Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Doom_Linnorm 01-07-08, 08:31 AM	I've since about two months ago started recreating my whole setting. I wanted to start posting some bits on the forums and check the feedback so PEACH please. Of course I'm first just opening with a list of names of planar lords, which will be a main focal point. Note: In my setting Devils are seen as a group of Demons, they are directly related entities, in fact all Archdevils in my setting are former Demon Lords. A few names will be the same but they will be wholly different from official. (Except maybe Pazuzu and Mammon, the WotC take on them is hard to avoid.) Astranan Demon Lords: Qua'Numoug, Demon Lord of Madness Dalathia, Demon Queen of Sorcery Pazuzu, Demon Lord of Wind Dagon, Demon Lord of Depths Lilim, Demon Queen of Night Yurami, Demon Queen of Poison (Sister to Lilim) Alazamnus, Demon Lord of Corruption Yaghesh, Demon Lord of Lies Urazel the Doom Linnorm, Demon Lord of Damnation (Technically not a Demon but a Dragon) Arazel the Death Linnorm, Demon Lord of Death (Brother to Urazel) Zafilstyx, Demon Queen of the Styx (Technically not a Demon but a Dragon) The Raging Beast, Demon Lord of Beasts (Technically not a Demon but a Behemoth) Valia, Demon Queen of Vengeance Garich, Demon Lord of Frost Anansi the Spider, Demon Lord of Trickery Echidna the Dark Mother, Demon Queen of Nymphs (Technically not a Demon but the daughter of the Serpent God Apep) Astranan Archdevils: Note: the word in brackets refers to their former Demon Lord title. Also Lilith is the most powerfull Devil but chooses to let Mephisto officially rule, a carefully guarded secret and the cause of constant strife between the two. 1st seat: Mephisto (Power) 2nd seat: Lilith (Dominion) (No, she's not a leather clad dominatrix, think of Asmodeus but then Female.) 3rd seat: Azazel (Violence) 4th seat: Soneillon (Hatred) 5th seat: Astaroth (Sloth) 6th seat: Gressil (Decay) 7th seat: Mammon (Wealth) 8th seat: Baal (Pride) 9th seat: Geryon (Savagery) Astranan Heaven Lords: Heaven Lord Daramu, the Wise Lord. Heaven Lord Nur, the Radiant Lord. Heaven Lord Sharill, the Just Lord. Heaven Lady Jacinth, the Fair Lady. Heaven Lady Vivialith, the Honest Lady. Heaven Lord Othus, the Pure Lord. Heaven Lord Toushiro, the Honoroble Lord. (Technically not a Celestial but a Dragon.) The four Sacred Beasts: Irresh the Seer, the Shelled Prophet (He's a turtle) The Forest Sage (She's a Behemoth) Athuma (He's a Leviathan) Tira, the Coiled Queen (She's a Wurm) Other important Astranan planar entities: Oberon of the Emerald Wilds Titania of the Emerald Wilds Talos the Golem Al'Zhjahir the Djinn Sultan Al'Jehdin the Efreet Sultan The list is still incomplete, but these are the only ones that really matter for now. I'll start editing this post with brief tidbits about each of them.
old_dm 01-07-08, 03:08 PM	While I am all for ridiculous over complication when it comes to homebrew campaign settings, there comes a point in the development of such that you have to ask yourself how much work is it really worth to create a vast tome of knowledge thats only real purpose is to amuse yourself by confusing the players with a lot of hard to remember names and appellations? I suppose it does add a certain depth to a world that would otherwise not exist, but my advice would be to stop your efforts at the list of names, and just wing it whenever a specific question arises about any of these entities. An axiom that I have lived by for years is "the players can't corner you with what you've never written down." And anyway, if you spent the time it would take to construct mythology and subsequent religions for all the beings in your cosmos, complete with details about their followers, their wealth and economical strength, political aspirations, etc etc you'll be at it all year.
Doom_Linnorm 01-08-08, 01:20 AM	Well, I doubt it would be more confusing then what's been made by WotC, and probably would come around the corner to bite itself in the rear a bit less. The focal point of my campaign structure is options, I have decent ideas for each one and elaborate based on which direction they are moving, so far its worked with all my campaigns, but I wanted something.... me, not WotC. The names are easy to remember when they only have to deal with one to four at a time in story arcs. With 4th lurking around the corner I can't depends on WotC as much anymore to provide new and exciting material that is compatible to all my 3rd source books. Also my outer planar politics and factions so far are a lot simpler organized. But I'm an idiot for springing to the defensive here when I asked for an opinion so excuse my rant. :D Which reminds me, would you care to give some thoughts on the structure rather then the complications it might bring?
old_dm 01-08-08, 08:38 AM	Well, I doubt it would be more confusing then what's been made by WotC Reading Foucault's Pendulum in the dark would be less confusing than anything released by WotC. With 4th lurking around the corner Lurking is the appropriate word... But I'm an idiot for springing to the defensive here when I asked for an opinion so excuse my rant. Not at all. No one likes to be criticized. would you care to give some thoughts on the structure? Structure? Sure. It's needlessly over complicated. See, the only time I ever give more than a moments thought to an NPC (that is, giving it stats and equipment) in a world of my own is because I perceive it as possible that the PCs will someday be both able and inclined to attempt to kill it. This is why I almost never give stats to anything that is both extra planar in nature, and is somehow important to its native extra planar reality. But I'm getting ahead of myself... These boards, and the gaming world in general is full of folks who will advocate the position that the more notes you make, the better prepared you are, and therefore the better your campaign will be. I do not subscribe to this theory. Quite the reverse, it is my opinion that you're doing yourself a favor by making fewer notes and setting as little in stone (from the players perspective anyway) as possible. For example: why see every deity of a particular alignment base as an individual when you can just see them all as different faces of the same person? When seen this way it is simple to describe an encounter with a deific force uniquely to the players perspective. You could give it a hundred names, or a thousand names, but at the end of the day the only name that matters is the one that the cleric prays to for spells. Thus, evil remains evil, and good remains good, regardless of by what name it is called. This also makes it incredibly more difficult for any one player, or group of players, to nail down just exactly what a god is or what exactly it does, in the cosmological sense, outside of their own unique personal experiences. This also makes it oh so much easier to dismiss the idea that the PCs will ever actually encounter any such being in a way that will require you to know its armor class. This technique will save you the time and money involved in acquiring the largely useless, but admittedly colorful volumes produced by WotC dealing with deities, and it will likewise preclude the necessity of you having to wear your pencil down to a nub recreating such a volume in your own likeness. Anyway, the only reason I can think of why anyone would do this is if they are about to embark on one of those extra planar soap operas where the ultimate goal is the players ruling the universe or some such equally hokey horsecrap. Unless of course you're one of those DMs who hasn't played long enough to realize that including killable deities is a needless over complication. Leaving aside that you can have the same plot, same storyline, same level of danger and intrigue, etc etc with a group of evil and mortal NPCs as you can with a pantheon of involved devils and demons; you have to consider the work you're making for yourself when one of these entities dies. Or maybe you don't care about the balance and continuity of your campaign world, in which case it doesn't really matter what you do, or even if you do it at all. The theory heres is simple really. Don't make (or buy) rulebooks that you don't have to. The real strength of a good DM isn't in his notes. It's in understanding that every session is a fluid situation, never expecting or requiring the same rules. Notes are just what a good DM does between sessions to help the brainstorming process. And before you chide me for sermonizing from atop the proverbial soapbox, let me say that I have been where you are and I have done exactly what you are doing, more than once. It just isn't worth the work. Also, if you or someone you know is ever interested in knowing the denizens and dangers of each individual level of the 666 steps to the bottom of the abyss just let me know. I've got more than 1700 college ruled pages on the subject. After mentioning it I wouldn't be at all surprised to see wizards release a book called Denizens of the Abyss within the year.
Doom_Linnorm 01-08-08, 09:14 AM	Just a few things: As far as gods go, I quite simply use three existing pantheons and a simple elemental pantheon of my own design. Greek, Egyptian and Norse. 12 Elemental Dragons. The list above are planar lords, and I don't have stat blocks for each of them, just little bits of story I can build on when it becomes relevant. (Except Dalathia, I've got a lot on her, but they even met her in person, which is why.) I look at them as a list of tools to make campaigns exciting, I love it when players get involved in large scale planar politics and they seem to be enjoying it. But I'd like to stuff this setting so full of building blocks that I can make campaigns with it for at least a few years to come. Next to that, when I've got time to spare I also enjoy writing all this junk. Thanks for the highly constructive post old_dm.