[D&D history/development] I wonder why...

[Mark Hope]

And don't forget about the Bullywugs.

And the grippli. And the ice toad. And the regular giant toads. And the froghemoth. And the tsathar. You could rename the game Dungeons & Toads and it would play about the same as it does now.

 

[Mercule]

People worship evil gods and commit evil deeds knowing that there exists a literal hell. Anywhere that has so much as a 1st level cleric can get daily confirmation of this. The level of communication between deity and worshiper could only be improved with instant text messaging, yet almost every lawful good church in D&D has at least one person, if not a sub-organization, that operates with malignant motivations.

There are different categories, here.

First, there are the people who don't consider themselves evil. They use the same rationales that modern day criminals use to justify their actions. They're in for a big surprise on Judgement Day.

Second are the people who just don't think about it. That doesn't need to be elaborated upon. You know these exist.

Third are the people who fool themselves. I played an evil assassin/bounty hunter in an FR game. He worshipped Mielikki (sp?) because he thought he found an out ("My deity will claim my soul, so I'm golden."). He tended to avoid those crazy cultists who'd sold their souls, but had no problem hunting and killing paladins, benevolent landlords, and even nun-equivalents. He knew he wasn't a nice guy, but he'd just go to church and pray, tithe, etc. Once again, probably had a surprise waiting for him. But, this happens IRL, too. Certain Italian families, for example.

Fourth are the desperate. IRL, many people who petitioned "evil spirits" did so because the good guys didn't answer their prayers. The afterlife seems so distant and you may not actually have to pay up.

Fifth are the hard-core "yeah, I'm evil" types. These guys think they have an out. It might be the terms of the contract. It might be the notion that hard work and loyalty are rewarded (what part of "Chaotic and Evil" didn't you understand?). It might overconfidence in their own power. Whatever it is, they're "special" and won't have to pay the piper or work in the mail room before their first promotion. They might be right, but I doubt it.

 

[Mercule]

The oddity that has always gotten me is:

Rogues can't cast spells and don't have any sort of magic training. But, they can trigger wands, scrolls, etc. Huh?

 

[Glyfair]

The oddity that has always gotten me is:

Rogues can't cast spells and don't have any sort of magic training. But, they can trigger wands, scrolls, etc. Huh?

I think it developed from Cugel the Clever in Vance's books. In the books Cugel casts spells from Iucounu's spellbooks. In at least one instance he failed and got the opposite result.

In AD&D thieves had the ability to use scrolls, with a chance of a "fumbled" result. Almost straight from Cugel. In 3E it became more versatile with Use Magic Device.

 

[IanB]

The oddity that has always gotten me is:

Rogues can't cast spells and don't have any sort of magic training. But, they can trigger wands, scrolls, etc. Huh?

You can blame the Grey Mouser for that. And/or Cugel the Clever.

 

[Mercule]

Conversely, the $20.00 USD gold coin appears to be the right size and weight for what I would consider to be an ideal gold piece coin. But then we still have the same problem with the cost for goods versus skilled labor and or cash value.

In the early 1990s, I grabbed some items I figured would be a good baseline value* and compared to real-world pricing. What I came up with was that 1 gp = $20.

Really, though, the difference between an agrarian vs. industrial society make it little more than academic. You won't find even wealthy merchants making $50K (1,000,000 gp) per year in a D&D setting, but that's pretty common IRL.

* I don't remember exactly what I used, but I think it was mostly food. Weapons are a very bad choice because of the difference in societies and the potentially varied laws. Really, any manufactured good is probably not good because of the introduction of assembly lines.

 

[Mercule]

You can blame the Grey Mouser for that. And/or Cugel the Clever.

I don't know Cugel, but the Mouser was stated in 1E L&L as having three levels of magic-user. No need for UMD.

 

[IanB]

I don't know Cugel, but the Mouser was stated in 1E L&L as having three levels of magic-user. No need for UMD.

Thieves reading scrolls predates that book, though. Regardless of which fictional rogue we're talking about, the 'in a pinch' sort of magical experimentation is a pretty common literary device.

 

[Father of Dragons]

Why the difference between swords of sharpness and vorpal swords? I can understand the idea of a weapon that slices your head off in one blow, but why have two that only really differ from each other by a single point? What was the inspiration for this difference? Are these modelling specific archetypes or just intended to be more powerful versions of the other?

They are from different literary sources: The Vorpal Blade is from The Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll, while The Sword of Sharpness is from Jack the Giant Killer.

 

[mmadsen]

But that's exactly my point and I'm not sure why you're not understanding this. IF I travel to some part of the world and live there long enough to instinctively absorb the economic realities THEN I will understand your analogy regarding the value of the gold piece. Maybe I'm trying to answer a different question than you are. Taking some traveller's checks to Africa and staying there for a week probably wouldn't do much for my understanding of the situation.

I will readily admit that I do not understand what you're trying to ask. The rules list typical prices and typical wages. If you want to know how much a silver piece buys, the rules tell you. If you want to know how much money a laborer makes, the rules tell you.

If you want a feel for how people view money though, you need to take yourself out of 21st-century America and its modern market economy and look at how people live in pre-industrial economies around the world or in our own history.

Saying that one silver piece is enough to buy a cheap outfit is one thing. Realizing that most people only own one set of clothing, and that they replace it annually, puts things in a different perspective.

Saying that three silver pieces is enough to buy a chunk of meat is one thing. Realizing that most people can't put meat on the table even once per week puts things in a different perspective.

You don't have to spend much time in a less-developed country to get a feel for such things.

I'm not sure why there is a fundemental difference between silver coins, cowrie shells, or bushels of wheat when it comes to value - other than some may be easier to move than others. Also, the DnD coin AFAIK is not backed by some central bank, it's value is the value of the metal in the coin, making it, as far as I can tell, subject to the same situation as a bushel of wheat (there's no indication that the coins are debased, in fact, considering the exchange rates for basic metals given in "trade goods" it seems to me that a gold coin is 100% pure gold (which is strange)).

When I speak of a modern economy, my concern is not that the paper money is fiat money, or that the government tries to manage business cycles by increasing spending during a recession, etc.

The distinction is far more fundamental. A modern economy tends to be a monetary economy, where complete strangers make monetary transactions on a daily basis, and even fairly unskilled laborers are many times more productive than medieval laborers, because they're working within an efficient system bolstered by high-tech capital equipment.

In a pre-modern economy, virtually everyone is subsistence-farming, producing barely enough to survive. There's a reason modern Americans and Europeans are a head taller than they used to be -- and than subsistence-farmers around the world today. How much is one silver piece worth to such a person?