World-Building While Working Within The System

[Dusk Raven]

Since my previous attempts at making a thread to discuss my worlds have ended in failure, I’m going to try a different approach. Instead of vomiting exposition onto a page, I’m going to ask for help on specific topics. Basically… I’m creating a world for D&D/Pathfinder. Unfortunately, d20 is so complex that making new rules, from creatures to spells, is quite a lot of work. Even changes to a cosmology can result in the base rules not quite fitting. As I will explain later, I’ve found this out the hard way. In the end, I decided that it was better to work within the system than try and modify it too much.

What this means is that, while I will feel free to disregard various aspects of 3.5 and Pathfinder and even modify them slightly in the inevitable event I find something stupid, the (thankfully vast) source material for the two systems are ultimately what I have to draw from. I may occasionally create something, but it would have to be important enough to merit writing it up from scratch. For instance, I may tweak Aboleths, increase their INT to the level the fluff would really suggest it should be, maybe even use their stats for a similar but different monster (a tactic I call the “counts as” trick, after a similar albeit easier thing you can do in Warhammer 40,000 with a cooperative opponent), but I’m not going to create something entirely new just to fill a similar niche.

So, let’s get on to the problems I face. Basically, these are the things that D&D/Pathfinder does which I will have to deal with if I want to use their material. Some of them are easier to deal with than others, which doesn’t always correspond with how drastic a change I want to make. In any event, I’ll list them below in spoiler tags, and you need only read and address those which interest you. Each tag will also have a “laconic” note at the beginning, summarizing the gist of the entry for those who understandably don’t like my penchant for being pedantic.

Spoiler: The Alignment System

Show

Laconic: Alignment sucks.

There are quite a lot of things about D&D/Pathfinder that I simply throw out into the trash bin. Most of them can be traced directly to the alignment system, which I do not throw out. I put it in a proper receptacle, douse it in whatever flammable materials I can find, and incinerate it. And this is only because I don’t have access to a hazardous waste disposal plant.

I spent a bit of time on the WotC forums before they were shut down, and the general reaction to any alignment problem that came up for a DM was “Don’t use alignment.” It’s not hard to see why. There have been many man-hours spent and many pages written on how utterly clumsy it is and how it makes a mockery of human nature and morality itself. So, I do not intend to use it, or anything that relies on it. There are many ways to alter the rules to fit this, even within the rules and sourcebooks of D&D, but for the most part, I’ll throw out anything that would have revolved around alignments would be restricted to the realm of divine magic, where “good” and “evil” become “allied” and “enemy” based on who you worship, effectively becoming more like d20 Moderns “alleigences” – useful for spell effects on occasion, but not necessarily an indicator of what kind of person you are or even if it’s okay to stab you in the face.

With the alignment system nothing but ash, much of the stupidity involved with it goes away. Aside from never needing to argue about whether the Paladin should lose his powers on account of Neutral Good and not Lawful Good, this also means the monumentally stupid and racist “usually chaotic evil” designation and all such related drivel falls by the wayside. As such, it becomes harder to tell if it’s okay to kill something based on what it is or how it looks. A surprising amount of stuff in D&D, especially early on, seems geared towards making sure that players can determine at a glance whether that stabbing something in the face and taking its stuff is not only okay but morally obligated. That certainty goes away in my settings. Humans have a surprising ability to delude themselves into thinking whatever they do is “good” but such arrogance will never be truly justified. Me being me, I do like to encourage discussions of whether something is good or evil, but preferably without trying to frame an action within one of nine categories that each amount to a pair of pretty words and not much else.

…Yeah, I kinda let loose there. Lot of pent-up resentment against the alignment system coming to the fore, so I’d best cut that short. Point is, it’s at least a credit to the devs that alignment isn’t that hard to remove. I haven’t encountered a lot of alignment-based effects in my adventuring career, and those which exist seem like they’d be easy to change into allegiance-based stuff, as I mentioned.

Spoiler: Always Evil Undead

Show

Laconic: Undead are people too!

The creators of D&D have a real hate-on for undead. Merely existing as one is considered an act of evil, as is bringing them into the world, such that no amount of good deeds performed with their aid will ever justify the Very Bad Thing the necromancer did in creating them. This despite the fact that negative energy isn’t actually an evil force, and Cure and Inflict spells are neither good nor evil, correctly so.

Most of the changes here have already been accomplished by means of destroying the alignment system, because when you think of it, the only way skeletons and zombies are evil or can ever be evil are through words on a page. For most of the others, it’s going to be tweaking their nature slightly. Yes, ghouls need to eat flesh, and seem driven to feed on their former species, but that doesn’t make them evil or even make them like it. Indeed, in one campaign, I had a family of ghouls that fled to a remote part mountain range so they wouldn’t hurt or infect others, and merely wanted to be left alone. Yes, sometimes undead have an existence which requires them to be antithetical to living things, but when you think about it, so do living things. It’s the nature of living things to kill other things to survive, or otherwise benefit from destruction. Undead are no different. They may be a threat, but that doesn’t make them evil. Only how they go about their existence determines that.

Spoiler: The Four Elements

Show

Laconic: One of these things is not like the other.

Does anyone else find the four “classical” elements cliché? How about nonsensical? Seriously. Earth, water, wind, and fire. Three of these things have something in common – they map to the three most common states of matter very well. The fourth is a specific expression of a specific type of energy. That drives me nuts. I have an obsession with symmetry, which causes me no shortage of problems, and having three related elements and one outlier is… not good.

Basically, in my mind, the elements work a bit differently. As stated, earth, water, and air can be translated into solid, liquid, and gaseous. So, in my setting, those three are all elemental planes of Matter, and the point at which the three of them coexist is the Material Plane. At the same time, fire is an energy type, and so I aspire to create two additional planes to match with it – the planes of Cold and Electricity. If I wanted to, I could even match the energy planes to the matter planes – cold to earth, electricity to water, and fire to gas. More or less. However, aside from having to add two elemental planes, adjusting earth, water, and wind will be a bit complicated, especially in Pathfinder, where Paizo made a valiant effort to make the four elements into equal and opposite forces. The four elemental Cleric domains, the elemental Sorcerer bloodlines, and of course actual elementals will need some… readjusting. I’m not done listing things, but this really seems like the most sweeping change I want to make, and the one that will involve the most of what I said I didn’t want to do – homebrewing. However, given my obsession with symmetry and inability to ignore things that make no sense, I see no other choice. You are, however, welcome to make me see sense in it.

Spoiler: Light and Darkness

Show

Laconic: Getting tired of these good and evil clichés yet?

For too many people, light and darkness are stupidly equated with good and evil respectively, presumably because we can see in one and not the other. Unfortunately, those people include D&D’s designers. As a result nocturnal creatures tend towards evil, darkness seeps from evil creatures (or the reverse), and holy creatures are described in such irritating and tired words that refer to light, whiteness, radiant glory, and the sun, so much that it makes me wish I could safely apply sunblock to my eyes. I suspect my love of darkness comes in part from getting fed up with society and its silly ideas of what’s supposed to be inherently evil such that I looked very closely into the shadows to see what was really there.

So the most obvious thing here is “light is good, darkness is evil” which unsurprisingly I consider to be bogus. It’s not overwhelmingly obvious, but there still are a lot of things that are supposed to give off a good vibe that involve light, and ditto for evil and darkness. Also, undead are almost universally associated with darkness, so there is that.

Regardless, in my setting, I actually gave darkness and light their own planes of existence, Nox and Dies respectively, even their own languages. The problem was that I basically turned their alignment associations 90 degrees, placing darkness with chaos and light with law. Not entirely without reason, given civilizations preference for light over darkness, but that wasn’t the problem. The problem was that chaos and law are not equal but opposite forces, and I only realized that after really examining how such forces interact with the world. And of course, what naturally happens when you try and shift focus from an unequal-and-opposite axis to an unequal-and-not-always-opposite axis.

In the end, I’ll likely keep both Nox and Dies around – I really have spent a bit of time developing them and making them into interesting places to visit. They’re likely similar to the elemental planes, but since these two are significant enough to have their own deities they’re likely a bit more significant in the grand scheme of things, like the Outer Planes. Speaking of which:

Spoiler: Alignment Outsiders and the Blood War

Show

Laconic: Two wrongs and a right make Dusky cry.

Tying in with the alignment issue and slightly with the elemental issue, I need to decide what to do with Outsiders whose alignment is a core part of their being, namely the demons, devils, and various shades of good outsider. Despite the proclivity of adventurers to stab things in the face and take their stuff, they are more likely to fight fiends than celestials, so it’s understandable the devs put a lot more fiends than celestials in the game. However, things take a turn for the weird when, in D&D, demons and devils have an eternal, pointless conflict called the Blood War. I suppose this is symbolic of the conflicting and self-destructive nature of utter evil, but the two sides seem to hate each other so much that one wonders which one of them will first think to ally with the Celestials to destroy the other. Seems like something either of them could potentially do. The result of all this is that, effectively, there are two major evil factions and one good faction. Combine that with the plethora of fiends to fight, and one wonders if evil is the stronger force in the D&D world, somehow. Well, a man once wisely said, “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” so maybe. Then again, here it’s more like, “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for evil men to get their crap together and actually work to advance their own agenda. Which seems unlikely.

Much as I’d love to keep the demonic hordes, devilish armies, and whatever I can find of celestials, alignment obligations are no longer a thing. This doesn’t mean that good and evil outsiders don’t exist, but since objective good and evil don’t exist in this setting (though “things that make people like you” and “things that make everyone in the universe want to kill you” are very real concepts), it’s going to be kinda hard to have a race of all good or all evil outsiders, dedicated to their respective causes. Since I don’t want that, I won’t even try.

On to what I actually want to achieve – for some time, I’ve thought of demons as being not representative of evil, but the results of the emotions of sapient beings echoing in those planes in which desires are made manifest, and forming into beings whose only desire is to fufil the emotion that spawned them – or spreading that same emotion. This makes demons selfish beings, with no higher purpose and acting according to their instincts – but it also means they harbor little malice beyond that afforded to them by their key emotions (which I cleverly call their Sin). Some are even capable of acts of good, for compassion is as much a part of human nature as cruelty. One can even feel sorry for demons of hate and rage – in my experience, such emotions are not pleasant to feel, and a being whose existence is driven by emotional pain, who never chose to be that way, and can never rise above it or make it stop no matter how much they want to, is truly a tragic figure.

Angels are no more capable of rising above their nature, but I envisioned them a bit differently. While initially I wondered if they might serve as foils to demons in a way, representing abstract concepts rather than emotions, one fantasy setting I’ve encountered has angels simply as servants of the gods, a concept I like and would cheerfully transfer over to my setting. This makes them as varied as demons, with no more ability to control their nature, but it seems to fit quite well.

Yes, by this point I realize that I’m redefining the meaning of “angel” and “demon” but I have no problems doing that with categories which are supposed to connote good or evil with no further explanation. Alas, these angels and demons may be well lacking in free will, even as far as such a thing as “free will” is possible, but since angels probably have little desire to change, and fewer motives to do so, that doesn’t really bother me. But we won’t have any fallen angels that way. Relating to the “evil as a more powerful force” even D&D has angels who have fallen to evil, somehow, but when was the last time you saw a “risen demon” who started off evil but became good, in any media? I guess people like hearing about corruption more than redemption. Hmm.

Five topics, four pages in Word, 3 AM in the morning, two... eh. All that, and I'm still not done. But I should probably wait for answers to these before I dig this hole any deeper. If this proves no more interesting than my other rants I don't want to waste too much effort.

[avr]

Eberron attempted some of this but perhaps didn't go far enough. Keith Baker's version of the Blood War was an explicitly three-sided war on the plane of Shavarath. He tried loosening alignment's shackles in some ways too.

Light and Darkness map most simply to Creation and Destruction if you want opposed forces. To make destruction seem less strongly associated with Evil, note that you have to kill and destroy things to make the products civilisation depends on, if everything is alive and shouldn't be killed, burned etc. you have a very limited and likely primitive society. If you want undead on the good guys side make them the founders of civilisation.

There is in fact a fourth state of matter named plasma, which maps to fire easily enough or to electricity if you prefer. Your plan's still doable, but it's not necessary IMO.

[Nobot]

I recognize some of this and feel your pain!

However, I don't think all of it's necessarily stupid though. I assume (by 3.5's popularity) that a lot of gamers really like the black and white alignment system and the simple concept of something being evil in a world where evil is actually a definable thing. Those gamers may want to smash stuff without having to consider all the gray areas. D&D 3.5 (and Pathfinder) are just perfect for that type of play!

And that brings me to the comment I would make when reading your post: why are you using a system that appears to be wrong for you in a way that frustrates you so? (Or is the frustration just the result from the 3 AM part )

[Dusk Raven]

Eberron attempted some of this but perhaps didn't go far enough. Keith Baker's version of the Blood War was an explicitly three-sided war on the plane of Shavarath. He tried loosening alignment's shackles in some ways too.

Yeah, I heard that, for instance, Clerics need not match the alignment of their deity at all, but I'm not really sure how that's supposed to make sense in-context.

Light and Darkness map most simply to Creation and Destruction if you want opposed forces. To make destruction seem less strongly associated with Evil, note that you have to kill and destroy things to make the products civilisation depends on, if everything is alive and shouldn't be killed, burned etc. you have a very limited and likely primitive society. If you want undead on the good guys side make them the founders of civilisation.

Problem is, darkness and light don't really tie in to creation or destruction. Assigning philosophies to forces of nature is always tricky (although Japanese philosophy does a valiant job with the four elements plus Void), so they may end up representing general concepts, or perhaps encompass a broad range of traits which may not be complimentary.

There is in fact a fourth state of matter named plasma, which maps to fire easily enough or to electricity if you prefer. Your plan's still doable, but it's not necessary IMO.

I am aware, which is why I said most common states of matter. Unless you're in a sci-fi game, characters are unlikely to interact with plasma, I believe. I have heard the "fire = plasma" thing, but how many magic-users in a medieval setting would know or find out what plasma is?

However, I don't think all of it's necessarily stupid though. I assume (by 3.5's popularity) that a lot of gamers really like the black and white alignment system and the simple concept of something being evil in a world where evil is actually a definable thing. Those gamers may want to smash stuff without having to consider all the gray areas. D&D 3.5 (and Pathfinder) are just perfect for that type of play!

Entirely true. Perhaps morality in D&D being the way it is, is because shades of grey are too prevalent in reality. Still, I believe it's important to know what's real and what's not, and the problem is that it's hard to tell, when someone is indulging in a fantasy, whether they believe in it or not. And I consider the notion of clear-cut good and evil (at least of the sort that makes it always okay to stab an orc in the face) to be a fantasy amongst fantasies.

And that brings me to the comment I would make when reading your post: why are you using a system that appears to be wrong for you in a way that frustrates you so? (Or is the frustration just the result from the 3 AM part )

That is... a good question. I think the answer is that I'm just used to it. I mean, I've been playing it for years, which is how I've been able to find all this stuff I dislike. Despite its failings, it's one of the developed fantasy RPGs I know of that I actually know how to play... which may just mean I need to find a new RPG system. And now I just remembered the whole Vancian magic system is also something I find weird. Granted, I've made my peace with it, as it functions for the most part and is fairly intuitive to use in pen-and-paper. I've even worked out how it works out in my setting, at least with regards to divine casters. It still makes no sense for Wizards, though. But there are plenty of people who have devoted effort to reworking it, some of whom I've actually supported on Kickstarter, so I should look at their stuff someday...

[JoeJ]

I am aware, which is why I said most common states of matter. Unless you're in a sci-fi game, characters are unlikely to interact with plasma, I believe. I have heard the "fire = plasma" thing, but how many magic-users in a medieval setting would know or find out what plasma is?

They might not know the word "plasma" but it's pretty obvious that fire is very different from water, air, or earth. So much so, that having it as a fourth element makes more sense than trying to explain it as a mixture of the other three.

I really don't see how it can be implausible for people in a medieval fantasy world to come up with a four element view of nature, when that's exactly what they had in the real world, going back at least as far as classical Greece. D&D just assumes that the classical model maps onto reality a bit more closely than it does in our world.

[avr]

Yeah, I heard that, for instance, Clerics need not match the alignment of their deity at all, but I'm not really sure how that's supposed to make sense in-context.

His behind the scenes explanation (online, not in the books) was that deities were forces and power sources rather than beings, I think. There may be beings celebrated in stories and associated with the forces but those don't actually have dominion over the power source; the Blood of Vol religion are tapping into something older than Erandis d'Vol for example.

Problem is, darkness and light don't really tie in to creation or destruction. Assigning philosophies to forces of nature is always tricky (although Japanese philosophy does a valiant job with the four elements plus Void), so they may end up representing general concepts, or perhaps encompass a broad range of traits which may not be complimentary.

Obviously there are multiple ways to match up philosophies and forces. There's a series of books by a guy named L. E. Modesitt where darkness matches stasis and so law, light matches up with heat and chaos, which is the exact opposite of your pairing. You have to create something here rather than use reality, that's surely the point of world-building on this aspect?

I can't add to JoeJ's answer without knowing what your problem with fire is. Do you feel that the plasma in a flame is too transient for people to see it as real or something?

[Dusk Raven]

They might not know the word "plasma" but it's pretty obvious that fire is very different from water, air, or earth. So much so, that having it as a fourth element makes more sense than trying to explain it as a mixture of the other three.

I really don't see how it can be implausible for people in a medieval fantasy world to come up with a four element view of nature, when that's exactly what they had in the real world, going back at least as far as classical Greece. D&D just assumes that the classical model maps onto reality a bit more closely than it does in our world.

Emphasis mine. Why explain it as a mixture of the other three? Why associate it with those three at all given it doesn't really interact with them with a few exceptions? That is my problem - as I mentioned in the Laconic entry, "One of these things is not like the others." Fire is an outlier, being an unstable source of energy while the other three are stable states of matter. As a result, it tends to not fit in very easily with the others.

As for it having historical basis... well, there are quite a few things from that era that I have no desire to implement, due to not jiving with our current knowledge (and possibily the knowledge a fantastic society would have), or not jiving with our current morality.

This isn't to say I'd remove fire as an element, but as I said, it is an element of energy rather than an element of matter. Indeed, my grand scheme of elements that I like to use for fantasy and RPG purposes (I used to really be into the idea of elemental forces) consists of light, darkness, fire, ice, earth, water, wind, and electricity. It's not that I don't want it, it's that I'd rather put it in a category with things that it's actually related to.

Obviously there are multiple ways to match up philosophies and forces. There's a series of books by a guy named L. E. Modesitt where darkness matches stasis and so law, light matches up with heat and chaos, which is the exact opposite of your pairing. You have to create something here rather than use reality, that's surely the point of world-building on this aspect?

That reminds me of a very old duality I used in a long-defunct setting. Basically, light and heat were aligned with "positive" energy, and darkness and cold were aligned with "negative" energy. Neither are supposed to be inherently good or evil, but positive energy was the essence of life and negative energy was the essence of stasis. But given that the early history of the setting took place in a a post-apocalyptic winter wasteland, positive energy was understandably rather precious.

[JoeJ]

Emphasis mine. Why explain it as a mixture of the other three? Why associate it with those three at all given it doesn't really interact with them with a few exceptions? That is my problem - as I mentioned in the Laconic entry, "One of these things is not like the others." Fire is an outlier, being an unstable source of energy while the other three are stable states of matter. As a result, it tends to not fit in very easily with the others.

Because elements are the basic substances from which everything is formed. That's what the word "element" means in a classical context. If fire is not itself an element, then it has to be made up of one or more of earth, air, and water.

As for it having historical basis... well, there are quite a few things from that era that I have no desire to implement, due to not jiving with our current knowledge (and possibily the knowledge a fantastic society would have), or not jiving with our current morality.

If you're going to base your system on modern science, then earth, water, and air should not count as elements either. They are not even close to fundamental substances.

This isn't to say I'd remove fire as an element, but as I said, it is an element of energy rather than an element of matter. Indeed, my grand scheme of elements that I like to use for fantasy and RPG purposes (I used to really be into the idea of elemental forces) consists of light, darkness, fire, ice, earth, water, wind, and electricity. It's not that I don't want it, it's that I'd rather put it in a category with things that it's actually related to.

What do you mean by "energy?" If you're thinking in modern scientific terms, fire is not a kind of energy, it's a plasma. It contains energy, just like gasses, liquids, and solids do, but it is itself a state of matter. In this regard, the ancient Greeks were quite right to consider fire the same kind of thing as earth, air, and water.

[the_david]

I'm not sure where to start here, but I'll give it a shot.

I think you're mostly right about alignment, though alignment might actually be a bigger part than you realize. It's easy to miss all the little details. To summarize, while the inner planes are the physical building blocks of the universe, (Solids, liquids, gasses and plasma/energy, as well as life and death.) the outer planes form the moral building blocks of the universe. At least, that's how it works in the great wheel cosmology. You may have noticed that the great cosmic wheel is rather symetrical and neatly organized. (In an almost lawful way.) In a way good and evil are as much a part of the universe as the elements are. Compare this with our universe where good or evil are not seen as part of the universe but rather human behaviour. (With religions as an exception, but let's not get into that.)
You seem to do fine though, and I really like the idea of fiends being formed by their former sins. Are you gonna work this out by using the seven sins and virtues? It sounds a lot better than ''the pit fiend is like a balor, except that he is lawful evil.''

Your elements are a bit more messy, and it seems I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Here's a list of your physical building blocks of the universe:
Earth = Solids
Water = Liquids
Air = Gas
Electricity = Energy
Cold = Absence of heat/energy
Light = Energy again
Darkness = Absence of light/energy
Wouldn't it be easier to use earth, water, air, energy and void? Although void is just the absence of everything. It isn't really anything so I wouldn't count it as an element. You might place it beyond the other planes or just use it as empty space between planes.

[sktarq]

Okay a few things

On fire as an element. You are trying to place a modern scientific system on something that is not one and disliking its fit. Earth/Water/Air did not tie up all that well to solid/liquid/gas states in part because they were elements and the others states. The were conceptual as much as physical. Fire contained not just fire itself but the animating force of life, potential energy, much of concept of change an instability etc.


I'd suggest looking up some neopagan quadroelemental philosophy for ideas.
On the outsider front-your angel/demon/devil set up is not symmetrical -also unless you plan on having angels doing very un-nice/evil things the gods who are evil in nature will be out of servants.
One possibility would be to have various outsiders feed off of/grow from various kinds of emotional energy-things like dominance/being dominated driving devils while demons gain from envy, blind hate or whatever. Perhaps Some mechanic for turning soul energy into appropriate emotional energy to give reason for sacrifices, soul contracts etc.

[Dusk Raven]

I really didn't expect that, of everything I'd said, the elements would get the most discussion. I probably should have, since they're a change I don't think a lot of people have made before. Well, I did say I'd accept people trying to knock sense into me...

Because elements are the basic substances from which everything is formed. That's what the word "element" means in a classical context. If fire is not itself an element, then it has to be made up of one or more of earth, air, and water.

If you're going to base your system on modern science, then earth, water, and air should not count as elements either. They are not even close to fundamental substances.

What do you mean by "energy?" If you're thinking in modern scientific terms, fire is not a kind of energy, it's a plasma. It contains energy, just like gasses, liquids, and solids do, but it is itself a state of matter. In this regard, the ancient Greeks were quite right to consider fire the same kind of thing as earth, air, and water.

All right, first off, fire is not plasma. It can create plasma, but only at very high temperatures, and the fire itself is the product of a chemical reaction. As for plasma, I've heard it described as a phase of matter and not just another state of matter. It is that too, but still obviously separate from the main three. But as sktarq mentions just above, I'm not sure the Greeks considered fire the same sort of thing, per se, as the rest. And they would have been wrong to do so.

Perhaps I'm just using "element" wrong, then. But I really don't see why fire would have to be made up of earth, water, and/or wind if it weren't an element. But then again, I don't see elements as quite so fundamental, since even with our modern elements there are things in the world which aren't made up of elements. Energy mostly, but also bits of matter even more basic than molecules.

You seem to do fine though, and I really like the idea of fiends being formed by their former sins. Are you gonna work this out by using the seven sins and virtues? It sounds a lot better than ''the pit fiend is like a balor, except that he is lawful evil.''

Your elements are a bit more messy, and it seems I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Here's a list of your physical building blocks of the universe:
Earth = Solids
Water = Liquids
Air = Gas
Electricity = Energy
Cold = Absence of heat/energy
Light = Energy again
Darkness = Absence of light/energy
Wouldn't it be easier to use earth, water, air, energy and void? Although void is just the absence of everything. It isn't really anything so I wouldn't count it as an element. You might place it beyond the other planes or just use it as empty space between planes.

The Seven Deadly Sins and their lesser-known virtuous counterparts are... rather overused as demon types, in my opinion. I'm honestly more inclined to use the nine circles of hell from Inferno, but even that I'm not really content. All seven sins and some of the virtues will be featured amongst the Sins of demons, but the range of human emotion is much more broad than that, so you'll see demons of compassion, fear, sadness - pretty much any desire or emotional state finds expression in demonkind.

As for the elements... well, thing is, the "physical building blocks" are only the first three on that list. The energy elements aren't really what forms the universe, they're what drives it. They're fuel for the things that happen, but they aren't part of the engine itself, if that makes sense.

While I'm thinking about it - cold and darkness aren't merely absence of energy in this setting. Given the nature of spells and dragon breath (dragons are another thing I seriously need to think about, come to think of it), I really do think that "cold energy" is a thing in D&D. Functionally it's pretty much identical to how our universe works, at least as far as my sleep-deprived mind can imagine it, but it is something that can be generated. Obviously, conservation of energy is not in play...

On fire as an element. You are trying to place a modern scientific system on something that is not one and disliking its fit. Earth/Water/Air did not tie up all that well to solid/liquid/gas states in part because they were elements and the others states. The were conceptual as much as physical. Fire contained not just fire itself but the animating force of life, potential energy, much of concept of change an instability etc.


I'd suggest looking up some neopagan quadroelemental philosophy for ideas.

All right. While I'm sure I can anticipate the arguments for not trying to bring a "modern, scientific" perspective into a fantasy world, I'm not sure I would agree with them. I mean, wizards are pretty scientific, and any universe in which one can devise epic-level spells probably has people who understand the nature of their universe better than we do ours. I mean, when you're working with magical principles and your magic working requires proper understanding of those principles, it's hard for it to be any other way. Also, I see no reason to base the elements of magic of a setting off of an incorrect view of our own reality that I've seen used way too much to be interested in, much less agree with.

I did think about fire representing vitalism, essentially. That was the only way I could think of fire as a basic element in a way that still made sense. There's two problems with that - one is, that still sets fire apart from the rest, although given fire's nature in that view as separate but above the other elements, one could arrange them as a tetrahedron rather than a square, as I typically imagine it. Or the "matter" elements form a triangle with "essence" in the center. Although at this point it's really more akin to positive energy than fire. Hang on... given the story of the creation of my Pathfinder setting, that actually makes sense. The Material Plane being infused with energy pretty much kick-started the age of life. It's actually based a lot on the prologue of Dark Souls, which as a bonus uses fire symbolism pretty heavily.

I did say I would accept people trying to knock sense into me. This is why. Wow.

It still means I need to make changes, since D&D doesn't actually interpret fire that way. Fire represents heat in D&D, nothing more, making it all the more bizarre for it to be chosen as an element while electricity, acid, sonic, and cold get left in the... cold. So to speak. Either way, still weird, especially the pains the go to, to make it just another element.

On the outsider front-your angel/demon/devil set up is not symmetrical -also unless you plan on having angels doing very un-nice/evil things the gods who are evil in nature will be out of servants.
One possibility would be to have various outsiders feed off of/grow from various kinds of emotional energy-things like dominance/being dominated driving devils while demons gain from envy, blind hate or whatever. Perhaps Some mechanic for turning soul energy into appropriate emotional energy to give reason for sacrifices, soul contracts etc.

I do indeed plan on angels potentially doing evil things, if they serve evil gods. No reason to leave them out. Also, you realize these demons can be driven by positive emotions, right? ...I thought I was clear in saying that angels could be evil and demons could be good, since they're tied to gods and the emotions of mortals respectively, and anyone playing D&D knows that both of those categories contain good and evil things. But I suppose my language skills have failed me yet again.

The sacrifice thing reminds me of something - sacrifices tend to not really make sense to me as far as a god actually benefiting from them, but I've come up with something that I like. In this setting, you go to your deity of choice's home plane, unless special circumstances occur. One of them is being sacrificed. And you can sacrifice to good gods. Though these are usually solemn executions where they sacrifice a truly evil individual so that his deity doesn't claim his soul, thus preventing him from being resurrected or from being turned into an evil angel or otherwise rewarded.



Well, assuming I find the energy to do more than continue about elements, I can think of three more things to address, all dealing with creature types. I need to figure out how dragons fit into my setting, which will not be easy despite how much I love them. I need to figure out what the role of fey are, which may or may not be easy even though I love them. And finally, I need to work out what exactly the differences between humanoids, animals, and vermin are, despite all of them really being animals, and what exactly those differences in types mean and why the universe would treat them differently. Sapient creatures I can understand if the magic is mind-affecting, but otherwise... eh, we'll see. And I still need to figure out the differences between all those, and aberrations, which will be common in this universe but rare on the planet humanoid adventurers will frequent. And while we're talking about life, I need to figure out whether Outsiders run on positive energy or not. I'm leaning towards no. Elementals definitely won't.

Stay tuned for the next installment of "Dusk's Worlds, or Train Wrecks of Thought." We have made it past the pilot episode, will the series take off?!

[sktarq]

On sacrifices-totally agree I use a very similar houserule-however in this case as deal with a devil for your soul as payment is a trope (an prolly one worth keeping) have a way for non-dieties to get a hold of the soul via sacrifice/contract etc (as devils don't seem to be working with dieties) may be called for.

On demons/angels-fair nuf I simply wanted to point out that either you would have to massively change the behavior of both groups or have them be more similar. You may want to spice the devil/emotional group with some groups of outsiders -as if the demons get their power from emotions (from the now) and angels get theirs from the divine (from the eternal) you a different duality in which some of the animalistic NG or CG"not-an-elf" outsiders may fit better in the former than the latter.

Dragons-how advanced is the setting tech wise, how much vast open space is there that dragons can be away from people in? Also what do you want dragons to represent? The past? The uncontrollable? Living magic and wonder? Trump card power? Alien intelligence and strength (a good link to dragon controlled nations)

Also what basic kind of feel to you want the game to have? A setting for epic level play benefits from powerful point sources of conflict (BBEGs and the like) while a dangerous world feel benefits from large regions of little demihuman/human development - which makes games of politics and investigative work harder to run as few power centres and complex societies exist that can be used as fuel.

One thing with humanoids vs animals in a D&D based setting is that magic/divine intervention are known and very viable options in these games. If humanoids all derive from some similar source way back (EX: a master race created by the first gods who were later killed but their blood was harvested to make new ones. . .) humanoid targeting effects would be reacting to that. Another (possibly related option) would be a soul requirement vs a self awareness or int score requirement.

[JoeJ]

All right, first off, fire is not plasma. It can create plasma, but only at very high temperatures, and the fire itself is the product of a chemical reaction. As for plasma, I've heard it described as a phase of matter and not just another state of matter. It is that too, but still obviously separate from the main three. But as sktarq mentions just above, I'm not sure the Greeks considered fire the same sort of thing, per se, as the rest. And they would have been wrong to do so.

Maybe it's obvious to you that fire should be different, but it's not obvious to me. Fire is plasma in the same sense that earth is solid or air is gaseous.

Perhaps I'm just using "element" wrong, then. But I really don't see why fire would have to be made up of earth, water, and/or wind if it weren't an element. But then again, I don't see elements as quite so fundamental, since even with our modern elements there are things in the world which aren't made up of elements. Energy mostly, but also bits of matter even more basic than molecules.

In that case I don't know what you mean by "element" or why you have any of them at all.

All right. While I'm sure I can anticipate the arguments for not trying to bring a "modern, scientific" perspective into a fantasy world, I'm not sure I would agree with them. I mean, wizards are pretty scientific, and any universe in which one can devise epic-level spells probably has people who understand the nature of their universe better than we do ours. I mean, when you're working with magical principles and your magic working requires proper understanding of those principles, it's hard for it to be any other way. Also, I see no reason to base the elements of magic of a setting off of an incorrect view of our own reality that I've seen used way too much to be interested in, much less agree with.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur. It's you as creator who is bringing modern scientific ideas to the fantasy world, not the fictional wizards. And it's a little unclear to me why you're using modern chemistry but still keeping the elemental planes and elementals as creatures. Those concepts don't see to fit together.

[sktarq]

Oh forgot to mention in above post: I was once asked to explain what a white dragon spewed for a breath weapon -superchilled air? A liquid spray that made things cold -if so how etc. Eventually I came up with an idea of it being an oil that allowed heat to radiate to very cold planes of existence via tiny conjured portals as the oil mix reacted with itself. These portals worked the same as tiny conjured portals from the plane of fire for a fireball.

It worked for to get the player onto another subject and as a place to brainstorm from may be useful.

[lenon3579]

Ok... I accompany the OoTS since 2007 and this forum since some weeks ago, but this time I had to register just to reply to this thread. Yeah, because I just can't stand people speaking things in a failed Knowledge (Arcane)/(Religion) check in my presence without entering the conversation.

ok, now to the topic in hands.

:::

Well... first of all, the elements are NOT SUBSTANCES. The Fire element is not actual fire, same as water, air and earth. They are abstract philosophical concepts. Fire actually stands for Activity, Energy, Desire. Water for Passivity, Fluidity, Compassion. Air for Reative Activity, Perception, Intellect. And Earth for Receptivity, Solidity, Internal Growing. The ductability of iron is a watery quality; its magnetic virtue is fiery; its conductivity airy; and its weight and hardness earthy.

The Father (Fire), The Mother (Water), The Son (Air) and The Daughter (Earth). [Although this last one disappeared from christian mythology, except for some mentions of the Sang Raal - Royal Blood - a variant of the San Graal - Holy Graal - mythic cycle, but that is another story].

In Jewish tradition this is stated in the holy word YHVH (Yahvé/Jeovah), which is called the Tetragrammaton, with each letter standing for each one of the elements (Y - Fire, first H - Water, V - Air, second H - Earth). Pitagoras added a fifth element to the game, which is the Spirit, and thus making the whole Pentagram thing (which is used today by some "witches"). Later on some mystics from Alexandria attributed the hebraic letter Sh to Spirit, thus creating the name YHShVH (Yehshuah/Jesus). That's the whole point of "the Holy Spirit descending to earth". But most of the medieval and modern hermetic traditions, bred from the Jewish and Islamic traditions of Spain and Jerusalem, utilizes the ancient 4-element formula, that is registered in the four suites of tarot and cardgames - Wands/Clubs (Fire), Cups/Hearts (Water), Spades (Air) and Pentacles/Diamonds (Earth).

So, throwing off in a magic setting the most fundamental conceptual base of occidental magic just because "it doesn't fit with modern science" seems a little off-ground to me. I would rather prefer another approach to that problem. Yes, I would really appreciate a setting that drank from that and made a really convincing under-structure to magic.

Yes, I know that WoD made that brilliantly. But they used the Nordic elements instead of the Egypt-Jew-Greek ones. The Norsemen had three elements instead of four: Fire, Ice and Wind. They would stand for Creativty, Stability and Destruction. Or in Mage: The Ascension - the Dynamic, Static and Entropic forces/resonances. And in Werewolf: Apocalipse - Wyld, Weaver and Wyrm.

Huh! I just wish that you don't stone me for that casting of Vaarsuvius's Greater Sleep.

[Dusk Raven]

On sacrifices-totally agree I use a very similar houserule-however in this case as deal with a devil for your soul as payment is a trope (an prolly one worth keeping) have a way for non-dieties to get a hold of the soul via sacrifice/contract etc (as devils don't seem to be working with dieties) may be called for.

I hadn't thought of that - and in this setting, there are actually beings that would have a use for your soul. Of course, my first instinct was to say, "If you consort with evil beings, doesn't that make you evil anyway and they get your soul?" But then I remembered that I don't believe that, myself, and my good deities aren't the type to label you as evil for using an evil-tagged weapon or spell no matter what you actually use it for. Assuming there was such a silly thing as an evil-tagged spell

On demons/angels-fair nuf I simply wanted to point out that either you would have to massively change the behavior of both groups or have them be more similar. You may want to spice the devil/emotional group with some groups of outsiders -as if the demons get their power from emotions (from the now) and angels get theirs from the divine (from the eternal) you a different duality in which some of the animalistic NG or CG"not-an-elf" outsiders may fit better in the former than the latter.

You may be right. I like that sort of dichotomy between angels and demons, but what I came up with on my own is that demons exist for themselves with no sense of a higher purpose, and angels exist for a higher purpose with no sense of self.

Dragons-how advanced is the setting tech wise, how much vast open space is there that dragons can be away from people in? Also what do you want dragons to represent? The past? The uncontrollable? Living magic and wonder? Trump card power? Alien intelligence and strength (a good link to dragon controlled nations)

Hmm... I should probably write on one wild idea I've had for a while, see if anyone finds it interesting. Regardless, I know dragons in my Dungeons and Dragons setting should be one thing above all else - paragons of existence, the ultimate form of life. What that involves can be a number of things, but in my setting (as it stands, shakily) they're responsible for all life, basically.

Also what basic kind of feel to you want the game to have? A setting for epic level play benefits from powerful point sources of conflict (BBEGs and the like) while a dangerous world feel benefits from large regions of little demihuman/human development - which makes games of politics and investigative work harder to run as few power centres and complex societies exist that can be used as fuel.

Hmm... hard to say. I very much like exploration settings, so the setting I came up with is that very little land is settled by what we'd call "civilization." Most of it's under the dominion of Fey. That being said, civilization's been entrenched for a reasonable period of time, a few generations even by elf standards (although elves do have different aging in my setting).

One thing with humanoids vs animals in a D&D based setting is that magic/divine intervention are known and very viable options in these games. If humanoids all derive from some similar source way back (EX: a master race created by the first gods who were later killed but their blood was harvested to make new ones. . .) humanoid targeting effects would be reacting to that. Another (possibly related option) would be a soul requirement vs a self awareness or int score requirement.

Hmm... well, I think what I'll do is that some effects are type-specific, but others affect all animal kingdom life, all life native to that planet, etc. Mind-affecting stuff will be type-specific, although things like Hold Person tailor themselves to the type of the caster (no reason a Fun Guy from Yuggoth would have access to a spell that only affects humanoids, no spell that affects only its own kind, and another spell that affects any monster). Things that depend on biology affect all animals equally, however, possibly including Magical Beasts, though things like the Ranger's Favored Enemy feature are still type-specific.

And that reminds me, I need to think about what exactly a soul is and who has it, though by instinct I tend to give every living thing a soul, and a few non-living things too.

Maybe it's obvious to you that fire should be different, but it's not obvious to me. Fire is plasma in the same sense that earth is solid or air is gaseous.

But... it's not plasma...

In that case I don't know what you mean by "element" or why you have any of them at all.

Well... basically, "elements" as far as my mind operates, are basically like alignment for magic, but less stupid. Basically, magic gets aligned with a particular force, possibly multiple, and this tends to determine its effects. And I have them because it's fun. That's the only reason I do any of this.

That's a bit of a non-sequitur. It's you as creator who is bringing modern scientific ideas to the fantasy world, not the fictional wizards. And it's a little unclear to me why you're using modern chemistry but still keeping the elemental planes and elementals as creatures. Those concepts don't see to fit together.

Why does everyone think I'm doing this "For Science!"? I don't get why, or why it's supposed to be a bad thing. And frankly, that ship has sailed as far as D&D is concerned. Diseases aren't caused by the wrath of gods. Lightning isn't the result of hurled thunderbolts or hammers striking. Arrows don't travel in a straight line until they exhaust their momentum, then drop straight to the ground (actual belief, I'm told, held by the same sort of people that created the elements). We know better now, and it's the perogative of any fantasy writer to disregard old superstitions and wacky psuedoscience.

Ok... I accompany the OoTS since 2007 and this forum since some weeks ago, but this time I had to register just to reply to this thread. Yeah, because I just can't stand people speaking things in a failed Knowledge (Arcane)/(Religion) check in my presence without entering the conversation.

I'd normally be flattered, but... that sounds ominous...

Well... first of all, the elements are NOT SUBSTANCES. The Fire element is not actual fire, same as water, air and earth. They are abstract philosophical concepts. Fire actually stands for Activity, Energy, Desire. Water for Passivity, Fluidity, Compassion. Air for Reative Activity, Perception, Intellect. And Earth for Receptivity, Solidity, Internal Growing. The ductability of iron is a watery quality; its magnetic virtue is fiery; its conductivity airy; and its weight and hardness earthy.

Yeah, the concept of elements as abstract concepts is not new to me. A while back I read a bit about certain Japanese martial arts and their take on the elements. It was actually really cool. But at that point we get into subjective interpretations of actual forces, and if we do that I may as well completely toss the four aside and come up with my own set.

Also, one very important thing - you guys are putting way more thought into this than the devs did. In D&D? Earth, Water, Wind, and Fire are earth, water, wind and fire and basically nothing else. The elemental planes are almost entirely one of those four things. A Wizard's only desire when he casts Fireball is to blast his enemies. A Cleric is unlikely to be thinking about the internal growth of anyone at ground zero of her Earthquake spell. That is what I oppose - basically claiming four arbitrary substances to be the building blocks of creation, with no further explanation. As has been revealed, it can be done, but not the way D&D does it.

So, throwing off in a magic setting the most fundamental conceptual base of occidental magic just because "it doesn't fit with modern science" seems a little off-ground to me. I would rather prefer another approach to that problem. Yes, I would really appreciate a setting that drank from that and made a really convincing under-structure to magic.

As I have stated, this isn't because it conflicts with science, it's because it conflicts with my understanding of the world. I mean, even though I'm not beholden to reality, it still needs to make sense, and the way D&D does it... doesn't really do that. Or at least, it provides no explanation for it. Also, something being the "most fundamental conceptual base" of occidental magic is its own reason to throw it out. I have no interest in occidental magic (though it might be interesting for a change), only in D&D's magic, and how to alter the latter.

Honestly, though, I'm increasingly thinking that just throwing out the four elements would be a good idea.

Yes, I know that WoD made that brilliantly. But they used the Nordic elements instead of the Egypt-Jew-Greek ones. The Norsemen had three elements instead of four: Fire, Ice and Wind. They would stand for Creativty, Stability and Destruction. Or in Mage: The Ascension - the Dynamic, Static and Entropic forces/resonances. And in Werewolf: Apocalipse - Wyld, Weaver and Wyrm.

And now we get some interesting elemental setups. This is what I'm talking about, folks. Now I'm kind of thinking about different "elements" of magic like Creation, Alteration, Destruction, etc. that would work well in replacing D&D's silly school setup.

[sktarq]

Well if you like exploration and major wild spaces mind if I throw out an idea?

If civilized land are dominated by dieties, devils/emotional beings, etc why not have them competing for space with powers of the wild-possibly some dragon, fey, druidic powers that compete internally but may or may not draw together in the face of "civilization"
Could well any number of effects tied to it-perhaps elves traded away parts of their souls (which could be what defines them as humanoid type) to the fey to be part of the "wild" and that is why they are distrusted. Or could have a link to what happens after death - (wild things reincarnate and civilized go to the dieties perhaps),

[Dusk Raven]

Well if you like exploration and major wild spaces mind if I throw out an idea?

If civilized land are dominated by dieties, devils/emotional beings, etc why not have them competing for space with powers of the wild-possibly some dragon, fey, druidic powers that compete internally but may or may not draw together in the face of "civilization"
Could well any number of effects tied to it-perhaps elves traded away parts of their souls (which could be what defines them as humanoid type) to the fey to be part of the "wild" and that is why they are distrusted. Or could have a link to what happens after death - (wild things reincarnate and civilized go to the dieties perhaps),

That's actually pretty similar to what I have set up. You know, why don't I just link my old thread? I've looked back at it for some time and believed it needed revision, but since I haven't actually made any changes yet I'm open to suggestions, and it'll let you see a bit about where I'm planning on going with dragons and fey. Basically, yeah, the Fey are very much a force of power, and Drudic divine magic very much competes with godly magic, and probably with other sources of theurgic magic as well (I'm pondering moving Bardic magic over to divine magic, which should be pretty easy to do).

[avr]

Are those dragons ancestors/creators of modern, lesser dragons, or does your world simply not have e.g. Young white dragons? It's quite hard to see a human-sized bully with 8 int & cha as the mystical spirit of a star or something.

Divine bards should be fine. There was an option for those in unearthed arcana IIRC.

[Dusk Raven]

Are those dragons ancestors/creators of modern, lesser dragons, or does your world simply not have e.g. Young white dragons? It's quite hard to see a human-sized bully with 8 int & cha as the mystical spirit of a star or something.

Divine bards should be fine. There was an option for those in unearthed arcana IIRC.

When I say "reincarnate" I mean in the IRL sense, which is to say they're reborn as a wyrmling. They also don't remember everything that happened in their past lives, and indeed their personality can subtly change, which is why they don't know every Sorcerer spell in existence. Although a foe that can spontaneously cast every arcane spell in existence (and in-universe arcane magic is also known as Draconic magic because dragons are the ones who literaly created it) would be a terrifying opponent...

I really wonder about that take on dragons, though. Like... I don't understand how I came up with it. It's creative, it's original, but it's weird. This is never a bad thing, but if you change something too much you have to wonder whether you should even keep the name. Which is probably the only reason it seems weird to me, it's weird for dragons, but not weird for fantasy, or even for me.

As for Bards, Bards are actually weird. Like, they straddle the line between arcane and divine anyway, such that the UA rules for Divine Bards basically makes it so they need Wisdom but gives them some extra spells. I'm not really sure how they get their powers, I just sort of imagine they draw power from the innate power of music or something and leave it at that, and that means they can fit in arcane or divine. They're certainly "arcane" in the literal sense of the world. It's funny, usually I try and explain everything, but with Bards I pretty much consider the nature of their powers a Thing Man Was Not Meant to Know. It seems to work out.

[The Glyphstone]

Have you gone through Rich's Eleven Questions, from the old gaming articles?

http://www.giantitp.com/articles/YPg...kGjjviJU5.html

I've found it to be a good place to start for designing a world, particularly one intended for D&D from the start because so many of the questions are D&D/PF-oriented as far as traditional conceits of said settings go.