Fantasy Friday: The Deed of Pakesnarrion Book I: Sheepfarmer's Daughter

This week's installment of Fantasy Friday takes a look at Elizabeth Moon's Sheepfamer's Daughter.

I was looking around for something to read this week and decided on two books; one is The Idiot  by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and the other is Sheepfarmer's Daughter (both are re-reads). I have, naturally, read many fantasy novels over the years and have many favorites and just as many loathed titles. I've read most of the "feminist" fantasy authors and generally cannot stomach many of their underlying premises: women are better then men, men are all vicious animals, etc. etc., ad infinitum, ad nasuseam. Fortunately, Elizabeth Moon is not one of those authors.

 

According to Moon herself, The Deed grew out of a conversation she overheard among some D&D players about how to play a paladin. Her internal response was "That isn't how a paladin would act." And thus the idea for The Deed was born. It was, like Lord of the Rings before it, initially conceived as a single novel, but, publishers being who they are and not believing the public has the ability to read a large novel, chopped it up into a trilogy. It still works as a trilogy, but it was republished as a single volume eventually.

 

There is the standard fantasy trope of a humble farmchild who rises from obscurity to become a great hero, endures a fall, but rises triumphant in the end. What sets The Deed  apart from other fantasy stories with a female warrior protagonist and a female author (of the 1980's and 1990's) is that Paks acts like a real person and is also a good lens through whom to view her world. Coming from a small backwater, it's not forced or contrived whenever she comes across something that she's doesn't know or hasn't experience like dwarves or the politics of the southern city-states.

 

In line with being a real person, Paks does not see herself as better than anyone else, male or female. Her gender and character are not defined by her sexuality; she is neither man-hater nor Lesbian nor sex-kitten. And thank God for that! Too many authors seems to think that human sexuality is the be all and end all of character definition. Paks enjoys the simple things in life and is good friends with Saben, for example, but not bed-partners. She also possesses a certain simplicity herself: why break up perfectly good furniture looking for hidden treasure?

 

Paks is also quite pragmatic. She accepts things as they are. she does have that inner dream of one day leading armies or somesuch, but it does not affect her perception of the day-to-day realities of soldiering. This first novel (part?) in the story lay the groundwork for what is to come in later portions and her character never really changes. she is a sheepfarmer's daughter who is destined to become a paladin in the service of Gird. Most of Paks's character and pragmatism comes in no small part from Elizabth Moon herself, who was was an USMC officer. How much of Moon is in Paks is known only to the author herself. Sufficeth to say, Moon does capture the feel of military camaraderie quite convincingly.

 

One thing that is disputed is how much of D&D, and more specifically Greyhawk, with the serial numbers  filed off is present in Pak's world. St. Gird is obviously St. Cuthbert and Falk could be Hieroneous; the Webmistress is obviously Lloth. The second part, Divided Allegiance, has even more obvious parallels. while opinions may vary, there is more a case of homage than anything else. The characters and the deities and the setting all have things that set them apart from the standard D&D fare--wizards that can heal and produce healing potions, for example. The story plot itself is "the hero who rises from obscurity" plotline. What makes any story unique is the characterization of the cast and ability of the author to weave the story and make it entertaining. In that, Elizabeth Moon succeeds superbly.

T is for Tolkien

Professor Tolkien. Would we be playing AD&D the way we do without his influence?

 

Much has been made out of "Appendix N" the past couple of years. The success of Goodman Games's Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG, which bases its feel and setting heavily on Appendix N sources comes to mind as a prime example. Gygax himself is dismissive of the Professor's work in early issues of Dragon. There is a long-running thread on Dragonsfoot about removing the influence of Tolkien from one's game.

 

Admittedly, there are other influences on AD&D other than the good professor. Vancian magic springs to mind. There are Lovecraftian roots as well, and not just a pulled section from the DMG either; Tharzidun and the Temple of Elemental Evil, dimensional travel and races like the githerzai and githyanki (which might even be influenced by Moorcock as well). Speaking of Moorcock, what about Law and Chaos with Neutrality as the Cosmic Balance? The mighty-thewed barbarian class is straight out of Howard and Lieber.

 

That being said, there are many things taken for granted that come straight from Tolkien. There are the blatantly obvious: halfling-hobbits, Balor-Balrog, treant-ent. Some not so much: the divide between high/grey elves and wood elves, the animosity between Dwarf and Elf, Half- Orcs (a shady character in Fellowship of the Ring that hangs out with Bill Ferny is described as having the look of some goblin blood in him) and Half -Elves (Elrond Half-elven, anybody?). What about the existence of a ranger class? There is the clear relationship between the tier of goblin-orc-hobgoblin that mirrors that of goblin-orc-uruk-hai in Tolkien. What about the idea that elves are the First Children and that their kingdoms are places of light, fortresses that hold out against the evil? In that respect, Greyhawk itself has the feel of Tolkien in it. Should we compare Iuz and his lands with Sauron and Mordor? How about Hommlett to Bree? The Kron Hills to the Shire? The Lortomils to the Misty Mountains?

 

While it is clear that AD&D is a amalgam of information from many sources, much of it is clearly influenced by Tolkien. Whether or not that is a direct connection or one from fantasy literature in general is for my gentle readers to decide. But the connection is there.

 

Until tomorrow, gentle readers, when we examine Unholy Warriors.

H is for Heroes

A cavalier in action! A true hero!

Heroes. I find the concept is alien to many gamers these days. I say that because, one of the worst things to come out of the 1990s and even the late 1980s is the skill/power concept. No, it did not begin with D20/3.0 (although that was the penultimate expression of the concept). What I mean is two ideas. First, there is the attitude of "If I don't have the skill I cannot attempt to perform a certain action," and its close corollary, "If I fail the skill roll, I miss it all." The gaming community is ripe with stories of failed notice rolls and the inability of the character to see the door in front of him. It's even become a running joke in some webcomics:

 

Elan fumbles a Spot check.

 

 

Second, there is the attitude that the abilities completely define the character. Followed too far, and this leads to 4.0-type skills that are just the "pushing of a keyboard button." At the other extreme, it leads to the ossification of the archetypal system that is a strength of old-school gaming and (1e) AD&D in particular. Allow me to elaborate on this last point.

 

Old-school gamers are quite pleased with the four "archetypal" classes: the armored fighter wielding  a sword and shield, the wise cleric healing and turning back the forces of Undeath, the skulking thief armed with quick-wit and ready blade, and the mysterious magic-user summoning arcane power to slay. In B/X and BECMI we also have the concept of "race as class": the sturdy dwarf fighter, the bright-eyed elf who combines steel with sorcery, and the resolute hobb-, er halfling fighter. These are clearly defined images. Anyone who has lived in western culture can equate these to literary and mythical figures: Lancelot, St. Francis of Assisi, the Grey Mouser, Merlin, Gimli, Lord Elrond of Rivendell, and Samwise. They work.

 

Some might say that the multiclassing in AD&D muddies the waters a bit, but not really. An elf fighter/magic-user is no different from a B/X elf. Even "new" multiclasses are acceptable: isn't Frodo more of a fighter/thief? And opening up new classes to demi-humans is good as well for the same reasons; Bilbo is probably just a straight up thief, for example. New specialty classes open up archetypes; as long as one doesn't go too far, it doesn't dilute things much. Rangers, monks, and druids, o mai! Even brand new classes from dragon are adapted from other games/editions are fine as well. Necromancer? Yes, definitely an archetype.

 

"We don't have a cleric...somebody is going to die, dude!"

 

If everyone is an archetype with their own little niche, what does one do when that niche is empty. So, how does a fighter climb a wall? How does cleric get rid of the trap his spell discovered if the thief is already down? The answer: very carefully! The character is not defined by the character sheet and its stats; the character is defined by the PLAYER!!! Both of the situations above can be solved without a thief. the thing is, the thieving abilities work (by my estimation) in a combat round (lock picking) or without extraneous equipment (wall climbing). Take note of the scene in "Conan the Barbarian." When climbing the Tower of the Serpent the two fighters (Conan and Valeria) are using a rope; the thief (Subodai) is climbing the wall freehand.

 

If the party had to disarm a trap without a thief, it would take them at least 15 minutes. They would describe their plan, and I would assign a chance, usually less than a thief....DEX as a %, add a racial modifier if applicable (a dwarf removing a trap, for instance), possibly doubling it if the plan was solid, halving it without a plan. Easily done.

 

What about other skills? Well, previous profession would be a guide (Secondary Skills Table, DMG pg. 12) and roll a % based on an applicable stat doubled or even tripled. Also class would. A fighter might not ride as well as a cavalier, but he should have some proficiency. As an aside, the reason I do not use the non-weapon proficiency system from DSG/WSG is that it leads down that straitjacket road too easily. Try anything; I'll give the player a chance.

 

I have wandered far from my intended post, but that's ok. Let me wrap up by saying two things. First, the PCs in AD&D are a cut about the average. Of the four archetypal classes, three have more starting hit points than normal men. If one looks at some of the expanded classes, it is possible to have way more than the norm; a ranger or barbarian with the right stats and rolls can start the game with a max of 20 HP at first level! Second, Kevin Siembieda writes in several of his games that it always amazes him that people forget they're playing HEROES! They complain that the character is not normal or realistic. Well, duh! You are a HERO!

 

Until tomorrow, gentle readers, keep the sword blade sharp and the components near to hand!

 

 

C is for Cavaliers (of the Keebler Variety!)

I have mentioned before that I use the material in Unearthed Arcana, and, yes, that includes the cavalier class. Of course, since I like to tinker with the rules, I've made some adjustments for elves.

Dragon #114

First, however, let me mention Chris Booth's article "The Elven Cavalier" from Dragon 114. It is well written; however, it proceeds from the assumption that elves or more like the wood-dwelling, well, wood elves. For some elven cultures, such changes will work, but they are not necessary. I'll discuss this some more in a bit.

As far as rules are concerned, I make a couple of minor changes to the class. First, since "A human cavalier (but not an elf or a half-elf) makes all attacks from horseback as if the character were 1 level higher," I allow elven cavaliers to fire a bow from horseback without penalty. Now, nowhere does it explicitly state in AD&D hat there is a penalty for firing from horseback. Note that short composite bows are a required weapon for elven cavaliers per UA. This gives them something back and makes them a tad more unique. Second, I remove the weapon of choice for "the horseman’s mace, horseman’s flail, or horseman’s military pick (player’s choice)" and replace it with short bow, long bow, short composite bow, and long composite bow. For followers, I use the Plains and Woods tables from the article "Tables and Tables of Troops" in Dragon 99, using the numbers gained from UA. Also, since half-elves are pretty much ignored, I allow half-elf cavaliers to come from either human or elven upbringing and function as that race for purposes of cavalier abilities. And that's pretty much it.

A Knight of Rivendell...or is that Celene? Maybe Evermeet?

I said above that Mr. Booth's article was adequate for the time. However, in the last 25 years, perceptions have changed. Much of that is due to Peter Jackson's interpretation of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle Earth works. Thanks to PJ, we can now see elves in plate and riding roughshod over warg-riders (good scene in Hobbit: And Unexpected Journey, that). Like I said, the old way was to view elves as woodsy, dandelion-eating forest-dwellers. Now that might hold true for Wood Elves and Wild Elves; High Elves and Grey Elves, on the other hand, are more...noble, for want of a better term. And this is true even in old school AD&D. There is the court of Queen Yolonde of Celene on Oerth, a realm that Gary Gygax's Gord novels assure us is protected by Elven cavaliers and knights. And why not on Toril as well? I can see elven cavaliers in Evermeet and old Myth Drannor; it fits the feel of those nations without breaking them.

Sweet water and light laughter until next, gentle readers!

Gil-Galad was an elven king...his sword was long, his LANCE was keen...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wAH0SEtgdI

The April A-toZ Challenge is upon us!

Well, the A-to-Z challenge starts in a little oer a week. I did not participate last year; I was too depressed over the lack of a job. this year I work full-time and am willing and able to participate. Go figure.

In 2011, I concentrated on Fantasy RPGs, specifically Swords & Wizardry and original D&D. I was considering that but I'm leaning more toward Comic RPGs like Villains and Vigilantes, Champions, Mutants and Masterminds 3e/DC Adventures. On the other hand, I've also been toying around with thoughts for a Dangerous Journeys/Mythus campaign set in Avillonia (aka the British Isles). Of course, I might throw out a complete curve ball and write on a native Dreamlands campaign for Call of Cthulhu. We'll see. I have a week to ponder some more.

Movie Challenge Day 1

Chello!

Ok, I've decided to do the 30 Day Movie Challenge. Each day, you're supposed a post a picture of a movie based on a list. I'm going a step farther. I'm also going to watch each movie and then blog about it. Loads of fun!

Anyway, Day 1 is "Your Favorite Movie." After thinking about it I have to go with:

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring: Extended Version.

This movie sis my favorite for several reason. Peter Jackson did a great job creating Middle Earth. The locations look real, the detail is astonishing. For instance, Bag End has soot marks, not just over the mantle of the fireplace, but over the candle sconces on the walls. The clothes look worn. One of teh problem with many fantasy movies (Eragon comes to mind) is that everything looks too new, clean and unused. This is true of science fiction as well. Compare the Star Trek universe to the Aliens universe. Which one "feels" real?

PJ has hit criticism for two things that stand out to me in the movie. first, Tom Bombadil is gone. I can understand why, though; in a movie this epic, some things have to be cut otherwise, it would become unenjoyable to watch. The extended version is pushing the limits of watchability as it is. I have no problems with this deletion for that reason. It can be argued that Bombadil highlights one of the features of Middle Earth (i.e., the role of quasi-deities therein), but is it necessary? Probably not.

The other is poor Glorfindel. If you've not read the books, Glorfindel is an elf lord sent out by Elrond to find the hobbits and Strider when they are travelling between Bree and Rivendell. PJ replaced Glorflindel with Arwen. Fanbois seem to take this personally for some reason. First of all, the romance of Aragorn and Arwen is covered in the appendices of LotR. However, added that to the screen broadened the appeal to a wider audience. Heck, even the Bakshi cartoon in the 1970's replaced poor Glorfindel with Legolas.

On to other things. Fellowship is the perfect D&D movie, in my opinion. There is a quest, a dungeon crawl, a big fight. The fight in Balin's tomb reminds me of how chaotic our dungeon crawl melees are supposed to be. We have to pause and go round by round; in reality, that confused melee is what it looks like to the characters: a vicious struggle for life and death.

What really makes this movie King for me is the feelings that it produces. The idea of teh shire, a place where hobbits live in safety and harmony, the children chasing Gandalf shouting for fireworks, the sadness of the Fellowship after Gandlaf "dies," the noble sacrifice and honor shown by all...it all evokes a certain sentimentality in me. I have long believed that this movie was so successful because of 9-11. At the time, our country had suffered a tremendous tragedy and the movie spoke to us about honor and sacrifice. it resonated with us.

I didn't include the entire trilogy in this, and not because I didn't want to watch them all in one sitting, either! The other movies are good, but...PJ starts to diverge from the source more. We get Legolas riding a shield down stairs in Helm's Deep like it';s a boogie board, shooting the arrows the whole way. The battle scenes become even more over the top. the message remains the same, but it gets a touch more Hollywood.

Well, that's all for now, kids. Tomorrow is "the Movie You like the Least." Until then!