Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9528531" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I agree that this is both the necessary and correct parsing of this sentence... I'm just pointing out that this a perfect example of how 1e's .... profligate verbiage can introduce complications that don't need to exist!Here's what they wrote-WORSHIPER'S ALIGN: This refers to the general alignment of those who worship, adore or propitiate the deity. This does not necessarily apply to the alignment of the deity’s clerics, which must be identical with their patron’s.Here's an easy re-write-WORSHIPER'S ALIGN: This refers to the general alignment of those who worship, adore or propitiate the deity.  This may also include classes or groups of worshippers irrespective of alignment.  However, clerics must always have an alignment identical to their deity regardless of what is allowed for other worshippers. I mean, there are other ways to re-write it, but I am just throwing it out there. This is just a mess, basically, for two reasons-First, a lot of the deities don't have "alignments" (or just alignments") in this- instead, it allows for worship by various groups (people seeking magic knowledge, farmers, etc.). So it isn't really the "alignment" of worshippers.Second, it introduces possible confusion on the cleric issue!I mean, I agree with you completely as to how it must be parsed. But then again, I have written repeatedly about the -10hp myth in AD&D, broken it down, traced the history, explained it, etc. And even after that, there are still people who are like, "Naw." They're wrong, but the overly verbose language admittedly makes it more confusing than it should be.Maybe that's why I like to do those deep dives into AD&D.... it has the prolixity of a legal code.</blockquote>

Verification