My First Campaign World (you really should look at it) (WIP, PEACH)

[Landis963]

Well, I imagine that crafting magical items isn't as intuitive as casting spells for most sorcerers, and the Level requirement on the Craft _____ feats would prevent the vast majority from even taking the feats.

I must be watching too many Skyrim videos.

So, I'm thinking about dwarven nobles. I've already said that dwarves are ruled by kings, but I've also mentioned the presence of nobles. I'm thinking that 'being a noble' would represent social influence rather than political influence, simply because nobody could overrule the king. Thus, to say that somebody was a noble would simply mean that they were rich and well known. This also means that who is or isn't a noble is a bit subjective, and generally determined by the crowd rather than the government (for example, the richest of social pariahs wouldn't be a noble even if he owned half the city). Through this, many sorcerers (particularly the powerful ones) would be considered nobles because A) They have a fat paycheck, and B) they're getting that fat paycheck by doing what most dwarves consider the epitome of good. Meanwhile, you could also become a noble by leading a powerful merchant's guild or by having made a horde for yourself while adventuring in the tunnels.

Sounds good. Go for it. Except for one thing: "Nobody could overrule the king"? What about that impeachment process? If nobody can overrule the king, how are they supposed to get him to stand trial in the first place?

[Othesemo]

Sounds good. Go for it. Except for one thing: "Nobody could overrule the king"? What about that impeachment process? If nobody can overrule the king, how are they supposed to get him to stand trial in the first place?

In terms of legislation, I mean. For example, if the king says that all dwarves have to serve two years of militia as past or citizenship, nobody can argue with him. The courts would operate under him, but they'd still be independent.

The king can make laws, but unmaking them would be considerably more difficult (sort of like how the president of the US can't declare it an authoritarian theocracy), and the king still has to follow them.

[Landis963]

In terms of legislation, I mean. For example, if the king says that all dwarves have to serve two years of militia as past or citizenship, nobody can argue with him. The courts would operate under him, but they'd still be independent.

The king can make laws, but unmaking them would be considerably more difficult (sort of like how the president of the US can't declare it an authoritarian theocracy), and the king still has to follow them.

Gotcha. Oh hey, in yet another shameless plug, would you like to check out my setting? I could always use more input. The link's in my sig.

[Othesemo]

Gotcha. Oh hey, in yet another shameless plug, would you like to check out my setting? I could always use more input. The link's in my sig.

Sure. Sorry I haven't dropped by yet, but I've been sort of low on time lately. If you have anything in particular that you'd like me to look at, shoot me a PM.

_________________________________

Anyways, I've been thinking a but more about dwarven nobility- specifically, the king. I've already mentioned an impeachment process. As I've imagined it, this means that the king has to meet a number of criteria to be eligible for participation in the tournament. Then, during his kingship, ceasing to eligible would result in his impeachment. As such, I'm working out what specifically a king would have to be.

Firstly, it would be open to all genders. However, it would historically be a male-only role (similarly to the US president), with a few progressive cities having the odd queen. I say this because if a hypothetical female badass were to defeat all of the best fighters in the city, the dwarves would be sufficiently impressed to overlook her gender.

Secondly, only dwarves both born and raised within a city could be eligible. A dwarf is expected to live his entire life in the service of his city. Thus, a dwarf cannot be truly loyal to any other city. And if he were more loyal to another city than to his own, he could not be trusted (for what dwarf would so lightly betray the city of his birth?).

Thirdly, the obvious one. The dwarf must be the most able fighter in the city, as determined by his ability to fend off challengers.

Fourthly, the king must not be guilty of any crime against the city. What, specifically, does that entail? As I see it, a crime against the city is any action taken at the intentional expense of the city for the express benefit of the king-to-be. This could range from siphoning money from the city treasury to robbing a tax-paying merchant. It would not, however, include littering, getting in a fist-fight, or public drunkenness.


Hm. I can't really think of anything else right now. Anyone else got any ideas?

[Synvallius]

Interesting world, the map you drew is incredible, (I, personally, always have trouble drawing maps and end up using powerpoint, which doesn't always work out so well). I have one question though, in response to how the magic in your world is arranged. After the 1001 demons rampaged about, did they essentially tear apart the natural functions of magic in certain areas, making it so that on one continent you cannot cast any spells, and on another you can cast enhanced spells? Or did they just reduce the power of magic to the spell list in the Player Handbook (and others, I'm sure)? Also, I would strongly suggest altering the spell lists for the wizards and sorcerers, so that they're a little less powerful. Because in normal D&D, the arcane lot tend to become so much more powerful than commoners and warriors and such that the world would be overrun with mage-lords and wizard-kings. As it seems that you want to run a fairly disunited world, and having too prevalent and too powerful a group of magic users would raise questions as to why no powerful mage has ever tried creating a magic continent-spanning empire. Also, in rebuttal to Zap Dynamic when he said, "When building a world, I try to stick to a simple philosophy: if I'm not going to use it, then I don't need it." Even if the players never encounter something, I still think that it is important for the DM/world creator to know how everything about their world works, just in case it comes up, and so that they can base the laws of reality off of those cosmological concepts, instead of just pulling such things out of thin air.

[Othesemo]

Interesting world, the map you drew is incredible, (I, personally, always have trouble drawing maps and end up using powerpoint, which doesn't always work out so well).

Thanks! I spent a lot of time trying to make that thing.

I have one question though, in response to how the magic in your world is arranged. After the 1001 demons rampaged about, did they essentially tear apart the natural functions of magic in certain areas, making it so that on one continent you cannot cast any spells, and on another you can cast enhanced spells? Or did they just reduce the power of magic to the spell list in the Player Handbook (and others, I'm sure)? Also, I would strongly suggest altering the spell lists for the wizards and sorcerers, so that they're a little less powerful. Because in normal D&D, the arcane lot tend to become so much more powerful than commoners and warriors and such that the world would be overrun with mage-lords and wizard-kings. As it seems that you want to run a fairly disunited world, and having too prevalent and too powerful a group of magic users would raise questions as to why no powerful mage has ever tried creating a magic continent-spanning empire.

Ah, yes. That.

Basically, the group of ruling mages at the time populated a land called Marektai. This land was naturally inhospitable, but through magic they made it a personal haven of sorts (I haven't decided where this was geographically yet).

When the 1001 demons poured into it, their very nature was so antithetical to the land that it was essentially torn. Magic does not exist there. They never made it beyond Marektai, however, and so they had a diluted effect elsewhere.

My original intention with this was, as you mentioned, to justify altering the discrepancy between wizards and non-wizards. At some point I'm going to actually write up a full list of playable races and classes for this world according to generally accepted tenets of balance (all hail tier 3, and all that). That'll be one of the finishing touches, though. For now, it's meant to flavorfully explain why, as you say, there is no magic continent spanning empire.

Also, thanks for the feedback. Feel free to drop by and give your opinion on anything here.

[Othesemo]

I've been spending a lot of my time recently preparing for an upcoming PbP game, but once I've gotten past the planning stage (should be in about a week), I can go back to working on this regularly. In the mean time, I'll still respond to whatever people post. I just won't be making too many posts of my own.

[Omeganaut]

Looking at the Raptorians, it hit me that your legal code seems soft on serious offences. Perhaps you have a Golden rule/Hammurabi's code situation. Raptorans are punished according to what crime they comitted. Public drunkeness would only be punished if they broke something or hurt someone, in which case they would have to repay whomever they hurt or fix whatever they broke. Theft would mean repaying the victims(s) for all of what was stolen plus a bit extra in interest. Murder would mean death or exile, depending on the circumstances. Any hearings would be heard by a jury composed of at least one ranking raptorian and the victim or the victims nearest relations if the victim is unable to be there. Repeated major offenses result in exile. Still, major crimes are uncommon, as most Raptorians prefer to have their own freedoms, and will happily pay for any small damages they cause.

[Othesemo]

Looking at the Raptorians, it hit me that your legal code seems soft on serious offences. Perhaps you have a Golden rule/Hammurabi's code situation. Raptorans are punished according to what crime they comitted. Public drunkeness would only be punished if they broke something or hurt someone, in which case they would have to repay whomever they hurt or fix whatever they broke. Theft would mean repaying the victims(s) for all of what was stolen plus a bit extra in interest. Murder would mean death or exile, depending on the circumstances. Any hearings would be heard by a jury composed of at least one ranking raptorian and the victim or the victims nearest relations if the victim is unable to be there. Repeated major offenses result in exile. Still, major crimes are uncommon, as most Raptorians prefer to have their own freedoms, and will happily pay for any small damages they cause.

I like the idea of some sort of fine system being in place, and exile would certainly be appropriate. However, I think that I'd like to stay away from incarceration or death as legal repercussions. If a raptoran steals, it is easy enough to get him to repay, and with a net loss in money that raptoran isn't terribly likely to try it again (particularly because most communities are small enough for there to be one suspect). However, killing a raptoran, however criminal he was, would only compound the problem in their eyes. I think that their system of punishment would largely be composed of either A) In the case of a 'temporary' crime, compensating for the damages, such as via a fine or working for the victim, or B) Exile, in the case that the raptoran cannot make amends. Basically, any Raptoran who has a strictly negative effect on their society is given the boot, whereas any other just has to balance out his evil actions with good ones.