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

[Lacrymas]

Two days ago you were bragging about being a fat chick and how your boyfriend loves you....

The fat chick thing wasn't aimed at me. Also, it turns out we aren't boyfriends, I was just ...hasty and naive. We still have a thing going, but I don't know where it will lead. More than likely nowhere.

You want me to sum-up everything you've been posting for the last 30 pages?

Ah, I thought it was one of those "gotcha" moments. Carry on.

 

[fantadomat]

The fat chick thing wasn't aimed at me. Also, it turns out we aren't boyfriends, I was just ...hasty and naive. We still have a thing going, but I don't know where it will lead.

LoL you are such a lose womxn,slut. Then you ask why people see you as a massive faggot lol.

 

[NJClaw]

Also, it turns out we aren't boyfriends, I was just ...hasty and naive.

God, you're such a cutie

 

[Lacrymas]

LoL you are such a lose womxn,slut. Then you ask why people see you as a massive faggot lol.

It was just a misunderstanding. And no, we didn't have sex, so I'm not loose. We've also known each other for almost a year now, so even if we did I still wouldn't be easy or loose.

 

[Lambach]

God, you're such a cutie

Bruh, you're thirsting over a guy who's already involved. A lesser mind might call you a cuck, but I shall restrain myself from doing so, despite my better judgement.

 

[Lacrymas]

God, you're such a cutie

Bruh, you're thirsting over a guy who's already involved.

We aren't exclusive ;d

 

[fantadomat]

Also, it turns out we aren't boyfriends, I was just ...hasty and naive.

God, you're such a cutie

Our playful little vixen

 

[fantadomat]

God, you're such a cutie

Bruh, you're thirsting over a guy who's already involved.

We aren't exclusive ;d

Ohhh someone wants to be hunted,very playful

 

[Storyfag]

^ As always, I'm open to suggestions as to why that is. For both the right and faggoty aspects.

Well, the flaming faggot aspect is made obvious by your oh-so-special snowflake attitude, as per the following:

All the people in this thread who are perplexed by the arbitrariness of some of these rules have never felt the arbitrariness of the rules in our cultures.

 

[Lacrymas]

No, I'm not pretending to be a special snowflake. It's just painfully obvious when people haven't experienced any of the random social rules in our societies. They wouldn't clasp their pearls at the thought of castrated paladins otherwise. The Vestal Virgins of Rome were killed had they been accused or been guilty of breaking their vow of chastity.

 

[Storyfag]

It's just painfully obvious when people haven't experienced any of the random social rules in our societies.

Want to bet your right hand on it?

 

[fantadomat]

castrated paladins

is retarded because castration lowers the T in men and makes them women like,thus not fit for fighting. Celibate monk warriors on other hand are fine.

 

[BING XI LAO]

But the castration is a punishment not part of the setup!

 

[Reinhardt]

If woman have sex - she can join cool barbarian school. If man have sex - he will be castrated.

 

[Lacrymas]

is retarded because castration lowers the T in men and makes them women like,thus not fit for fighting.

Outside of it being a punishment and not a baseline for all paladins, these effects of castration after puberty don't manifest in most cases. It *can* lead to loss of muscle mass and lead to a more slender bone structure, it's not a given. They also have magical powers, which I'd argue are more important for the D&D class in terms of damage dealing and performance in general than physical strength even if the paladin in question did lose muscle.

 

[Lovecraft's Ghost]

What has "actual history" have to do with any kind of invented setting?

It has a great deal to do with any setting that wants to be grounded at all.

This is the only part of that verbiage soup worth responding to. I'd ask the question "grounded in what context?" My goal is to create a setting which is internally consistent with the foundations I have set up, or the cultural foundations the people have developed for themselves. The logic then follows from those foundations. If I were to create a setting which follows the geographical, economic, political, and philosophical tradition/trajectory of our own history, then I'd rather choose an ancient civilization I like and play that instead of wasting my time retelling history as we know it.

For what purpose then do you call your setting ancient then? If you want to depict an ancient setting in any regard you should know a thing or two about the ancients, I could recommend you several comprehensive books written by Egyptologists but something tells me it would be wasted on you. Let me put this matter another way, you're trying to write a romance novel without even having once spoken to a woman. Now you might argue that romance novels are filled with flights of fancy just as fantasy settings are and you would be quite correct, but that is not the point. If you don't know why or how people get together, no matter what relation, you cannot convincingly put together a fiction about it. Similarly if you don't understand the whys and hows of the ancients then you cannot make anything but uninformed nonsense out of your so called ancient setting. This is why people think your setting is moronic.

Forgotten Realms doesn't attempt much worldbuilding, it is a hodgepodge of things that fantasy nerds might appreciate and that appealed to Ed Greenwood in some manner. Fair enough if you have a fetish for castration and angry women but you don't really need to justify it with worldbuilding, especially if you're no good at such an exercise. Even worse is when you claim that social rules are arbitrary, because anyone with a smidgeon of knowledge would know that to be false. It is intellectually insulting.

 

[Lacrymas]

Like I said a bajillion times already, I am open to suggestions as to why my setting is moronic and uninformed. I have also never claimed "social rules are arbitrary", I've said some social rules are arbitrary and have even less of a sound reasoning that those in my setting. Let's return to the Vestal Virgins. Is killing them as punishment for breaking their vow of chastity justified? If so, why? And how is that justification more believable and less arbitrary than castrating the paladins in my setting for breaking their vows?

Also - Joined: Monday

 

[Lambach]

Let me put this matter another way, you're trying to write a romance novel without even having once spoken to a woman.

I don't think never having spoken to a woman would be a barrier to writing a romance novel to Lacrymas because:

 

[rusty_shackleford]

straight men don't read romance novels and speaking to a woman isn't a prerequisite for writing the garbage they read

 

[Storyfag]

I have also never claimed "social rules are arbitrary", I've said some social rules are arbitrary and have even less of a sound reasoning that those in my setting.

Have you, now?

Let's return to the Vestal Virgins. Is killing them as punishment for breaking their vow of chastity justified? If so, why? And how is that justification more believable and less arbitrary than castrating the paladins in my setting for breaking their vows?

Compare and contrast a militant male order and a contemplative female order. Which one is more likely to accept oppression without rebelling? Why?

Also - Joined: Monday

You're one to speak up, Mr 2015.

 

[fantadomat]

You're one to speak up, Mr 2015.

Both of you put together don't have as many posts as me.

 

[Storyfag]

You're one to speak up, Mr 2015.

Both of you put together don't have as many posts as me.

Obviously. I'm lazy

 

[Cryomancer]

"Desert setting. Resource scarcity. Theocracy. Forced resettlements" Let me invert Lacrymas setting.

• Tundras instead of deserts. With a lot of dangerous carnivorous animals.
• Resource abundance. There are plenty of food, mines, fresh water and etc thanks to the implementation of magic in agriculture and resources gathering
• Magocracy + Tribal societies. There are city states governed by a magocracy which doesn't exert any strict control over their subjects and act like a Marid on D&D, arrogant but don't care about imposing their will on another people. They have no religion, some respect and admire Mystra but they don't worship anyone but themselves. The bulk of their military forces are death knights and golems.
• Barbarians has supernatural powers, but their are nothing like arcane casters. Their believes are more about ancestral worshiping and they have some supernatural bodies, more strong than polar bears and they don't need any clothing to survive in the coldest freezing winter. They have natural regeneration, can move at superhuman speeds and a lot of vigor. Hence they can enjoy week long orgies(much better than chastity + castration). They also don't pray to their Gods. Like Crom, they see praying as a symbol of weakness.
• Instead of forced resettlements, people value their soil a lot. And defend their soil with everything from hordes of Jotuns, Trolls and Angels which tries to convert then into a sissy egalitarian moral shamming religion. Soil is sacred for barbarians, since their ancestors are buried there and for mages, results of generations and generations of magical research and infrastructure which they depend upon are there. Both prefer to die than to leave their "settlements"
• The world alignment is "chaotic neutral" and a central point in a cosmic conflict between law X chaos.

That's actually sounds pretty great.

I had strong icewind dale vibes with that "inverting Lacrymas" setting idea. Of course, no magocracy

If you look just south of IWD, you get Luskan which is run by the Aryan Arcane Brotherhood.

I don't know it has some good points which I like that ID doesn't have:
-Angels waging crusades against barbarians
-Main conflict being waged between overly lawful wizards and chaotic barbarians
-Barbarians being actual ubermensch in lore
Feels more like the first campaign of Heroes Chronicles than Icewind Dale.

Only to be clear, the magocracy is chaotic too. They are individualistic type of chaotic similar to Marids, the water geniekind. The tribes in other hands, are more "primal" type of chaotic. Lawful creatures are invaders that both sides hate with passion. You have some mages and barbs in conflicts and some peace agreement depending on the region, Barbs aren't a uniform group. As for barbarians being "ubermensch" in lore, I like to make lore and gameplay in line IE - They would gain a lot of movement speed, his attacks would have a high chance of decapitate the enemy or mutilate the enemy(using axes), or even smash the enemy and knockdown then(maces), no swords in that setting. They would get half of their level as per round regeneration(eg - lv 10 barbarian regens 5 hp per round), they also would roll 4d6 + 4 for their STR attribute rolling attributes or get 2x STR per point invested in point buy. They also would get frightful presence on high level and cleave even at low level.

To make it more "opposite" of <<insert lacrymas setting's name>> why not make tundra islands? With frozen rivers/oceans on winter and a lot of naval travel, trade and battle during the summer? Barbarians ships could be like historical vikings ships and of course, barbarians are strong enough to navigate against a water flow using his only muscles. Mages ships in other hands are more "steampunky"

Honestly, I started to write it as a opposite setting of Lacrymas just as a joke but it seems very interesting.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

), no swords in that setting

Delete this.

 

[Bara]

), no swords in that setting

Delete this.

No swords only words.