So I posted this question on another thread, but thought I might move it here to avoid derailing that one:
"Um, what is it with you people and dark tones? They never get you down?" â,¬'me
"Are you kidding? Dark tones=High adventure! Temple of Doom style. It's the societies that actually function that are scary... like in Brave New World. Happy place... but the implications are really friggin' creepy."â,¬'beejaz
My question is really why the dark tones that seem to crop up whenever I start reading a setting here never just make people too depressed to want to bother? (The worlds always seem to be on the brink of something catastrophic, or maybe are just dystopian.) How great are your lives that seeing these things in your leisure activities doesn't bother you?
Dystopia, whether on a microcosmic or macrocosmic level, is the most common thematic element in highly-praised literature.
People like strife, people love to read about discontent and conflict. My question to you is what sort of setting are you running that doesn't employ some level of conflict?
PRETTY FREAK'N GREAT!!!
The question is, what kind of adventures would you go on in an utopian society? If the world is peachy and great what is there to save?
I have one nation in my setting so far that is prospering and peaceful. They have to deal with the occasional pirate when their ships are on open waters, but so do the other nations. Some of the comments I got said it was too peaceful. :)
Conflict and catastrophies are just easier to set up adventures for. There is a goal, stop the conflict or catastrophy.
Look at literature. Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Eragon, Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series, any of the books by Clive Cussler, Tom Clancy's books, etc.. Each had a world or a small part of it on the verge of catastrophy in some form or another. Books or movies about farmers losing their land to a bank and need to raise the money in three weeks or they lose their farm are about a world (albeit a very small one) on the verge of catastrophy.
It is just easier and believeable than: "There is a dungeon over there with monsters in it that really isn't bothering anybody, but it's there"
The other popular world is that in which the catastrophy has already happened. The Postapocalyptic world is now rebuilding because the catastrophy could not be averted.
The adventures (those on the side of good) of both of these types of worlds are striving for the same thing. Utopia, or as close as they can get to it, but if there is evil still in the world then they may not reach it and have to face another catastrophic event.
I think all settings need at least a little darkness to them. There has to be Bad Guys(tm) for there to be conflict, and there has to be conflict before there can be any sort of interest whatsoever.
The alternative to a world that incorporates conflict is a setting with Funny Fuzzy Bunnies, rainbowcorns, and Pretty Pretty Princesses. That can only hope to hold interest for only a fleeting instant, and then conflict must be incorporated on some level ("Uh oh! The Funny Fuzzy Bunnies can't find any carrots! What can they do?").
I think the problem is when people make the (admittedly logic) assumption that if conflict = intrest, then more conflict = more intrest. Even in the darkest, grimmest settings, there still need to be a noticable amount of hope, even if it's in the form of suicidal vigilantes. Otherwise, all those cyberpunk 'runners would just become apathetic alcoholics, too beaten-down to care if they pass out in a puddle of sewage.
In either scenario (Funny Fluffy Bunny, or Depressed Alcohlic), adventurers, by their very nature, would cease to exist. The trick is to get as far away from one scenario as possible, without getting uncomfortably close to the other scenario's territory.
I think sdragon is the first one to really get my question: I'm not asking "Why don't you design uptopias?", I'm asking "Why do [on average of what I've found] your settings seem to contain some giant reeking shadowed thing of doom, even if it's just an attitude"?
It's a legitmate question. I'm not expecting happy places. I'm just very confused that you enjoy thinking up these settings that pretty much cackle and moan and say "There is no hope, give up now." Where are the settings that say "Look, the place is messed up, but it's not impossible to live in"?
Media and how it runs stories are partially to blame for why I ask this question: too many rely on one great huge catastrophy that has be averted or something for their entire premise. Not only does it get old, but after a while they're all the same. I've seen great stuff that has all the conflict you say you like, but it's not the same as what came before. Why is there so little of that stuff?
Well then, I haven't designed a setting that is depressing. Read Adveria. It is not impossible to live there and there is no real impending doom. A group of continents has just been discovered and expansion is around the corner
I must admit that as time has worn on I have begun to grow weary of seeing the term "Dark" being thrown around every second setting like some grand mystic koan. Now let me stress for a moment that I have described my own setting (Dystopia) as "pretty friggin dark"; my original disclaimer in the first post was testament to how dark it supposedly was. But I have since removed it, having been disenchanted with the concept of "darkness".
"But Angel, I have read your setting, and, well, It's still pretty friggin dark." (A statement straight outta nowhere)
To me, that is an error in understanding. If one were to observe the themes of Dystopia, they would see Entropy, Fatality, Doubt and Delusion, Rebirth, Perception as Power, Prejudice and Terror and Wonder. Some arguably dark themes, to be sure, but do not confuse theme with tone or purpose.
For Dystopia is not a dark setting.
Is there death? Yes, but there is also resurrection. Is there corruption? You bet, but there is also the most glorious salvation. Men, monsters, spirits and Gods have all risen through the ages, but while most fall, others have refused their seeming fate. They have looked further than the sorrow of their own world, beyond even the senseless terror of Eternity beyond, and found the impetus of their own ascendance. To rise beyond woe is the purpose of darkness. It may very well be lightâ,¬,,¢s finest instrument.
I've had people call my setting Lovecraftian (and he was an influence of sorts), but it is hardly so. Lovecraft wrote of hopelessness, the despair of mortal men without strength in the face of otherworldly monstrosities that defy our every notion of sense and cosmic propriety. But hope is what fills my world; it has not deserted it and so Dystopia is not Lovecraftian.
However, you may notice that I did not list Hope as a theme. With all the other elements described, and with whatever anxieties those elements inspire, hope is a thing that cannot be constrained to the setting itself. If the aforementioned themes are the settingâ,¬,,¢s own, then Hope is the necessary final ingredient supplied by the reader and participant. As in our world, so often seemingly bleak and uncaring, we must inject hope into a reality that would have none but for the grace of man.
For this reason I think itâ,¬,,¢s important to have multiple perspectives on a supposedly dark setting. Saying â,¬Å"Itâ,¬,,¢s all going to shit and thereâ,¬,,¢s nothing you can do about itâ,¬Â doesnâ,¬,,¢t help anyone. Allowing the players and GM to read their understanding/beliefs into a setting will expand its scope by orders of magnitude. So fill your world with horrors and travesties, but leave an unwritten clause, the space into which the final liberating exponent can be bestowed.
For instance, though entropy and fatality are the first things defined in Dystopia, rebirth stands as their direct counterpoint. Every death, then, presupposes a subsequent birth. Then there is doubt, which casts all these things into disarray. We may now question the finality of death, the inevitability of decay and the assurance of resurrection. There is no hierarchy to the themes; rather, they are in a state of continual communication, and that communication inspires the settingâ,¬,,¢s final nature.
To give a final example, Iâ,¬,,¢m personally a fan of Buddhist imagery, though I donâ,¬,,¢t know if anyoneâ,¬,,¢s noticed it yet. In fact, one of the most important entities in the setting is Omillion, the Bright God of rebirth (though he wears a thousand other faces). In times of direst calamity and sorrow he comes, to dissolve the world and its troubles, then to reforge it anew. For this reason, he might be the greatest saviour and foe of all men, for he refuses their ascension, as well as their ultimate fall. His final nature is left to the players to decide, and that decision may make all the difference in the Cosmos.
Of course, thatâ,¬,,¢s me speaking for myself. I canâ,¬,,¢t really speak for the other settings on these boards. Iâ,¬,,¢ll only reiterate that I agree that one should not define a setting by its darkness â,¬' for that is only an absence of light and thus an empty thing indeed â,¬' and that the ultimate purpose of absence is to (eventually) be filled with something glorious.
NOTE: If you wanna know my typical player's attitude toward Dystopia, it can be summed up as "Wow, that's awesome!" "Whoa, that's fucked up!" and "Kyeahh, I kicked its head RIGHT OFF!" There can be no finer response, methinks.
I must say, I find the idea "You need darkness to show off the light" to be one of the most idiotic concepts out there. If you don't like the darkness alone for it's own merits then you don't like it. There is no couching of this point for me, because I see so many people curse the darkness, light a candle, then curse the darkness even more.
QuoteThe alternative to a world that incorporates conflict is a setting with Funny Fuzzy Bunnies, rainbowcorns, and Pretty Pretty Princesses.
Wasn't that a GURPS book?
I'm really not a fan of the monolithic crawling evil. I've generally had more fun in games with corrupt officials, rampaging beasts, and untamed wilderness than ones with vampire infestations, demonic hordes, etc. I guess I just like the conflict to be more down-to-earth.
I think both darkness elements and light elements are both beautiful and both necessary, else you will have either a setting that says "give up now" or "let's go play in the sandbox". My setting Vilydunn is indeed dark, but I don't get depressed by it because it is also filled with some light elements (though whenever I posted the setting things were mostly darker, except for when the Verkem returned etc.).
I'm going to have to disagree with your opinion on the "need darkness to show off the light" concept. I think it's wholly necessary, though you don't have to show darkness as a bunch of demons lurking in the woods at night waiting to tear someone up. Vilydunn itself was originally (and kind of still is) the spawn of some really messed up dreams I've been having for a few years (not only am I frequently lucid dreaming, but I'm also losing touch with what is dream and what isn't). In it I created high amounts of darkness in order to make the light seem much more extreme as well, and also to get rid of a few fantasy stereotypes I think are stupid (as well as to add realism to some aspects, and take realism from others). On the contrast, I had for a short time a setting called Aath that wasn't very dark at all.
I agree with sdragon. You basically can't have a setting that doesn't have conflict, because adventurers are made for conflict. That's why they have weapons, cast damaging and dangerous spells, and have access to diplomatic resources of various kinds. To take Vilydunn as an example again, there was a lot of conflict, but it was spread out into different forms so as not to keep it so boring and uniform, and not to make it as dreary and melodramatic as it otherwise would have been. You had demonic and various other sinister things creeping around in the woods, you had rebel factions combating governments that were very reserved in their actions, you had war, and you had philosophical and advancement vs tradition conflicts. To top that off, you had things in the "happy" department such as the equivalents of modern-day celebrities and a large focus on entertainment, a heavy underlying exploration theme (though really only in the Golden Age material), and marvelous and unbelievable elements and achievements in science and quality of life. There were just a sea of spooky places and dark secrets because I liked them.
EDIT: I'd like to point out that the only settings I think are too dark are the ones where what the PCs do is always going to be fairly insignificant. Stuff like the WoD setting, or maybe ones where you get a major plot quest that basically says "you'll have to take this guy's lieutenant out because you'll never be strong enough to take him yourself, only the archons (or whoever) can do that". I find that it's pretty hard to be depressed in a setting when the characters really do great things, no matter how much evil or sorrow there is.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI must say, I find the idea "You need darkness to show off the light" to be one of the most idiotic concepts out there. If you don't like the darkness alone for it's own merits then you don't like it. There is no couching of this point for me, because I see so many people curse the darkness, light a candle, then curse the darkness even more.
You're exactly right. If you don't like it, then you don't.
However, "You need darkness to show off the light" is not the metaphor I expressed. I said that if darkness is absence, and light is presence, then the darkness is there (in gaming terms, to say nothing of reality) for the purpose of being defeated. That's the difference between a setting that employs darkness and a setting that embodies it. The former uses it as an obstacle for the protagonists to triumph over, while the latter allows for no triumph, only the opportunity for a sadistic creator to gloat over its impotent creations.
Its not about brief flickers of purity in worlds utterly rife with corruption, but rather a growing fire that spreads throughout the dark until it becomes an inferno. Where once was shade, let there now be the sun's rising glory. If you don't like that concept, it's fine with me, but please do not misinterpret.
(Having said all this, I do agree with Silvercat that light does
not require darkness for justification. That is a self-defeating perspective)
It seems this is the second time you have expressed this lamentation, and I fear you will come no closer to a satisfactory resolution. We're not here to convince you to embrace the merits of shadow, but we would like to elucidate the
personal merits of our perspective.
...But getting right back to the core of this thread, may I ask, why does it depress you?
How do I avoid getting depressed by dark settings? The same way I avoid getting depressed by dark chocolate-- it's just not something I find depressing to begin with.
Settings of monolithic and uninterrupted evil are about as interesting as settings of monolithic and uninterrupted goodness (which is to say, not very interesting at all.) Some sort of contrast is necessary to generate interest, and that's not news to anybody. Writers, artists, and musicians have understood that principle of contrast long before anyone ever thought of games like these, and it's a useful idea for setting designers to keep in mind, as well. Look at Hitchcock's famous "squeeze-release" techniques of filming his suspense movies: the man practically wrote the book on keeping an audience's interest, and the words he wrote in that book are "Use contrast."
I've read a lot of settings here, and I've seen a few that I thought might benefit from a little more conflict, and a few that might benefit from a little more hope. But I've never seen anything here that pursues either extreme to its catastrophic limit. I've never seen anything here that even comes close to the level of "depressing" me to the point where I couldn't continue reading. Maybe I just have an unusually high tolerance, but I doubt it.
Dark themes are a means to an end (one of many), and the desired end is "making something interesting." Dark themes are one tool among many in the writer's toolbox, the same way green paint is one color among many in a painter's palette. And while I doubt many masterpieces are created by painters who say, "I think I'll see how much green paint I can cram onto this canvas!", saying "I will never ever use green paint in my artistic career" is equally arbitrary. Let's face it: green paint is useful. Sometimes it does a particular job better than anything else you have at your disposal; sometimes you simply find yourself compelled to paint a spruce.
And to elaborate on the green paint analogy from my own perspective, green paint is hella useful because green is the color of a lot of plant life. And plants are pretty much a guarantee in a setting.
Take that how you will. :)
Quote from: The mighty rainbowcorn.[table=Rainbowcorn]
[tr][td]Size/Type:[/td][td]Large Magical Beast (Extraplanar)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Hit Dice:[/td][td]15d10 + 75 (157 hp)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Initiative:[/td][td]+4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Speed:[/td][td]60 ft. (12 squares)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Armor Class:[/td][td]24 (-1 size, +4 Dex, +6 natural, +5 deflection), touch 18, flat-footed 22[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Base Attack/Grapple:[/td][td]Base Attack/Grapple: +13/+24[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Attack:[/td][td]Horn +23 melee (1d8+10+1d6 energy)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Full Attack:[/td][td]Horn +23 melee (1d8+10+1d6 energy) and 2 hooves +21 melee (1d4+3)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Space/Reach:[/td][td]10 ft./5 ft. (10 ft. w/ horn)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Special Attacks:[/td][td]Horn of hues, prismatic heart, rainbow charge[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Special Qualities:[/td][td]Damage reduction 10/cold iron, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to poison, charm, and compulsion, low-light vision, spectrum shield, scent, spell-like abilities, spell resistance 20, wild empathy[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saves:[/td][td]Fort +16, Ref +12, Will +15[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Abilities:[/td][td]Str 24, Dex 18, Con 20, Int 13, Wis 27, Cha 22[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skills:[/td][td]Concentration +11, Knowledge (local) +9, Knowledge (the planes) +8, Listen +15, Move Silently +12, Spellcraft +5, Spot +15, Survival +15 (+17 on other planes)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Feats:[/td][td]Alertness, Combat Casting, Run, Multi-attack, Skill Focus (Survival), Weapon Focus (Horn)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Environment:[/td][td]Any outer plane.[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Organization:[/td][td]Carnival (20-50 aasimar, human, and various humanoid carnival works plus 200% noncombatants plus 1d6 lantern archons plus 1d4 celestial dire lions plus 1d3 janni ringmasters[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Challenge Rating:[/td][td]13[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Treasure:[/td][td]Goods only[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Alignment:[/td][td]Always chaotic good[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Advancement:[/td][td]By character class[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Level Adjustment:[/td][td]--[/td][/tr]
[/table]
A rainbowcorn has deep sea-blue, violet, brown, or fiery gold eyes. Males sport a muave beard. They are usually draped with signs particular to their carnival and heavily decorated with jewelry. They never wear saddles.
A typical adult rainbowcorn grows to 8 feet in length, stands 5 feet high at the shoulder, and weighs 1,200 pounds. Females are slightly smaller and less garish than males.
Rainbowcorns are a specialized form of unicorn--protectors of traveling celestial carnivals. They travel with the show as it spans the planes, performing tricks of great skill for patrons and defending the festivities against any would-be attackers.
Rainbowcorns speak Common, Celestial, and Draconic.
Combat
Rainbowcorns viciously attack anyone who seeks to harm the carnival they defend. They either charge, impaling foes with their horns like horrible technicolor lances, or strike with their garrishly-colored hooves. The horn is a +3 magic weapon, though its power fades if removed from the rainbowcorn. It still makes a colorful desk ornament, though. They never retreat if any member or visitor to the carnival is in danger. If necessary, they attempt to protect allies with a well-placed wall of force.
Horn of Hues(Su)
A rainbowcorn's horn deals an additional 1d6 energy damage of a random type. Determine the type once each round. The horn glows a different, festive color with each energy type.
| d6 | energy |
| 1 | acid |
| 2 | cold |
| 3 | electricity |
| 4 | fire |
| 5 | sonic |
| 6 | negative (no damage to objects, heals undead) |
Rainbow Charge (Su)
Whenever a rainbowcorn attacks with her horn as part of a charge, she deals an additional 4d6 energy damage of a random type.
| d100 | color | damage |
| 1-20 | Red | 4d6 fire damage, Will save or blinded 1d4 rounds. |
| 21-40 | Orange | 4d6 acid damage, Will save or nauseated 1d4 rounds. |
| 41-60 | Yellow | 4d6 electricity damage, Will save or stunned 1 round. |
| 61-80 | Blue | 4d6 cold damage, Will save or slowed 1d4 rounds, as the slow spell. |
| 81-100 | Brass | 4d6 sonic damage, Will save or deafened 1d4 rounds. |
Prismatic Heart (Su)
A rainbowcorn bleeds color. Reality altering color. Each time the rainbowcorn is struck in combat by a melee, non-reach weapon, the attacker must roll a Will save (DC 23) or suffer one of the following effects.
| d6 | color | effect |
| 1 | Magenta | dazed for 1 round. |
| 2 | Cyan | laugh uncontrollably for 1 round (as hideous laughter) |
| 3 | Azure | Fascinated for 1 round. |
| 4 | Fuchsia | confused, as the spell, 1 round. |
| 5 | Chartreuse | shaken for 1 round. |
| 6 | Aquamarine | teleported 1d10 x 5 feet in a random direction |
Spectrum Shield (Su)
Whenever a rainbowcorn deals energy damage with its horn, it and all allies within 60 ft. are immune to that type of energy for 1 round.
Spell-Like Abilities
Rainbowcorns can use detect evil at will as a free action.
Two times per day a rainbowcorn can use greater teleport to move anywhere within the bounds of its carnival. It cannot teleport beyond the carnival's boundaries (usually marked by rope and welcome signs). Unlike its lesser unicorn cousin and their forests, it can return to the carnival from outside its bounds--a useful ability if the unicorn has to defend the carnival's retreat.
At will--detect evil; 1/day--greater teleport (to anywhere within 100 ft. of the carnival only), neutralize poison (DC 21); 3/day--cure serious wounds (DC 19), wall of force. Caster level 10th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.
Wild Empathy (Ex)
This power works like the druidâ,¬,,¢s wild empathy class feature, except that a rainbowcorn has a +6 racial bonus on the check.
Skills
Rainbowcorns have a +4 racial bonus on Move Silently checks.[/spoiler]
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawWhere are the settings that say "Look, the place is messed up, but it's not impossible to live in"?
Well, mine, for one.
1. 'Cause, hey, they're populated by
human beings. Who are just exactly as corrupt, charitable, venal, altruistic, violent, and loving as human beings in the real world.
2. I don't believe in externalized evil in Real Life and I won't have it in my settings either. (No alignments and no aligned gods in my fantasy settings.)
3. As to near-future dystopian settings (the cyberpunk cliché), I just don't find them believable since my take on current trends is that they will lead toward greater freedom and independence, not greater oppression.
Quote from: Sà ¤µà ¤¿à ¤·à ¥Âà ¤£à ¥ÂA...But getting right back to the core of this thread, may I ask, why does it depress you?
For the same reason I pick up the newspaper, red about some terrible event in the world, and feel sorry for those it affects.
And don't tell me "But the setting's not real". Because I also hear too much about making the games "real", trying to pull people in based on familiarity to RL. These two sentiments opperate at cross-purposes. Any amount of reality in a game evokes the same feelings about its inhabitants that I feel about RL.
I'm asking this question because it makes no sense that you just accept this level of suffering being inflicted upon these beings without flinching. I need to know why.
Like LC said above, I haven't seen any settings (on these boards, at least) that are so dark that there is no hope. I mean, there's got to be a level of darkness in a campaign if you want to run a "good" campaign; otherwise, those "good" players won't have anything to struggle against. Even Dystopia (which, by the way, I disagree with the author, and believe it is a dark setting - which just proves that it's all a matter of perspective, since the author himself disagrees) has a certain measure of hope. Otherwise, the humans, elves, and cephalopods would all just give up, and there wouldn't be a setting to write about! I'm not trying to justify that you need darkness to get to the light, I'm simply saying that you need darkness to fight darkness. I don't know if that really came out how I wanted it to...Maybe that's too abstract; I've been re-reading Daniel Quinn again.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawI must say, I find the idea "You need darkness to show off the light" to be one of the most idiotic concepts out there. If you don't like the darkness alone for it's own merits then you don't like it. There is no couching of this point for me, because I see so many people curse the darkness, light a candle, then curse the darkness even more.
I enjoy running a David Mamet-styled campaign. The players seem to enjoy it, too. Although, I don't enjoy running a campaign that presents futility over all. There has to be some reward for efforts given against the villain, enemy, or what have you.
To me, the campaign is not about good versus evil. It's order versus disorder and the players have a tendancy to be at odds with law and tradition. The struggle between good forces and evil forces simply doesn't exist in my game whatsoever.
Quote from: brainfaceQuote from: The mighty rainbowcorn.[table=Rainbowcorn]
[tr][td]Size/Type:[/td][td]Large Magical Beast (Extraplanar)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Hit Dice:[/td][td]15d10 + 75 (157 hp)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Initiative:[/td][td]+4[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Speed:[/td][td]60 ft. (12 squares)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Armor Class:[/td][td]24 (-1 size, +4 Dex, +6 natural, +5 deflection), touch 18, flat-footed 22[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Base Attack/Grapple:[/td][td]Base Attack/Grapple: +13/+24[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Attack:[/td][td]Horn +23 melee (1d8+10+1d6 energy)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Full Attack:[/td][td]Horn +23 melee (1d8+10+1d6 energy) and 2 hooves +21 melee (1d4+3)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Space/Reach:[/td][td]10 ft./5 ft. (10 ft. w/ horn)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Special Attacks:[/td][td]Horn of hues, prismatic heart, rainbow charge[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Special Qualities:[/td][td]Damage reduction 10/cold iron, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to poison, charm, and compulsion, low-light vision, spectrum shield, scent, spell-like abilities, spell resistance 20, wild empathy[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Saves:[/td][td]Fort +16, Ref +12, Will +15[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Abilities:[/td][td]Str 24, Dex 18, Con 20, Int 13, Wis 27, Cha 22[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Skills:[/td][td]Concentration +11, Knowledge (local) +9, Knowledge (the planes) +8, Listen +15, Move Silently +12, Spellcraft +5, Spot +15, Survival +15 (+17 on other planes)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Feats:[/td][td]Alertness, Combat Casting, Run, Multi-attack, Skill Focus (Survival), Weapon Focus (Horn)[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Environment:[/td][td]Any outer plane.[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Organization:[/td][td]Carnival (20-50 aasimar, human, and various humanoid carnival works plus 200% noncombatants plus 1d6 lantern archons plus 1d4 celestial dire lions plus 1d3 janni ringmasters[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Challenge Rating:[/td][td]13[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Treasure:[/td][td]Goods only[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Alignment:[/td][td]Always chaotic good[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Advancement:[/td][td]By character class[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]Level Adjustment:[/td][td]--[/td][/tr]
[/table]
A rainbowcorn has deep sea-blue, violet, brown, or fiery gold eyes. Males sport a muave beard. They are usually draped with signs particular to their carnival and heavily decorated with jewelry. They never wear saddles.
A typical adult rainbowcorn grows to 8 feet in length, stands 5 feet high at the shoulder, and weighs 1,200 pounds. Females are slightly smaller and less garish than males.
Rainbowcorns are a specialized form of unicorn--protectors of traveling celestial carnivals. They travel with the show as it spans the planes, performing tricks of great skill for patrons and defending the festivities against any would-be attackers.
Rainbowcorns speak Common, Celestial, and Draconic.
Combat
Rainbowcorns viciously attack anyone who seeks to harm the carnival they defend. They either charge, impaling foes with their horns like horrible technicolor lances, or strike with their garrishly-colored hooves. The horn is a +3 magic weapon, though its power fades if removed from the rainbowcorn. It still makes a colorful desk ornament, though. They never retreat if any member or visitor to the carnival is in danger. If necessary, they attempt to protect allies with a well-placed wall of force.
Horn of Hues(Su)
A rainbowcorn's horn deals an additional 1d6 energy damage of a random type. Determine the type once each round. The horn glows a different, festive color with each energy type.
| d6 | energy |
| 1 | acid |
| 2 | cold |
| 3 | electricity |
| 4 | fire |
| 5 | sonic |
| 6 | negative (no damage to objects, heals undead) |
Rainbow Charge (Su)
Whenever a rainbowcorn attacks with her horn as part of a charge, she deals an additional 4d6 energy damage of a random type.
| d100 | color | damage |
| 1-20 | Red | 4d6 fire damage, Will save or blinded 1d4 rounds. |
| 21-40 | Orange | 4d6 acid damage, Will save or nauseated 1d4 rounds. |
| 41-60 | Yellow | 4d6 electricity damage, Will save or stunned 1 round. |
| 61-80 | Blue | 4d6 cold damage, Will save or slowed 1d4 rounds, as the slow spell. |
| 81-100 | Brass | 4d6 sonic damage, Will save or deafened 1d4 rounds. |
Prismatic Heart (Su)
A rainbowcorn bleeds color. Reality altering color. Each time the rainbowcorn is struck in combat by a melee, non-reach weapon, the attacker must roll a Will save (DC 23) or suffer one of the following effects.
| d6 | color | effect |
| 1 | Magenta | dazed for 1 round. |
| 2 | Cyan | laugh uncontrollably for 1 round (as hideous laughter) |
| 3 | Azure | Fascinated for 1 round. |
| 4 | Fuchsia | confused, as the spell, 1 round. |
| 5 | Chartreuse | shaken for 1 round. |
| 6 | Aquamarine | teleported 1d10 x 5 feet in a random direction |
Spectrum Shield (Su)
Whenever a rainbowcorn deals energy damage with its horn, it and all allies within 60 ft. are immune to that type of energy for 1 round.
Spell-Like Abilities
Rainbowcorns can use detect evil at will as a free action.
Two times per day a rainbowcorn can use greater teleport to move anywhere within the bounds of its carnival. It cannot teleport beyond the carnival's boundaries (usually marked by rope and welcome signs). Unlike its lesser unicorn cousin and their forests, it can return to the carnival from outside its bounds--a useful ability if the unicorn has to defend the carnival's retreat.
At will--detect evil; 1/day--greater teleport (to anywhere within 100 ft. of the carnival only), neutralize poison (DC 21); 3/day--cure serious wounds (DC 19), wall of force. Caster level 10th. The save DCs are Charisma-based.
Wild Empathy (Ex)
This power works like the druidâ,¬,,¢s wild empathy class feature, except that a rainbowcorn has a +6 racial bonus on the check.
Skills
Rainbowcorns have a +4 racial bonus on Move Silently checks.[/spoiler]
Dude, that is awesome! But obviously designed for conflict. I revise my statement to just "Funny Fuzzy Bunnies and Pretty Pretty Princesses".
By the way, the GURPS book was Bunnies and Burrows. Near as I could tell, it still involves conflict, it's just that the conflict is Don Bluth style.
And no, that's no slight whatsoever to Don Bluth.
Perhaps a reason why some of us build such "dark" settings is because we might have a more sadistic side to our personalities.
Quote from: IshmaylI'm not trying to justify that you need darkness to get to the light, I'm simply saying that you need darkness to fight darkness. I don't know if that really came out how I wanted it to...Maybe that's too abstract; I've been re-reading Daniel Quinn again.
I think you're trying to say that you need darkness so that light has something to fight against.
And don't worry, I'm sure anybody that has read Mr. Quinn's work can completely understand how it can lead to being too abstract.
I think Dark Settings can be a downer. I'm not sure why but I don't care to play in a game where the characters have no tangible hope, optimism or chance for a 'stable' life.
Therefore if the Campaign had that glimmer of possibility, it would be one way to keep from getting 'downed.'
Quote from: MadApe19Perhaps a reason why some of us build such "dark" settings is because we might have a more sadistic side to our personalities.
That makes a very scary kind of sense, but I don't think it explains the issue in its entirety.
I think RedBullBear has a point. My confusion is that I think that even with the glimmer of hope that a setting can be weighed down with too many overt issues. It's intimidating to read a setting thread that starts off describing how much conflict there is.
I just disagree. One of the first important things I like to read about a world (other than beautiful flavor text) is what the conflicts in the world are. To me, that is what sets the stage for the entire story of the world
QuoteI think RedBullBear has a point. My confusion is that I think that even with the glimmer of hope that a setting can be weighed down with too many overt issues. It's intimidating to read a setting thread that starts off describing how much conflict there is.
I'd be interesting in hearing what conflicts you've used or enjoyed, Silvercat.
Quote from: brainfaceQuote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunnies_and_BurrowsBunnies and Burrows[/url], which predated GURPS by a long time, although they did publish a GURPS version, as well as a FUDGE version.
QuoteI'm really not a fan of the monolithic crawling evil. I've generally had more fun in games with corrupt officials, rampaging beasts, and untamed wilderness than ones with vampire infestations, demonic hordes, etc. I guess I just like the conflict to be more down-to-earth.
Yeah, conflict can include all kinds of politics, tribalism, ambition, petty jealousy, and things like that. You don't have to be dark to include those things. But a lot of times it seems easier to convey an overall atmosphere or something if the conflicts or attitudes can be reflected in the elements of the setting. I think that tends to slant a little in favor of darker settings.
Plus, there may be a self-selection effect going on here. Some of what impels people to create their own settings is a sense of dissatisfaction with the existing ones. That might also favor settings with some unique atmosphere or flavor, again often personified in terms of some great evil or creeping doom.
There's nothing wrong with a little harmless schadenfreude. I can enjoy imagining my character smash face on helpless monsters in D&D just as much as I can enjoy imagining my character going crazy and dying in Call of Cthulhu. There's not much of a difference, fundamentally. Suffering entertains me, even if it's my character, so long as it's not me.
For me, and my settings can get rather dark, they don't depress me because they allow for the greatest acts of heroism. It's like lighting a candle in room. If the room is already lit by halogen bulbs all over the room, that little candle won't be very noticable. However, in a pitch black room, a single candle provides the most illumination. While you don't need a dark setting for heroism, I think the heroism of it shines more in a dark setting. It's easier to fight against the demons from hell when you know the Church, Kingdom, and Guild will back you. To do it alone, though, takes far more courage, IMO.
Quote from: Just Xathanâ,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦It's like lighting a candle in room.â,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦
See my earlier post on how idiotic I feel that is.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawSee my earlier post on how idiotic I feel that is.
Yeah, but you've taken that quote completely out of context! Xathan has a good point. He's not saying, "You can't light a candle unless it's already dark." He's saying, "Lighting a candle in a dark room makes more of an impact than lighting a candle in a light room." And that's a simple fact. I've got a candle lit in my office right now, but for the smell, you wouldn't be able to tell. However, if I turned all the lights in the building and office off, my candle would be providing a very obvious light.
Quote from: IshmaylI just disagree. One of the first important things I like to read about a world (other than beautiful flavor text) is what the conflicts in the world are. To me, that is what sets the stage for the entire story of the world
I agree. I always look to find out what the possibilties are to get involved in the shooty-stabby-fun. However, it's another thing to find out that no matter how much you stab and shoot the great Cthulu is inevitably going to win. I like to think that my character's goals either have a chance of succeeding or can contribute to a movement which may eventually succeed. Playing the fiesty rearguard of a doomed concept or group is not my kind of roleplaying fun. :fencing:
Quote from: Ishmaylâ,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦you've taken that quote completely out of context!
I felt that I haven't: darkness and light should be appreciated seperately, or one does not appreciate that element.
Perhaps what I look for in a setting is a place to explore, not a goal to defeat. I don't mind the idea that there's something to take on, I just don't like the feeling that this one thing (or even group of things) is the soul purpose of the world. I like the world to stand on its own. That's what I've tried to do with all my settings.
Quote from: Ishmaylâ,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦you've taken that quote completely out of context!
See, I disagree on this point fundamentally, though I wouldn't call it idiotic...everyone has different tastes. Lets use, by way of analogy, suffering and joy. Imagine someone who spends their entire life without suffering, but just in a constant state of joy. Now, imagine someone who goes through trials and tribulations like everyone else, but in the end manages to reach a joy equal to that of the first person. The person who experienced something other than joy will likely be able to better appreciate the joy he now experiences
because of the suffering he endured, while the person who spent their entire life with nothing but joy would not be able to fully appreciate the gift he has, because he never knew anything else. And, by extension, I would argue that someone who has suffered more is better able to appreciate joy that someone who had some suffering, but suffered less (and I am pretending that there is an objective measure of suffering and joy, just like you can objectively measure the amount of light in a room.)
So it goes with the campaign settings and darkness and light. The more darkness there is, to a certain extent, the more you can appreciate what light you have. (There is a limit. If there is too much darkness, then the light does not offer sufficient illumination, and like a candle lit in a huge, empty cave, only makes the darkness seem more oppressive because of it's now perceived vastness.)
QuotePerhaps what I look for in a setting is a place to explore, not a goal to defeat. I don't mind the idea that there's something to take on, I just don't like the feeling that this one thing (or even group of things) is the soul purpose of the world. I like the world to stand on its own. That's what I've tried to do with all my settings.
Well, now you're talking about an entirely different issue. That's not a matter of darkness in a setting, that's more a matter of having a metaplot - IE, a setting with a obvious threat/story to follow: a setting that is as much campaign as setting. You can have a metaplot setting without darkness, so the two don't directly correlate. Granted, darker settings tend to have more obvious threats, but you can have a dark setting and not have a plot or plots built in.
Quote from: Just XathanQuote from: Ishmaylâ,¬Â¦Ã¢,¬Â¦you've taken that quote completely out of context!
See, I disagree on this point fundamentally, though I wouldn't call it idiotic...everyone has different tastes. Lets use, by way of analogy, suffering and joy. Imagine someone who spends their entire life without suffering, but just in a constant state of joy. Now, imagine someone who goes through trials and tribulations like everyone else, but in the end manages to reach a joy equal to that of the first person. The person who experienced something other than joy will likely be able to better appreciate the joy he now experiences because of the suffering he endured, while the person who spent their entire life with nothing but joy would not be able to fully appreciate the gift he has, because he never knew anything else. And, by extension, I would argue that someone who has suffered more is better able to appreciate joy that someone who had some suffering, but suffered less (and I am pretending that there is an objective measure of suffering and joy, just like you can objectively measure the amount of light in a room.)
So it goes with the campaign settings and darkness and light. The more darkness there is, to a certain extent, the more you can appreciate what light you have. (There is a limit. If there is too much darkness, then the light does not offer sufficient illumination, and like a candle lit in a huge, empty cave, only makes the darkness seem more oppressive because of it's now perceived vastness.)
QuotePerhaps what I look for in a setting is a place to explore, not a goal to defeat. I don't mind the idea that there's something to take on, I just don't like the feeling that this one thing (or even group of things) is the soul purpose of the world. I like the world to stand on its own. That's what I've tried to do with all my settings.
Interestingly enough, a bright anough "light" in a dark enough setting is quickly squashed. Can you imagine how long a real-world pope would last in a setting ten times as dark as Ravenloft? If nothing else, I'd say the short lifespan of a paladin-esque moral figure would be a hint as to the borders of "too hopeless", although any defined borderline is, of course, subject to individual opinion.
Quote from: Just XathanSee, I disagree on this point fundamentally, though I wouldn't call it idiotic...everyone has different tastes. Lets use, by way of analogy, suffering and joy. Imagine someone who spends their entire life without suffering, but just in a constant state of joy. Now, imagine someone who goes through trials and tribulations like everyone else, but in the end manages to reach a joy equal to that of the first person. The person who experienced something other than joy will likely be able to better appreciate the joy he now experiences because of the suffering he endured, while the person who spent their entire life with nothing but joy would not be able to fully appreciate the gift he has, because he never knew anything else. And, by extension, I would argue that someone who has suffered more is better able to appreciate joy that someone who had some suffering, but suffered less (and I am pretending that there is an objective measure of suffering and joy, just like you can objectively measure the amount of light in a room.)
See to me, this is a fallacy: suffering is bad, so having any at all is bad. There is no balance between joy and suffering, they are seperate concepts. That's been my experience.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawSee to me, this is a fallacy: suffering is bad, so having any at all is bad. There is no balance between joy and suffering, they are seperate concepts. That's been my experience.
Light and Dark, Good and Evil, Law and Chaos, Male and Female, Horizontal and Vertical*. While each of these terms can be defined separately, but are better defined when they are viewed with their contrast.
*I saw a study once of kittens that were raised in a room with nothing but vertical lines. They spent months in these rooms. When they got out they couldn't see horizontal lines.
Quote from: SilvercatMoonpawSee to me, this is a fallacy: suffering is bad, so having any at all is bad. There is no balance between joy and suffering, they are seperate concepts. That's been my experience.
any[/i] given amount of suffering? If there is x amount of suffering, and y amount of joy, would it make any difference at all if there is more y then x, or would the mere presence of x make the world a "bad" world?
Is there a good world to be found anywhere, then, but in such fantastic places existant only in the minds of the lobotomised and the drugged, where there are no sharp edges and no discordant melodies?
I'd argue that there are no two concepts
more intertwined than joy and suffering. There is little that objectively separates them, and it is specifically the existence of one that colours the definition and perceived nature (if not the validity) of the other.
For example, have you never been subjected to a horrid racket for an extended period, than found yourself thoroughly contented when the cacophany finally dissolved? Sure, on an objective level it's the same
silence as you've heard a million times before, but is it the same
peace and quiet?
The two are not the same thing.
If we were to divide the two dichotomous notions (of pain and joy), labelling one bad and the other good (from gaming perspectives; if we agree that in-game suffering isn't "bad" as pertaining to the gaming experience, there's really nothing to debate), then how would we create a pleasurable roleplaying experience?
As Ishmayl said, conlficts often define a campaign setting.
As to the
nature of said conflict, it is very easy to see why supposedly "dark" elements are so readily adopted by world builders. Consider
our world. The real world. The one with all the drug barons, child prostitution rings, conflict diamonds, farce trials, political wranglings, stillborns, race riots...
It would seem our own world ain't that peachy.
Of course, a lot of the settings you're referring to have far more extreme troubles: a decaying landscape, sadistic gods, tyrannical cabals, horrifyingly demonic sorceries and the like, but whatever the seeming nature of these troubles, they all essentially amount to conflicts, or, for the ones that can never be confronted, background.
I'll tell you now that if I didn't see the tragedies of our world as something to overcome, then I'd probably never bother waking. To a great extent, suffering in-game serves the same (philosophical) purpose as it does in real life: to be transcended. When all the struggles are forgotten, there can be no further triumph. There are other dimensions to it, but this one is essential.
Now, how much woe one will tolerate is a very individual thing, and I think we can all agree that there is no actuall virtue in desensitisation, but the fact is that some people will just shrug their shoulders when they stumble upon the dismembered and zombified corpses of the BBEG's latest victims. To them it's a challenge; a narrative device or poetic impetus. They don't tear their hair out, curse the Gods or recoil in disgust... they charge on, 'cos there's a job to be done.
So if I want my campagin to involve a rag-tag bunch of hackers and delinquents struggling against a monolithic primordial overfiend as it slowly reaches with grasping arms across the cosmos to cast all sentience into agony eternal, the question is never "Isn't that a bit negative?" but rather "Can they win?"
I see absolutely
nothing wrong with that, but if you do, that is certainly your prerogative.
Well, SA, I think you've given a good close to this thread. We're not going ot get anywhere with this arguement (at least, I'm not) because, as you've said, some people can accept amounts of suffering. I can't. I don't believe bad things are ever good things. I would never wake up if I could. I'd enjoy nothingness more than feeling anything. It's not just some twisted psychosis but an actual analyzation of what the experience would actually be like.
Fiction, man.
I would have put it that way myself, but then, it would not have made for a very interesting discussion, would it?
If you say "suffering is bad, so having any at all is bad", then what kind of setting is good? I turn to literature again. Is the world that Lord of the Rings is set in bad? While Gondor was suffering, Boromir said so in the council meeting. Does that make it a dark and evil setting?
Goodkind has the Old World, in his "setting". The people there are slaves to despair. They are taught from a very young age that they are worthless and should only think of serving others. If they think of themselves at all they are evil. They even have a place where people are tortured when someone has claimed they are evil. They are tortured until they confess at which point they are either fined or killed depending on what they confess. Now it has been this way for generations. The main character is forced to live there, or his love will die, and pretend to be one of them. Through his interactions he started to change peoples view, but it was only a few people in a world of millions (possibly billions). He was forced to carved people suffering on a building, which was torture to him. Because he was so good at it, he was asked to create a large statue for the front of the building. He created his statue in secret. He made it something he wanted, knowing he would likely be put to death for his "crimes". When the statue was unveiled, the people started a revolt. The statue showed them there is hope. They overthrew the government in and nearby their towns. The revolt continues to grow and gain momentum.
This area was very dark and depressing to read, even the main character wanted to give up a few times. But things have changed now. Because of this one act of defiance the people are changing the way they live. So basically one "adventure" changed the tone of the "setting".
Is this bad?
In my setting I have a nation that is ruled by a very Caesar-esque ruler. Dwarves in the nation suffer because of him (he hates them to the point of destroying their homeland and enslaving them.). The military is allowed to do what they want, just because they are the military. There is a resistance group that is trying to overthrow this dictator. Is this bad?
What kind of setting is good, if having any bad is bad?
This might have been mentioned already, but what about the hidden optimism in alot of dark themes. In my setting, Earth is swallowed by the friggin' sun... and humanity somehow survives. Truth is, humanity might not even last long enough to see this happen (rest assured it will happen... whether we're there to see it and be pummelled by the solar winds and dangerous radiation or not) and that I'm running on the very optimistic assumption that humanity actually outlasts its homeworld.
I say this at great risk. I believe strongly in this so I must speak up.
I suspect that people are debating someone who does not experience much joy in their life, thinks they are a victim to the people/circumstances in their life, and fantasizes as an escape to a world where there are no victims and suffering. To them, they must imagine a world of pure joy because they cannot experience that?
OR, someone who banishes all perceived "negative influences" from their lives and does not even think of "negative" things. Some people who believe in peace and want peace in the world, do not even think of fighting. Mother Theresa refused to attend Anti-War Protests, "but you can invite me to a Peace Rally any time." Some people believe that the best way to get things done in the real world is to be FOR something instead of AGAINST something. Mother Theresa was FOR peace and not AGAINST war. I realize this may be a totally different way to think for some.
...
This gets me thinking about a guy known as the Miracle Man from Texas. He survived a plane crash and was totally paralyzed (broken back, etc). He could not speak. Every day, the doctors told him that he would never walk again. He still had his mind and strong spirit. He told himself, "I am going to walk out of this hospital on Christmas." He also said that he NEVER allowed himself to think a negative or limiting thought. He didn't even have his body, just his mind and spirit. The first time he walked again was on Christmas and he walked out of the hospital.
...
Struggle and hope. Love you guys!
BTW, I totally dig the Law vs Chaos conflict!
I agreee with beejaz, I mean, look at WH40K, its about as dark as you get, but there is the lighter side with the Tau, flourishing even as humanity crumbles. I have yet to see a setting that was completely dark, they all have some side of hope.
I personally think that dark settings have an appeal to players that want to be the great hero, as if they can win against nearly all odds or such, they become one of the greatest champions in the history in that world. Personally, i like them because its fun to think "...Hmmm...i wonder what that conversation would have been like if we were all drunk/crazy halflings with chainsaws were running around/everyone was naked"
The dark setting gives more appeal to a great hero but you can't have to dark or it's a little off balance
Playing devil's advocate (heh...), I can understand how some might see "inconsiderably marginal hope" as still being "hope"; If you're going for a very David/Goliath-esque setting, that just might be a possible option.
That's not my personal preference in the settings I make (even in Fiendspawn, Good and Evil are on more-or-less equal footing), and I probably wouldn't care for playing in such a setting, but that doesn't mean it's completely without value.
This post may be rushed, due to the fact that I have to dash off to class in like, five:
I don't get depressed by dark settings due to my general disaffected nature from most things. It's the same way that I don't get scared or frightened when reading murder/mystery or thriller novels. There are only a very, very, few times I've been genuinely disturbed at something, the most recent was me falling asleep ontop of Lovecraft's Dunwhich Horror or my religious-astral jaunt unwillingly out of my body, but we'll not go into that.
I agree that the term "dark" gets thrown around way too much, but what else is there to use? Its a catch all term for people (read: Dark Age, however mis-applied such a term is) and is overused, just as much as goodness and other such reasons. I agree with my fellow posters who wrote before, saying that dark settings give the PCs something greater to fight against, leading to a greater feeling of accomplishment if they succeed. I prefer the type of game used in the Call of Cthulhu game setting where you may stop one small group of the cult from performing a nefarious deed, but that cult is hidden, out there, and has been forever. You may have stopped them from sacrificing Sally and raising Yog-Sothoth or Yig, or Dagon, etc to the Prime, but that doesn't mean they'll try to do it again, and this time you may not have the capability to stop them.
Its the small victories that give you hope in such a game. I like to incorporate a lot of smaller corruption into my own setting, which I've labeled "The Darkening Lands". However, its not darkening as a horrorific, depressing thing, but as a fact that the world suffers a cyclical trend of constant civilization growth and then inevitable decay, due to the machinations of certain forces I am still yet-unaware of. I would love to make it more dangerous, more depressing, more realisitic, but I don't know if my DMing style could support such a thing.
But back to the main topic, the real reason why I don't get depressed is because of what I'm exposed to every day through my faith. You lot may feel that its silly or some such, and that's fine, but I know its true and that's what matters. If only I could capture THAT feeling in my game. :P
Righto, ta.