Announcing the Contest Winner! (Plus Some Interesting US Coin Facts)

The third semi-annual Save Versus All Wands contest - What is the Value of this Coin Hoard - is over.

$1,000 was the winning guess, only a bit below the actual total of $1,216.

It was made by Mark Clover (AKA Dr. Evil) who made his guess via the above funny meme.

Thank you to everyone else for participating!

Mark is the owner of Creative Mountain Games and manages the Lake Geneva Games store in Lake Geneva Wisconsin. He started playing Dungeons & Dragons when it was first released in 1974, and attended the last Gen Con to be held at Horticultural Hall, one year later.

He'll be receiving the four Seven Voyages of Zylarthen booklets plus the Book of Spells supplement. Fittingly, Zylarthen was directly inspired by the original 1974 "three little brown books." 

Curiously, Mark's guess of $1,000 was also the highest guess, with no one guessing over the actual total. Most of the others were in the range of $200 to $500, with the mean being only $400 or so - only one-third of the actual value of the hoard. I'm not sure why the guesses were low. Perhaps it was partly due to the fact that few thought anyone be crazy enough to amass more than a thousand dollars worth of coins for use in a role-playing game.

Though, remember, it's not a sunk cost. In a sense it's only slightly less liquid than keeping money in a checking or savings account. Indeed, by one measure, it's more liquid! And, yes, I've at least partially "cashed out" twice since I started, eight years ago.  

I'm not a numismatist, but I've learned some interesting facts in the process of amassing my "hoard".

Here's one of them: If you throw out the "cheap" coins - pennies and nickels - and the more recent coins - the Susan B. Anthony, Sacagawea and Presidential dollars - the four basic original coins - dimes, quarters, half-dollars and dollars (those large diameter Eisenhowers) - all have  approximately the same volume and weight per dollar value. In other words, if you take a Arturo Fuente 8-5-8 cigar box and fill it to the brim with dimes, quarters, half-dollars or Eisenhower dollars, you'll always get approximately $200 of coins weighing about nine pounds.

Interestingly, that's about the value of the 25 cigars that the box was designed to contain, at least at walk-in cigar store prices. Though if you order a box online you can pick it up for about $125. And, by the way, if you're a cigar smoker, I highly recommend the 8-5-8's, especially those with the unusual green "Claro" wrapper. They're a great value for only five dollars a stick.

The figures below, break down the numbers and properties of the above pictured coins. Keep in mind that the in-game monetary and experience point values are based on the Zylarthen silver standard:      


Totals:

Total Number of Coins: 6,350

Game
Value: 288,870 Silver Pieces
Total Value: 288,870 xp
Total Weight: 5,020 lb. (1004 eu)

Actual
Total Value: $1,216
Total Weight: 60 lb. 4 oz.


Jefferson Nickel (iron scrip)

Total Number of Coins: 1,000

Game
Value: 1 iron scrip coin (1/20 of a Silver Piece)
Total Value: 50 xp
Total Weight: 50 lb. (10 eu)

Actual
Years: 1946-2018
Diameter: 0.835 inches
Thickness: 0.077 inches
Volume: 0.042 cubic inches 
Mass: 0.161 ounces
Composition: Copper
Total Value: $50
Total Weight: 10 lb. 1 oz.


Lincoln Penny (Copper Piece)

Total Number of Coins: 1,600

Game
Value: 1 Copper Piece (1/5 of a Silver Piece)
Total Value: 320 xp
Total Weight: 80 lb. (16 eu)

Actual
Years: 1947-1962/1962-1981/1982-2018
Diameter: 0.750 inches
Thickness: 0.059 inches
Volume: 0.026 cubic inches 
Mass: 0.080 ounces
Composition: Bronze/Copper/Zinc
Total Value: $16
Total Weight: 8 lb.


Roosevelt Dime (Silver Piece)

Total Number of Coins: 2,000

Game
Value: 1 Silver Piece
Total Value: 2,000 xp
Total Weight: 100 lb. (20 eu)

Actual
Years: 1965-2018
Diameter: 0.705 inches
Thickness: 0.053 inches
Volume: 0.021 cubic inches 
Mass: 0.073 ounces
Composition: Copper
Total Value: $200
Total Weight: 9 lb. 2 oz.


Washington Quarter (Gold Piece)

Total Number of Coins: 800

Game
Value: 1 Gold Piece (10 Silver Pieces)
Total Value: 8,000 xp
Total Weight: 40 lb. (8 eu)

Actual
Years: 1965-2018
Diameter: 0.955 inches
Thickness: 0.069 inches
Volume: 0.049 cubic inches 
Mass: 0.182 ounces
Composition: Copper
Total Value: $200
Total Weight: 9 lb. 2 oz


Susan B. Anthony Dollar (token for multiple iron scrip coins)

Total Number of Coins: 100

Game
Value: 100 iron scrip coins (5 Silver Pieces)
Total Value: 500 xp
Total Weight: 500 lb. (100 eu)

Actual
Years: 1979-1981, 1999
Diameter: 1.043 inches
Thickness: 0.079 inches
Volume: 0.067 cubic inches 
Mass: 0.260 ounces
Composition: Copper/Nickel
Total Value: $100
Total Weight: 1 lb. 10 oz


Kennedy Half Dollar (token for multiple Copper Pieces)

Total Number of Coins: 400

Game
Value: 100 Copper Pieces (20 Silver Pieces)
Total Value: 8,000 xp
Total Weight: 2,000 lb. (400 eu)

Actual
Years: 1971-2001
Diameter: 1.205 inches
Thickness: 0.085 inches
Volume: 0.097 cubic inches 
Mass: 0.365 ounces
Composition: Copper
Total Value: $200
Total Weight: 9 lb. 2 oz


Eisenhower Dollar (token for multiple Silver Pieces)

Total Number of Coins: 200

Game
Value: 100 Silver Pieces
Total Value: 20,000 xp
Total Weight: 1,000 lb. (200 eu)

Actual
Years: 1971-1978
Diameter: 1.500 inches
Thickness: 0.102 inches
Volume: 0.180 cubic inches 
Mass: 0.729 ounces
Composition: Copper
Total Value: $200
Total Weight: 9 lb. 2 oz


Sacagawea/Presidential Dollar (token for multiple Gold Pieces)

Total Number of Coins: 250

Game
Value: 100 Gold Pieces (1000 Silver Pieces)
Total Value: 250,000 xp
Total Weight: 1,250 lb. (250 eu)

Actual
Years: 2000-2016
Diameter: 1.043 inches
Thickness: 0.079 inches
Volume: 0.067 cubic inches 
Mass: 0.260 ounces
Composition: Copper
Total Value: $250
Total Weight: 4 lb. 1 oz 

Save Versus All Wands Contest: What is the Value of the Coin Hoard?

Treasure Type H 

Announcing the third annual (well, not quite) Save Versus All Wands contest!

You can read about and see the results of the first two - Seven Voyages of Zylarthen: What's in a Name and the Jack Vance Dialogue Writing Contest here/here/here and here/here. They were four years ago. Apologies.

Okay, so here's the current contest question: How much money is in the above picture?

What does this have to do with anything? Well, here's the background:

In Characters and Combat, Vol. I of Seven Voyages of Zylarthen, I talked about using actual United States coins as props for in-game copper pieces, silver pieces and gold pieces.

Using coin props is fun, especially for kids. I should say that I started doing this for AD&D before I wrote Zylarthen.

The idea for using actual coins as props is that U.S. metal currency is worth so little now that if you want props for fantasy money, US coinage is, weirdly enough, your cheapest bet. A penny, nickel or sometimes even a dime is in most cases cheaper than, say, a washer from a hardware store or a plastic toy imitation "dubloon". Plus, US coins look more like, well, coins than, say, washers do, and they clink more than plastic toy coins.

In fact, they're not merely cheaper, they're in a sense, free. You can't trade your washers or plastic dubloons back for what you paid for them. But you can do that with US coins. In a sense it's simply a way (albeit odd) of saving money while getting some neat game props in the meantime.

Here is what I wrote in Zylarthen:

Physical Coin Tokens (Optional): 

In our campaign we actually give players little bags of pennies, nickels, dimes, quarters, and (for really nice hauls) half dollars and dollars to represent their coin hoards. Everyone has found this vastly more fun (and potentially less prone to error) than the usual method of crossing digits or hatch marks off of a piece of paper. It makes discovering treasure—or spending it—more real, and even mundane items or inexpensive weapons seem more valuable when you have to pay for them with physical money. 

We keep about $200 worth of coins in a number of cigar boxes (these look very much like treasure chests), and have a dozen or so mock-velvet bags that we purchased for a few dollars at a jewelry store. To those who object that this is too great an expense, we would reply that it isn’t actually an expense—we still have the money (perhaps it’s even an admittedly odd way of saving money), and if we’re ever down to our last $200, we can always go back to hatch marks! 

Penny = Copper Piece 

Dime = Silver Piece 

Quarter = Gold Piece 

Kennedy Half Dollar = 100 Copper Pieces 

Presidential Dollar = 100 Silver Pieces 

Eisenhower Dollar = 100 Gold Pieces 

Small Washer = Iron Coin  

Nickel = 100 Iron Coins

Now, Zylarthen is on the silver standard, where 1 SP = 1 experience point. The exchange rates for coins are these:

5 CP = 1 SP 

10 SP = 1 GP 

4 iron scrip = 1 CP

Beginning player-characters get 30-180 silver pieces, and standard equipment is usually priced in silver pieces, to some extent roughly tracking the prices in OD&D and AD&D, though I twiddled things somewhat to make them more "realistic" relative to actual medieval prices.

I wrote about why I went on the silver standard here.

Among other things, the scheme makes copper pieces more valuable (thus giving people and monsters more reason to hoard them) and makes gold pieces rarer and more similar to, say gems. One of the problems with the treasure schemes in OD&D and AD&D is that gems and jewelry make up 97% (or whatever it is) of the value of treasure found on the charts. A silver standard goes some way towards solving that.

But back to using US coins as props.

I actually changed the original representation scheme, slightly.

The Eisenhower Dollar now represents 100 silver pieces and the Presidential or Sacagawea Dollar now represents 100 gold pieces. (This is because I came to believe that shiny Presidential and Sacagawea Dollar coins look more like gold.)

And nickels are now individual iron scrip coins, with Susan B. Anthony Dollars representing 100 of them.

Finding a large iron scrip hoard might be annoying.

So here's the current scheme:

Penny = Copper Piece 

Dime = Silver Piece 

Quarter = Gold Piece 

Kennedy Half Dollar = 100 Copper Pieces 

Eisenhower Dollar = 100 Silver Pieces 

Presidential Dollar = 100 Gold Pieces 

Nickel = 1 iron scrip  

Susan B. Anthony Dollar = 100 iron scrips

I'll write more later about how things have worked out - including tackling the knotty subject of are the coins really free? - but in the meantime I thought I'd launch a contest in the spirit of the first Zylarthen contest.

Above is my current hoard.

How much actual money (in US currency) is there in the picture?

Hint: it's not $200.

Vote once in the comments on this blog post.

The winner will receive the four original Zylarthen booklets plus the supplement Book of Spells. If you already own the five booklets, they makes a great gift!

Extra credit: What is the total Zylarthen equivalent in experience points? Include this estimate with your money guess. if the winner gets within 50% to 150% of the actual experience point total, I'll throw in the Zylarthen Electronic Edition, or if you already have it, some sort of equivalent.

Contest ends at midnight (CST) on Halloween.

Good luck!

Monsters as Player Characters - OD&D vs. AD&D

I don't know - it looks good to me

I'm taking a three-day break from demons to talk about something I rediscovered while looking for demons. I'm sure what I'm about to point out has been mentioned before, though I don't have a reference.

In Men & Magic, after detailing the three character classes and three additional races, Gary Gygax wrote:

Other Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee (p. 8).

Now I have no idea how many referees back in the day were coming up with stats on the fly for players who confidently announced they wanted to play a non-standard character, but I think it's indisputable that from the very first many were experimenting with creating their own new character classes, races and types to supplement the ones in the text or customary rules. Arneson's Blackmoor campaign had a Balrog player-character, and Gygax's reportedly also allowed such variations in Greyhawk (which is presumably why he wrote the passage above).

The author of the Dungeons & Dragons "Basic" set, John Eric Holmes, apparently also enjoyed running adventuring parties of non-standard classes or creatures. And he implied as much in the text of that game:

At the Dungeon Master's discretion a character can be anything his or her player wants him to be. Characters must always start out inexperienced and relatively weak and build on their experience. Thus, an expedition might include, in addition to the four basic classes and races (human, elven, dwarven, halflingish), a centaur, a lawful werebear, and a Japanese Samurai fighting man (p. 7).

However, now consider this passage (also written by Gygax) from the AD&D Dungeon Master Guide, six years later:

THE MONSTER AS A PLAYER CHARACTER

On occasion one player or another will evidence a strong desire to operate as a monster, conceiving a playable character as a strong demon, a devil, a dragon, or one of the most powerful sort of undead creatures. This is done principally because the player sees the desired monster character as superior to his or her peers and likely to provide a dominant role for him or her in the campaign. A moment of reflection will bring them to the unalterable conclusion that the game is heavily weighted towards mankind...

The considered opinion of this writer is that such characters are not beneficial to the game and should be excluded.

The later Gygax is of course contradicting his earlier self. Playing "monsters" as characters is now no longer recommended. Indeed, someone who pushes for it might even have psychological problems!

In fairness, Gygax does temper things a bit. He's against doing it, but such a decision should ultimately be left up to the referee - "As to other sorts of monsters as player characters, you as DM must decide in light of your aims and the style of your campaign." And it is preferable to find ways to discourage the practice rather than banning it outright:

Note that exclusion is best handled by restriction and not by refusal. Enumeration of the limits and drawbacks which are attendant upon the monster character will always be sufficient to steer the intelligent player away from the monster approach, for in most cases it was only thought of as a likely manner of game domination. The truly experimental-type player might be allowed to play such a monster character for a time so as to satisfy curiosity, and it can then be moved to non-player status and still be an interesting part of the campaign - and the player is most likely to desire to drop the monster character once he or she has examined its potential and played that role for a time. The less intelligent players who demand to play monster characters regardless of obvious consequences will soon remove themselves from play in any event, for their own ineptness will serve to have players or monsters or traps finish them off (p. 21 for all references).

Of course during this quasi-concession Gygax takes the opportunity to further put down players who might have such a desire - unless the goal is purely experimental, then they either have a will to dominate or are relatively stupid and inept. This might be characterized as one manifestation of what has been called High Gygaxian style. Here an air of wisdom is coupled with silly insults. That's not a criticism (of the style). In fact it's quite entertaining.

It sure beats "In creating the story of your character, work with your DM. Talk to them about your ideas, preferences and feelings."

Is it evil to contradict one's earlier self? Of course not. And for all we know, Gygax had learned from the previous six years of play that people playing dragons or demons was simply more trouble than what it was worth. But it's also an example of how, as the universe of Dungeons & Dragons was in most ways expanding (in terms of text or ruleset length if nothing else), there were walls to that universe that were simultaneously being erected or reinforced. All things being equal, I think that's something to regret.

Now I confess that in saying this I feel like a hypocritical politician. When I played D&D back in the day, I never ran or played non-standard player-characters, and since my rediscovery of the game and subsequent determination that I was now firmly in the more open-ended OD&D camp, I still haven't done so. But let's just say I philosophically or aesthetically favor an approach that leaves open the possibility. Or at least I like to think that I do.

If you want to play a dragon, that's fine. Just give me a few minutes to come up with something.

But don't tell me about your feelings.

Demons in Early D&D, Part 2

The Arch-devil Asmodeus, from the AD&D Monster Manual

See Part 1, here.

Dungeons & Dragons "Holmes Basic" Set (July, 1977): There were only a few passing references to demons in this edition. I assume this was largely because they were too powerful and complicated to feature in an introductory treatment designed to take player characters only through 3rd level.

AD&D Monster Manual (December, 1977): The first AD&D book fleshed out, so to speak, the nine demonic types presented in Eldritch Wizardry and added three more to their number including Manes, Juiblex (The Faceless Lord) and, oddly perhaps, Yeenoghu, who we are told is "Demon Lord of Gnolls." The numbered Types I to V are also given additional names, and the Balrog is renamed "Balor." Interestingly, two of the types - Type IV (Nalfeshnee, etc.) and Type V (Marilith, etc.) feature illustrations that appear to be fairly close copies (though in mirror image) of their initial illustrations in Eldritch Wizardry, twenty months before. (Both sets were drawn by David Sutherland.) As far as I know, this is the only case where the Monster Manual made obvious use of previous art.

Type V Demon (Marilith) from (L to R) Eldritch Wizardry and the Monster Manual

EDIT: R. Nelson Bailey pointed out to me that the Monster Manual illustrations of the sahuagin and umber hulk appear to be exactly the same as those originally found in Blackmoor. 

As in Eldritch Wizardry, the Monster Manual suggests that

If the name of a particularly powerful demon is spoken, there is a chance that he will hear and turn his attention to the speaker. A base 5% chance is recommended to the referee. Unless prepared to avoid such attention - or to control the demon - the demon will whereupon immediately kill, by whatever means are most expeditious, the one pronouncing his name (p. 16).

One wonders in how many campaigns a referee invoked this rule when the players were joking around.

The Monster Manual tells us that "Demons are able to move from their own plane into those of Tarterus, Hades, or Pandemonium or roam the astral plane" (p. 16). But what is their own plane? It's not very clearly presented, but the careful reader can figure it out: If the amulet of a demon prince is destroyed, it will "Thus condemn the prince to abyssment for one year." As well, Manes are described as "Those dead which go to the 666 layers of the demonic abyss" (p. 17).

The Monster Manual also introduces devils for the first time. These are primarily distinguished from demons in that devils are lawful evil in alignment whereas demons are chaotic evil. There are eleven types of them, led by the "Arch-Devil" Asmodeus, who are the "inhabitants and rulers of the planes of hell." I actually remember these entities much better than their demonic rivals, perhaps because the illustrations are more evocative and appear to be of a higher quality, and also because of their more memorable and resonant names.

In addition, various creatures are listed outside of the "Demons" and "Devils" sections - imps, larva, night hags, quasists, etc. - who are either "minor" demons or devils, are related to or associate with demons or devils in some way or who, like demons and devils, largely inhabit the lower planes. Curiously, the rakshasa is listed as a "devil" (not a demon as in Gods, Demi-Gods and Heroes) in the Index but that fact is not mentioned in its description.

AD&D Players Handbook (June, 1978): As demons and devils were now official monsters, the second AD&D volume contained a number of references to them, just as it did for other creatures. As one might expect, many of these references were in descriptions of relevant spells such as Protection from Evil and so on. But demons had also apparently now reached a status in the canon where they could be used to stress the imaginative and epic proportions of Dungeons & Dragons:

This game lets all of your fantasies come true. This is a world where monsters, dragons, good and evil high priests, fierce demons, and even the gods themselves may enter your character's life. Enjoy, for this game is what dreams are made of! (p. 7).

In the Players Handbook it is revealed that clerics might be able to turn or control some demons and devils, just as they turn undead. Though players would have to wait until the Dungeon Masters Guide (August, 1979) or the preview of it in The Dragon (No. 22, February, 1979) for charts on this.

I think two other things stand out in the Handbook. First, we see perhaps the first sustained reference to player-characters voluntarily interacting with the demonic in a detailed and explicit way. It's in the description for the 7th level Magic-User spell, Cacodemon:

Explanation/Description: This perilous exercise in dweomercraeft summons up a powerful demon of type IV, V, or VI, depending upon the demon's name being known to the magic-user...The spell caster must be within a circle of protection (or a thaumaturgic triangle with protection from evil) and the demon confined within a pentagram (circled pentacle) if he or she is to avoid being slain or carried off by the summoned cacodemon...

By tribute of fresh human blood and the promise of 1 or more human sacrifices, the summoner can bargain with the demon for willing service...

The components of this spell are 5 flaming black candles; a brazier of hot coals upon which must be burned sulphur, bat hairs, lard, soot, mercuricnitric acid crystals, mandrake root, alcohol, and a piece of parchment with the demon's name inscribed in runes inside a pentacle; and a dish of blood from some mammal (preferably a human, of course) placed inside the area where the cacodemon is to be held (pp. 86-7).

Of course it would be easy to pull this "out of context" to argue that AD&D was attempting to make occult practices attractive to children or whatever. In truth, I didn't even remember the spell, and was only reminded of it when researching this post, even though, at the time, I played AD&D exclusively and thought of the Players Handbook as the defining D&D tome. I suspect I'm not alone in this. Among other things, Cacodemon was a high-level spell and I doubt that many campaigns got that far. As always, I could be wrong.

The second thing to note is that it was in Appendix IV of the Handbook that all of the planes were finally explicitly named and their nature and relation at least somewhat described or explained (using a list, a two-dimensional representation and a three dimensional representation!). So, as for evil places where demonic entities might dwell, we are introduced to:

17. The Planes of Pandemonium of chaotic evil neutrals.

18. The 666 layers of the Abyss of absolute chaotic evil.

19. The planes of Tarterus of evil chaotic neutrals.

20. Hades' "Three Glooms" of absolute (neutral) evil.

21. The furnaces of Gehenna of lawful evil neutrals.

22. The Nine Hells of absolute lawful evil.

23. The nether planes of Acheron of lawful evil neutrals (p. 120).

That demons hailed from the Abyss and devils lived in the Nine Hells wasn't mentioned in the Players Handbook, but the Monster Manual had made that sort of clear, and of course there was also that early chart in The Strategic Review.

Next (Part 3): the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, The Dragon and the first modules.

Demons in Early D&D, Part 1

A demon from Eldritch Wizardry

There were plenty of demons in early Dungeons & Dragons (1974-1979). Not only were there many kinds of demons, but demons could be summoned by spells, they could possess people, and characters could even make "pacts" with them, perhaps involving human sacrifices. All of this was described in "official" TSR sources such as the rulebooks and supplements or semi-official outlets such as The Dragon magazine.

There was plenty of red meat for Christian fundies who worry about that sort of thing to get worried about.

But of course that only tells half the story.

While demons existed, they didn't exactly dominate things. In essence they were simply an additional kind of monster introduced to make things more interesting. Back in the day I never used demons in my campaign, and I can't remember ever running into them in the three or four other campaigns that I played in.

For my campaign this was not because I had any particular religious objection to them (unless it was unconscious), but rather because demons just seemed too complicated. In the Monster Manual their descriptions went on forever (or so it seemed to me). They didn't seem Tolkienish enough (a big consideration for me at the time), and they were too high-level for my campaigns. Also I resented the imposition of the complicated and arbitrary (again, so it seemed to me) metaphysical architecture or geography that went with them - all of the hells and planes and so on and so forth. Demons were just too much fuss.

For all I know there were other campaigns that made a fetish of demons. One thing the anti-D&D people never seemed to quite understand is that Dungeons & Dragons, especially in the early days, was what you wanted to make of it. (Of course, logically, this wouldn't have completely disposed of the worry.) Could it be a gateway drug to actual cults or covens? I suppose some people might have played it to make it look that way. But I never saw it.

But the other part of the story is that while demons would eventually stake out their demonic place in the universe of 1970's D&D, they didn't exist for at least the first two years of the game.

This is a companion piece to my earlier post on witches. Witches sort of burst out (at least implicitly) and then fizzled. But demons, while they took their time making an appearance, would by the end of the 1970's be featured all over - again not because they were the raison d'etre of the game or anything like that but simply because they had become an accepted member of the monster canon, along with Unicorns, Dragons and everyone else.

Dungeons & Dragons (January, 1974): The "three little brown books" contained no demons. The Balrog would later become a demon (before having the "Balrog" part of the name deleted for copyright reasons), but he wasn't a demon then.

Greyhawk (March, 1975): No demons.

Blackmoor (September, 1975): Technically, the first use of the word "devil" in an official Dungeons & Dragons publication was in this supplement. And fittingly (for Blackmoor) it was aquatic-related. The evil creatures called Sahuagin were described as "Devil-Men of the Deep."

The Strategic Review (April, 1975 to April, 1976): The first appearance of demons in D&D occurred in the second to last issue (Vol. II, no. 1, February, 1976) of this predecessor to The Dragon. Both demons and devils were featured on the first of two charts in an article by Gary Gygax discussing the D&D alignment system - an article which heralded the apparent evolution of alignment from what had seemed to be a two- or three-point system to a five- or nine-point system.

I imagine that this chart might have been confusing to many. It named four sorts of creatures or beings - Saint, Godling, Devil and Demon - and diverse places - Nirvana, Heaven, Elysium, The Abyss, etc. - none of which had appeared in Dungeons & Dragons before. They came from varying religious or mythical traditions but were all meticulously placed on a chart that seemed to represent some sort of deeper metaphysical or supernatural truth. Why were "Saints" (were these just really good people?) "Lawful/Good" and "Godlings" (whatever they were) "Chaotic/Good"? And why was The Devil on the other side of the chart from a Demon? Were Hell, Hades and the Abyss different places? Why was the Law side of Neutrality Buddhist but the Chaos side of it Catholic? And so on.

Some of us are so used to the religious cosmology of AD&D that we may not fully realize that it was Gygax and D&D that first made a distinction between "devils" and "demons" as two separate but similar evil supernatural beings. In Christian or European tradition, demons were usually equated with the fallen angels (they may also inhabit people and be cast out, etc.). "Devil" was used as in "The Devil," to denote the first fallen angel or leader of them, or was employed as a sort of slang term to describe demons or supernatural monsters in general or even just very bad people.

I'm not claiming that there's anything wrong with Gygax patching together his own novel cosmology out of many different sources, mashing them together and redefining some of the terms - after all, this is essentially what he did with the entire monster canon for D&D - only that it must have seemed a bit confusing to some at the time, especially since it came with little explanation. Advanced Dungeons & Dragons would of course fully flesh all of this out, but at this time, AD&D was still 1-3 years away.

Eldritch Wizardry (May, 1976): Here is where demons not only made a grand entrance but positively exploded into the game, in all their myriad and numbered types. There are 94 mentions of the word "demon" in this booklet, and 4 of "devil." Nine types of demon are given statistics and described - six types simply numbered "I" to "VI" (although VI is also called "Balrog", which was still listed as a "monster" in the then available printings of Monsters & Treasure), Succubi, and the two "demon princes" Orcus and Demogorgon. Various demonic magical items and artifacts are described. Demon psionic strength is explained. And demons now appear in the encounter charts alongside everyone else from Lions to Lycanthropes. Indeed, in many terrain types you suddenly have a 1 in 20, or sometimes only a 1 in 12, chance of encountering a demon if your monster check comes up. This might have been annoying to wilderness adventurers. Interestingly, in Eldritch Wizardry demons are not given a specific home. They're said to "roam" the astral plane, but they appear to actually live in or on some other plane or planes. These are not named. The explicit populating of Hell, Hades and other such places is still months in the future - although, as we saw, it was telegraphed in that The Strategic Review article.

Gods, Demi-Gods and Heroes (July, 1976): There are numerous and varied demons mentioned as part of many mythologies. Their use here is quite nifty in my opinion, and it's of a completely different flavor from the sterilely labeled numbered types in Eldritch Wizardry. This would herald a trend in which some of the coolest treatments of D&D demons would be, so to speak, ethnic.

Here is a description of the Rakshasa, which had earlier been introduced in the "Creature Feature" section of the The Strategic Review, and would appear again in the AD&D Monster Manual, though not explicitly as a demon in either of those texts:

RAKSHASAS DEMONS OF INDIA 

Armor Class: — 5, Magic Ability: (See Below), Move: 18/36, Fighter Ability: 15th Level, Hit Points: 200, Psionic Ability: Class 6 

These demons constantly fought man and Gods alike. Many of their leaders were so powerful that the Gods were forced to call a truce at times and give them concessions. All Rakshasas have these powers in common: shapechange, fight invisible except against Gods, all regenerate as a troll, crave the taste of human flesh, and cannot refuse a gambling bet. Some of the more powerful ones have complete control over forces of nature.

That sort of short but evocative monster description, lumping together such diverse considerations as invisibility (though not against Gods), regeneration, favorite cuisine (people) and a weakness for gambling is in my opinion one of the defining virtues of early D&D. It would soon be lost. 

Next (Part 2): The Holmes Basic Set, the AD&D Monster Manual and the AD&D Players Handbook. 

Witches in Early D&D

A witch (one assumes) from the "Witchcraft Supplement in Dragon Magazine #5 (March, 1977)

Witches have a curious history in early Dungeons & Dragons (here, I'm defining "early" as 1974-early 1980). They were never statted or described as a monster or class in any of the rulebooks. However, there were two illustrations of them in Monsters & Treasure (in that 1974 booklet, no other monster or class had more than one illustration, and there weren't that many illustrations anyway), there were three fairly long and detailed Dragon magazine articles about them in the space of just two years, and the "Holmes" edition of D&D implied that witches were soon to be a character sub-class.

But, of course, in AD&D at least, there ended up being no witches. Alas, witches were the most prominent monster or class that, for whatever reason, never quite made it.

Here's a breakdown (by quarter) of appearances of witches in early D&D:

01-03/74 - Dungeons & Dragons (3LBBs): two witch illustrations; charisma example; broom of flying (1)

04-06/74

07-09/74

10-12/74

01-03/75 - Greyhawk (Supp. 1): no witches

04-06/75

07-09/75 - Blackmoor (Supp. 2): no witches

10-12/75

01-03/76

04-06/76 - Eldritch Wizardry (Supp. 3): no witches (2)

07-09/76 - Gods, Demi-Gods and Heroes: Tounelea (Finnish) (3)

10-12/76 - The Dragon #3: "Ladies in D&D" - witches as high-level female Magic-Users (4)

01-03/77 - The Dragon #5: "Witchcraft Supplement" for witch NPCs (5)

04-06/77

07-09/77 - Dungeons & Dragons (Holmes): witches presented as an upcoming sub-class; charisma example; broom of flying (6)

10-12/77 - AD&D Monster Manual: no witches

01-03/78

04-06/78 - AD&D Players Handbook: no witches

07-09/78

10-12/78 - The Dragon #20: "Another Look at Witches" player-class supplement (7)

01-03/79

04-06/79

07-09/79 - AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide: no witches but there was a broom.

10-12/79

01-03/80 - AD&D Deities & Demigods: "witch of the fens" (Arthurian), Snow Witches (Nehwon) (8)

1. There were two illustrations of witches in the three little brown books:

Men & Magic, p. 17.

Men and Magic, p. 27. I think I've seen her somewhere before...

In addition, a witch featured in perhaps the most memorable description for how ability scores might be used beyond their explicit effects:

In addition the charisma score is usable to decide such things as whether or not a witch capturing a player will turn him into a swine or keep him enchanted as a lover (Men & Magic, p. 11).

And finally, a Broom of Flying was included as one of the original 29 miscellaneous magic items:

Broom of Flying: This device allows the owner to fly at Dragon speed (24"/turn). The user must know the "Word of Command" to make it function. The Broom of Flying will come up to 24" when its owner summons it with the command word. It will carry two persons but its speed is reduced by one-quarter (Monsters & Treasure, p. 37).

And that broom even made it into the list of long range flying speeds - being able to cover 200 miles in a day (though I assume only 150 miles with two riders):

The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures, p. 16.

However, out of the 77 monsters that appeared in the monster tables and subsequent descriptions, and the 75 that would be suggested as "Other Monsters," appear on the Encounter Tables or rear their heads above water in the Naval Combat section, Witches were not among them.

2. Eldritch Wizardry would feature much "occult" material, including a full catalog of diverse demons and a cover drawing of a naked woman being sacrificed on a stone slab. But there were no witches.

3. A brief mention of a witch would occur in the Finnish Gods and Heroes section of Gods, Demi-Gods and Heroes:

Tounelea: 

Armor Class: 9, Move: 9", Hit Points: 30, Magical Spell Ability: As 11th Level Wizardress, Fighter Ability: As a Wizardress

This was an evil witch type that was opposed to Vinanamoinen (p. 39).

4. In an early Dragon article, "Notes on Women and Magic," also called "Ladies in D&D" in the Contents, Witches made an appearance as high-level female Magic-Users. There was some good stuff in the article, I think. Unfortunately it was drowned out by the outrageously sexist slant of the piece, which was widely derided and mocked (by both women and men) at the time (see Jon Peterson's The First Female Gamers).

5. In another early Dragon "Witchcraft Supplement," a robust non-player-character witch class was sketched out. It included good witches, bad witches and new and unique witchlike spells and magical items. Interestingly, it was authored by someone who has never been identified. It's actually a fantastic piece, and I cribbed some ideas from it (in a hopefully appropriate way) for a handful of Witch spells in Seven Voyages of Zylarthen.

6. In the "Holmes Basic" edition of Dungeons & Dragons, intended to be a cleaned-up version of D&D that would serve as an introduction to the forthcoming AD&D, the witch keeping a "charismatic male" as a lover example was given again, and the broom of flying would make another appearance (this time as one of only ten miscellaneous magic items). Most intriguingly, however, a witch player-class seems to be promised for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons:

There are a number of other character types which are detailed in ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. There are sub-classes of the four basic classes. They are: paladins and rangers (fighting men), illusionists and witches (magic-users), monks and druids (clerics), and assassins (thieves) (p. 7.).

Note that except for the witch, this gets things exactly right. That seems to hint that a witch class was originally planned for AD&D but then dropped. However, a few years ago Zenopus Archives showed that the passage in Holmes' original draft did not include reference to a witch class. Gary Gygax would later claim that the later insertion of "witch" into the final text must have been Holmes trying to force the issue (Gygax didn't know then that the reference didn't come from Holmes) or a "joke" by someone at TSR: "I never had a PC class of that sort in mind for the game," he said on Enworld in 2005.

7. In Dragon #20, a shorter article put forth both original material and some bits cribbed from the earlier treatment in Dragon #5 to set forth a witch player-class.

8. And finally, witches made two minor appearances in Deities and Demi-Gods, TSR's AD&D reworking of their earlier Gods, Dem-Gods and Heroes: In the entry for Arthurian Heroes we learn that Sir Garlon (the invisible knight) was

given the power of invisibility by a witch of the fens for the promise to only use the power for evil (p. 19).

We also learn about Snow Witches in the Newhon Mythos of Fritz Leiber:

Many of the northern tribes have a group of women that have a measure of magical power. These women, after some preparation and working together, can control all forms of cold and ice spells. They also possess, among the strongest members, a limited telepathy when in direct eye contact with a human. Given a group of 5 women and 24 hours of time, limited weather control (chilling) is possible; this effect has a range of 5 miles (p. 96).

***************************

There were a few non-rulebook accessories published in the late 1970's - 11 modules and the Monster and Treasure Assortments, among them. But as far as I know, no witches appeared in any of these products.

If anyone has any other early D&D "witch appearances" to add, that would be welcome.

The witch was the most "OD&Dish" creature to have never officially existed. That's the main reason I included her in Zylarthen. She just seemed to fit the OD&D vibe so well.

As a player-class, a witch might have been more problematic, being fraught with potential controversial associations involving sexism, reverse-sexism and connections with the occult. I have no idea whether these considerations played a part in the poor witch's failure to emerge.

UPDATE (Noon, 11/15/17): The last paragraph of my piece was an attempt to end things on sort of a neutral but suspenseful note. But I actually don't believe that "political" considerations had anything to do with the witch's official absence. In the mid- to late-1970's the "Satanic Panic" hadn't started yet (D&D was still a niche hobby product that was still largely under the radar).

It's possible that "sexism" considerations might have played an oblique roll in why the witch wasn't considered as a player-class. After all, having an entire subclass limited only to females might seem a bit odd. And, of course, there was always the magic-user. Just learn how to cackle, paint your conical hat black and put a brim on it, and you're off.

But the absence of witches as NPCs or monsters is still puzzling to me. Note that there were many female monsters with creepy spells or powers - groaning spirits, lamias, nagas, night hags, etc. - in the AD&D Monster Manual. I think in the end it was just a sort of random whim of Gygax. Or perhaps he felt that a witch was too potentially complex to be a listed monster but too similar to a magic-user to be a class of its own. And then there were those Dragon articles...