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

[Cael]

"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.

Becareful with regeneration in DnD. It means something specific, and makes the character functionally immortal barring certain specific methods of life removal. I think you are talking about Fast Healing, which is something else.

Fast Healing per round is extremely powerful. It basically means you will return to full HP after every combat, which generally turns everything into a Dragon Age style combat where there is basically no risk unless you die outright during a single combat. You can't use multiple encounters to wear the character down, for example.

Mages can get regeneration in any ways. For eg, they can become undead and use auras to heal. I wanna make barbarians more akin to Norse mythology "Berserkers". If they become too powerful, so be it. The average barbarian in that setting must be able to take a large troll squad. On sagas, they are the elite of Odin army, capable of taking out Jotuns

Delete this.

I can make swords more backup weapons or ritualistic weapons, but I honestly don't wanna more games where the main battlefield weapon is a sword.

Mages can get it for a limited time while wasting spell slots, and even then it takes at least Polymorph (level 4 spell), if not higher (Shapechange or Polymorph Any Other abuse). You are making Barbs get it permanently. From level 1 or 2.

Regeneration turns all HP damage into subdual damage on top of the healing component except for specific damage like trolls and acid/fire, but you didn't list any for your Barbs (which does happen; like in demons). That is what makes your character functionally immortal. He will never die unless you Death Spell him or something similar.

Also, you are thinking of the Einherjar when talking about Odin's hosts, not Berserkers. Berserkers were real life warriors.

 

[Cael]

Wana change thread focus and just use it to dump on each others hombrew ideas?

Nothing better than a crucible of fire to burn away the impurities.

Eh. Why not? sounds like fun.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Lacrymas probably you have explained but.... why would a group of mothers who got their child killed banded together to be mercenaries? And with unique style at that? As your word barbarian is a slang, fine. In that case what makes it so that it is only learnable by grieving mothers? What's cultural background of that???

Suppose an experienced enough Barbarian is adventuring or whatever, can they teach that to men? Other, non-grieving woman?

EDIT: Also you are framing it so that it is seemingly that you are "sold" as mercenaries. Again, why would anyone register then? Does it comes with a very high paying income? What's the incentive of being one? In previous examples we are using Knights, but Knights do have privileges

 

[Reinhardt]

What if woman barbarian will have sex and get pregnant and this time give birth succesfully? Will she lose her barbarian powers?

 

[Storyfag]

First of all, TL;DR. Second of all, I want all the racism in my setting. Third of all, different people thought indigenous people are savage and noble (mostly artists), not a single person thinking both at the same time. Fourth of all, I'm kind of tired of bad SJW takes, my setting proves that words are only racist/harmful when in a racist/harmful context. The word queer is no longer inherently homophobic because it isn't used in a homophobic context. The word barbarian in my setting refers to a slang word used for an admired institution of warriors. Fifth of all, I'm tired of language purity where you are bad if you use specific, not-inherently-harmful words, regardless of intention or context. D&D is ridiculously progressive, don't be an idiot who alienates his allies.

See? You *can* be reasonable. You're a complicated one. Likely very damaged.

 

[Lacrymas]

Lacrymas probably you have explained but.... why would a group of mothers who got their child killed banded together to be mercenaries? And with unique style at that? As your word barbarian is a slang, fine. In that case what makes it so that it is only learnable by grieving mothers? What's cultural background of that???

Suppose an experienced enough Barbarian is adventuring or whatever, can they teach that to men? Other, non-grieving woman?

EDIT: Also you are framing it so that it is seemingly that you are "sold" as mercenaries. Again, why would anyone register then? Does it comes with a very high paying income? What's the incentive of being one? In previous examples we are using Knights, but Knights do have privileges

Тhe people in my setting think a mother losing her child is the only way to feel the perpetual anger needed to Rage at-will. There is nothing metaphysical keeping everyone from learning to do that, only the cultural matrix. And by "sold", I mean hired, I was just using it as if I were saying "if you get something for free (training in this case), you are the product being sold".

What if woman barbarian will have sex and get pregnant and this time give birth succesfully? Will she lose her barbarian powers?

You can have another child (or you might have lost only your third child for example), no problem, as long as it doesn't interfere too much with your mercenary work (someone else looks after it when it's done breastfeeding for example).

 

[Reinhardt]

Тhe people in my setting think a mother losing her child is the only way to feel the perpetual anger needed to Rage at-will.

You know that even in early XX century women popped children almost every year and were losing half of them, right?

 

[Lacrymas]

Тhe people in my setting think a mother losing her child is the only way to feel the perpetual anger needed to Rage at-will.

You know that even in early XX century women popped children almost every year and were losing half of them, right?

We didn't have magical means of keeping the babies alive. Even if they were losing them left and right, the mothers have to voluntarily choose to enter the Sisterhood, and not everyone will be up for that.

 

[Cael]

Lacrymas probably you have explained but.... why would a group of mothers who got their child killed banded together to be mercenaries? And with unique style at that? As your word barbarian is a slang, fine. In that case what makes it so that it is only learnable by grieving mothers? What's cultural background of that???

Suppose an experienced enough Barbarian is adventuring or whatever, can they teach that to men? Other, non-grieving woman?

EDIT: Also you are framing it so that it is seemingly that you are "sold" as mercenaries. Again, why would anyone register then? Does it comes with a very high paying income? What's the incentive of being one? In previous examples we are using Knights, but Knights do have privileges

Тhe people in my setting think a mother losing her child is the only way to feel the perpetual anger needed to Rage at-will. There is nothing metaphysical keeping everyone from learning to do that, only the cultural matrix. And by "sold", I mean hired, I was just using it as if I were saying "if you get something for free (training in this case), you are the product being sold".

What if woman barbarian will have sex and get pregnant and this time give birth succesfully? Will she lose her barbarian powers?

You can have another child (or you might have lost only your third child for example), no problem, as long as it doesn't interfere too much with your mercenary work (someone else looks after it when it's done breastfeeding for example).

The people in your setting thinks what you want them to think. You are your people. Your thought processes are theirs.

And your village is calling. They miss their idiot.

 

[NJClaw]

The people in your setting thinks what you want them to think. You are your people. Your thought processes are theirs.

In my current setting there's a big cult that's trying to revive an ancient serpent god because they think he may grant them immortality, does that mean that I want to fuck snakes or something?

 

[urmom]

I support Lacrymas' efforts at having castration in his game.

 

[Cael]

The people in your setting thinks what you want them to think. You are your people. Your thought processes are theirs.

In my current setting there's a big cult that's trying to revive an ancient serpent god because they think he may grant them immortality, does that mean that I want to fuck snakes or something?

You probably do, given your postings.

 

[Lacrymas]

The people in your setting thinks what you want them to think. You are your people. Your thought processes are theirs.

In my current setting there's a big cult that's trying to revive an ancient serpent god because they think he may grant them immortality, does that mean that I want to fuck snakes or something?

The whole problem, and the thing which is made clear in my setting, is that most of these things can't be proven and it's just a matter of the cultural Zeitgeist. One analogue is how we, in our culture, think blue is a "boy's color". That can't be proven in any way, especially since pink was considered a boy's color in the past. Can you "prove" mothers have or don't have a special bond with their children as opposed to their fathers? No, you can argue it both ways, and that's the point - mothers have a special bond because they carried the baby to term (or they were physically bound with the umbilical cord, or whatever else you can think of vaguely related to motherhood), or fathers have a special bond because the seed from which the baby is made comes from them and the mothers are simply organic incubators (or family lines within the society are patrilineal, or whatever else you can come up with that is vaguely related to fatherhood). There is no "right" or "wrong" reasoning here because the important part is whatever you decide it is. It seems unjustifiable now to kill virgins because they didn't keep a fire going and instead went to fuck a dude, but I'm sure the Romans thought it was absolutely necessary. You can't really reason yourself out of this, it requires tectonic shifts in a culture.

 

[Storyfag]

The people in your setting thinks what you want them to think. You are your people. Your thought processes are theirs.

In my current setting there's a big cult that's trying to revive an ancient serpent god because they think he may grant them immortality, does that mean that I want to fuck snakes or something?

The whole problem, and the thing which is made clear in my setting, is that most of these things can't be proven and it's just a matter of the cultural Zeitgeist. One analogue is how we, in our culture, think blue is a "boy's color". That can't be proven in any way, especially since pink was considered a boy's color in the past. Can you "prove" mothers have or don't have a special bond with their children as opposed to their fathers? No, you can argue it both ways, and that's the point - mothers have a special bond because they carried the baby to term (or they were physically bound with the umbilical cord, or whatever else you can think of vaguely related to motherhood), or fathers have a special bond because the seed from which the baby is made comes from them and the mothers are simply organic incubators (or family lines within the society are patrilineal, or whatever else you can come up with that is vaguely related to fatherhood). There is no "right" or "wrong" reasoning here because the important part is whatever you decide it is. It seems unjustifiable now to kill virgins because they didn't keep a fire going and instead went to fuck a dude, but I'm sure the Romans thought it was absolutely necessary. You can't really reason yourself out of this, it requires tectonic shifts in a culture.

All the above is true. Yet castrating members of a military order isn't quite the same thing. Neither is a procreation limit.

 

[Lacrymas]

They are part of a religious institution/system first and foremost. Then they aren't castrated just because they exist, they have to break their vows. After that, they don't lose their magical powers even in the unlikely event they start losing muscle mass, and their magical powers is what makes them formidable warriors, which comes from the mechanics of the class. I might make it so their Lay on Hands (or whatever else) stops working after they break their vows/get castrated, but I'd argue that's dumb because they would be less effective warriors, making it nonsensical for the castrators to do it. Oh, I know! They lose their Lay on Hands if they break their vow and they get it back when they get castrated. That incentivizes both the Paladins not to break their vows and the churches to castrate them afterwards as both punishment and restoration of effectiveness. That, however, misses the point, that would metaphysically justify their vows and castration, which is exactly the thing I want to avoid.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

I might make it so their Lay on Hands (or whatever else) stops working after they break their vows/get castrated, but I'd argue that's dumb because they would be less effective warriors, making it nonsensical for the castrators to do it. Oh, I know! They lose their Lay on Hands if they break their vow and they get it back when they get castrated. That incentivizes both the Paladins to not break their vows and the churches to castrate them afterwards as both punishment and restoration of effectiveness.

This is a step up, certes. But maybe let the Paladin decide if he wants to repent or not.

 

[Lacrymas]

Check out my edit, it's a bad idea in context. I want there to be rebellion which challenges the status quo. Metaphysically justifying anything is akin to the arcane magic thing and keeps the setting static, which is another thing I want to avoid.

 

[Lacrymas]

Neither is a procreation limit.

The procreation limit is there and enforced by the churches because the druids are what keeps the land as fertile as it can get. They can't make more fertile land, just squeeze the most use out of it, so the upper limits of the food supply are inherently static. If the druids stop working their magics, it might lead to famine or lower yields which can't justify a higher population.

 

[Storyfag]

Neither is a procreation limit.

The procreation limit is there and enforced by the churches because the druids are what keeps the land as fertile as it can get. They can't make more fertile land, just squeeze the most use out of it, so the upper limits of the food supply are inherently static. If the druids stop working their magics, it might lead to famine or lower yields which can't justify a higher population.

It is a limit unenforcable in a pre-modern setting. Essentialy unenforcable without a colossal bureaucracy and state terror apparatus. It is more logical for famines to happen because no pre-modern state could hope to control births.

 

[Lacrymas]

They have organized their shit, and there's magic, that's enough. If you can keep a child a secret for so many years, go for it. It also justifies their expansionist mindset, more land means more food and more population.

 

[Storyfag]

As for the paladins, I'm not saying the churches don't believe they have a good reason to castrate them when they break their vows. But the rogue, unchaste paladins definitely don't have a good reason to not rebel against the practice. They are, as you said, formidable warriors with supernatural powers, and would not look kindly at being trifled with. That is in contrast to vestal virgins, who were helpless women at the mercy of others.

 

[Lacrymas]

The paladins aren't the main army (even though the main army isn't technically in the service of the churches, it still keeps good relations with them and it's in their best interest not to challenge them openly), however, and the druids/clerics aren't helpless with their own magical powers. And I do want them to rebel, I want as much rebellion as possible to challenge the status quo and keep the setting alive.

 

[Storyfag]

They have organized their shit, and there's magic, that's enough. It also justifies their expansionist mindset, more land means more food and more population.

As if human expansionist mindset ever needed justification. Yet you make it impossible for your culture to exploit all resources. They will necesserily overlook small pockets of resources, because they do not found small villages, only *very* large ones that can support 3 priests and at least 1 paladin.

Fun fact, in pre-modern times the resources were usually not an issue. The workforce was.

 

[Storyfag]

The paladins aren't the main army (even though the main army isn't technically in the service of the churches, it still keeps good relations with them and it's in their best interest not to challenge them openly), however, and the druids/clerics aren't helpless with their own magical powers. And I do want them to rebel, I want as much rebellion as possible to challenge the status quo and keep the setting alive.

Yeah, well, the proposed practice would end in bloody conflict after at most a few decades. And the paladins, being the only magical healers, would probably manage to win enough support to have that shit dropped.

 

[Lacrymas]

They don't need very large villages to keep 3 priests fed, the druid also contributes to the fertility of the land. The paladins aren't the only magical healers, the other magical healing is a different source under the control of the churches. It doesn't come from individuals with powers.