The Eamonvale Incursion is an old module released in the 2000s. Creator Darkloch Creative Enterprises used to have a website with web enhancements that eventually died. I contacted the author years ago and got a backup, which can currently be found here. Most of these are released under OGL, so you can redistribute the material. Hope you enjoy!
Showing posts with label world building. Show all posts
Showing posts with label world building. Show all posts
Saturday, January 27, 2024
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
My beef with magic in fantasy tabletop games
The magic system in D&D and its derivatives has problems. What follows are some of my rationales for why I don't like D&D magic systems. The articulation may be questionable, but I hope my readers find it understandable.
Monday, August 12, 2019
Distinguishing clerics, druids, and warlocks?
What is the difference between a druid and a cleric devoted to a god of nature or a warlock who made a pact with a god of nature? Aside from their game mechanics. What is the fluff and world building distinction?
The official D&D settings do not have satisfactory explanations. The world building of D&D settings in general falls apart upon inspection. So it falls to homebrew and 3pp to impose a sense of logic to the often bizarre rules of D&D and its derivatives.
Clerics, druids and warlocks are based on fantasy archetypes that predate the game itself. Clerics are originally based on vampire hunters. Druids are loosely based on the druids of the lost Celtic faith. Warlocks are originally based on witches as described in the Malleus Maleficarum. When they became classes in the game, their backstories and capabilities expanded and evolved over time.
Although their mechanics are distinct, their fluff overlaps. Perhaps the easiest way to solve this is to remove the overlap. Do not allow them to worship or make pacts with the same deity/patron (although fallen deities might be suitable as patrons). Instead of their being evil gods worshiped by clerics, there are not strictly speaking evil "gods" but archfiends and so forth. They are represented by warlocks, not clerics. (Although this requires actively defying the D&D convention of evil gods, which I don't have a problem with since I find the concept as it appears in fantasy gaming rather silly. Golarion, for example, has entire nation-states that openly worship evil gods and based their morality around being evil like the villain in a children's cartoon.)
Several campaign settings offer the explanation that clerics and druids worship the new and old gods, respectively. These settings include Scarred Lands, Kingdoms of Legend, and Points of Light. In these settings, there was an ancient war between gods loosely based on the Greek titanomachy. The druids venerate the primordial gods/spirits of the natural world, whereas the clerics venerate the new/orderly gods of mortal affairs.
As warlocks were not OGL until fifth edition, they are not integrated into most campaign settings. So no help can be found there. The existence of warlocks requires drawing a line between deities and patrons. What exactly is the cutoff point? What makes a god? The answer depends on the predilections of the world builder, so you can't simply use the one-size-fits-all approach of the rules.
An idea I had was to bring back the whole evil warlock shtick from medieval times. Gods, primal spirits, etc can freely hand out power for whatever reason. But fiends, fairies, or what have you are limited to pacts with warlocks for whatever reason. Perhaps they simply lack sufficient power, the freedom to channel power, whatever. (I suppose this sort of approach would fit better with a Eberron-esque agnostic approach to deities, which would better distinguish clerics and druids from warlocks. The logic being that deities are questionably definable whereas patrons are observably real entities, so their application as power sources would be different.)
Since demons/devils/fiends/whatever wouldn't have all that much power in the world because it has built-in defenses (you know, whatever prevents demons from just opening portals willy-nilly and invading the world), they need to rely on warlocks. They make pacts, buy the warlock's soul, grant bits of knowledge or power to allow the warlock to operate without wasting time on becoming a wizard. (There's conceptual overlap between the warlock and sorcerer due to their use of Charisma, but I'll ignore that for now.)
At this point, you'd need to world build your demons and other patrons. Again, I don't like the game's one-size-fits-all approach. For example, a lot of demons in mythology don't live in the underworld or hell; indeed, the mythological definition of demons is far less rigid than D&D's. I'd have to reserve that for another post, though.
The official D&D settings do not have satisfactory explanations. The world building of D&D settings in general falls apart upon inspection. So it falls to homebrew and 3pp to impose a sense of logic to the often bizarre rules of D&D and its derivatives.
Clerics, druids and warlocks are based on fantasy archetypes that predate the game itself. Clerics are originally based on vampire hunters. Druids are loosely based on the druids of the lost Celtic faith. Warlocks are originally based on witches as described in the Malleus Maleficarum. When they became classes in the game, their backstories and capabilities expanded and evolved over time.
Although their mechanics are distinct, their fluff overlaps. Perhaps the easiest way to solve this is to remove the overlap. Do not allow them to worship or make pacts with the same deity/patron (although fallen deities might be suitable as patrons). Instead of their being evil gods worshiped by clerics, there are not strictly speaking evil "gods" but archfiends and so forth. They are represented by warlocks, not clerics. (Although this requires actively defying the D&D convention of evil gods, which I don't have a problem with since I find the concept as it appears in fantasy gaming rather silly. Golarion, for example, has entire nation-states that openly worship evil gods and based their morality around being evil like the villain in a children's cartoon.)
Several campaign settings offer the explanation that clerics and druids worship the new and old gods, respectively. These settings include Scarred Lands, Kingdoms of Legend, and Points of Light. In these settings, there was an ancient war between gods loosely based on the Greek titanomachy. The druids venerate the primordial gods/spirits of the natural world, whereas the clerics venerate the new/orderly gods of mortal affairs.
As warlocks were not OGL until fifth edition, they are not integrated into most campaign settings. So no help can be found there. The existence of warlocks requires drawing a line between deities and patrons. What exactly is the cutoff point? What makes a god? The answer depends on the predilections of the world builder, so you can't simply use the one-size-fits-all approach of the rules.
An idea I had was to bring back the whole evil warlock shtick from medieval times. Gods, primal spirits, etc can freely hand out power for whatever reason. But fiends, fairies, or what have you are limited to pacts with warlocks for whatever reason. Perhaps they simply lack sufficient power, the freedom to channel power, whatever. (I suppose this sort of approach would fit better with a Eberron-esque agnostic approach to deities, which would better distinguish clerics and druids from warlocks. The logic being that deities are questionably definable whereas patrons are observably real entities, so their application as power sources would be different.)
Since demons/devils/fiends/whatever wouldn't have all that much power in the world because it has built-in defenses (you know, whatever prevents demons from just opening portals willy-nilly and invading the world), they need to rely on warlocks. They make pacts, buy the warlock's soul, grant bits of knowledge or power to allow the warlock to operate without wasting time on becoming a wizard. (There's conceptual overlap between the warlock and sorcerer due to their use of Charisma, but I'll ignore that for now.)
At this point, you'd need to world build your demons and other patrons. Again, I don't like the game's one-size-fits-all approach. For example, a lot of demons in mythology don't live in the underworld or hell; indeed, the mythological definition of demons is far less rigid than D&D's. I'd have to reserve that for another post, though.
Ability scores and magical traditions
D&D has traditionally assigned spell-casters reliance on different ability scores, typically lining up with their power source. Intelligence measures reasoning and memory. Wizards cast from Intelligence. Wisdom measures perception and insight. Clerics, Druids, and Rangers cast from Wisdom. Charisma measures force of personality. Bards, Paladins, Sorcerers, and Warlocks cast from Charisma.
Why these ability scores in particular? I don't (entirely) care if the ability scores are highly questionable mechanics in and of themselves, I just care what the internal logic is behind them being assigned in this way. D&D itself provides no reasoning for the assignments, so I have to devise my own. My working rationale is that spell-casting ability determines how a caster casts their magic regardless of its power source: Intelligence indicates the study of magical theory, Charisma indicates forcing the magic to obey your will, and Wisdom indicates passively attuning to and channeling universal power like a Jedi knight. But these rationales don't seem to hold universally true in the class mechanics and fluff.
Wizards cast from Intelligence because wizardry studies and manipulates magic like a science. When you cast a spell, you are arranging the spell using your knowledge and understanding of magical theory. That makes perfect sense.
Paladins and sorcerers cast from Charisma because they shape magic through sheer force of personality. They don't understand magical theory like the wizard, they just brute force their way to the desired outcome. This makes sense, although it requires imagining Charisma as the spiritual equivalent of Strength and Dexterity, I guess?
Bards cast from Charisma because Charisma is used for the Performance skill. Since bards cast spells by performing magical music, it therefore follows that they would use the same ability score. This makes sense from a game mechanics perspective, but Charisma being used for Performance is questionable in reality. Just because someone can play an instrument doesn't mean they are a social butterfly. In fact, playing music is heavily linked to "verbal memory, spatial reasoning and literacy skills," so it makes just as much if not more sense for Performance (and by extension bard spells) to rely on Intelligence and/or Wisdom.
Wisdom is where I hit a brick wall. As it stands, Wisdom is a weird grab bag of perception, intuition, and bits stolen from Intelligence. For the life of me I cannot reason why Wisdom would determine the efficacy of divine spells, as opposed to a Jedi's Force powers. The caster is just channeling the power of their deity to cast the spell on the caster's behalf, so their own ability score should not matter. This would make sense if Wisdom was supposed to measure how "attuned" the caster is to their deity, like a Jedi is attuned to the Force, but the fluff for divine casters is diametrically opposed to that of Jedi. Jedi are vaguely pantheistic, whereas divine casters are generally henotheistic.
Warlocks are the second brick wall. The use of Charisma would suggest they brute force their way through magic like the paladin and sorcerer, but the fluff explains they rely on study of magic like wizards. The patron mechanic confuses things further by drawing a parallel with the divine casters. What exactly is the difference between a warlock patron and whatever empowers a cleric or druid? According to anecdotes, the Warlock cast from Intelligence during playtesting but players complained that it didn't cast from Charisma like it did in third edition. (A lot of the questionable class design decisions apparently resulted from players complaining that it didn't work like third edition, even when the proposed mechanics were clearly better balanced or more logical than third edition. Druid wild shape is another example.)
As it stands, I think the key flaw of the spell-casting ability mechanic (beyond the questionable definitions of the ability scores themselves) is that it shoehorns ability scores regardless of whether it makes sense from a fluff perspective. In addition, the mechanic forces every class to rely on a fixed spell-casting ability even if it would make sense to let players choose another to customize their character. For example: maybe there could be a divine wizard counterpart who studies divine lore and casts divine spells recorded in a prayer book (e.g. Heroes of Horror's archivist class), or a divine caster who casts from Charisma to indicate that they rely on divine power from within rather than attuning themselves to a deity (e.g. Pathfinder's oracle class).
Why these ability scores in particular? I don't (entirely) care if the ability scores are highly questionable mechanics in and of themselves, I just care what the internal logic is behind them being assigned in this way. D&D itself provides no reasoning for the assignments, so I have to devise my own. My working rationale is that spell-casting ability determines how a caster casts their magic regardless of its power source: Intelligence indicates the study of magical theory, Charisma indicates forcing the magic to obey your will, and Wisdom indicates passively attuning to and channeling universal power like a Jedi knight. But these rationales don't seem to hold universally true in the class mechanics and fluff.
Wizards cast from Intelligence because wizardry studies and manipulates magic like a science. When you cast a spell, you are arranging the spell using your knowledge and understanding of magical theory. That makes perfect sense.
Paladins and sorcerers cast from Charisma because they shape magic through sheer force of personality. They don't understand magical theory like the wizard, they just brute force their way to the desired outcome. This makes sense, although it requires imagining Charisma as the spiritual equivalent of Strength and Dexterity, I guess?
Bards cast from Charisma because Charisma is used for the Performance skill. Since bards cast spells by performing magical music, it therefore follows that they would use the same ability score. This makes sense from a game mechanics perspective, but Charisma being used for Performance is questionable in reality. Just because someone can play an instrument doesn't mean they are a social butterfly. In fact, playing music is heavily linked to "verbal memory, spatial reasoning and literacy skills," so it makes just as much if not more sense for Performance (and by extension bard spells) to rely on Intelligence and/or Wisdom.
Wisdom is where I hit a brick wall. As it stands, Wisdom is a weird grab bag of perception, intuition, and bits stolen from Intelligence. For the life of me I cannot reason why Wisdom would determine the efficacy of divine spells, as opposed to a Jedi's Force powers. The caster is just channeling the power of their deity to cast the spell on the caster's behalf, so their own ability score should not matter. This would make sense if Wisdom was supposed to measure how "attuned" the caster is to their deity, like a Jedi is attuned to the Force, but the fluff for divine casters is diametrically opposed to that of Jedi. Jedi are vaguely pantheistic, whereas divine casters are generally henotheistic.
Warlocks are the second brick wall. The use of Charisma would suggest they brute force their way through magic like the paladin and sorcerer, but the fluff explains they rely on study of magic like wizards. The patron mechanic confuses things further by drawing a parallel with the divine casters. What exactly is the difference between a warlock patron and whatever empowers a cleric or druid? According to anecdotes, the Warlock cast from Intelligence during playtesting but players complained that it didn't cast from Charisma like it did in third edition. (A lot of the questionable class design decisions apparently resulted from players complaining that it didn't work like third edition, even when the proposed mechanics were clearly better balanced or more logical than third edition. Druid wild shape is another example.)
As it stands, I think the key flaw of the spell-casting ability mechanic (beyond the questionable definitions of the ability scores themselves) is that it shoehorns ability scores regardless of whether it makes sense from a fluff perspective. In addition, the mechanic forces every class to rely on a fixed spell-casting ability even if it would make sense to let players choose another to customize their character. For example: maybe there could be a divine wizard counterpart who studies divine lore and casts divine spells recorded in a prayer book (e.g. Heroes of Horror's archivist class), or a divine caster who casts from Charisma to indicate that they rely on divine power from within rather than attuning themselves to a deity (e.g. Pathfinder's oracle class).
Friday, August 9, 2019
Fantastical animal husbandry
I posted my first post on the barnacle goose tree and vegetable lamb back in 2017. With two years to reflect, I decided to expand on my imagined ecology for this zoophyte with an emphasis on animal husbandry. The idea of farming fantastical animals has stayed in the back of my mind ever since I first read about Hagrid's exploits in the Harry Potter series two decades ago. The word zoophyte is a dated term for a plantlike animal, but it seems quite appropriate to use here.
The vegetable lamb and the cotton plant are the same species. The zoophyte alternates between vegetative asexual cotton plants and motile sexual vegetable sheep. The lambs grow from the plant like fruit, and graze on other nearby plants for sustenance and to reduce competition with their parent plant. There are a number of different species with different traits. After severing their umbilical cord, vegetable sheep can travel quite far and form herds. The ewe is able to asexually birth more lambs, but when impregnated by a ram she will lay seeds that grow into new cotton plants.
Some steppe tribes have adopted animal husbandry of the vegetable sheep. They raise the sheep for their cotton, meat and milk. Their cotton is sheared and used to make textile fiber and sewing thread. Their milk is comparable to almond milk and maple milk. Their blood tastes like sweet sap and may be used as a condiment. Their meat tastes much like fish. Several varieties have been bred to amplify desirable traits. The largest varieties are even used as beasts of burden (compare mutton busting in real life).
The barnacle goose, barnacle and barnacle goose tree are the same species. The zoophyte alternates between immobile asexual barnacle trees and motile sexual geese. The geese mate and lay eggs in water that hatch into barnacle larvae. The larvae attach themselves to surfaces where they can filter food from the water. The barnacles reproduce by budding or by releasing more aquatic larvae. Some barnacles further mature into trees, and these barnacle goose trees grow barnacle-like fruits that hatch into goslings. As with the vegetable lamb, there are many species with slightly different traits.
As with the vegetable lamb shepherds, some coastal settlements farm domesticated barnacles and selectively breed them. The geese are raised as livestock for their eggs and meat, while the barnacle trees are grown in orchards for their fruit. Again, the largest varieties may be used as beasts of burden (compare chocobos in Final Fantasy).
There is no limit for how far these ideas may go. I will try to explore more options for fantastical animal husbandry in future posts.
The vegetable lamb and the cotton plant are the same species. The zoophyte alternates between vegetative asexual cotton plants and motile sexual vegetable sheep. The lambs grow from the plant like fruit, and graze on other nearby plants for sustenance and to reduce competition with their parent plant. There are a number of different species with different traits. After severing their umbilical cord, vegetable sheep can travel quite far and form herds. The ewe is able to asexually birth more lambs, but when impregnated by a ram she will lay seeds that grow into new cotton plants.
Some steppe tribes have adopted animal husbandry of the vegetable sheep. They raise the sheep for their cotton, meat and milk. Their cotton is sheared and used to make textile fiber and sewing thread. Their milk is comparable to almond milk and maple milk. Their blood tastes like sweet sap and may be used as a condiment. Their meat tastes much like fish. Several varieties have been bred to amplify desirable traits. The largest varieties are even used as beasts of burden (compare mutton busting in real life).
The barnacle goose, barnacle and barnacle goose tree are the same species. The zoophyte alternates between immobile asexual barnacle trees and motile sexual geese. The geese mate and lay eggs in water that hatch into barnacle larvae. The larvae attach themselves to surfaces where they can filter food from the water. The barnacles reproduce by budding or by releasing more aquatic larvae. Some barnacles further mature into trees, and these barnacle goose trees grow barnacle-like fruits that hatch into goslings. As with the vegetable lamb, there are many species with slightly different traits.
As with the vegetable lamb shepherds, some coastal settlements farm domesticated barnacles and selectively breed them. The geese are raised as livestock for their eggs and meat, while the barnacle trees are grown in orchards for their fruit. Again, the largest varieties may be used as beasts of burden (compare chocobos in Final Fantasy).
There is no limit for how far these ideas may go. I will try to explore more options for fantastical animal husbandry in future posts.
Monday, July 22, 2019
Occult magic as wisdom-based arcane magic?
While reading the comparison between psionics and occult magic in Psionics Augmented: Occult, something occurred to me. Occult magic, at least as depicted by Pathfinder: Occult Adventures, feels a lot like what I would imagine a Wisdom-based arcane spell-caster would work. It simply doesn't feel different enough in theme to qualify as a third power source for magic equivalent to arcane and divine.
The occult magic system is based on the 19th century occult revival. This involved a lot of Victorian Age pseudo-science and secular magic like orgones, mesmerism, spiritualism, etc. This wasn't based on what d20 labels Intelligence ("how well your character learns and reasons"), but more on what it labels Wisdom ("willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition"). Occultists developed their craft through intuition, not respectable science. The new rules like thought and emotion components and sentimental substitution rely on qualities ascribed to Wisdom, not the qualities ascribed to Intelligence.
Furthermore, the playtest for the second edition of Pathfinder changed the bard to an occult caster as part of its reorganization of the spell lists into arcane (sorcerer/wizard), divine (cleric), occult and primal (druid). Yet, oddly enough, the occult bard still uses standard material, somatic, and verbal components and still relies on their charisma for casting spells.
Therefore, the occult magic seems like it would work just as well if not better as a Wisdom-based form of arcane magic. IMO, the psychic makes perfect sense as a new arcanist class existing somewhere between sorcerer and wizard but beholden to neither. But if I am honest, all of this is essentially arbitrary to begin with.
The occult magic system is based on the 19th century occult revival. This involved a lot of Victorian Age pseudo-science and secular magic like orgones, mesmerism, spiritualism, etc. This wasn't based on what d20 labels Intelligence ("how well your character learns and reasons"), but more on what it labels Wisdom ("willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition"). Occultists developed their craft through intuition, not respectable science. The new rules like thought and emotion components and sentimental substitution rely on qualities ascribed to Wisdom, not the qualities ascribed to Intelligence.
Furthermore, the playtest for the second edition of Pathfinder changed the bard to an occult caster as part of its reorganization of the spell lists into arcane (sorcerer/wizard), divine (cleric), occult and primal (druid). Yet, oddly enough, the occult bard still uses standard material, somatic, and verbal components and still relies on their charisma for casting spells.
Therefore, the occult magic seems like it would work just as well if not better as a Wisdom-based form of arcane magic. IMO, the psychic makes perfect sense as a new arcanist class existing somewhere between sorcerer and wizard but beholden to neither. But if I am honest, all of this is essentially arbitrary to begin with.
Wednesday, July 17, 2019
Umlautia
Throughout this blog I’ve alluded to an imagined campaign setting that addresses the problems I have with D&D’s backwards worldbuilding. I’ve finally decided to start detailing that setting instead of just complaining. I chose the placeholder name Umlautia, as a dig at amateur fantasy settings that casually use umlauts without understanding how umlauts work.
When building Umlautia, I want to address a few important and interlinked concepts: planes of existence, theology (gods and demons), power sources for character classes, and monster taxonomy. Unless these neatly fit together, the world building will fall apart under scrutiny as in standard D&D.
My inspirations include Eberron and Scarred Lands, which are some of the most detailed and rational settings in the history of the game. So I have to take notes from the greats. The highest mention goes to Nentir Vale, which at least tried to rationalize D&D before getting thrown out with the bathwater in 5e, providing the basis for my adjustments.
Cosmology
In order to world build rationally, I need to pin down the workings of cosmology, theology and taxonomy in my game.
Having a bazillion different planes is needlessly confusing, so I settled on a variation of the omniverse cosmology mentioned in the DMG. There are only a handful of planes and each will be detailed sufficiently that they will be interesting to visit.
The planes of Umlautia are limited to the material, feywild, shadowfell, ethereal sea, elemental chaos, upper, and lower.
The material plane has a stupid name, because every plane is material. Under Umlautia, it has different names: world, mortal world, earth, earthly plane, middle earth, midgard, tellurian, etc. This is the plane in which we humans live.
The feywild is known by names like fairyland, faerie, otherworld, alfheim, tir na nog, avalon, etc. It is based on the fairylands of English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh mythology. This plane is the abode of the fair folk. Time and space have different meanings here.
The shadowfell is known as the underworld, xibalba, helheim, diyu, yomi, irkalla, sheol, etc. It is based on the underworlds of world mythology. This plane is the abode of the dead and some demons. Most people who die end up here.
The ethereal sea condenses the astral and ethereal planes. Its inspiration in popular culture is the astral plane of occultism and the dreamlands of Lovecraft. Everyone projects their mind here while they sleep, and may train to project while awake.
The elemental chaos is known as ginnungagap, muspelheim, niflheim, chaos, void, tiamat, apsu, etc. It is based on the primordial chaos of many ancient mythologies, but especially on the nine worlds of Norse mythology. This is the abode of elementals and giants, leftovers from creation.
The upper planes are known as heaven, olympus, valhalla, tian, elysian fields, blessed isles, etc. It is based on the heavens, godly realms, and pleasant afterlives of world mythology. This is the abode of gods, angels, and heroes. Only the greatest of dead souls are allowed to enter.
The lower planes are known as hell, perdition, the abyss, tartarus, naraka, etc. It is based on the various hells of world mythology. This is the abode of demons, imprisoned titans, and the damned. Only the wickest souls are consigned here.
Cosmogony
Unpacking the theology is where things get harder. I need to devise a creation myth to explain why the cosmology is arranged, who the gods are, where spellcasters get their powers from, etc. This is where the Nentir Vale’s dawn war is a useful shorthand, since it recycles the recurring motifs of creation myths across the world. Many custom settings like Fumanor, Scarred Lands, Kingdoms of Legend, etc independently come up with similar ideas, showing how archetypal these motifs are.
Long story short, there was a war or two between two or three generations of deities. One side (titans, primordials, jotun, vanir, tiamat/apsu, etc) represented chaos, the other (olympians, aesir, annunaki, igigi, etc) order. This resulted in the creation of the planes and additional generations of deities. The chaos powers lost and their leaders were killed or imprisoned in the lower planes.
Nentir Vale further specifies that both sides are prevented from mucking the world by primal spirits, who empower druids and barbarians. (These are comparable to the primordials, vanir, firbholg, etc from mythologies.)
Fumanor posits that the chaos powers created demons and order created devils to compete (channeling Moorcock’s law/chaos mythos). I would take a page from Exalted and posit that the archfiends are the imprisoned titans, who created the demons willfully or otherwise.
Essentially I’m just copying Indo-European, Mesopotamian and Chinese folk mythology wholesale.
Theology
I really like Eberron’s agnostic approach to deities, so I intend to go with that rather than try to detail a pantheon I’d never be able to keep track of and write myself into corners. However, I still need to detail power sources. Where do spellcasters get their power? What distinguishes them? This ties a bit into theology by forcing me to at least divide the agnostic pantheon into power sources.
So my setting includes the 4e power sources like martial for fighters and rogues, arcane for sorcerers and wizards, divine for clerics and oracles, primal for druids and barbarians, etc. In my setting, martial arts channels vis (Latin equivalent of ki) so that fighters can accomplish weaboo fightan magic.
One of the theology discrepancies has been distinguishing between clerics, druids, and warlocks without half-measures. The divine power source draws from the gods (olympians, aesir, etc), the primal from the primal spirits (vanir, firbholg, 2nd gen titans, primordials, etc). Warlock patrons are drawn from other pantheons, not the same as the clerics and druids.
In addition to the gods and primal spirits, other pantheons include the archfiends (who replace evil gods), the fairy lords, the remaining primordials, and so forth. Each pantheon is associated with one of the planes: the gods with the upper planes (and the judge-gods of the dead with the shadowfell), the primal spirits with the world, the archfiends/titans with the lower planes, the primordials with the elemental chaos, the fairy lords with the feywild, etc.
But how do these additional pantheons relate to one another and the titanomachy? Burrowing from mythology again: the titans fought for chaos and became the archfiends, the gods fought for order, the primordials/primals allied with the gods, the fairy lords remained neutral, etc.
Nothing complicated. I can iron out the details later, what matters is the simple symmetry and easy tracking.
Taxonomy
Lastly, I need to figure out how the monster types from the MM fit into the cosmology. For the most part this is easy, but some types are difficult. I already went over my problems with the types in general a while ago, so I won’t repeat myself here.
The types of celestial, elemental, fey, fiend, and undead easily map to the upper planes, elemental chaos, feywild, lower planes, and shadowfell.
The dragons and giants are simple enough to explain as the children of the primordials, as they are in mythology.
The aberration type doesn’t fit. The closest I could figure is that it includes the furthest parts of primordial chaos, who never took part in the creation of the planes. Like the Fair Folk in Exalted.
The monstrosity type never made sense to begin with, being a meaningless catchall, so I’m fine with discarding it entirely.
Conclusion
So, generally speaking, each plane has an associated pantheon, monster type and power source. The upper plane has the godly pantheon, the celestial monster type, and the divine power source. I can iron out the details later, but that’s the gist of it. I find this a lot easier to work with than the unwieldy great wheel of canon.
Thursday, April 18, 2019
The problems with psionics
Dungeons & Dragons has traditionally divided magic into three types: arcane magic, divine magic, and psionics. The third has always been something of a red-headed stepchild.
Thursday, March 21, 2019
Indo-European planes
A Proto-Indo-European (PIE) campaign setting would have a much simpler cosmology compared to D&D’s typical bazillion planes. The PIE planes would consist of only a handful of planes, if they can even be called planes at all. We have the primordial cosmos that existed before the world, the world itself, and the underworld. There’s no heaven or hell, that’s a Christian thing. There’s no elemental planes, because it’s unnecessary.
The primordial cosmos has few to no details associated with it, but it’s probably where creatures of chaos come from.
The world consists of the sky, the earth, and the ocean. The earth is a flat disc bordered by the ocean. The sky is a dome upon which the celestial bodies travel. This is where the adventures happen.
The underworld exists below the earth. It’s inhabited by the shades of the dead and possibly by monsters of various stripes.
These cannot necessarily be said to be planes, since you can potentially travel between them by walking. Plane shifting spells or transitive planes aren’t needed.
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Proto-Indo-European mythology
For the most part my posts have been setting agnostic, though I have been slowly trying to build my own setting that addresses my pet peeves with typical fantasy world building. My pet peeves for the most part stem from the needless overcomplexity of D&Disms such as alignment, cosmology, taxonomy and haphazard kitchen sink fantasy. Now I decided specifically to use Proto-Indo-European mythology as the basis for my current world building. Indo-European includes the Baltic, Celtic, Greek, Iranian, Norse, Roman, Slavic, Teutonic and Vedic cultures, among others. I chose this because D&D takes the majority of its inspiration from Indo-European mythologies (and possibly influenced by earlier mythologies if the Vanir hypothesis holds weight). That makes easier the fitting of existing classes and monsters into the new framework, since most of the groundwork is already laid.
There isn’t enough scholarly resources for me to study the mythologies of other proto-cultures. I would like to, though.
Thursday, October 4, 2018
Presentism and pseudo-medieval fantasy
Presentism is the projection of modern values and knowledge onto depictions of the past or of pre-industrial civilizations in fiction. It is frustratingly common for writers to write historical and fantasy fiction with the assumption that their characters hold modern values and scientific views. This is complete nonsense, of course.
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Building fantasy counterparts of Earth?
A common trope in fantasy is modeling the fantasy world's geography and cultures after those of Earth's history. While there is nothing wrong with this besides being uninspired, it is rather arbitrary that this planet specifically resembles Earth and this setup needlessly constrains possible stories. Tolkien's Middle Earth set the standard for fantasy settings (even grimdark settings like the Warhammer World and Planetos are not immune) and after the umpteenth time it has become really stale.
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Some physical contradictions of typical fantasy settings
I mentioned before that most fantasy campaign settings operate on the conceit that magic and nature are two different things. The fantasy world operates according to modern science while magic is haphazardly tacked on to explain any divergences. This leads to numerous bizarre contradictions which many gamers are painfully oblivious to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)