Goodman Games

So I've been playing a Chaotic Cleric for almost a year about once a week, and it could just be the setting and 'creatures' we have been coming up against, but I find the list of turnable monsters listed on page 32 to be much more restrictive than the lawful or neutral clerics.

Has there been any discussion or house ruleings people have made about expanding or revising the tables a bit? Is there a reason why un-dead are not turnable by chaos? demons and devils are turnable by both law and neutral? same as 'monsters'.

I dunno, I like my character, I just always kinda feel like I should have chosen neutral instead of chaos.

Edit: one other point, since there is some overlap in creatures between law and neutral, wouldnt it make sense for some overlap between chaos and neutral as well?

Have there been creatures that you've come up against that you thought "I oughta be able to turn THIS" ...but it wasn't on the list?

a few times, yes, but encountering chaotic humanoids seems to be the norm, at least in situations where combat is unavoidable. I've ended up just defaulting to 'word of command' instead of even attempting to use 'turn unholy'.


The only targets listed that you could even attempt to turn that aren't super-powerful beings are lawful humanoids, at least lawful and neutral clerics can attempt to turn some things that aren't angels/demons, dragons, or just regular humanoids.

I let my clerics turn unholy creatures and influence whatever fits his god's powers. For example a druid won't turn or destroy animals, but calm them down or command them, depending on the roll.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is, is the list too restrictive, or does the nature of the campaign/GM make it so those things when and if they turn up and not something you're going to need nor want to turn? e.g., "The Lawful dragon is on our side".

I'm not sure of your situation, but I do know that some people have a tendency to take "Lawful" as being "Good" and assume the PCs are basically "Good". But of course in this system, Lawful beings could be as corrupt and nasty as anything else.

I feel like the list is restrictive, and the nature of this campaign are both combined to make a less than optimal situation.

Edit:

Just taking a loot at the list for each:

Law: un-dead, demons, devils, chaotic extraplanar, monsters, chaos primes, chaotic humanoids and dragons

Neutral: animals, un-dead, demons, devils, monsters, lycanthropes, perversions of nature

Chaos: angels, paladins, law humanoids and dragons, lords of law, law primes


Crossing off things that you are least likely to see (in my opinion) we remove: dragons, primes, angels/demons/devils, lords of law and extraplanar beings

We see Law still has: un-dead, monsters, chaos humanoids

Neutral still has: animals, un-dead, monsters, lycanthropes, perversions of nature

Chaos: paladins, law humanoids

you could remove lycanthropes from the list if you wanted, probably paladins too, and you will end up with a lot of the more common encounters i've experienced so far in DCC.

But seperate from my experience, and based on my opinion, chaos clerics have fewer 'mundane' , if that can be the word we use, or perhaps 'common' targets to use their turn unholy against, unless lawful humanoids are more common than neutral or chaotic.

Am I glad for the things on the list chaotic can turn unholy against? yes. But I think there could be one or two more entries on the list that could bring it on par with the variety of neutral or law clerics, as I think they have more potential targets to turn.

I guess my opinion on it is this:

I used to play a lot of Champions back a lifetime or two ago. There was a feature of character creation where your superhero might be adversely affected by something (think: Superman and Kryptonite). Part of the variability of that feature was the frequency of that substance turning up, i.e., Uncommon, Common, Very Common.

Some GMs tried to argue that certain substances were rare, and you couldn't take them as more than Uncommon. My approach was if you want to make it Very Common, go ahead, and I will be sure to throw it at you on a Very Common basis. So yeah, Kryptonite is super rare, but the Sinister Seven stumbled on a cache of it, and they ALL have some. Plus, the Trickster stole some from them, and has been selling it bit by bit on the black market, so it's totally OUT THERE.


Your GM should be sure he's including the stuff on the list, and hopefully he's willing to expand the list, too. Some of that stuff is more suggestive than explicit, so there is room for broad interpretation, if your GM can swing that.

Maybe automatons and constructs, because they are 'programmed' or otherwise have predetermined behaviors...?

BanjoJohn wrote:I feel like the list is restrictive, and the nature of this campaign are both combined to make a less than optimal situation.

Edit:

Just taking a loot at the list for each:

Law: un-dead, demons, devils, chaotic extraplanar, monsters, chaos primes, chaotic humanoids and dragons

Neutral: animals, un-dead, demons, devils, monsters, lycanthropes, perversions of nature

Chaos: angels, paladins, law humanoids and dragons, lords of law, law primes


Crossing off things that you are least likely to see (in my opinion) we remove: dragons, primes, angels/demons/devils, lords of law and extraplanar beings

We see Law still has: un-dead, monsters, chaos humanoids

Neutral still has: animals, un-dead, monsters, lycanthropes, perversions of nature

Chaos: paladins, law humanoids

you could remove lycanthropes from the list if you wanted, probably paladins too, and you will end up with a lot of the more common encounters i've experienced so far in DCC.

But seperate from my experience, and based on my opinion, chaos clerics have fewer 'mundane' , if that can be the word we use, or perhaps 'common' targets to use their turn unholy against, unless lawful humanoids are more common than neutral or chaotic.

Am I glad for the things on the list chaotic can turn unholy against? yes. But I think there could be one or two more entries on the list that could bring it on par with the variety of neutral or law clerics, as I think they have more potential targets to turn.

I think the list for all three alignments is logical, the unholy for each makes sense thus this is an issue of play balance.

The problem with that is this:

Neutral Clerics are the best for laying hands since they have no opposed aligment unlike lawful and Chaotic clerics.

Lawful Clerics have a less effective weapons list than Chaotic & Neutral Clerics.

It is clear that Neutral Clerics are superior to Chaotic and Lawful Clerics (And that's without the interactive advantages of having no opposed alignment).

However if you start tweaking one aspect for play balance surely you need to tweak the rest and all the time you make them more 'samey' and that's not good.

The ideal solution would be a set of gods, 3 or 4 for each aligment balanced using Turning/Lay Hands/Weapons choice but also other attributes: god of war D10 HP, god of life bonus to turning, god of death backstab/poison skills and so on. The edge that Neutral Clerics have can be balanced pretty easily y making the gods with the most adventure useful bonus's Lawful and Chaotic while the Neutrals get nature, the sea, crafts and so on

Another thing to consider bringing up with your Judge is that "unholy" doesn't necessarily mean "of opposed alignment". It could mean "anything my God hates". From a roleplay standpoint, it stands to reason that your God will help you punish his enemies regardless of their alignment. For example: two chaos gods could be at war with each other, so each would consider the others followers "unholy" despite both being of chaotic alignment. In the Warhammer universe, the gods of chaos are constantly warring with each other. Followers of Khorne are blessed to smite followers of Tzeench and so forth.

So essentially if you roleplay the crap out of it I imagine you can make a compelling argument for expanding the creatures you're able to turn.

Epoch wrote:Another thing to consider bringing up with your Judge is that "unholy" doesn't necessarily mean "of opposed alignment". It could mean "anything my God hates". From a roleplay standpoint, it stands to reason that your God will help you punish his enemies regardless of their alignment. For example: two chaos gods could be at war with each other, so each would consider the others followers "unholy" despite both being of chaotic alignment. In the Warhammer universe, the gods of chaos are constantly warring with each other. Followers of Khorne are blessed to smite followers of Tzeench and so forth.

So essentially if you roleplay the crap out of it I imagine you can make a compelling argument for expanding the creatures you're able to turn.

This is a very good point and it ties in nicely with the concept of class variation according to god worshipped