The Campaign Builder's Guild

So this is what I think I have spirits paired down to now. I'm pretty happy with it, despite some lingering doubts about other things.

Spirit Form Diagram
[th]Pure[/th][th]Corrupt[/th]
[th colspan="2"]Cosmic Beings[/th]
[th colspan="2"](Messengers; need name)[/th]
[th colspan="2"]Fae[/th]
[th colspan="2"]Ghosts[/th]

Archon	Devil
Angel	Demon
Sylph	Storm Fiend (need better name)
Gnome	Goblin
Salamander	Afrit
Undine	Rusalka
Field Spirit	Ghoul
Dryad	Forest Fiend (need better name)
Attendant Spirit	Imp
House Spirit	Bogie
Love Spirit	Succubus
Shade	Spectre

I think most of the former hybrids will now be mortal races.

The metamorphs and animal-like beings can be monsters.

I'm thinking the word Primordials will now apply to Aeons and other beings existing from the dawn of time (if any other such beings exist). I've considered maybe Tiamat or similar beings.

This means I could say dragons are monsters, a mortal race, or a kind of Primordial. Any choice has some downside. First, especially in the case of a mortal race or monster, they are not spirits and thus could no longer give rise to siddha (see previous post for why that bugs me). I could say they are Primordials in virtue of being children of Tiamat, if she's one--but that term seems less appropriate because they themselves are not coming down from the dawn of time.

But I am still happy to have been able to simplify this much. I feel like the spirits have really been streamlined to the necessary minimum.

Quote from: PhoenixI can say faerie dogs/hell hounds, unicorns, etc. are monsters.
...
This would actually leave my biggest remaining question as what to do with dragons.

However, Indian myth mentions a few categories where a naga woman bears the child of a human man. Redefining dragons may make this more difficult, and I had intended to use one of those characters.[/quote]I feel like the spirits have really been streamlined to the necessary minimum. [/quote]
I do like the new chart. It's very simple and logical! :)

Thanks on the table. I think it'll make it easier to see the connections than typing them out.

I need a new name for the angel/demon category (previously I called them cosmic beings, but I think I'll use that name for archons and devils). I suppose I could make them all cosmic beings, and have two types of each, though.

Quote from: PhoenixSaying dragons were fae allowed me to say the siddha are the descendants of fae and allow it to include dragons, nymphs, succubi, and so forth. Now, I'm not so sure where siddha will come from, though I'm sure I still want it involve fae. If fae can interact with mortals only through possession, perhaps a fae that possesses a human and breeds can transfer some aspect of this power.

You mean you like how it was that dragons were fae?

Or you mean you like the idea that a possessing fae could pass on traits if it breeds?

I've been thinking recently that siddha will all be descendants of the ruling class in the Lemurian Empire.

Quote from: PhoenixHowever, Indian myth mentions a few categories where a naga woman bears the child of a human man. Redefining dragons may make this more difficult, and I had intended to use one of those characters.

What do you mean half-breed? Naga is the Indian name for Eastern dragons. In Eschaton, they are identical the Chinese long dragon. I actually want to avoid any idea of half-races in Eschaton. It's why siddha are human in all ways, but also carry a supernatural ability.

I suppose I'm mainly hung up on the idea of the myth of Arjuna and Ulupi (naga princess), who had a son (Iravan). This happens during the Mahabharata, which is current events in Eschaton. So I had intended to use those characters, and to make future characters descended from them.

But dragons do not fit well into the spirit hierarchy anymore. They're not spirits of place like other fae. They're not non-material like all other spirits. Maybe the easiest answer is not to allow dragons to create offspring with humans.

I'm not totally opposed to a fourth category of beings (currently there's mortals, monsters, and spirits), and in fact if I added Primordials (for aeons), that would be a forth category. So I could put supernatural animals there.

Alternatively, if I said dragons were Primordials, I could say any Primordial that can take human form can produce a human child, as well.

The more I think about it, the more I think the best thing is to disregard the Arjuna & Ulupi incident for now and not let dragons give rise to human heirs. Perhaps later I can make a special note about them. I think for now I'll call them monsters.

Edit: Actually, I'm thinking of defining the categories thus:

Spirits: Non-material beings
Monsters: Unnatural created beings
Mortals: Physical races (which may not actually all be mortal)
Primordials: Unborn (Preexisting Entities)

Which would mean dragons would just be another mortal race with supernatural powers, like giants.

Quote from: PhoenixWhat do you mean half-breed? Naga is the Indian name for Eastern dragons. In Eschaton, they are identical the Chinese long dragon. I actually want to avoid any idea of half-races in Eschaton. It's why siddha are human in all ways, but also carry a supernatural ability.

Ulupi[/url] (naga princess), who had a son (Iravan). This happens during the Mahabharata, which is current events in Eschaton. So I had intended to use those characters, and to make future characters descended from them.[/quote]Actually, I'm thinking of defining the categories thus:

Spirits: Non-material beings
Monsters: Unnatural created beings
Mortals: Physical races (which may not actually all be mortal)
Primordials: Unborn (Preexisting Entities)

Which would mean dragons would just be another mortal race with supernatural powers, like giants.[/quote]
I like this! Maybe if all "mortals" aren't actually mortal, a more fitting name might be "Terrestials", "Corporeals", or something else suiting their nature, without introducing that potential misconception, though?

Yeah, in fantasy depictions nagas are often human from the waist up. In mythology, they are demi-god cobras, some of which can take human form (though in art, a hybrid depiction would make their nature clear when a human one wouldn't). They are equated to the Chinese long (especially in Buddhism).

The Kurukshetra War would be some years in the future. The preamble years and exile would be current.

Corporeals sounds like a good idea, though monsters and Primordials are also corporeal. Terrestials would seem to imply Earth-based, and most of them live in the underworld.

I've been taking a look at the different peoples/cultures.

I like the pictures you've chosen for all of the different people. It gives a look at each culture, and, since most of the pages are currently stubs, it at least gives something to look at for each culture, to get a feeling about it. On one hand, I wonder if it might not lead to "stereotyping," sort of-- always a bane of fantasy, at least in my opinion-- but on the other hand, people of different cultures do have traditional garb and whatnot, and I think as an overview, there's nothing wrong with showing them in it.

As I mentioned before, all of the names ending in -ite seems a little monotonous and when they're all listed together, it gets a little confusing. However, I think it's largely the result of seeing them all in a big list (such as on the main "Cultures" page) and it's not a terribly bad thing. However, I do have another thought on this matter. From what I've seen, you're playing your cultures pretty close to their inspirations. Granted, I don't know everything there is to know about these ancient cultures, so if there are significant differences that I've overlooked, then please correct me-- but, as it stands, it seems like the cultures you've created have (and are intended to have) a pretty good correspondence with one or two actual ancient cultures each. The question that this raises, then, is-- is it really doing anything but introducing confusion by renaming everything? Right now, I have to look up each culture and name, to know what's that: that the Deucalites are the Greeks, the Mulcibites are the Romans, and so on. I understand that you want to separate the world of Eschaton from our real world and our real history, so there's some argument for separation, but in terms of the readers being able to understand-- particularly if you're going to be using a lot of different names of cultures, locales, and whatnot-- there's probably a case to be made for making some of the names more recognizable, as well. Things may be too far along to be able to do this easily, on the other hand, it's not going to get any easier as time goes on, and as someone who is not as familiar with the setting I do have to say there's kind of a significant obstacle here. It may be partially my fault for not knowing where to start and trying to absorb it all at once, as I'm sure every setting, if you just put all the names in a list and try to keep them straight, is going to get confusing. Yet, you have a major advantage in being able to leverage people's real-world geographic and historic knowledge, and it seems like right now, you're not taking advantage of it. Just my two cents. :)

Some of the pictures were harder to find than others. Some of the hardest ones might have surprised you, too.

I have, myself, vacillated back and forth wondering whether renaming everything was the right decision. It makes things harder to get into, sometimes.

But it has some advantages. For example (as with Robert Howard and Conan), it means I can use aspects of a historical setting without worrying that someone will me and say my Celts are "wrong." They're not wrong, because they're not really Celts, they're inspired by Celts and then adapted to my needs.

Secondly, it means I can add my own little unique flavors to the cultures as the mood strikes me. In the case of Mulcibites, that was glyph tattoos.

Thirdly, in respect to places, it allowed me to use the mythological locations--a goal--without having to make up new places. Sure, in Arthurian legend Listeinese certainly wasn't Hispania, but it worked for me.

And as for the cultures themselves, the names are all derived from a particular messiah. In the case of Mulcibites, that is Mulciber. I see this as a major aspect of the world, and I want to play it up as much as possible, both for setting and for plot reasons. Having every culture take their very name from a mythical figure seemed like a way to do that. (Every culture is in fact named after a figure from their real-world inspirations mythology.)

QuoteThe question that this raises, then, is-- is it really doing anything but introducing confusion by renaming everything?

It may be partially my fault for not knowing where to start and trying to absorb it all at once, as I'm sure every setting, if you just put all the names in a list and try to keep them straight, is going to get confusing.[/quote]
You're right, of course. When starting a new fantasy series, for example, I feel like I need a certain mental inertia to dive into the world that's not need to continue reading a series where I already have a basis in.

Since this was one of the founding principles of the setting and its story, I'd be reluctant to change (the workload aside). I could, however, try to upload more of those map files to each instance of the location template. Would that help?

To be honest, the most important cultures (in terms of what I'm working on story-wise) are the Mulcibites, Anannites, and Kapilites. The rest are fairly secondary, so I wouldn't worry too much about them if you're trying to figure out where to start.

Edit: Perhaps the better answer is a "start here" walk through like Luminous did for JS. Eschaton, after all, is a lot of pages and 22 cultures.

My current thinking has been for some minor revisions of the cosmology. I have written out the paramatma as unnecessary (its distinction from Brahman) was slight. However, I have decided that the World Tree itself will fulfill the role of guiding the Wheel of Rebirth. All dead souls that have not achieved enlightenment (those that do go back to the Absolute) are drawn into the World Tree to be reborn in their next incarnation.

Those unable to let go of life become ghosts.
Those of great power may become faeries.
Others are born on Earth as humans or animals depending on the power of their souls.

Quote from: CosmologyAs a soul traverses its many lives, its actions (karma) cause it to evolve and gain strength. This gain in power is part of what allows a soul to be born as fae or otherwise incarnate itself into a position of power.

So I'm thinking this soul power is what other spirits have to feed on to gain power (and to remain manifested and not get drawn back into the World Tree in the case of ghosts and fae). In time, the power of fae and ghosts dwindles and must be replenished, or their karma is used up and they are drawn back in.

It's more concrete than before, still slightly more nebulous than I'd like.

One problem I have is that in the source material (Dharmic religions), karma is good or bad, and that determines where you are reborn. But to me, that implies a kind of objective ordering in the universe that I'm not sure Eschaton can support. Certainly, it's a morally ambiguous setting. So while I can see violence upon another soul leaving a mark on your own, I find it a little harder to give a definitive explanation of why one is born where. Hence, redefining the karmic ideal as your soul gaining power its experiences. But the question here, is what can constitute such experiences such that some will gain it (progressing higher) while others lose it (and become animals in another lifetime).

I am also left with the question of how a soul (presumably a ghost) gets pulled into Tartarus. Traditionally, the idea was you'd be punished there (Naraka) until your bad karma is paid off. The archons used it as an eternal prison for their enemies, and that's swell, and the Unseelie just live there. But maybe I need to say Yama or someone else actually forces shades down their, rather than them just being born there.

The Buddhist Bhavacaka (Wheel of Life) has six realms of rebirth (deva, asure, human, animal, ghost, hell), so it's kind of loosely based on that, but a direct translation didn't work. (For one thing, in Eschaton, the cosmic beings are immortal and not born, so I didn't think people should get incarnated as them without some help. But then it happened with the archons...so?)

I believe I have finished my revision of the bestiary. I'm fairly pleased with the overall simplification, and with making spirits incorporeal on the physical plane.

I've got some lingering questions. One, is whether having multiple aliases within a culture produces any positive result within a story, or just confusion. On the one hand, I was eager to represent as many different mythical creatures as possible. On the other, I wanted a stream-lined, limited list of creatures. So I said that a creature was known by different names in different places. I'm happy with this between cultures. But consider something like the hellhound/cu sith where the Anannites (Celtic peoples) have a bazillion different names for it. All names from mythology, many associated with different locations in the setting. But still, is anything gained for doing this? I know, for example, with Sophia it's really nice that she has one alias in each and every culture, and only one each. It's cleaner.

I also don't know what to do with the Hecatonchires. They had been angels physically incarnated to watch the titans. Since spirits can't physically incarnate anymore, I'm less certain what to do with them. Mutanted giants, I suppose. For that matter, I need to revise how I defined the titans (Grigori), since they were incarnated angels, too. (The giants/nephilim are the offspring of the titans and humans.)

I'm also wondering if I should separate phoenixes from aeons. I think I had originally decided phoenixes were incarnations of aeons partly because I didn't have anywhere else to classify a phoenix. Now, they could be unrelated types of Primordial, if that seems wise.

Quote from: PhoenixPerhaps the better answer is a "start here" walk through like Luminous did for JS. Eschaton, after all, is a lot of pages and 22 cultures.

Those unable to let go of life become ghosts.
Those of great power may become faeries.
Others are born on Earth as humans or animals depending on the power of their souls.[/quote]The Buddhist Bhavacaka (Wheel of Life) has six realms of rebirth (deva, asure, human, animal, ghost, hell), so it's kind of loosely based on that, but a direct translation didn't work. (For one thing, in Eschaton, the cosmic beings are immortal and not born, so I didn't think people should get incarnated as them without some help. But then it happened with the archons...so?)[/quote]I also don't know what to do with the Hecatonchires. They had been angels physically incarnated to watch the titans. Since spirits can't physically incarnate anymore, I'm less certain what to do with them.[/quote]I'm also wondering if I should separate phoenixes from aeons. I think I had originally decided phoenixes were incarnations of aeons partly because I didn't have anywhere else to classify a phoenix. Now, they could be unrelated types of Primordial, if that seems wise.[/quote]
I think it's only wise if the story can support that. If they just seem tacked on, that's no good. And phoenixes are too cool to seem like they just got tacked on!

Quote from: sparkletwistI will say, though, that none of the messiah names particularly stood out to me. Maybe that's by design, so I don't know.

One idea is to further take a page out of the Buddhist book and decide that cosmic beings are mortal after all. They could be very long-lived, or preserve their memories through their various reincarnations, or both, to allow them to keep some of their special qualities, but this would solve one of the problems, I think.[/quote]I think it's only wise if the story can support that. If they just seem tacked on, that's no good. And phoenixes are too cool to seem like they just got tacked on![/quote]
The truth is, the phoenixes are important because of their avatars. Besides Theletus (Prometheus), Sophia, and Caen, the aeons were only important as those phoenixes. But with aeons being now wholly physical beings, it seems kind of weird they just transform into a new kind of creature (as opposed to when I said they where spirits, which are kind of naturally incorporeal).

Anyway, you gave me some things to mull over.

Quote from: STOne idea is to redefine "bad karma" for your purposes as not some objective morality but rather a taint that is placed on your own soul, and something that has to be resolved before one can be reborn into higher forms. In this way, it's actually something you've already done, with the various corrupted forms of spirits. If you want to think of it this way, it could be kind of like the corruption that black magic introduces. You could even connect it with the Cythrawl and bring it into your greater cosmology, really.

What if they were humans or monsters, or something, ostensibly-- but were powerful spirits in a previous life? This might work better if you make certain powerful cosmic beings not immortal, but it'd let you tie everything into your grand reincarnation system, and also provide a little bit of a loophole for cases like this.[/quote]I think it's only wise if the story can support that. If they just seem tacked on, that's no good. And phoenixes are too cool to seem like they just got tacked on![/quote]
The truth is, the phoenixes are important because of their avatars. Besides Theletus (Prometheus), Sophia, and Caen, the aeons were only important as those phoenixes. But with aeons being now wholly physical beings, it seems kind of weird they just transform into a new kind of creature (as opposed to when I said they where spirits, which are kind of naturally incorporeal).

Anyway, you gave me some things to mull over.

The Wheel of Rebirth
The Wheel of Rebirth is the World Tree, which draws in the souls of the dead and reincarnates them into new lives (as humans, ghosts, animals, fae, or the lesser gods).

The gods (archons) would say the Wheel exists for the sole purpose of binding souls to the world so that the gods can feed off the energy of those souls again and again. A drained soul cannot evolve, and is shunted back down the karmic ladder (possibly weakened to the point it can only incarnate as a lower animal).


So, in keeping with Sparkletwist's advice, spirits are not immortal, but rather long-lived. They can, however, prolong their existence indefinitely be feeding on souls. This is the purpose of the Wild Hunt--the fae send their huntsman and his hellhounds to gather souls and drag them back to the underworld so that the important fae can feed on the souls and prolong their lives.

Quote from: PhoenixOn the subject of aliases, it kind of sounds like you're in favor of basically having one name for each creature for each culture.

So, in keeping with Sparkletwist's advice, spirits are not immortal, but rather long-lived. They can, however, prolong their existence indefinitely be feeding on souls. This is the purpose of the Wild Hunt--the fae send their huntsman and his hellhounds to gather souls and drag them back to the underworld so that the important fae can feed on the souls and prolong their lives[/quote]
Not to sound like I'm tooting my own horn since this came from my own advice, but I do like this, and I like that you managed to work the Wild Hunt-- which is one of my favorite Germanic mythological thingies-- into it, and give it a purpose.