Post/Author/DateTime	Post
JamesMaissen 02-10-06, 05:23 PM	Dear Circle et al, I've found it to be a great help in the past to hear the thoughts behind some of the Circle's decisions, especially when it was on an issue that I disagreed with that decision. I know that a good amount of thought and care goes into each call, but sometimes it's not immediately obvious just seeing the end result. Towards this: A number of issues were raised this last draft discusion, some old and some new. Insight into how they were taken and then either incorporated, dismissed or tabled for later would be I think most helpful for all of us involved. Likewise musings on the general view of things would be helpful. Either as the circle as a whole, or as individual circle members. Not only your outlooks for the direction the campaign should be headed in, but perhaps also insight into the great amount of work that I can only imagine you have to put into this. So much I'm sure is taken for granted by us that probably eats a great deal into your time to contribute to us. I'm hopeful that this forum can serve to open things up to the playerbase so that we can fully understand everything that's going on around us and lessen the gap between administration and player, Thanks for your time, James Maissen
kegdrainer 02-12-06, 09:23 AM	You may also use some codes in the restricted classes to explain why they made the list, that way you can codify the reasons they are restricted. A This class does not fit in LG as it is an Oriental class/prestige class (Ninja) B This class has requirements that are not normally available to players (Hulking Hurler?) C This class has advantages that are excessive to LG. (Runesmith?) D This class requires worship of a diety that is not available to LG. (Winterhaunt of Iborighu) E This class is evil and not available in LG for players. (Assassin, Blackguard) F This class is set in a non-LG world. (Red Wizard, Purple Dragon Knight) P This class is psionic and not available to LG. (Iron Mind) That would make a little bit of work but since there is a set criteria, it would make it easier to explain why the Circle does not allow that class. Just my 2cp
DarkKnight 02-12-06, 07:34 PM	Every time the circle does take the time to try and explain something why something was done or why a particular decision was made people seam to pick it appart, find "holes" in their logic and throw it right back in their faces. While I won't mind hearing some of their reasonings I understand why they seam reluctant to post a reason why certain things are the way they are.
JamesMaissen 02-13-06, 12:20 AM	Every time the circle does take the time to try and explain something why something was done or why a particular decision was made people seam to pick it appart, find "holes" in their logic and throw it right back in their faces. While I won't mind hearing some of their reasonings I understand why they seam reluctant to post a reason why certain things are the way they are. Gamers will ALWAYS complain. It's in our blood (just prick us and you will see us complain.. ;) ). While I'm sure that this has been a contributing reason for many things not to be explained, we've learned in LG that the more that is disclosed the more the players accept things. Whereas when was the last time we've let something go? There's nothing to be lost by such discussions and everything to be gained. -James
Objulen 02-13-06, 12:20 AM	You may also use some codes in the restricted classes to explain why they made the list, that way you can codify the reasons they are restricted. A This class does not fit in LG as it is an Oriental class/prestige class (Ninja) B This class has requirements that are not normally available to players (Hulking Hurler?) C This class has advantages that are excessive to LG. (Runesmith?) D This class requires worship of a diety that is not available to LG. (Winterhaunt of Iborighu) E This class is evil and not available in LG for players. (Assassin, Blackguard) Partially true. There are PrCs, such as the True Necromancer and Palemaster from 3.0, that were restricted (NPC only in this case) despite the fact that ALL prerequisities could be achieved by any PC, because the general practice isn't 'heroic' or possibly not looked on favorably. F This class is set in a non-LG world. (Red Wizard, Purple Dragon Knight) P This class is psionic and not available to LG. (Iron Mind) That would make a little bit of work but since there is a set criteria, it would make it easier to explain why the Circle does not allow that class. Just my 2cp There's also the issue of balance concerns. This is the reason why the Master Transmogrifist was restricted to NPC only. Every time the circle does take the time to try and explain something why something was done or why a particular decision was made people seam to pick it appart, find "holes" in their logic and throw it right back in their faces. While I won't mind hearing some of their reasonings I understand why they seam reluctant to post a reason why certain things are the way they are. Is this honestly a bad thing? The Circle does alot of work, I'd imagine, but that doesn't mean that their reasoning is infallible or that they always make the best decisions. Having people pick over your ideas a tool to refine them, as long as you can keep the swarms of "OMG, you don't have X that I like, I'm flaming you" types away, which I personally don't see much happening for a table-top RPG convention like LG. I have some issues with circle decisions that impact my enjoyment of LG, and which greatly reduced my desire to attend games, because I can't play what I want, and there's no way to accomidate it like a normal game with a reasonable DM could. Now, my favorite character types are necromancers & undead, psions & illithid, and shapeshifters, of which there is very poor support for in LG for various reasons. I'm not going to try and despute illithid, psionics, or undead, since LG is about the standard LG setting, which is pretty stereotypical and doesn't feature psionics. That being said, while necromancers are often in the same catagory as "anti-heroes" for PCs, when I can make a cleric of Wee Jas who raises undead minnions and controls via rebuke, buffs them with desicrate and unhallow, etc., then it really begs the question of why bother banning True Necromancers or Palemasters (back in 3.0 when they were NPC only). The Circle has its reasons, but when those rules aren't going to be enforceable against anyone who really wants to play that type of character anyway without being rather draconian IMO, then it really makes no sense to limit player options. This can be applied to other PrCs along more anti-hero lines -- generally, you can make a less flavorful, direct, etc. character with base classes that exemplifies what the PrC does, such as Blackflame Zealot, who is basically a religious assassin for fire gods, which can be done via a cleric/rouge multiclass character devoted to a fire god. In the end, any PC can be an anti-hero, and trying to discourage it by making PrCs that support it NPC only seems to be generally pointless, since players who really want a concept can do it anyway, and reduces player satisfaction with LG, which is generally never a good thing. As for my other favored group, shapeshifters, there are two shapeshifting PrCs -- the Master of Many Forms, and the Master Transmogrifist. Personally, I was really interested in the Master Transmogrifist, but it is NPC only due to possible balance issues. I addressed those concerns a comprehensive manner in this thread http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=581373. They are ligitimate points, and it would be nice if they were at least considered.
DarkKnight 02-13-06, 02:19 AM	Personally I think that there may be a little too much leeway in LG as to player option. Casting "evil" spells is a bit of a pet peeve for me as there should be no reason for a "hero" to do evil things(I've seen good aligned characters cast evil spells). Allowing for more of an anti-hero character type will just add more gray to the whole good guys/bad guys thing (NPC: "I'm not a bad guy just look what that guy you travel with did, he's worse than I am."). After all we the players are supposed to be the heroes of the story but how can we be the heroes if we're doing the same things or worse than the bad guys?
Madfox11 02-13-06, 05:09 AM	B This class has requirements that are not normally available to players (Hulking Hurler?) When a prestige class is restricted, as opposed to NPC Only it is a good bet that it is not reason B. Most restricted prestige classes either do not fit the Greyhawk setting except with a huge amount of work, or are too powerful. The hulking hurler fits the last group (and yes, it makes the Radiant Servant look weak in comparison). Note that there is also a reason H: a rule system that does not work very well in a Living setting (think the creation of golems). A cleric of Wee Jas who raises undead minnions and controls via rebuke, buffs them with desicrate and unhallow, etc., There is a difference between an anti-hero and an evil villain. There is very little doubt about the fact that rebuking undead is an evil act (spelled out litterally in the PHB in the turning undead section), and since animate undead creates evil creatures in the core rules, I doubt many people consider it a neutral act. In any event, one thing to remember is that the Circle is not allowed to change the rules of the game unless those rules do not work very well in a Living Setting because they require direct intervention of a DM by the core rules (e.g. cohorts, item creation). All the Circle can do is keep things restricted.
kegdrainer 02-13-06, 09:01 AM	I had placed the Hulking Hurler under B since there is the requirement that the character be Large sized. The only race that can do it in LG is the Centaur but it can also be listed under C. So here is a reworked list. A: This class does not fit in LG as it is an Oriental class/prestige class (Ninja) B: This class has racial requirements that are not normally available to players. (Goliath Liberator) C: This class has advantages that are too powerful for LG. (Hulking Hurler) D: This class requires worship of a deity that is not available to LG. (Winterhaunt of Iborighu) E: This class is evil and not available to players in LG. (Assassin, Blackguard) F: This class is set in a non-LG world. (Red Wizard, Purple Dragon Knight) G: This class has the ability to build constructs/undead that are not permited to players in LG. (Effigy Master) H: This class is not considered to be "Heroic" for play in LG. (Corrupt Avenger) P: This class is psionic and not available to LG. (Iron Mind)
Objulen 02-13-06, 09:35 AM	Personally I think that there may be a little too much leeway in LG as to player option. Casting "evil" spells is a bit of a pet peeve for me as there should be no reason for a "hero" to do evil things(I've seen good aligned characters cast evil spells). Allowing for more of an anti-hero character type will just add more gray to the whole good guys/bad guys thing (NPC: "I'm not a bad guy just look what that guy you travel with did, he's worse than I am."). Not really. First, casting evil spells actually isn't considered an evil act in the PHB -- clerics are restricted by their deities and beliefs, perhaps, but nothing prevents a LG wizard from casting Animate Dead or Summon Monster for a Quasit. As for the obvious line between good and evil, well, it suits some people and it doens't suit others. Grey areas aren't a bad thing, and frankly, most NPCs really won't be able to make that argument. The church of Wee Jas turned some ogres into skeletons to gaurd their temple. The cult of Nerull hiding in the forest is killing people and attack villages with their undead minnions. No comparison. After all we the players are supposed to be the heroes of the story but how can we be the heroes if we're doing the same things or worse than the bad guys? And what, exactly, are we doing that's worse than the bad guys? Are we a) killing the innocent b) oppressing the innocent c) letting demons do ther dirty deeds d) trying to destroy good and/or good kingdoms .....etc.? No. Wizards isn't shy about making PrCs that are considered wholly evil (Ur-Priest, Assassin, Blackgaurd) require an evil alignment. Despite this, no necromancer PrC or class requires an evil alignment, only a non-good alignment, because, in the end, necromancy really isn't that evil -- you aren't hurting, killing, or maiming anyone to do it unless you want to (which can apply to any fighter class), and you might just end up doing some good with it, like saving a town. After all, when it hits the fan, the average NPC civillian really isn't going to care all that much if his family was saved by a paladin or a necromancer with some skeletons.
Objulen 02-13-06, 09:44 AM	There is a difference between an anti-hero and an evil villain. There is very little doubt about the fact that rebuking undead is an evil act (spelled out litterally in the PHB in the turning undead section), and since animate undead creates evil creatures in the core rules, I doubt many people consider it a neutral act. The PHB and D&D both give the impression and state that raising undead is generally evil, but for one, the reasons aren't very rational, and two, neutral characters can do evil things and still remain neutral, especially if they balance them with good acts and aren't hurting people. After all, I can make a rogue or bard who goes around after sessions and steals money from people -- is that good? I can make a character who, by the very standards that D&D incorperates, would be considered downright vile (i.e. most rogues). All necromancer PrCs only require non-good charcters, which means that what they do is not wholly evil (compared to say the blackgaurd, Ur-Priest, or assassin). A necromancer who raises undead minnions without hurting the innocent does not have to be evil, especially if said charcter is using those minnions to help others. And, I'd also like to point out that there's nothing stopping, by the rules, a NG wizard or sorcerer from using Animate Dead to create undead minnions if necessary. In any event, one thing to remember is that the Circle is not allowed to change the rules of the game unless those rules do not work very well in a Living Setting because they require direct intervention of a DM by the core rules (e.g. cohorts, item creation). All the Circle can do is keep things restricted. I did not know that little tid-bit, but it really has nothing to do with what I was stating above, but given how Polymorph was chagned, it does seem that they have at least some latitude. The Master Transmogrifist is not unbalanced compared to a regular wizard or a MoMF in LG, and my argument for more anti-heroic PrCs to be included was simply a functional one about the fact that since banning the PrC doesn't really stop players, it should be allowed..
Samwise 02-13-06, 02:03 PM	One reason Circle members may not be inclined to share thoughts and explanations it that certain people like to take such as an opportunity for gratuitous insults, and challenges to both the knowledge base and the authority of the people doing the sharing. If people want explanations they need to be prepared to accept them, as well as the authority of the people who make the final decisions. When screaming rants about people not knowing the rules, or being cheaters for making such a rule, or them just not having the "right" to make or enforce such a rule, is the inevitable response, it is simpler to not bother explaining yourself, and only have to suffer the general abuse and accusations of not caring what the players want, or being out to destroy the campaign, and the like. And yes, this is another area where a few people who can't control themselves ruin it for everyone else. that is unfortunate, but an inevitable consequence of open forum discussions, and an open campaign with thousands of participants.
JamesMaissen 02-13-06, 07:25 PM	One reason Circle members may not be inclined to share thoughts and explanations it that certain people like to take such as an opportunity for gratuitous insults, and challenges to both the knowledge base and the authority of the people doing the sharing. If people want explanations they need to be prepared to accept them, as well as the authority of the people who make the final decisions. When screaming rants about people not knowing the rules, or being cheaters for making such a rule, or them just not having the "right" to make or enforce such a rule, is the inevitable response, it is simpler to not bother explaining yourself, and only have to suffer the general abuse and accusations of not caring what the players want, or being out to destroy the campaign, and the like. And yes, this is another area where a few people who can't control themselves ruin it for everyone else. that is unfortunate, but an inevitable consequence of open forum discussions, and an open campaign with thousands of participants. While I can certainly understand that this was a factor at one time, I would hope it was no longer one now. Experience has shown that the more that is shared with the playerbase the more we can accept things. The draft discussion list (and now board) is a living testament to that. Gamers will always complain, it's part of the stereotype. However this can be minimized by open discussion. It's a game that we all share, regardless of how much one contributes or does not. And the point of the game is to be shared by us all. The circle takes a great deal of time and effort in thier decisions that is not always evident to some from the outside. Keeping the reasons from the playerbase can serve no one. The reasons are as far as I've seen very valid, thoughtful and telling. They can only help matters by everyone's understanding. That someone may complain when hearing them seems trivial to the majority of people that it will help understand what's going on and why. People need to know what direction things are going in. And the end result decisions alone will not give them that information. The reasonings and thoughts that led there (for better or for worse) will. -James
Samwise 02-13-06, 07:45 PM	While I can certainly understand that this was a factor at one time, I would hope it was no longer one now. Experience has shown that the more that is shared with the playerbase the more we can accept things. The draft discussion list (and now board) is a living testament to that. Actually, they stand as living testament that things have not changed. Just look at the several threads that pushed the limits in "challenging" why some things were not open for discussion. Gamers will always complain, it's part of the stereotype. However this can be minimized by open discussion. It's a game that we all share, regardless of how much one contributes or does not. And the point of the game is to be shared by us all. Complaining is not the problem. Rudeness bordering on overt threats is the problem. The circle takes a great deal of time and effort in thier decisions that is not always evident to some from the outside. Keeping the reasons from the playerbase can serve no one. The reasons are as far as I've seen very valid, thoughtful and telling. They can only help matters by everyone's understanding. And yet there are some who will challenge even basic statements about the reasons the Circle (and Triads) decided on certain rules. That someone may complain when hearing them seems trivial to the majority of people that it will help understand what's going on and why. Perhaps if more of that majority would speak up when those people make themselves so offensive it would help. Which, as it goes, has been happening more recently. I regard that as a good thing, and hopefully something that will inspire more people to offer up such insight. [QUOTE]People need to know what direction things are going in. And the end result decisions alone will not give them that information. The reasonings and thoughts that led there (for better or for worse) will.[QUOTE] I agree. That's why I offer as much insight as I can. It still does not stop some from taking it as a sign of weakness, and thus an invitation to be offensive. A number of the responses I have been "treated" to have done little to instill any desire to participate. I can easily see how others wouldn't even want to bother reading the boards knowing such is waiting for them.
Objulen 02-13-06, 09:42 PM	One reason Circle members may not be inclined to share thoughts and explanations it that certain people like to take such as an opportunity for gratuitous insults, and challenges to both the knowledge base and the authority of the people doing the sharing. If people want explanations they need to be prepared to accept them, as well as the authority of the people who make the final decisions. When screaming rants about people not knowing the rules, or being cheaters for making such a rule, or them just not having the "right" to make or enforce such a rule, is the inevitable response, it is simpler to not bother explaining yourself, and only have to suffer the general abuse and accusations of not caring what the players want, or being out to destroy the campaign, and the like. And yes, this is another area where a few people who can't control themselves ruin it for everyone else. that is unfortunate, but an inevitable consequence of open forum discussions, and an open campaign with thousands of participants. Yes, and no. Anytime anyone with any sort of authority comes down to say anything, you generally have flamers pop up. That's what moderators and forum rules are for, and polite conduct is a requirement of the forums, so laying the royal smack-down on flamers who can't keep a civil conversation is perfectly justified IMO, as long as those individuals are handled like everyone else. People who are just being stupd in general can just be ignored, or the rules of the thread can me stated that posts not on topic of that thread will be deleted, ignored, etc. However, from both the fact that table-top games with the sort of "nerd" reputation like LG generally doesn't attract the sort of flamers that the average MMO does because it's "not cool", and the fact that these boards, at least for the small time I've viewed them, have been generally civil, I'd say that much constructive discource could occur.
JamesMaissen 02-13-06, 11:51 PM	I agree. That's why I offer as much insight as I can. It still does not stop some from taking it as a sign of weakness, and thus an invitation to be offensive. A number of the responses I have been "treated" to have done little to instill any desire to participate. I can easily see how others wouldn't even want to bother reading the boards knowing such is waiting for them. The best answer to a rude person is civility. You don't need to debate them. Eventually you merely ignore them, and it's only their loss and not yours. But for every one such rude poster, how many readers are there out there? Those are the ones that you are talking to, the ones that you know you will be helping by such explainations. I've travelled enough playing LG to see how many wonderful people there are in this campaign. It constantly amazes me in fact. I'm sure even though you've had the onus of triad around your neck that you've seen the same. Otherwise I don't think many of us would still be with this game and certainly not investing our time and money into it like we do. Anyway, take care and best of luck to you, James
Madfox11 02-14-06, 03:48 AM	As a Circle Member I do frequent the boards, and I am not afraid of the flames. The real problem for me is time. I do need to earn a living, and I do have an active social live that does not involve Living Greyhawk. I simply do not have the time to monitor the boards nonstop, let alone answer all the questions and concerns raised by people. I am sure the same can be said for the other Circle and Triad members.
Objulen 02-14-06, 09:59 AM	As a Circle Member I do frequent the boards, and I am not afraid of the flames. The real problem for me is time. I do need to earn a living, and I do have an active social live that does not involve Living Greyhawk. I simply do not have the time to monitor the boards nonstop, let alone answer all the questions and concerns raised by people. I am sure the same can be said for the other Circle and Triad members. There never is enough time, something I can understand perfectly. I'd imagine that out of all the things that the Circle has to get done, posting on boards is low on the priority scale.
nony2klerch 02-14-06, 12:11 PM	Not really. First, casting evil spells actually isn't considered an evil act in the PHB -- clerics are restricted by their deities and beliefs, perhaps, but nothing prevents a LG wizard from casting Animate Dead or Summon Monster for a Quasit. Word of Caution. Some DMs may consider casting evil spells as an "evil" act (otherwise why have an evil descriptor). You may want to check with your judge before casting such a spell. Just a thought. YMMV.
Objulen 02-14-06, 12:31 PM	Word of Caution. Some DMs may consider casting evil spells as an "evil" act (otherwise why have an evil descriptor). You may want to check with your judge before casting such a spell. Just a thought. YMMV. Indeed, that would be the logical conclusion for the various alignment descriptors, but D&D is somewhat fuzzy on the matter, since spells with alignment descriptors are only banned from divine casters, but not arcane ones. There are multiple potential explinations.
JohnduBois 02-14-06, 10:14 PM	Here's the question I always ask regarding the "is using evil spells an evil act" issue: If they're evil, and PC's can't be evil, why are the spells Core access and not NPC only? Even most of the "any nongood" prestige classes are NPC only or not allowed at all. If this was so evil, the Circle wouldn't let us use them at all...
boolean 02-15-06, 07:55 AM	If they're evil, and PC's can't be evil, why are the spells Core access and not NPC only? Because a single evil act is not sufficient to change your alignment.
Objulen 02-15-06, 08:05 AM	Here's the question I always ask regarding the "is using evil spells an evil act" issue: If they're evil, and PC's can't be evil, why are the spells Core access and not NPC only? Even most of the "any nongood" prestige classes are NPC only or not allowed at all. If this was so evil, the Circle wouldn't let us use them at all... The PHB is sort of fuzzy on evil spells. There's nothing that says that actually casting an evil spell is an evil act, or anything similar for any other alignment spell. There's also nothing stopping an arcane caster from casting such spells either. Now, one would intuitively conclude that spells with the evil descriptor are evil, but the game's a bit fuzzy on the topic. There's also the fact that characters can commit evil acts, like going around and ripping off people's money with slight of hand.
WotC_Tulach 02-15-06, 05:24 PM	James (or anyone else), I'd be more than happy if I have a few minutes at a con to explain any decisions that I'm able to (there are some things that I can't explain for various reasons). I might be able to get a website article on this subject matter up sometime later this year. I know this topic interests lots of people, and I like to share when I can.