Apolyton D&D: SF's PBEM.

[Metaliturtle]

I played lots of second edition but never really got into third edition, but if it's PBEM there shouldn't be a problem with any rules.

[Victor Galis]

Yeah, my last character played in a sort of military campaign (Milo "loot anything that isn't nailed down" Greenwood) didn't get along with his superiors that well. He was Chaotic "Good," in that his looting generally occurred in the lair of some evil person we were sent after and that he opposed the Zhentarim (actually this was his priority, but the DM didn't throw too many of them at us).

[SnowFire]

as well as any of the variety of means of concealing one's alignment.

Which, if I'm doing my own setting, would be readily available I might add. As in "Detect Alignment" spells wouldn't exist, and maybe only Paladins and extraplanar creatures would be able to do it. Even then, they would only get a response on seriously evil (or holy) creatures. I do this mainly because having "Detect Alignment" spells available makes things rather weird... it's hard to have a "sympathetic" or even "crazy" villain who thinks he's doing the right thing, then notices he has a big evil aura coming out of him. Heck, most people think they're some form of good, even if they're not.

My general run of characters are not the kind that fit well in a military setting.

Amusingly enough, the longest PBEM I was in had a somewhat similar idea as #1- working for the military. That said, being that this DM was the same one that ran the "Chaotic Neutral Special" one shot at a convention, this was about the silliest, most incompotent military ever. We were "The Border Guards," an old relic of wars against Orcs & other nasties in the northern mountains hundreds of years ago, and generally ignored by the vast majority of people down south. Not funded very well, either. So the Border Guards hired whoever they could get, pretty much.

As it turned out, just as Border Guard HQ was getting smashed by a return of the nastiness from the north (while we were out), the king dissapears with no successor setting off a fun little civil war. Meaning that our little group of former Guards was kind of free to make our own destiny after just 4-6 missions working for the military (I forget exactly how many). The game puttered out just before this happened, though (we had 6 players! Ack!).

Speaking of which, it'd be good to give an example character sheet for those who haven't seen 3rd edition. My character (who rolled pretty pathetic stats- his highest was a 15, and he had an 8*) was Arion, a Chaotic Neutral pureblooded elf (unusual in his world) who had left the treetops to give the puny lesser races a shining example of perfection and grace. Let me assure you that amazing arrogance + 6 Constitution makes for a fun combination. For people new to D&D: it's okay if you don't quite understand everything on the sheet! I'll be happy to walk you through character creation when the time comes.

*If you don't know, Elves have +2 Dex and -2 Con. I wanted to be able to do something well, so he ended up with 17 Dex, and at 4th level you get to increase a stat point by 1- so that's why he has 18 Dex on the sheet, not 15. And 6 Con instead of 8.

korn: Probably not, time commitments.
jm: Interested in "Adventurers."
VictorG: Interested, good alignment, but if you get elected head DM in the "other" thread, I'm curious if you'll have the time.
UR: Interested.
Metaliturtle: Interested, preference for "Soldiers."
Skanky: Interested, preference for "Soldiers," good alignment, 6 months base plot completion time.
Wraith: Interested, preference for "Adventurers," but time constraints are troubling.

So it looks like we can have 4. I'll leave this open until Sunday in case anyone else happens by, upon which I'll post all the character creation information and everything. Speaking of which, if anyone not playing wants to lurk- as in, be on the email list, but not play just yet- also feel free to post, or send me an email.

[Jon Miller]

I would also be interested in soldiers if it can be in the same setting as what the other groups play in...

Jon Miller

[Urban Ranger]

I suck at playing evil characters, the only time I played my character died like in the first hour.

I don't have any preferences as to style, and I usually play some sort of ranger (dang, what a surprise ) and/or rogue type. I heard that rangers suck in 3rd edition though.

[SnowFire]

Argh! I had a whole big thing ready to post on PBEMs, and was busy downloading a PHB pdf (80% done). Then I try and open Jon Miller's files... and the first one is corrupted and fails. So are the next 3. Fine, whatever. What annoys me is that it's only when I try and open the 5th and last one that the computer crashes, not the 1st one. Of course, I had done all my work in Notepad, which has no autosave. And the download is lost.

Sigh, I'll find something.

UR: Not really. Think of Rangers as Fighters who get actually useful skills and a decent amount of them (4 skill points + Int), but don't get some of the nifty fighting feats. In 2nd edition terms, they're kind of like 3/4 a fighter, 1/4 a Rogue.

That said, as time goes on, they do lag a bit in power... but I rather doubt we'll be playing a 12th level + campaign. They start out well, at least.

More to the point, a party is generally helped by having either a Ranger or a Druid in it anyway, at least part of one. At least in the Soldiers campaign, I would have requested at least one person be one of those, and while hardly required for an Adventurers campaign, it does make things harder when you hear "Um, you lost the trail" again and can never track anyone down.

[Urban Ranger]

I don't like to play straight MU and fighters anyway.

[Jon Miller]

sorry about that Snowfire

not really sure wy all of what I have sent are screwed up

I always play good characters myself, usualy lawful good

Jon Miller

[Metaliturtle]

chaotic good or chaotic neutral for me, I needs me some chaos tho :-D

[Wraith]

--"the "Chaotic Neutral Special" one shot"

Okay, that sounds fun. One of my favorite characters was a chaotic neutral wild-mage. The other players got to hating him, of course, and I bet I gave the DM fits, but he was damn fun to play.

--"So the Border Guards hired whoever they could get, pretty much."

Well, my players tend toward the chaotic. Good or neutral usually; my evil players are generally neutral evil. The first is unlikely ever to join a military organization. The second is unlikely to survive in a military organization. The last could very well fit in, though, although he might be in it for the lootiing.

--"I would also be interested in soldiers if it can be in the same setting as what the other groups play in..."

Did they decide on one?

--"they're kind of like 3/4 a fighter, 1/4 a Rogue."

With a dash of cleric, since they do get some priest spells eventually.
I'm not really familiar enough with the 3rd edition rules to comment, but it does look like they're not quite as good as they were in 2nd. Of course, that may be because I like playing rangers, and so have the 2nd edition Rangers Handbook, which has some neat stuff in it.

--"I would have requested at least one person be one of those"

Rangers and mages are my two favorite classes.

--"I always play good characters myself, usualy lawful good"

That's a hard alignment to play. I've only ever known one guy who did a really good job at it, and his character was, of course, a paladin. Paladin Wu. Strongest character I've ever seen on a natural roll, too (18/93). Once he got his hands on a Holy Avenger (long, powerful campaing)... well...

Wraith
When the DM smiles, it's already too late

[Urban Ranger]

Ranger/Bard sounds like fun

[Metaliturtle]

wow, only kings and emperors on this thread... OTHER THREADS BOW DOWN BEFORE OUR REGAL MIGHT!!!

seriously tho, I think chaotic good would fit into the army, they may have to do a ton of pushups in training, but they would be allowed in, (especially if they thought that the nation was sooo good)

Chaotic Neutral can be pulled of too if being a soldier struck their fancy at the moment, then dammit they'll be a soldier.

[Dr. Nick]

Poll thingy:

Campaign type: 2. I've always preferred the most standard adventures. But 1 sounds good too, especially from the 'small actions affect the big picture' scenario.

Format: I'm happy with either PBEM and/or IRC, both or only one. Mishmash or purely one of them.

Length: I'm happy with playing a long game or a short one, but I'm not exactly acquanted with PBEM rpging, and therefore am not fully aware of the kind of time constraints implied.

Alignment: Good, evil, neutral, lawful, chaotic, I'm perfectly happy either way. Mixed or not, I always have some character concept to try out.

Edition: 3rd, hands down.

[Urban Ranger]

I don't know how to do the PBEM thingie either, combat might take a very long time to resolve

[Metaliturtle]

pbem is all I can do cuz of AOL's anti-coolness policy