Let's talk about Lacrymas' homebrew fantasy setting where paladins are eunuchs

[ERYFKRAD]

Also, if we are talking about FR, Thay exists. I see no reason why everything else in FR isn't Thay.

Divine intervention in the case of Aglarond (the Simbul is a Chosen of Mystra) and Mulhorand (theocracy with pharaohs who are literal descendants of gods). Opposing arcane spellcasters in the case of Rashemen (the witches). Geographical distance in the case of everywhere else.

Wizards are not invincible. No one is.

 

[Storyfag]

I see no reason why everything else in FR isn't Thay.

I am also compelled to add that this speaks ill of you, not of FR.

 

[Lacrymas]

Divine intervention in the case of Aglarond (the Simbul is a Chosen of Mystra) and Mulhorand (theocracy with pharaohs who are literal descendants of gods). Opposing arcane spellcasters in the case of Rashemen (the witches). Geographical distance in the case of everywhere else.

So, yeah, even higher powers which are the ruling class in whatever region. The Simbul is the Witch-Queen, i.e. another arcane spellcaster. Another ruling class of arcane spellcasters in the case of Rashemen. When one set of ruling class wizards are opposed to another ruling class of wizards, that doesn't mean there's no spellcaster ruling class. And literal divine intervention in the case of Mulhorand (does it still even exist in the lore? I thought it was destroyed at one point).

 

[Storyfag]

Divine intervention in the case of Aglarond (the Simbul is a Chosen of Mystra) and Mulhorand (theocracy with pharaohs who are literal descendants of gods). Opposing arcane spellcasters in the case of Rashemen (the witches). Geographical distance in the case of everywhere else.

So, yeah, even higher powers which are the ruling class in whatever region. The Simbul is the Witch-Queen, i.e. another arcane spellcaster. Another ruling class of arcane spellcasters in the case of Rashemen. When one set of ruling class wizards are opposed to another ruling class of wizards, that doesn't mean there's no spellcaster ruling class. And literal divine intervention in the case of Mulhorand (does it still even exist in the lore? I thought it was destroyed at one point).

Gods are the ruling class of the world, yes. That is the point of Gods. The Simbul is the Witch-Queen only by virtue of Mystra's patronage. Divine. And even if she was reliant only on her own power, what of it? Can't wrap your mind around the fact that arcane spellcasters have conflicting interests? And others can use those conflicts to further their own agendas?

 

[Parabalus]

Divine intervention in the case of Aglarond (the Simbul is a Chosen of Mystra) and Mulhorand (theocracy with pharaohs who are literal descendants of gods). Opposing arcane spellcasters in the case of Rashemen (the witches). Geographical distance in the case of everywhere else.

So, yeah, even higher powers which are the ruling class in whatever region. The Simbul is the Witch-Queen, i.e. another arcane spellcaster. Another ruling class of arcane spellcasters in the case of Rashemen. When one set of ruling class wizards are opposed to another ruling class of wizards, that doesn't mean there's no spellcaster ruling class. And literal divine intervention in the case of Mulhorand (does it still even exist in the lore? I thought it was destroyed at one point).

Gods are the ruling class of the world, yes. That is the point of Gods. The Simbul is the Witch-Queen only by virtue of Mystra's patronage. Divine. And even if she was reliant only on her own power, what of it? Can't wrap your mind around the fact that arcane spellcasters have conflicting interests? And others can use those conflicts to further their own agendas?

But that's his point, arcane casters step on the toes of gods. If it takes gods to take them down, are they not godlike?

Settings like Malazan, or even DA, where wizards are controlled as tightly as possible make more sense than FR where they can run amok.

 

[Lacrymas]

Gods aren't "the ruling class", though, it's the arcane spellcasters in whatever region, sometimes even chosen by the gods themselves. What happens in a setting in which there's no literal divine intervention? It happens like in DA, the mages rebel at the first opportunity. Divine intervention doesn't fix the problem, it's the same problem in sheep's clothing. Also what Parabalus says, without gods arcane spellcasters are the gods.

 

[Storyfag]

Divine intervention in the case of Aglarond (the Simbul is a Chosen of Mystra) and Mulhorand (theocracy with pharaohs who are literal descendants of gods). Opposing arcane spellcasters in the case of Rashemen (the witches). Geographical distance in the case of everywhere else.

So, yeah, even higher powers which are the ruling class in whatever region. The Simbul is the Witch-Queen, i.e. another arcane spellcaster. Another ruling class of arcane spellcasters in the case of Rashemen. When one set of ruling class wizards are opposed to another ruling class of wizards, that doesn't mean there's no spellcaster ruling class. And literal divine intervention in the case of Mulhorand (does it still even exist in the lore? I thought it was destroyed at one point).

Gods are the ruling class of the world, yes. That is the point of Gods. The Simbul is the Witch-Queen only by virtue of Mystra's patronage. Divine. And even if she was reliant only on her own power, what of it? Can't wrap your mind around the fact that arcane spellcasters have conflicting interests? And others can use those conflicts to further their own agendas?

But that's his point, arcane casters step on the toes of gods. If it takes gods to take them down, are they not godlike?

Well, geography is also a factor in limiting the endeavours of Thay. Goddamned godlike geography! Let's make a setting where there is no geography!

 

[Cael]

You are probably the ONE GM on this planet who has this problem. I have never ever had my narrative disrupted by the purportedly abstract and limitless arcane magic. Perhaps because it is not quite so abstract and limitless as you presume.

and second because I think wizards are always a logical problem for settings because 99% of the time there's no reason for why the setting hasn't turned into a mageocracy.

But you did turn your setting into a magocracy. You just keep calling the mages "priests" and insisting for some reason that YOUR mages could be toppled while the usual kind could not. You still failed to present reasonable argumentation for why that would be.

I don't have this problem as a DM (at levels below 10ish/5th spell circle), I have it as a reader/consumer of such settings. Arcane magic is limitless because you can always pull whatever bullshit spell you want from your ass to insulate your plot unless you show heroic discipline, which most authors don't. It's an explicit problem in D&D where every wizard can create their own spells. Divine spells aren't as easy to justify.

Also, I said why they can be toppled a bajillion times - their political power doesn't come from their magical abilities. It comes from the cultural hegemony and their control of the healing source.

Didn't you rail against arcane casters earlier for being the only source of food and water? And yet here you are being OK with someone being the only source of healing.

Hypocrite!

 

[Cael]

...

because their magic is limitless and comes from within.

And author fiat can't give divine casters the ability to pull shit out of their arse? Or barbarians being able to out think wizards?

Your problem is not with arcane casters. Your problem is with author fiat. You are triggered by it to the point of utter incoherence.

 

[Lambach]

Also, what are these supposed "bad things" which happen at my tables?

At some point, one of your Paladin players will break his vow. And at that point, you as the GM, will have to LARP a priest cutting off his dong, complete with moving your hand in a cutting motion next to his junk.

Nightmare fuel.

 

[FreeKaner]

This is just how I think in general. I can't help but construct any setting in this manner. I don't think this is a criticism of the setting, however, as the degree of logical consistency is hardly a pain point.

I don't "hold grudges", lol. And against clerics? My go-to class is a cleric. I don't like arcane magic because it has been misused for half a century now and I don't like how much nerds defend it and fetishize it, and think it's the only characteristic trait of a fantasy setting. Tolkien himself disliked Gandalf's magic more or less, that's why he's barely in the story. I'd go as far as to say that a wizard as a protagonist is a perversion. Either way, I don't punish players for whatever class they want to play, but if they agree to play in my setting they also agree to the lack of arcane classes. We also play some official modules from time to time and I don't have pretenses there, they can play whatever they want.

Why are males not allowed to be clerics? Is cleric a specific designation, can priests or clergy at large can be males for example?

 

[SoupNazi]

Lacrymas do you have like a design doc for the setting or something? I'm quite curious because most of the hate you seem to be getting is for why you've created the world as it is, not how the world is playable or written. I've seen a lot of homebrew settings in the last few weeks and let me tell you some of the shit I've seen sounds worse than just a slightly edgy way to set up magic or how some classes are handled. I've seen people make worlds where you can only be a rogue if you're from region X, and that's something that really makes no sense. It could make sense for a mage or a paladin or anything special, but they had rogues and fighters limited to regions. Or you know, actually really badly written shit like that.

The "arguments" presented here only seem to confront the author's internal motivation to make the world as it's been made, very few actually criticize the actual world, which boggles my mind to be honest. But maybe I'm missing something? Or is it just that a bunch of people here enjoy trolling Lacrymas and Lacrymas is too to recognize it and answers in the same vein?

 

[NJClaw]

But maybe I'm missing something?

People here aren't willing to embrace and explore their latent homosexual instincts, so at the sight of a cute boy like Lacrymas they shrivel in fear and their defense mechanism makes them react with anger and hostility. This is particularly clear in the case of users like Lambach, who are also constantly looking for excuses to check the Gay Relationships thread.

 

[Reinhardt]

GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!

 

[Lacrymas]

Why are males not allowed to be clerics? Is cleric a specific designation, can priests or clergy at large can be males for example?

Druids are part of the clergy and they are all men. It's not so much a different designation (they are all considered priests), but different magical and theological training. All the priests learn the overall religion, but women can choose on which of the other two aspects to focus while men can only be a part of one of the churches/aspects. There are 3 churches, of the moon, of the sun, and of the desert. The overall umbrella is the cycle of life and death under which the others fall, everyone is technically a priest of the cycle but it's not official. Druids can only be priests of the desert (I think for obvious reasons, they can control the earthly domain and the people in this society think the seed of life comes from men). The desert in the religious sense has the aspects of law, tradition, and justice. The moon is protection, honesty (it's very hard to translate the word I mean, it's honesty in-front of yourself, the act of confession), and individuality within the group (so no psychopathy). The sun is freedom (while following the law, kind of Hegelian), responsibility, and collectivism (while still honoring the individual).

Lacrymas do you have like a design doc for the setting or something?

Not really, I've written everything I've come up with down, but it's not a masterdoc or anything and it's half in Bulgarian, half in English, with a few German straggler-words.

 

[BING XI LAO]

Even the very way you build your world grinds my gears. It is all logical chains, if this people had these abilities then this would happen. That is not how I think you should build your world and that misuses the abilities of the author and the DM.
Noone gives a shit about realism in your worlds, there is no supercomputer that emulates your world and tries to find cracks in the logical framework of it. The only thing that matters is authenticity.

Logic is a good way to build a world as long as you start out with initial conditions and develop all kinds of weird stuff resulting from that. Lacrymas has done the reverse, by deciding he doesn't want one of the end results (mageocracy) and then working backwards to remove the thing which resulted in mageocracy as a logical outcome. Working backwards can result in something that feels contrived and reductive.

 

[BING XI LAO]

The moon is protection, honesty (it's very hard to translate the word I mean, it's honesty in-front of yourself, the act of confession)

Sincerity?

 

[Cryomancer]

. I have said wizards who are born with magic are a fascy idea/concept, especially when it's hereditary

Everyone in FR can learn how to use magic.

The DM has to attempt to be as impartial as possible, in order to make the game fun for all participants. I am sorry for those that can not see your underlying trauma against whatever your hateclass is at your current table and rolls one up.

I agree that DM's needs to be impartial, but the DM has all freedom to create his own setting and even ban things by any reason.Mainly when we are talking about homebrew settings. For eg, if someone wanna play as an rifleman in a world where there aren't firearms, I as a DM could not allow that. Not all worlds needs to be Faerun.

In fact, what if I wanna play in a Conan setting where magic is more ritualistic, outsiderish and dangerous to everyone, inlcuding to the caster? Then rules like this ones makes perfectly sense.
http://hyboria.xoth.net/sorcery/low_magic_system.htm

Some interesting parts

Spoiler

4. In this setting most sorcerers are power-mad, misanthropic and ruthless (in a word, evil). Something intrinsic in the magic system should either favor evil or should lead to the corruption of its practitioners. Spellcasters are feared and reviled.

(...)

16. The written magical language, such as is found in sorcerer’s grimoires, is not a complete language unto its own. Magical writings are composed of both standard modern or ancient languages and magical runes. To understand the writing, a character must be able to read the magic runes and the base language.

17. Learning a new spell from another caster or a spellbook requires 2 days of dedicated study per spell level and a Spellcraft check with a DC of 15 + 2 per spell level. Spellcraft checks will be modified by the quality and comprehensiveness of the caster’s notes and/or instruction. The DM will inform players of any modifiers prior to the character’s attempt to cast the spell.

Whether the spell is correctly and fully understood is not known until the caster first attempts to cast it. Failing to master the otherworldly forces of magic exacts a heavy toll from the caster. The caster takes 3 CON of temporary ability damage per spell level of the failed spell. Casters take 2 CON of temporary ability damage when failing to correctly cast a 0-level spell. A character cannot retry to learn the spell until he improves his Spellcraft skill.

18. Demonic spellcasters who are not Chaotic Evil have a Corruption statistic. Every time a demonic spell is cast the spellcaster must make a Will saving throw at a DC of 11 + spell level. If the spellcaster fails the saving throw, his Corruption statistic is increased by 1 point. This represents that the spellcaster did not fully master the demons he encountered in drawing arcane might and was corrupted by the mad cruelty of the Teeming Swarmlands. When the spellcaster’s Corruption statistic reaches a multiple of 25, his alignment moves one step toward Chaotic Evil. The axis that is furthest from Chaotic Evil will change. If both axes are the same distance from Chaotic Evil, the character may choose which axis to change. For example, if a Lawful Neutral character’s Corruption statistic has just reached 25, he becomes corrupted and his alignment must change to True Neutral (because Lawful is two steps from Chaotic, whereas Neutral is only step from Evil). If the character’s Corruption statistic reaches 50, he becomes further corrupted and the character may choose whether to become Neutral Evil or Chaotic Neutral.

They also changed the spell list of spell available in the game. No flashy spells like fireballs. Raise dead? Can only be bough back to live as undead. And BTW, I love some class fantasies like a Technomancer, But in a no magic, low tech setting, that class would make absolute no sense. Even in settings with magic and tech like arcanum, it can make zero sense if both "forces" are opposite.

 

[Lacrymas]

The moon is protection, honesty (it's very hard to translate the word I mean, it's honesty in-front of yourself, the act of confession)

Sincerity?

It is sincerity, but the act of being sincere. It's откровение in Bulgarian, Google translates it as revelation but it's not 100% correct. It's the act of confession, whether in-front of yourself or others.

 

[Lambach]

But maybe I'm missing something?

This is particularly clear in the case of users like Lambach, who are also constantly looking for excuses to check the Gay Relationships thread.

Why would I not want to check a thread about happy relationships?

 

[Storyfag]

The "arguments" presented here only seem to confront the author's internal motivation to make the world as it's been made, very few actually criticize the actual world, which boggles my mind to be honest.

Why would it boggle your mind? A world without arcane magic isn't some great sin, so nobody really attacks that fact. The reasons Lacrymas gave for removing magic from his world are offensively stupid, however, so discerning trannies and gentlemen are attacking that.

 

[Lacrymas]

Except others have also pointed out that I'm right about the problems with arcane magic, so it's not only I who lives in the asylum.

 

[SoupNazi]

The "arguments" presented here only seem to confront the author's internal motivation to make the world as it's been made, very few actually criticize the actual world, which boggles my mind to be honest.

Why would it boggle your mind? A world without arcane magic isn't some great sin, so nobody really attacks that fact. The reasons Lacrymas gave for removing magic from his world are offensively stupid, however, so discerning trannies and gentlemen are attacking that.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the game and settings itself. I don't care if you put tigerfolk in your game because you feel like you're tiger-blooded, it's just dumb. And I don't care if you remove wizards from your setting because as a child you got assraped by your uncle while he donned a robe and a wizard hat just before, as long as that's not the in-game reason as well - I like worlds with rare/no magic. As far as I can tell, Lacrymas' world doesn't spell out to you the reason he, in the metagame, removed wizards. They just don't exist or something. That's why it's strange to me that this has been the topic for the last 10 or so pages...

 

[Storyfag]

The "arguments" presented here only seem to confront the author's internal motivation to make the world as it's been made, very few actually criticize the actual world, which boggles my mind to be honest.

Why would it boggle your mind? A world without arcane magic isn't some great sin, so nobody really attacks that fact. The reasons Lacrymas gave for removing magic from his world are offensively stupid, however, so discerning trannies and gentlemen are attacking that.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the game and settings itself. I don't care if you put tigerfolk in your game because you feel like you're tiger-blooded, it's just dumb. And I don't care if you remove wizards from your setting because as a child you got assraped by your uncle while he donned a robe and a wizard hat just before, as long as that's not the in-game reason as well - I like worlds with rare/no magic. As far as I can tell, Lacrymas' world doesn't spell out to you the reason he, in the metagame, removed wizards. They just don't exist or something. That's why it's strange to me that this has been the topic for the last 10 or so pages...

You see, the problem is that we're not just regular consoomers of Lacrymas' setting. He made the mistake of sharing his "designer notes" with us, and these were full of stupid.

Why wouldn't we comment on his design process, if he brought it up?

 

[MajorMace]

What do you think of arcane magic in the warhammer universe and pnp systems lacrymas ?