutral, or evil acts
will lose his LG alignment and can not be a paladin any longer.
You cannot be a paladin/assassin in 2E AD&D."
"[
Stomps foot in frustration] Well, fine, but you can can have an assassin who becomes LG and then becomes a paladin and thus keeps his assassin skills and therefore is a paladin/assassin. So there! [
Sticks out tongue]"
"No, you
cannot become a paladin if you've been an assassin because the stink of evil would prevent you from becoming a paragon of goodness and law.
Thats' the archetype as Gary Gygax designed it."
"That's just
your opinion! That's not what Gary said! Where did Gary say that?"
"I'll ask him."
"Well fine. We'll just wait to see what Gary says. But you can still use some of your old assassin skills in a - you know - kinda role playing aspect? Without the mechanics? Or use some of the more neutral mechanics maybe?"
"No, because
he would still suffer alignment drift for performing acts contrary to his alignment and thus would lose LG status along with paladin status. And by the way, Gary spoke. He said that assassins cannot become paladins. That's not within the spirit of the game.
Here is the link to where he said so in his own words."
"Well
who the hell does Gary think he is to question how I run
my game? I never liked him anyway because he bashed 3E and therefore he bashed me
personally!"
"It doesn't matter what you think of Gary, he has ruled on the matter, case closed."
"I don't care about what Gary says. What does he know anyway? We're discussing 2E now, not 1E, so his opinion is
worthless. Now, assuming you allow a thoroughly evil, dirty, scummy chaotic assassin to have an epiphany and become lawful good, then become a paladin, and assuming you consider assassinations to be neutral acts because we are dealing with 2E and therefore they can be neutral, then it is possible to be a paladin/assassin because
one neutral act will not change a paladin's status from LG right?"
"Perhaps, but that's still not a true dual class because a dual classed character
can use either class as often he likes without losing one class as a penalty for using the other. What you have is a
time bomb. If he engages in 'neutral' assassinations, then he is going to lose his paladin status pretty early on. The very concept is so absurd that
even by warping the intent of the creator of the game, ignoring the archetypes the game is based on, using broken and poorly written kit rules, assuming nearly impossible qualifications as far as ability scores, and re-defining assassinations as neutral as opposed to evil, and defying common sense while bending the core rules of 2E AD&D, you have a dual class that cannot maintain its dual class status, which defeats both the purpose and intent of dual class rules in 2E AD&D."
"Yeah, but if he can do it
just once, then he is a paladin assassin! See, I was right after all!"
______________________
And yes, that's how stupid their arguments were. It became
abundantly clear very early on that, despite their claims of having played the game for 10 years and knowing the rules inside out, they in fact did not understand the rules, they were demonstrably wrong on almost every point, they were ignorant of the reasons for those rules of which they had such poor understanding, and they did not understand the concept of archetypes. I had a better understanding of the rules when I was in 6th grade, and the people I was debating were all adults. Go figure.
They just wanted to be able to have their cake and eat it too. And when I explained how they cannot have their cake and eat it too, as it was not within the rules to do so, they warped and twisted and contorted the rules day after day, trying in vain to twist them in order to allow such an absurd "class combo". And to the very end they failed. They weren't interested in understanding the concept of the game, the intent of the creator of the game, the rules as written, or the logic behind it all. All they wanted was to be right. And they were wrong.
Such is most of society these days, I'm afraid.
