D&D General Demons, Devils, and Officiality in D&D

[Ralif Redhammer]

I remember reading that magazine when it came out.

One thing I would point out for context is that the Sage Advice and the Letters columns both had different C/O addresses. I suspect that Sage Advice might have given it more serious consideration, even if it was nothing more than "alu-demons conform to standard human growth cycle."

Since Dragon was in many ways the voice of TSR back then, I can only imagine how inundated they were with letters. The temptation to have a laugh now and then would've gotten very great.

 

[Alzrius]

Since Dragon was in many ways the voice of TSR back then, I can only imagine how inundated they were with letters. The temptation to have a laugh now and then would've gotten very great.

I suspect that the guy who played Waldorf, whose letter about his character's exploits appeared in Dragon #137, would agree...

I should note that the responses to this that came in issue #149 were quite notable as well.

 

[David Howery]

I suspect that the guy who played Waldorf, whose letter about his character's exploits appeared in Dragon #137, would agree...

I should note that the responses to this that came in issue #149 were quite notable as well.

at the time, I was considering writing in and asking "If the whole world is dead except for Waldorf, why is he mining all that salt?", but I didn't....

 

[Shiroiken]

My take on "official" rulings is that I find them interesting to see what the company who makes D&D thinks the rules are/should be, but they're not necessarily binding. I think the most down the rabbit hole I ever went with official rulings was with 4e, where since I was using the online tools I'd get all of the errata incorporated whether I really wanted it or not. Prior to 3e I think my relationship to things like Sage Advice was mostly humorous interest - what kind of weird corner case would someone write in to ask about - it gave an interesting glimpse into how other folks played the game.

With 5e I know some folks will follow the official Twitter accounts for rulings but I just don't see the need. Much like with BECMI the rules are what they are and we'll figure out what they mean for our table as problems come up. If we're reading them "wrong" but having fun it doesn't matter. (And the 5e core game is more consistent than the BECMI core was, so it's easier to just make up a ruling on the fly based on what I think it should be and have it turn out to be the way it "works" anyway once we look it up or someone asks about it).

Unfortunately JC doesn't usually provide intent, but just the strict reading of the rule. IMO RAW is worthless, since I could read the text just as well. RAI is my interest, because if I know their intent, I can understand why something is supposed to work, and see what might be impacted if I change it. I've found that I disagree with JC's "official" rulings quite a bit, so he's not often of much help. I miss Mearls, who's approach I tended to agree with (especially on Passive skills).

 

[Shiroiken]

I suspect that the guy who played Waldorf, whose letter about his character's exploits appeared in Dragon #137, would agree...

I should note that the responses to this that came in issue #149 were quite notable as well.

OMG, I remembered reading this, but could never find it again! I absolutely loved the responses they printed to this letter

 

[teitan]

We always just did it our own way. The only time I cared about "official" was during 3.x because I changed something small once and it spiraled through the rest of the game resulting in several leaks in the dam and we had to start a new campaign because I was running exactly like I would in 1e/2e years where I could just change things and it would be transparent even if it wasn't a consistent mechanic like D20 mechanics. Once we made a house rule for something, we wrote it down and it was always just how we did it. How we interpreted monsters and the granular situations was whatever we thought was cool.

In campaign my cleric died once. Another player came and murdered my cleric. Straight up murdered him. He was a follower of the god of murder so it was annoying but fair and we were doing a campaign where we were NOT a party but disparate threads that the DM would weave together into a bigger story. He experimented with narrative like this all the time. I rolled up a new character and he asked for my character sheet. Next session comes along and he hands me a folder and asks for my new character sheet. He smiles. I open the folder and it is my Cleric as a revenant, resurrected by the god of vengeance to find the other player and avenge not just myself but all the other people he was murdering in the campaign.

I wasn't a revenant from the FR Monstrous Compendium though, he was inspired by that. I was equal parts Ghost Rider and Moon Knight. He changed my alignment to Chaotic Neutral and I had deep red armor fused to my body that gave me AC -2 and a + 1 mace that turned into a chain whip +3 vs the guilty and a power similar to Penance Stare from Ghost Rider. I wasn't a cleric anymore, just a Fighter but he made the abilities like a Kit and a race. It was really cool.

Yes, I avenged myself and others. Olaf was a bad mamma jamma.

By the rules or rulings, we never could have done half that crap.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

When I try to explain the story of Waldorf to younger players, it must sound like a fever dream.

I suspect that the guy who played Waldorf, whose letter about his character's exploits appeared in Dragon #137, would agree...

I should note that the responses to this that came in issue #149 were quite notable as well.

 

[payn]

When I try to explain the story of Waldorf to younger players, it must sound like a fever dream.

View attachment 155740

Now I cant read your posts without seeing this,

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

My beard is currently only grey-streaked. More and more every year, and it feels like these last two especially added more.

Now I cant read your posts without seeing this,
View attachment 155742