The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Seraphine_HarmoniumAs for the feel, I suppose I think of the fae not operating quite the same way humans do.  I want my denizens of the otherworld to be . . . well, otherworldly.  Of course, there are plenty of examples of the otherworld being similar to the mortal world, so I would really say it's a criticism, just a matter of taste, and detail that I can't really explain.

Ah. Fair enough. I may have made it subtler than I intended, but these beings don't quite have the degree of free will mortals claim--each one is defined by its bond in a way that will always restrict the choices they might make. I just didn't decide to tie those bonds into a monolithic court leadership. Instead, since each creature is guided by only a piece of the whole picture, they reach different conclusions than their fellows and so argue or act at cross-purposes.

If it feels any better to you, I should note that many fey, especially among the Seelie, are loyal to a fault when it comes to their queens and kings (the exception being the Unseelie), since a lord's bond generally encompasses all that the servant is and much more. They usually only scheme and clash against rivals below their liege's level.

And by the way, I would appreciate it if you could link folks to this work if you do decide to use any elements from it in your own setting! ;)

Quote from: Seraphine_HarmoniumThe Seelie and Unseelie Courts as presented, I simultaneously really like and yet don't like.  I really like that they both latch onto themes of natural cycles.  I am weirdly conflicted about the good/evil dichotomy of the two.  It's almost necessary, and the "blessed" vs. "Unblessed" origins of the terms does kinda imply that much, but even Seelie Fairies are tricksters, and sometimes cause problems for mortals.  In this way, I rather like that "Common Fey" tend not to take their Court ideals too seriously.  The various factions within the courts gets a bit confusing, though, which, while more realistic than monolithic organizations, in this case seems, to me, to contradict the feel of the two opposing courts.

Different factions are both because they are more realistic and to make sure that each court can be useful in a wide variety of stories. I'm not sure what about that would seem to contradict the feel of the courts, so I would be curious to have you elaborate on that point.

Quote from: Seraphine_HarmoniumI'm not entirely sure why there are two separate layers of Faerie, other than to satisfy the roots-trunk-leaves triad of the Tree of Life motif.

Not at all. In fact, the Tree of Life motif was added only after the layer structure was decided upon. The point is twofold: First, to reflect different ideas of the Otherworld, some more dramatically different from the mortal world than others, and second, to provide a clear area for GMs to innovate in terms of geography and power players without having to re-imagine our material. Dicefreaks material assumes a lightly modified version of the Great Wheel cosmology, in which many very different mortal worlds coexist, so we took a bit of effort to respect the diversity of worlds out there. A few might have very powerful and present Faerie Courts behind the scenes, while others have little connection to Faerie, and the buffer of Annwn makes that easier to work from a logistical perspective.

Quote from: Seraphine_HarmoniumI REALLY like Elphame.  Still not sure what a huldra is though, as I hadn't heard of them before.

Thanks! :D We plan to eventually release a chapter of new monsters including ones like that. In the meantime, you can learn more about our new fey races at the forum for Songs of the Sidhe over here: http://dicefreaks.superforums.org/viewforum.php?f=13

For the huldra in particular, there is this thread: http://dicefreaks.superforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1968

Queen Vae will also be getting more detail in a later chapter, and you can see some of what's coming in her profile along with many other fey leaders here: http://dicefreaks.superforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2192

And you can always ask if you can't find material you are looking for. :)

Thanks for the positive reactions! I do hope you'll share your thoughts when you've read through the document as well. :D

Quote from: Sir Digby Chicken CaesarDicefreaks' much-earlier release concerning the Nine Hells remains my go-to resource for infernal inspiration in D&D. To this day I still marvel that I could access such a treasure trove, absolutely free.

It was just that sort of thing which motivated me to join the community. But don't forget their other projects! Other contributors have been putting out material on The Abyss and the Godspell Campaign Setting, among other things, in the meantime. ;)

Dicefreaks D20 Community is proud to present the first PDF release of Songs of the Sidhe, our collection of material relating to Faerie, the realm of the fey courts, giant kingdoms, and other mysterious beings. This chapter features setting, ecology, culture, power groups, and gamemastering advice for using this otherworldly place.

The first step is taken:

Songs of the Sidhe: Into the Otherworld (file is PDF)


Please feel free to share your thoughts and questions here or at Dicefreaks. :)

Songs of the Sidhe is compatible (perhaps with slight tweaks) with most Dungeons & Dragons settings and with 3e/3.5e D&D and PFRPG rules.

Quote from: GhostmanI mentioned that I'm not aware of any examples of this sort of thing, as I was wondering if perhaps you did know of such examples. Since you made the statement, aren't you the one that should present evidence to support it?

Presenting evidence for it after I already said I didn't have any and conceded the point would seem counterproductive. ;) Evidence either way would be useful in a situation with so little precedence for it, but in the absence thereof, logic and extrapolation from pre-existing examples have to do.

Quote from: Ghostman

Quote from: MythMageCan you name a few such polytheisms so I can see what you're talking about?

Perhaps you misread my post. As I stated that:

Quote from: GhostmanI don't recall any examples of polytheist religions where a change in the power structure/usurpation actually led to the new biggest god on the block being less tolerant of other powers.

:) I'm sorry, there's a misunderstanding here, but not the one you think. I wasn't asking for you to offer examples for the position you disagreed with. I was asking for examples that countered my position. That is, can you give any example of a polytheism that became a virtual monotheism, and then the new head god didn't push aside all the others more or less completely? I can't think of any polytheistic system that actually became monotheistic at all, rather than a polytheism simply being pretty much replaced by a new religion altogether.

Quote from: Ghostman

Quote from: MythMagePossible, but it seems more likely to me that such a being sees them as not worthy of any fear (and thus don't require a grand effort to kill them off). After all, complacency's a big part of what leads many primordial gods to defeat in multi-generational pantheons, isn't it?

Going by examples, that very same complacency would be the expected behaviour for the new top dog also, wouldn't it?

Just the opposite. If a primordial god fell that way earlier in the history of that world, the new top dog will want to avoid suffering the same fate. Even without such a past example, the new top dog managed to grow from merely one god among many to the greatest - that god would have to be quite unwise not to realize another god could follow suit the same way (you know, unless their ascension really was a unique event).

Quote from: GhostmanAlso, I think the idea that a god would want to kill all other gods of lesser power just so that he could be unchallenged, is something that should not be assumed as default behavior - regardless of whether he's the original #1 or the usurper. Such an assumption can be justified if the god has been assigned specific personality traits (eg. paranoia, great ambition) but not when we're speaking of pantheons *in general*. Most gods in polytheisms seem to enjoy the company of other gods to some degree at least, and would probably not opt for eternal solitude for the sake of unchallenged power.

Fair enough. I concede that point. I didn't mean that the god wanted to kill all the rivals, just sever their power bases and thus render them nearly harmless. You're right that a NG/CG/CN god would probably be pretty liberal with lesser gods, while a LG or LN god seems more likely to carefully dominate rather than outright crush the power of rivals. Although if the god ascends to become omnipresent, then they may not have any risk of solitude issues.

Quote from: Ghostmaninvasion of entities from "outside" creation (what ever that may mean)

Well, in the regular Great Wheel cosmology, the Material Plane contains many worlds. Could be there's a world with a single god that gets invaded by gods from other worlds.

Quote from: GhostmanI don't quite agree with this. I don't recall any examples of polytheist religions where a change in the power structure/usurpation actually led to the new biggest god on the block being less tolerant of other powers.

Actually, I wasn't drawing on any examples because I can't think of any that fit my description of monotheism (wherein "one god or goddess has essentially unchallenged control over the setting"). Most polytheism doesn't involve gods drawing power from their worshipers and all the polytheism I know of that involves a god ascending to the highest post instead of starting out there does not also include that new top dog being "essentially unchallenged". Most of them spend a great deal of time fighting off rivals very near them in power. Can you name a few such polytheisms so I can see what you're talking about?

Quote from: GhostmanBesides, a deity that was once much weaker may very well hold more sympathy toward those that remind him of his past, than one who has always been the top dog (and thus might regard the others as weaklings not worthy of any respect)

Possible, but it seems more likely to me that such a being sees them as not worthy of any fear (and thus don't require a grand effort to kill them off). After all, complacency's a big part of what leads many primordial gods to defeat in multi-generational pantheons, isn't it?

Back to the Beginning
Imagine a world begun with a conflict between the sole goddess and her first child/creation, a vast and powerful elemental, who at first adored his mother but wished for slaves to adore him like he did her. The plot might be driven by this conflict in any number of ways - perhaps the goddess's high priest needs the heroes to crush a dangerous arm of the elemental's cult, or the elemental cult fights on the behalf of innocent mortals persecuted by the intolerant and cruel clergy. In a game at the highest levels, the elemental might even appeal to the heroes to help preserve his influence among mortals against the overwhelming power of his mother's church, revealing dark secrets about her intentions and even hinting that mortal reverence for him is the only reason she has not destroyed the world. A noninterventionist deity might have some very unexpected and unpleasant motives and goals. The aforementioned goddess might wish to simply erase the world and begin anew and is only waiting to see what it takes to win universal adoration before she does it.

A monotheistic deity is often, but not always, responsible for and deeply linked to the way that the world comes to be. Sometimes, beginnings are irrelevant to even the divine aspect of a game or story. It may never come up. However, it can also provide a primeval backdrop for an ultimate conflict, as in the example above. A "prime mover" type of deity might also be simply curious, looking to experiment and learn what happens given certain starting conditions. It might only want to be loved freely and without compulsion by its creations. Or it might seek some other goal dependent upon free will (thus giving leeway for plots to happen without predetermination). The possibilities are numerous.

Becoming Monotheism
On the other hand, a monotheistic deity might be a new phenomenon in the world. Perhaps the world once hosted many gods, and over time the rivals have killed each other off, absorbed one another, or have simply been forgotten and faded away. Into the eventual power vacuum has stepped a god that was once less than he is now, with a perspective decidedly different than what arises from inherent omnipotence. Whereas a god who starts out on top is often tolerant of other lesser powers operating in the world, an up-and-coming young god is more likely to suppress threats to his hegemony such as the cults of fading fellow gods and non-divine religions.

Due to his lower origin, this god might not be as strong as other monotheistic gods often are - indeed, he might even be able to be threatened by epic mortal heroes of sufficient level. Such a threat is most likely when a weaker god is left alone by widespread religious apathy in a setting where gods depend on worship for their existence. In a similar setting which retains some fading strands of polytheism, preventing an evil god from being the last god standing might be the goal of a great epic quest. To stop the impending victory, one must revive at least one but preferably several dead or dying religions and thereby restore power to the associated god(s).

Gotta love a romantic twist on the classic archtype of fire-theft. :)

Thanks, Salacious Angel.

My intent was to discuss the different ways one can effectively implement a monotheistic cosmology and explore what the baseline assumptions are about such deities. You make an interesting single example case of a somewhat limited godhead motivated by curiosity, different from the approaches I had considered.

My own work deals with a more limited deity too, but one motivated by something very different from curiosity. Rather, it is a smaller deity growing to eliminate all other rivals for dominance.

Actually, as I pointed out in my post, one deity does not mean automatically knowing which religion is "right". In fact, it's entirely possible that there isn't one "right" one. Other beings, such as archfiends or archcelestials, could provide the divine magic even if the deity chose to withhold it. And the deity grant spells to those who are "wrong" in order to test the faith of those who are "right" in some grand plan.

I am developing a setting with a single divinity, and so I'm compiling thoughts on how such a situation might be best implemented.

USING MONOTHEISM
Have you ever looked at the diversity of gods in the typical Dungeons & Dragon setting and wondered what it would be like if the deities weren't so distinct? What if divine authority led back unquestionably to one source, one sublime being beyond mortal comprehension? Although an open-ended polytheism is the status quo of most Dungeons & Dragons games and similarly styled settings, some world-builders find it more compelling to deal with monotheistic or semi-monotheistic settings, where one god or goddess has essentially unchallenged control over the setting.

Restraint
Of course, if there is an omnipotent busybody working miracles constantly, every time something gets on his nerves, he would be a nigh-insurmountable obstacle to a fun D&D game. An important part of what usually makes a one-deity dynamic tick is restraint on the part of the sole or head divinity. A strongly interventionist god can easily paralyze any action and prevent most conventional forms of tension, while a restrained god will make it all the more important and dramatic when he is driven to work (presumed) miracles. The appeal in this approach versus the typical game setting arguably lies in the mystique of an exceptionally vast and all-encompassing deity. The characters can use past actions and legends to guess at what this being's ultimate goals are, but they can rarely feel confident about them. For example, in R. A. Salvatore's world of Corona, what few events are probable miracles come with little apparent rhyme or reason, aside from perhaps rewarding the devotion of a particularly thoughtful believer.

Mystery
An interventionist monotheistic god doesn't have to be a bad thing. If the god's goals are carried out in a dramatic manner without the players having knowledge of what the god intends, then the intervention functions more like a fickle force of nature than a domineering non-player character. However, some knowledge of a monotheistic deity's plans can prove useful. Allowing knowledge in abstract or obscure ways may serve to heighten tension.

The most well-known method to provide such a limited reveal is prophecy. Because the monotheistic deity sent it, you know it must come true, but you cannot be sure exactly what it means to say must come true. For example, a prophecy that dictates the victory of a red dragon over a white dragon could refer to the literal outcome of a great red dragon over a great white dragon, or it could mean something metaphorical. Perhaps it foretells the victory of some metaphorical red dragon (such as a kingdom whose symbol is a red dragon) over a metaphorical white dragon (such as a diabolical wizard known by the moniker "white dragon" for his attitude and his cruel obsession with cold magic).

Competition for Worship
Tension can also be preserved if the godhead respects the free will of those beneath it. Then, lesser beings have leeway to usurp the faith of mortals. The deity must leave alternatives or else that free will becomes totally meaningless. Challenges to the religion must exist even if challenges to the power behind that religion do not.

Perhaps the best way to maintain conflict in the arena of faith is to keep divine magic from seeming common or cheap. It must be a special reward for exceptional faith. A surprising number of D&D players forget that clerics have to be true believers, basically giving up their lives to their patrons. It's not often an easy thing to partake of a god's power while maintaining your own independent goals, especially really selfish ones, so the evil and the un-devoted will be sorely tempted by "easier" roads to power.

A great arch-devil might patron enemies of a heroic deity-worshiping party, or a godlike fairy queen who neither serves nor opposed a monotheistic deity might patron a PC sorcerer who draws power from his fey blood and likewise stands apart from enemies and servants of the god. The most commonly used "easier road" is fiendish deals, but there are many others. The deity might have rivals for worship that, while minor on the global scale, are nonetheless viable choices for PC or NPC reverence. Sometimes a fey noble can attract his own cult interested in buying a piece of his magical power or celebrating his influence over the natural world. Sometimes alien beings like the Great Old Ones of the Lovecraft mythos or the aberration gods of D&D's Far Realms serve in this capacity instead. Occasionally, even powerful celestials can provide distractions from the deity, if they operate at cross-purposes with him. This may happen if the celestial has significant differences with the deity (such as dramatic differences on the law-chaos spectrum or disagreements about the nature of free will) or the deity is non-good.

Heresy and Schisms
A dramatic advantage of the less interventionist god is increased opportunity for conflict among those who worship that deity. If the god offers very little feedback to clerics, those clerics may come up with very different ideas of what constitutes proper behavior for a believer. Schisms may develop, one religion splintering into two, three, or even more disagreeing groups. There may even erupt holy wars between competing branches of the same religion, each side believing it to be their duty to wipe out the heresy proposed by their opponents.

The existence of many factions can feed into the same appeal players and DMs find in each of their characters having different patron deities - it provides a shorthand for significant differences in beliefs, ideals, and personal history. Several options remain to provide this kind of variety within a monotheistic milieu. First, as already mentioned, the religion can be splintered by differences of opinion about a god that responds little to settle disputes. Second, and possibly reinforcing the first, a monotheistic deity can have any number of servants with godlike power or at least great significance to different groups of worshipers. The faithful might revere powerful angels such as solars, powerful fiends such as advanced balors or pit fiends, or other mighty spirits that serve as chief lieutenants to the deity and provide direction on issues the deity himself is silent about.

I really like the idea of magic being a sign of formal education; that was long the way I played arcane magic in my homebrew setting.

I'm not sure what game system you'd use for this, but in 3.5e or Pathfinder, it seems like that dichotomy between human and faerie magic would play out well by playing prepared casters against spontaneous casters. Just use the shaman class for faerie nature magic instead of druids and perhaps the oracle or favored soul for the magic of the gods.

I'd say the modern gods could use a god of marriage or hospitality. Think of the portfolios Zeus and Hera had to themselves in Greek mythology.

There are also probably one or a few gods who should be there based on the geographical quirks of whatever the region is like. For example, the Greeks developed a god of wine because grapes are a major crop in their area and wine became plentiful.

This probably isn't the setting your thinking of, but it is Wonderland-based, and I liked it when I found it way back when. Check it out here: http://mortality.net/board/read.php?TID=9374