I try to stay abreast of the AD&D community by subscribing to mailing lists and visiting message boards. There is a lot of crap and a lot of good stuff. If I find any of the latter that calls out to me, then I will put it here.

I find that the Official Mailing List and Forum from WotC and TSR are informative enough for my personal needs, and unless you have somewhat more rarified tastes, then you will feel the same way. If I receive enough requests, I will place a link to the other lists and forums I know of, but until then, I would recommend only wasting your time with those two.

To find out about subscribing to the D&D mailing list, go the TSR website.
If you want to subscribe now, e-mail listserv@oracle.wizards.com with "Please add me to the DnD Mailing List" as the subject and "Subscribe DnD-L (put the name by which you want to be referred on the list here.)" as the message. Please obey the list rules that are sent to you, or you will be onnoxious.

To participate in the WotC D&D forum, go here. Go to the signup link at the bottom and join up. Be warned before you go that there is a download time, albeit a small one. 

One thing that I cannot emphasize enough is that I do not necessarily agree with everything on this section of my site. I put anything in this area that I find intriguing or that I think may add depth or understanding to someone's game. I personally don't think Adolf Hitler was Chaotic Evil (More like Chaotic Neutral due to his morally oblivious position.), but I find the alignment sheet useful overall, and I think others will, too. If you do not agree with something, I have included any e-mail addresses that I knew were connected to any given portion.  

8/15/99- Recently, there was an interesting discussion on the context and appropriateness of rape in RPing, with an emphasis on AD&D. I have included it here because it is worth reading.

8/15/99- The news that the assassin class will be included in 3e has caused quite a stir. I have included relevant arguments from the list and forum here. Also, I have included pieces of a related discussion about good and evil which either bred or shot off from the topic of assassins.

Parrying system devised by Russ Taylor
Saturday, August 14, 1999

>If someone wishes to parry, they roll to hit AC 6, modified by dexterity,
>magical bonus, and specialization (not strength).  Some weapons receive a
>+1 or +2 to parrying checks as well.  A parry requires the use of one of
>the attacks for the parrying weapon.  Secondary weapons receive half of
>their usual penalty when parrying (either -2, -1, or 0).
>
>If this hit is succesful, there's a chance that they parried.  Compare
>their roll to the opponents -- if the attacked has rolled above his THACO
>by more than his or her opponent has rolled above their THACO, the parry
>was succesful.  Ties go to the attacker.
>
>It's worked pretty well, and has the added benefit of making it possible
>to parry an attack that would have missed anyway.
>
>--

(Another mailer suggested the Target Number be 5)

Advice for boosting up beginning magic users by Roger J Hardin Jr.
Sunday, August 15, 1999


The best soultution I and my fellow gamers have come up with is the same
as is going to be used in 3e.  Use award bonus spells for high
intelligence just like clerics get for high wisdom.  Mages don't even
need a very high score to get extra spells just 13 or higher.  Even if
you use the 3d6 method one can achieve 13 - 15 for one of their stats
most of the time.  This allows more spells at low levels, and even at
high level a mage only has a few more low level spells and this
shouldn't effect the game much.  As for combat options, a mage should
stay away from combat as nuch as possible.  When I play, I play mages
almost exclusively and I usually can get away with not even using my
staff/dagger for anything but show.  In a cooperative (and amart) group
of players, a mage will be allowed to do this.  In a uncooperative (and
VERY stupid) group, a mage will be forced to get nto the melee and be
killed by even the lowliest creature in the game in a average combat
session.  My favorite mage, Volcivar doesn't even own a weapon, and the
other characters in the group don't mind because he has saved thier
bacon more than once with his spells.

More on beginning magic users by Staffan Johansson 
Sunday, August 15, 1999

For a while, I considered revamping the class system into having "basic"
and "advanced" classes. For instance, you could only start out as a
Fighter, Wizard, Cleric or Rogue. When you hit (e.g.) 3rd level as a
fighter, you *could* switch classes to Paladin, assuming you had lived a
life suitable for a paladin to that point, and had some of the requisite
skills (Religion proficiency, for example).

As for priests, I had planned that the basic Cleric class would worship
the entire pantheon of deities, giving them Minor access to all spheres,
but after a while some would feel kinship with one more than the rest,
and then go on to become a member of that deity's cult (specialty
priest).

I never got down to detailing the thing, though. Perhaps I should, but
then again, I kinda feel that given that 3e is coming within the year,
meddling with the class system in such a big fashion isn't such a good
idea.

More from Sard O. Nicks
Tuesday, August 17, 1999

I also start Mage types at
2nd level with 8 hit points, but zero Experience Points.  That lets them have
an extra spell, a better chance at living through being hit once or twice,
and nobody has found any reason to complain about it.

Alignment Schematics from George Neocleous 
August 12, 1999

Here is MY definition of the code of behavior for the various alignments.
Note that this does not BEGIN to attempt to impose MOTIVATION, only
BEHAVIOR. Mostly this is ripped DIRECTLY from Palladiums alignment system
(Palladiums BEST feature).

D&D Alignment Guide

Lawful Good
 

• Always keeps his word

• Avoid lies

• Never kill or attack an unarmed foe

• Never harm an innocent

• Never torture for any reason

• Never kill for pleasure

• Always help others

• Work well in a group

• Respect authority, law, self-discipline and honor

• Never betray a friend

• Never break the law unless conditions are DESPERATE. This means NO
  breaking and entry, theft, torture, unprovoked assaults, etc...

  Example: King Arthur, Superman.

  Neutral Good

• - Keep his word to any other good person

• - Lie only to people of selfish or evil alignments

• - Never kill or attack an unarmed foe

• - Never harm an innocent

• - Never torture for pleasure, but may use muscle to extract information

• from criminals or evil characters

• - Never kill for pleasure; will always ATTEMPT to bring the villain to
  justice alive no-matter how vile he may be

• - Always help others

• - Attempt to work within the law whenever possible

• - Bend and, occasionally break the law when deemed necessary. This means
  they may use strong arm techniques, harass, break and enter, theft, and so on

• - Distrust authority

• - Work with groups, but dislike confining laws and beureaucracy (red tape)

• - Never betrays a friend

Chaotic Good

• Have a high regard for life and freedom
• Keep his word of honor
• Lie and cheat if necessary (especially to those of anarchist and evil
  alignments)
• Will not kill an unarmed foe (but will take advantage of one)
• Help those in need
• Not use torture unless ABSOLUTELY necessary
• Work with a group, especially if profitable
• Never harm an innocent
• Never kill for pleasure
• Dislike authority
• Never betray a friend
  
  Example: Han Solo, James Bond (as much as I hate to admit it).

Lawful Neutral

Lawful neutral characters tend to fall somewhere between Lawful Good and
Lawful Evil. Morally ambiguous to start but MOST characters tend to
eventually lean heavily towards good or evil within an adventure or two.
This is usually a temporary alignment. Note that certain rare members of
very long-lived races, with the different pilosophical outlook that
centuries of life brings, will sometimes follow this uniquely Lawful code.

Example: Judge Dredd from the first half of the movie (sorry never read the
comics)

Neutral

There is NO such thing as an absolute or true neutral. An absolute true
neutral could not make a decision, go on an adventure, kill, or take any
action of any kind without leaning towards good, evil or
self-gratification. It is humanly impossible and therefore, eliminated for
PC's. Note that certain members of very long-lived races, of EXCEPTIONAL
power (Gods, certain ancient dragons, etc...) who take absolutely NO
interest in the world around them, MAY be qualified as neutral.

Chaotic Neutral

• May keep his word
• Lie and cheat if he feels it necessary
• Not likely kill an unarmed foe, but, certainly, knockout, attack, or beat
  up an unarmed foe
• Never kill an innocent (but may harm or kidnap)
• Not likely to help someone without some ulterior motive (even if it's
  only to show off)
• Seldom kill for pleasure
• Use torture to extract information (not LIKELY to torture for pleasure)
• Not work well in a group (this is the cocky, loudmouth who is likely to
  do as he damn well pleases)
• Have little respect for self-discipline or authority
• May betray a friend
  
  Note that rare is the person who remains Chaotic Neutral throughout his
  life. Those who associate with a caring and cooperative group tend to
  eventually convert to Chaotic Good. Those that are NOT given a chance to
  evolve positively and are hunted, persecuted, beaten, etc.. tend to become
  neutral Evil. Only Chaotic neutrals who are left relatively alone maintain
  this alignment.
  
  Examples: Lando Calrissian (in Empire Strikes Back, before having his
  change of heart and becoming chaotic good), Cartman from SouthPark (Some
  people NEVER change ;^), Wolverine, Tim Robbins' character from The Player.

Lawful Evil

• Always keep his word of honor (he is honorable)
• Lie to and cheat those not worthy of his respect
• May or may not kill an unarmed foe
• Not kill (may harm, kidnap) an innocent, PARTICULARLY a child.
• Never kills for pleasure
• Not resort to inhumane treatment of prisoners, but torture, although
  distasteful, is a necessary means of extracting information
• Never torture for pleasure
• May or may not help someone in need
• Work with others to attain his goals
• Respect honor and self-discipline
• Never betray a friend

Note that nearly ALL good characters which turn bad fall into this pattern
of behavior, and with the right coaxing MAY be turned back. Also Lawful
Evil characters tend to despise Chaotic Evil characters, rarely if ever
associating with them for long.

Examples: Darth Vader, Magneto.

Neutral Evil

• - Not necessarily keep his word to anyone
• Lie and cheat anyone: good or evil
• MOST DEFINATELY attack an unarmed foe (those are the best kind)
• Use or harm an innocent
• Use torture for extracting information and pleasure
• May kill for sheer pleasure
• Feels no compulsion to help without some tangible reward
• Work with others if it will help him attain his personal goal
• Kill an unarmed foe as readily as he would a potential threat or competitor
• Has no deference to laws or authority, but will work within the law if he
  must
• Will betray a friend if it serves his needs

Examples: Tim Robbins character from Arlington Road, most terrorists, and
political despots (Milosovich, Hussein, etc...)

Chaotic Evil

• Rarely keep his word (and have no honor)
• Lie to and cheat anyone
• Most certainly attack and kill an unarmed foe (see Neutral Evil)
• Use, hurt and kill an innocent without a second thought or for pleasure
• Use torture for pleasure and information
• Kill for sheer pleasure
• Likely to help someone only to kill or rob him
• Not work well within a group (consistantly disregarding orders to do as
  he pleases)
• Despise honor, authority, and self-discipline
• Associate mostly, with other evil alignments
• Betray friends (after all, you can always find (or buy) friends)

Examples: This is the murderous megalomaniac, serial killer, etc... The
killer in Seven is a perfect example. The Joker (Jack Napier) after his
transformation, in Batman (the movie). And Adolph Hitler.

Letter from Sebastian Dietz about AMS (Angry Mother Syndrome). I think he is full of shiz-nit in some parts, but the overall theme is right on.
Sat, 14 Aug 1999

Angry Mother Syndrome

The Angry Mother Syndrome!

Where does it come from? I would say first ignorance, and then out of the
odd workings of human mind.

Ignorance:
People don't know much about roleplaying games. The players are "the guys
with that odd fantasy quirk". that means: idiots. When they have heard about
rpgs in the media, articles or reports are only made by the same people,
looking at "the guys with that odd fantasy quirk" like watching an animal in
the zoo. They hear something about fighting and think that rpging is all
about fights and brutality. They hear about demons, and there is the
satanism subject. The list is endless.

With that comes the odd human mind.
Remember your schooldays? If you had an A and an F on the same day, which
one your parents would remember? Right, the F. So if there is one bad rumor
about, roleplaying, this rumor is remembered better than all the good things
people hear about rpg.

So what to do now?
Ever thought of asking the people criticizing you, to play in one session,
or just to watch? When starting rpgs, I faced the same problem, but I got my
mother into playing a small session. Well, she ended it very fast, by
killing one of the main npcs with a frying pan, but she saw that the game
did no harm to me or others.

If you see a bad article on rpgs, write some feedback. And there will be
many articles, if WotC does some tv advertising. Most often the writers of
the articles are not interested in the subject itself. They have to write
something to get some money, and the subject was at hand. So they do not buy
some rulebooks and read them or try to join some gaming groups, but they ask
some players, look at some of the pictures on the front covers, and imagine
what this all could be about. I myself had some writer portray me in a local
newspaper. In the interview I said that I have written some small fantasy
stories, and these guys made it a whole novel that would be out around 2000.
So feedback (no flaming and cursing, but clear arguments) and perhaps own
articles is the only solution to this. I wrote a nice article with counter
arguments on www.purpledragon.de. It's in German right now, but I will try
to translate it in the near future.

We have to improve the reputation of the gaming hobby, but people who think
raping to be NORMAL (Think of that, please) are like the F to the parents.
They will be remembered better than all the nice quiet player who just would
like to have a good time.

Any more tips or opinions on the AMS?

<<Full plate...is not very restrictive on movement,it might slow you down a little because of weight, and restrict visibility but it supports it's own weight bcause of it's design, one can run, jump, roll, dodge, and weave in this type of armor.>> (from Sidhain)

<<Recently on the History Channel (US) a program ran called, "Arms & Armor." In a demonstration of platemail ('full plate'), the demonstrator actually did a cartwheel in the armor. The point was made that the myth of armor being so cumbersome that a knight would fall off his steed and be unable to rise without help is, indeed, just a myth. In fact, as most people know, knights often fought dismounted in full plate when terrain or tactics were unsuitable for mounted action.>> (from YY)

Unfortunately, most of the above is either fiction or highly inaccurate, for methodological reasons alone, which I will share herein- we have discussed this at length on the ADND-L, so you might want to
have a look at that list's archives if you wish to read more in-depthly about common misconceptions.
My Armour-FAQ/Netbook for Medieval RPGs has been in production a long time, and the research is ongoing - it looks like a long time yet before the first version will be released. :)

Points of interest:

1. There is no term in academia that classifies any form of plated armour by archetype, style, region, purpose/motive, armourer or period that utilizes the term "Full Plate." "Full plate" is a very generic term used to describe an "armour that is full," ie, a plated armour that
encapsulates the wearer from head to toe. This term does not describe any particular set of armour, and nor was it ever meant to; its use to do such in a literal fashion is a fallacy, usually committed (unfortunately so) by untrained, unacademics. The closest historical
counterpart to this term is "Harnois Blanc;" in French, "White Armour"- a term used to denote the blinding reflective quality of a highly shone suit of plate that was typically head-to-toe, used within the latter portion of the Hundred Years War. It, like "Full Plate," is an
unspecific blanket-statement. (It's like saying: "I bought a car" - all it tells you is that the speaker likely isn't referring to an eighteen wheeler. ;)

2. Using "Full Plate" to describe a particular armour within AD&D is fine, as AD&D does not suppose it is an armour-guide; however, few understand that it is a mistake to go looking for armours that are classifed by this term - since you won't find a trained historian doing
it. Moreover, those unscholarly writers that will do it are doing so as a result of a lack of grasp for the material - ie, their work is not admissable as an historical reference. 

3. Since the term "Full Plate" is in itself a fallacy when used to describe a particular armour in a literal/historical sense, the above statement of "someone in a full plate doing X" becomes nonsense. (Note this speaks volumes about the source as a reference.) As with most such
inquiries into things armour-like, they do not provide the data that enables us to contextualize the armour being tested. (Further, the test armour is usually an unidentified reproduction piece.) Since "Full Plate" in its literal sense covers over one hundred years of armour production, and all such armours within the armour epoch are hardly
identical or interchangable, we have no idea what form of armour is being discussed. It could be the earliest Plate Mail, or the last of the late period Parade Armours - since all of which are "Full" plates. Hence, such 'tests' are objectively worthless, as the conditions of the
tests are unacceptable, and uninformed. (I do however mean this as nicely as possible.)

4. It is in fact a myth to say armour was "not heavy," (or things to that effect are themselves myths) since that would be a gross over- generalization, which is therefore incorrect before it is finished being typed. The results of any such test has already been invalided on their
methodology/terminology alone, so I won't debunk the comment that 'falling off horses and being unable to get up is a myth,' for the additional reason that that was done repeatedly on the ADND-L by myself. All I will say is to avoid assuming, and to read up on the Battle of
Agincourt, AD. 1415. (Find out what happened, and then note that those were 'only' "Plate Mails.") It is true that battles were fought by dismounted heavy cavalry
or heavy foot while in armour, but unfortunately, the conclusion derived thereof by the above listmember is a non-sequitur, as it again relies too heavily on AD&D as a source - since the armours worn within such battles cannot hope to be classifed as "Full Plate," in the context AD&D applies to that term. (Note that in the literal sense of "Full Plate," the term would even include what the game calls "Field Plate" as well- this term needs to go. :)

Further, heavy armoured cavalry did require assistance into their saddles, even at the tournament Jousts-at-the-Fence, which was known for the half-armours the jousters wore; ie, plates for the 'Joust
of War' or the 'Joust of Peace' ended at the waist, or at most, the knees - the jouster's lower body was completely unarmoured: ...And there are half-armours alone that weigh over 100 pounds. 

If anyone tells you armour wasn't heavy, or that the idea that it was heavy is a myth, ask them only what armour, in what period they are talking about.

<<Well I hate to tell you this but you will not find any competent armor historian tell you there was an armor made of plate and mail combined into one suit. They were two diffrent enties and were never refered to as a single items, such as plate mail does. they would have refered to it as there plate armor and mail armor not as a single item. Also to further the point the myth of knights falling off and not being able to get back up comes from the very cumbersome jousting harnesses worn during the 1500's which some harness were literally so heavy a man could not stand up un-added. Such an item was never worn into combat.>> (from Edwin Tarus)

The above is all grossly incorrect. Mail and plate were at different periods inherently parts of the same suit; in the earliest forms however, (ie, with the conception of
mail-and-plate) mail was the base suit, which had plated constructs strapped over top of it, first in the form of knee copps, and then in the form of ankle, shoulder, and thigh defenses for the (then) heavy cavalryman. This is likely what you are referring to, but the above comments
are possibly applicable only to the crudest forms of early plate mail; ie, the period of AD. 1350-1390, speaking very generously. I'm not sure if you are supposing that a complete suit of chain was worn underneath every suit of plate from this period on...

Mail was incorporated into the late plate mail archetypes
onward, on a massive scale before a mastery of armouring was developed, culminating in the peak of the armour epoch, circa AD. 1450. The armouring of this period onward permitted maximum articulation to cover
most vital areas. Plate however could not cover all areas of the body, all the time- knees and elbows bend, groins get exposed when one falls, and necks turn heads. 

So, in the late forms of plate, most areas were covered - but only in the "closed" position; while not in the closed positon, mail was essential to cover the exposed body area. This came in the form of relatively small sheets of mail either rivetted to the plate or to the underlying gambeson, completely blanketing the vital area.

Jousting Plate was very heavy long before the 16th century, but you are correct that it was not worn into combat - nor for that matter, was what the game calls "Full Plate." (ie, late period <early last quarter of the 15th century to perhaps the late second quarter of the
16th century> "Parade Armours.")
These were merely showpieces of wealth and rank.

But then again, that's just MHO.
Take it easy all...

Indeed and if you bothered to read the entire note you'd realize I was using AD&D's terms for understanding of those who PLAY/use AD&D since AD&D groups
relatively similar forms of armor under the terms--scale mail, plate mail, etc.














No a trained historian will refer to the era and culture --we were talking about the Fallacy that AD&D's plate mail is so encumbering one must have
help to stand up after a fall--which is highly inaccurate. (Since AD&D's platemail is meant to represent a certain kind of armor from around 14-16th centuries we use the AD&D term to focus it back to AD&D, the other armors Field Plate and Full plate are again just simplifications since most people who play AD&D won't know the difference in era and culture.

Actually it became quite common for many footsoldiers to wear just a breastplate as firearms were developes since the rest of the armro wouldn't stop lead shot anyway typically only helm and breastplate with chainmail arms and leggings AT most the term Full Plate is merely a simplified form of referring to a full suit
of armor since in later era's only half suits (breastplate and helm) were common.










Not heavy is accurate--they were designed so that their weight did not negatively impact the performance of the wearer--or at least minimally impacted the wearer.

Chainmail by nature WAS heavy a full suit of which wears out a wearer much sooner since all the weight is applied to neck and shoulder, however platemail (as AD&D uses the temr) is an armor consisting of plates
whosefunction is to support each other and not weight to heavily UPON the wearer--actual weight is one thing but the BURDAN of weight wasn't soemthing
the wearer had to deal with....
Ie it might have been heavy but non encumbering.



Yes for jousting purposes--real armor was a lot lighter since jousting was a measure of skill of staying in horse as opposed to slaying the opoonant the half armors were heaveri than a NORMAL suit of armor worn by
Knight's/wealthy vassal-soldiers of the time....because it was meant to stop a lance and only a lance and the Knights wouldn't attack each other once they were unhorsed.

Armor isn't heavy for normal combat. Armor which would be worn in non tournaments (ie Mock Combats) is not heavy in any era-- not so heavy that it makes a person unable to dodge, weave, dance a jig or what have you.

Which has been ultimately the point--Platemail as AD&D uses the term is not as restrictive as peole make it out to be, in fact it's less restrictive than many other armors--even leather in truth for Cour boulli (sic) is
leather Molded into plates--essentially platemail made of leather.

For thsoe of you who would like to do your own research instead of listen to a bunch of egotistical loud mouths trying to one up each other

Arms and Armour: In the Antiquty and the Middle Ages by Charles Boutell
1907/1996

The Armourer and His Craft from the XI to the XVI Century by Charles ffoulkes 1912/1988

Arms & Armor in Antiquity by Frederick Wilkinson 1971