TSR Q&A with Gary Gygax

This is the multi-year Q&A sessions held by D&D co-creator Gary Gygax here at EN World, beginning in 2002 and running up until his sad pasing in 2008. Gary's username in the thread below is Col_Pladoh, and his first post in this long thread is Post #39.

 

[Frank Mentzer]

I will reiterate that government is generally based on what? Why LAW, of course.

Bah. You know full well, old friend, that all governments are created and maintained primarily to Hold Power Over Others, modified only by the cojoint purpose of maintaining themselves.

And I would maintain that given that primary goal, all government is also therefore Evil...


-- a pragmatic anarchist

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Bah. You know full well, old friend, that all governments are created and maintained primarily to Hold Power Over Others, modified only by the cojoint purpose of maintaining themselves.

And I would maintain that given that primary goal, all government is also therefore Evil...


-- a pragmatic anarchist

No. as the Constitution originally set forth the enumerated powers of the federal government, it was not Evil, merely Lawfully Neutral, with those holding high office basically of good alignment.

Ciao,
Gary

 

[The Great Bear King]

No. as the Constitution originally set forth the enumerated powers of the federal government, it was not Evil, merely Lawfully Neutral, with those holding high office basically of good alignment.

Ciao,
Gary

Actually, the Constitution (pre Patriot Act) goes a long way to limiting the power of the Federal government by only giving the Federal government limited to prevent it from becoming a tyranny. Such limits on government and the Enlightenment concept of the rule of Law would actually be Chaotic Good not Lawful Good (Lawful Goods believe that the law should be enforced upon individuals, but not necessarily the state, for that might limit the power of government to do good in their opinion). However, it's permission of slavery and restrictions on eligible voters, reduced it to a True Neutral document.

 

[haakon1]

US Government alignment

I'd say the American Revolution was Neutral Good. Chaotic in wanting freedom and opposing the king. Lawful in its Deist religious background, and desire for machinistic rule of law. Neutral between chaos and law by using the law to protect freedom -- never was there a more Neutral Good document than the Bill of Rights.

As for it not being Good because it permitted slavery, remember the old maxim: "Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid." Trying to fight the Civil War and the Revolution at the same time would have failed.

In general, I think America is a lot more chaotic than most countries of similar level of economic development -- compare us to the UK, Japan, Germany, or France, for instance. Both parties have their chaotic holy cows (2nd Amendment for the GOP, 1st Amendment for the Dems) and their lawful aspects (Terry Schiavo case for GOP, ACLU defending even people they dislike on the Dem side).

I won't touch the Good/Neutral/Evil thing with a 10' pole. Both at least think they are good.

Alignment in the real world discussions are silly, but amusing, until someone starts getting mad.

 

[gideon_thorne]

You dudes must like fishing? Going by the huge can of worms you just opened of course?

No. as the Constitution originally set forth the enumerated powers of the federal government, it was not Evil, merely Lawfully Neutral, with those holding high office basically of good alignment.

Ciao,
Gary

 

[Hiryu]

Well, J.C.

In my view you have an imperfect understanding of alignments as they apply to the game. However, it is a waste of my time and energy to d9ispute your assertions...profitless on all counts.

I will reiterate that government is generaly based on what? Why LAW, of course.

Gary

Well, like I said, no agreeing required. I was merily sharing my opinion on alignments and very personal interpretation of them.

While I believe that many of the rules are straightforward and with a clear right-wrong way to interpret them, in my personal and very humble opinion, alignments fall into that interpretational category that doesn't have a clear right way to handle it. After all, good and bad are both very hard to define and dependant on each person's perception of morality.

That's not to say I don't think I may be a tad off on my interpretation when compared to the original idea, since D&D is strongly based on the classical idea of great good vs. great evil common in fantasy literature. I just like them better that way both as player and DM.

If I could, I'd definitely go with your idea of only having Lawful, Neutral and Chaotic, but my players always refuse.

*dives back into lurking mode*

J. C. Corona

PS: Governments may be based on law and good, but that doesn't mean they are ran as such. All in all, I agree with Mr. Mentzer, and that is the last I'll say about it. Politics are the most efficient way to loose friends.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

And so we bring to an end this particuler discussion.

Gary

 

[francisca]

I'm happy to leave political teeth gnashing on your list, Gary. Thanks for stemming the tide. I hope everyone abides by it.

Back to gaming, I recently found this nugget, and thought you and the rest of the board might find it to be of interest:

Writing in pseudonym about his own works, Leiber wrote:

"What seems to make the Fafhrd Mouser stories stand out is that the two heroes are cut down to a plausible size without loss of romance and a believed in eerie, sorcerous atmosphere and with a welcome departure from forumla. They are neither physical supermen the caliber of Conan and John Carter, nor moral or metaphysical giants like Tolkien's Strider, etc., and Morcock's Elrich. They win out by one quarter brains, another quarter braun, and at least fifty percent sheer luck. They have an engaging self interest, blind spots and vices, a gallantry of sorts, and an ability to laugh at themselves - even if the Mouser occasionally quite galling. One's first impression may be that the Mouser is the darkly clever comedian and Fafhrd the somewhat stupid straight man, or Fafhrd the hero and Mouser the comic relief, but a little reading reveals the self infatuation underlying and sometimes tripping the Mouser's cunning, and also the amiable wisdom that now and then shows through Fafhrd's lazy complacency."

In short, they seem like the perfect D&D adventurers, right down to the 50% sheer luck part being represented by die rolls. I found out about Fafhrd and the Mouser via your indirect recommendation in the DMG (and Moldvay's Basic set). They really struck a chord with me, probably because I was in my middle teens and devouring the AD&D core books. Looking at the experience in hindsight, with the above quote in mind, it all makes perfect sense why I like those stories so much.

When DMing, I often find myself trying to create the same vibe in adventures that Mr. Leiber did in his Fafhrd and Mouser stories. Usually, it's just a pale imitation, but that's still pretty good, I think. (My players too, they keep coming back, week after week.)

 

[oldschooler]

Thanks for the reply regarding creature inspirations. Apparently, kobolds are goblin-like, and it was the illustration that lead to their current "reptilian" nature. Facinating stuff!
I actually like hyenas, so gnolls are one of my favorite humanoids. Sometimes I just wish they weren't quite so tough
I agree with the "true" troll being more exiting than the Scandinavian one. As per Chainmail, one could simply use ogre stats for those.
I have to say I've never heard of gorgons being described as bull-like, but like you say, I'm not into the medieval bestiary so much as ancient Greek mythology. The oldest description I know of is "dragon-like, with faces like hideous boars and snakes for hair". As for the hydra, I wasn't referring to the illustration, but rather it's description in Monsters & Treasure.
I've always loved those oozes, slimes and jellies. Great creepy fun!

Hope you had an wonderful Father's Day!

 

[Col_Pladoh]

...

Back to gaming, I recently found this nugget, and thought you and the rest of the board might find it to be of interest:

...

In short, they seem like the perfect D&D adventurers, right down to the 50% sheer luck part being represented by die rolls. ...

Do be careful there!

All of the dice rolling for random results has a probability that a good player knows and takes into account. Luck is by no means half of the reason for successful FRPG adventuring in general, although in any given case it might be a key component, or might not be involved at all. the same is true of real life successes and failures, of course. Random events and luck are actualities.

Otherwise, I surely do concur in regards to Fritz's writing about Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.

Cheers,
Gary