What MUST you include to be considered playing 1E AD&D

[AxeMental]

These are all good points. Yes, the thief is supposed to be scum the vast majority of the time...

That's a generalization from the other side of the spectrum from the scout mentality. Are Good thieves (yes, Chaotic & Neutral) scum a "vast majority of the time?" I bet they cut a lot of corners when it doesn't "really" hurt anyone.

Axe and gene, let the players play. If somebody playing a Good thief wants to be a scout, YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO CARE, no matter whether you like it or not. You know, that whole IMPARTIAL judge thing? If you don't want scouts in your game, then you're certainly allowed to disallow Good thieves.

Me? I think scouting isn't the best way to play a thief, but OTOH, some people like it, and what's it to me?

TRP I'm only mentioning stuff described in the PH (reread the thief description). That "generally" thieves are such and such (think about who they have to train under and hang out with just to advance). Sure, there are exceptional NPCs who aren't going to screw you over, yes, if a player wants to play an honorable thief (even just with his group), I have no problem with that (and much easier to explain if they are halflings or elves). But players need to know they are the exception not the rule in the 1E AD&D world as presented in the three core books. They also need to know they have to play to character, in the way that any other class must (think paladin or assassin). Of course, all bets are off UA and after.

[Matthew]

TRP I'm only mentioning stuff described in the PH (reread the thief description). That "generally" thieves are such and such (think about who they have to train under and hang out with just to advance). Sure, there are exceptional NPCs who aren't going to screw you over, yes, if a player wants to play an honorable thief (even just with his group), I have no problem with that (and much easier to explain if they are halflings or elves). But players need to know they are the exception not the rule in the 1E AD&D world as presented in the three core books. They also need to know they have to play to character, in the way that any other class must (think paladin or assassin). Of course, all bets are off UA and after.

The text is quite interesting for thief alignment for sure: "All thieves are neutral or evil, although they can be neutral good (rarely), and of lawful or chaotic nature. Most thieves tend towards evil." It has been debated before, but I take that to mean that the alignments open are:

Neutral (maybe)
Neutral Evil
Lawful Neutral
Lawful Evil
Chaotic Neutral
Chaotic Evil
Neutral Good (rarely)

I guess the question then becomes do most thieves tend towards evil, or most player character thieves? Either way, it barely matters to me, as it is fairly rare for a player character to be good or evil aligned, I find.

[AxeMental]

Its likely that personality was assigned to thieves (the steriotypical shifty eyed guy lurking in shadows) to prevent them from becoming the defacto "scout". Would a party of LG guys trust their fate to a couple plotting thieves? What goodies have they looted (after you killed the monsters) what traps might they not have told you about so they can loot off your dead body.

1E AD&D is definitely more hard core then 0E. Players are encouraged to play to the role, and are presented with some nasty to be. It was typical in our games during highschool for there to be several assassins in a group.

[geneweigel]

Since I use CHAINMAIL every single game, I don't have the "thief going out on his own" problems its more like "how can I discourage these guys from bringing their companies of troops along as backup?" problems. The one high level thief player is always going off on his own because he refuses to use hirelings or henchmen and feels he needs to do something while the rest muster up "armies", "navies" and "air forces". Have they conquered anything? Not really so I'm a real prick when comes to trying to take too much BUT I'm very open to many potentials for game direction. But here in the discussions of AD&D as a concept. I don't like thief or cleric trends in general. Although if you showed up tomorrow and said can I play a good thief scout and you explained it an interesting approach instead of some hustle of old crud from a 2e campaign you played in then I'd be fine with it.

[TRP]

They also need to know they have to play to character, in the way that any other class must (think paladin or assassin).

Nope. You're not even close, and if you told me how to play my thief in your game, then I'd either have to walk away from the table or play just the opposite to piss ya off

It is ridiculously easy to qualify for the thief class, unlike the paladin or assassin you mentioned. Thieves have no codes, by which they must abide, as paladins and assassins do. And no where, that I know of, do the DMG or PHB tell a player exactly how to play his/her thief.

This thread is about What MUST .. 1E AD&D, and there ain't no MUST in HOW to play a thief.

[Terrex]

Axe/Gene: Are you guys saying you don't think it's AD&D-like to have members of the party scout ahead in the dungeon on occasion? That's common in our games, especially in areas of the dungeon where there aren't a lot of doors, etc. The players occasionally use this tactic to gain intel to make a hit on an occupied room of significance. I think that's good play.

Of course this tactic comes with the risk of the thief, assassin, elf, halfling, unencumbered party member, etc. doing the scouting may get waylaid alone. Additionally, the scouting character may occasionally get lucky and find some low hanging fruit that doesn't get reported to the rest of the party.

It seems to me, how the party wants to explore the dungeon is up to the players. Based on your other posts, I'm guessing you guys agree. So why the aversion to the scouting?

[AxeMental]

They also need to know they have to play to character, in the way that any other class must (think paladin or assassin).

Nope. You're not even close, and if you told me how to play my thief in your game, then I'd either have to walk away from the table or play just the opposite to piss ya off

It is ridiculously easy to qualify for the thief class, unlike the paladin or assassin you mentioned. Thieves have no codes, by which they must abide, as paladins and assassins do. And no where, that I know of, do the DMG or PHB tell a player exactly how to play his/her thief.

This thread is about What MUST .. 1E AD&D, and there ain't no MUST in HOW to play a thief.

I'm totally not talking about the MUST to be playing 1E AD&D, this is just minor point related to some posters who don't like including thieves.
Anyhow, I didn't mean that extreme (you are correct, those are both much more extreme). Still, you can't ignore the PH description and the fact they're called thieves and not scouts. Yes, thieves run the gambit in how they act and what they do

BTW When I DM I only suggest the players read their descriptions. I give alot of latitude to all classes (probably strictest with paladins).

[AxeMental]

Axe/Gene: Are you guys saying you don't think it's AD&D-like to have members of the party scout ahead in the dungeon on occasion? That's common in our games, especially in areas of the dungeon where there aren't a lot of doors, etc. The players occasionally use this tactic to gain intel to make a hit on an occupied room of significance. I think that's good play.

Of course this tactic comes with the risk of the thief, assassin, elf, halfling, unencumbered party member, etc. doing the scouting may get waylaid alone. Additionally, the scouting character may occasionally get lucky and find some low hanging fruit that doesn't get reported to the rest of the party.

It seems to me, how the party wants to explore the dungeon is up to the players. Based on your other posts, I'm guessing you guys agree. So why the aversion to the scouting?

No, I'm not. Thats how we play all the time (thieves go ahead and look for monsters and traps) its how you'd do it in real life and thus is very 1Eish. I was just saying I can see "game wise" how that can be a problem for some groups with thieves hogging the time and attention of the DM (personally we have avoided this problem by talking about it or watchful DMing). I'm also suggesting that players need to know that thieves IN GENERAL are supposed to be more then dungeon scouts (per the thief description). That doesn't mean their PC has to do anything but scout. But they should know the breadth of the class.

[Geoffrey]

But here in the discussions of AD&D as a concept. I don't like thief or cleric trends in general.

Gene, what don't you like about cleric trends in general?

[Matthew]

An amusing thing to find:

Laban wondred how thai myght endure
Withouten vitaile so longe.
He remembred him on Floripas sencture
And of the vertue so stronge.
Tho wiste he welle that through famyne
Might he hem never wynne.
He cleped to him fals Mapyne,
For he coude many a fals gynne;
He coude scale castel and toure
And over the walles wende.
`Mapyne,' he saide, `for myne honoure,
Thou mooste have this in mynde:
That hore, my doghter, a girdil hath she;
From hounger it savyth hem alle
That wonnen may thay never be -
That foule mote hir bifalle!
Kanstowe gete me that gyrdill by craft,
A thousande pounde than shal I gefe the,
So that it be there not lefte
But bringe it hithire to me.
Thou kanste see by nyghte as welle
As any man doth by daye.
Whan thay bene in here beddes ful still,
Than go forth thider right in thy waye.
Thou shalt it in here chamber fynde;
Thou maist be thereofe sure.'
`Sir, thereto I wole me bynde,
If my life may endure.'
Forth wente this fals Mapyne
By nyght into the toure -
God gife him evel endinge! -
Even into Floripas boure.
By a chemney he wente inne.
Fulle stilly there he soughte it.
He it founde and girde it aboute him,
And aftyr ful dere he boght it.
For by the light of a lampe there
Floripas gan him aspye,
Alle afrayed oute of hir slepe for fere;
But lowde than gan she crye
And saide, `A thefe is in my boure;
Robbe me he wole or sloo.'
Therwith come Rouland fro his toure
To wete of hir woo.
He founde Mapyne bysyde hir bedde
Stondinge amased for drede.
To the wyndowe he him ladde
And ther he smote of his hedde
And caste him oute into the see.
Of the gyrdille was he not ware;
But whan he wist the girdel hade he,
Tho hadde he sorowe and care.
Floripe to the cheste wente
And aspyed hire gyrdel was goon.
`Alas,' she saide, `alle is it shente!
Sir, what have ye done?
He hath my girdel aboute hym.
Alas, that harde while!
A rebelle hounde doth ofte grete tene;
Howe be we alle begilede.'
Tho spake Roulande with chere boolde,
'Damselle, beyth noughte aferde.
If any vitaile be aboute this hoolde,
We wole hem wynne withe dinte of swerde.
Tomorowe wole we oute-goon
And assaye howe it wole be.
I make a vowe to God alone,
Assaile hem wole we.
And if thay have any mete
Parte withe hem wole we,
Or elles strokes thay shal gete
By God and Seynte Mary, myn avoure.'

This is a Middle English poem from a manuscript dated to the fifteenth century, and though I doubt Gygax was ever aware of it, "False Mapyne the Thief" uses his climb walls skill to good effect before failing to move silently and getting his head cut off!

[geneweigel]

But here in the discussions of AD&D as a concept. I don't like thief or cleric trends in general.

Gene, what don't you like about cleric trends in general?

I've been trying to get this all day and getting "emergencies" one right after the other.

What I don't like is the "priest as heal pump" for one, but the big one is the "must convert the other players to the minutiae of a specific polytheistic sphere of control that is antagonistic". This concept is campaign after campaign after campaign and its a complete misread. You can't have departmental gods with churchs converting to "the faith". Its out of context. Thats like the weatherman saying that the newsdesk are blasphemers, it just doesn't make sense. But many people feel they must not "understand" pantheon type religions so its treated ridiculously etc. If its not going to feel even remotely like that then why bother having it right in your face every game? You know what I'm saying?

[AxeMental]

A read of the PH description of clerics does not suggest players convert, or even make their particular religion a point of the game. One of the things I really hated about D and D book was thats about the time players started saying "my god is x" to everyone and the annoying conversion crap (more then one cleric doing this in the late 80s came to a bad fate at are table, one guy in particular). prior to DD it was simply a spell caster in armor, no one bothered with particulars (that I knew anyway).

While I'm on the topic I hate how druids started to get portrayed as long bearded freaks running around the forest in long robes (I even have a fig of one). Wouldn't those robes snag on everything? Doesn't that giant beard and dirty hair kinda mess up that 15 charisma he's using on village chicks? And yeah, they also started the conversion crap and making the game all about "save the environment" rather then the standard adventure based game.
A little is fine, alot can be nauseating.

[Flambeaux]

But here in the discussions of AD&D as a concept. I don't like thief or cleric trends in general.

Gene, what don't you like about cleric trends in general?

I've been trying to get this all day and getting "emergencies" one right after the other.

What I don't like is the "priest as heal pump" for one, but the big one is the "must convert the other players to the minutiae of a specific polytheistic sphere of control that is antagonistic". This concept is campaign after campaign after campaign and its a complete misread. You can't have departmental gods with churchs converting to "the faith". Its out of context. Thats like the weatherman saying that the newsdesk are blasphemers, it just doesn't make sense. But many people feel they must not "understand" pantheon type religions so its treated ridiculously etc. If its not going to feel even remotely like that then why bother having it right in your face every game? You know what I'm saying?

No. I don't.

[Geoffrey]

What I don't like is the "priest as heal pump" for one, but the big one is the "must convert the other players to the minutiae of a specific polytheistic sphere of control that is antagonistic".

While I like the cleric class as such in Gygaxian D&D, I hate the two things you mention here.

First of all, if there is a pantheon in a given campaign, then the clerics of the different gods in the pantheon wouldn't be trying to get people to worship Pantheon Member A instead of Pantheon Member B. Everybody who believes in the pantheon would worship every god in the pantheon. If you were going on a long sea voyage, you would begin it with a sacrifice to the Sea God. If a loved one died, you'd sacrifice to the God of the Dead. If you wanted a woman, you'd sacrifice to the Goddess of Erotic Love. Etc. It all depends on your circumstances. Polytheism doesn't have One God for All Occasions. That's why it is polytheism.

On the other hand, if a given campaign is monotheistic, then no better model comes to mind than the old Hammer horror flicks. All your cleric needs to know is that he worships God, and that he includes a cross and some holy water in his arsenal to fight against evil. How many conversion attempts are in Hammer films? Probably zero.

As for the cleric regarded as a "medic" (which I can't stand), the best thing for the cleric to do is not memorize the healing spells. Only a small percentage of cleric spells are healing spells. Just tell the other players, "You want me to start memorizing healing spells? Go to the devil. There are too many other cool spells for me to even think about passing them up so I can heal your sorry hide."

[geneweigel]

No. I don't.

Nah, just kidding! Its simple the cleric heals and it doesn't seem right for "almighty god of Israel" and when its "fixed" with mythical gods of olden religions players make their partitioned "god" into an almighty one.