If one was to be freed, in whatever manner, what power could he wield? Immortal yes, but even the dragons are bound to limits. Would he be the type of being that could blink and create something akin to the Day of Mourning?
The dragons, albeit with the couatls sacrifice, beat them back once. With the proliferation of magic throughout the common races, do mortals even stand a chance?
What strike force could re-chain/kill (can they be killed, or just imprisoned?) a raja? 20 epic adventures? The Five Nations working together? Aerenal elves? A Flight of Argonessen's strongest wyrms?
...EDIT spelled Rakshasa wrong.
So to answer your last question, if all of the above teamed up, they might be able to stop one if they got lucky.
THE RAKSHASA RAJAHS
The fiends imprisoned in Khyber at the end of the Age of Demons were evil outsiders with godlike power. Beyond that description, their true nature remains unclear. Their closest parallel in the D& D rules are the archdevils and demon princes described in Book of Vile Darkness. Few are known by name, but one—now called Levistus - is famous for having briefly slipped the bonds of his imprisonment (see Frostfell Gods and Fiends, page 67). It is possible that the fiendish patron of the Plaguebearers is a creature similar to Demogorgon or Juiblex, while the lord of the Deathbringers might be similar to Orcus. The darkness fiend worshiped by the Enshrouded could be Graz'zt, and the carrion lord of the Carrion Hounds (sometimes called the Lord of Flies) could be Baalzebul - before or after his transformation into a sluglike monster. Whether the rakshasa rajahs actually bear any physical similarity to these archfiends, their abilities and characteristics are on a par with them. (Player's Guide to Eberron, pp. 34-35)
They are the same level of power as the archfiends found in Book of Vile Darkness. In fact, Player's Guide to Eberron offers the following:
THE RAKSHASA RAJAHS
The fiends imprisoned in Khyber at the end of the Age of Demons were evil outsiders with godlike power. Beyond that description, their true natureTheir closest parallel in the D& D rules are the archdevils and demon princes described in Book of Vile Darkness. Few are known by name, but one—now called Levistus - is famous for having briefly slipped the bonds of his imprisonment (see Frostfell Gods and Fiends, page 67). It is possible that the fiendish patron of the Plaguebearers is a creature similar to Demogorgon or Juiblex, while the lord of the Deathbringers might be similar to Orcus. The darkness fiend worshiped by the Enshrouded could be Graz'zt, and the carrion lord of the Carrion Hounds (sometimes called the Lord of Flies) could be Baalzebul - before or after his transformation into a sluglike monster. Whether the rakshasa rajahs actually bear any physical similarity to these archfiends, their abilities and characteristics are on a par with them. (Player's Guide to Eberron, pp. 34-35)
Yes, but we've seen stats of the Rajahs. They tend to have epic DR, Resistance to everything, and are just able to do things similar to divine ranked creatures. The one presented can cast two spells a turn (knows all Wizard and Sorcerer spells) with as many metamagic feats on them as she wants. She's not affected by anti-magic and more or less auto counter-spells any spell cast at her. AC is 55 and has DR 40. Don't think this will break copyright, so I wanted to give an example of how strong they are. You're average CR 30-40 Archfiend (if I remember their stats correctly) would die within a few rounds. Even if they won, the Rajah reforms in just a bit and resumes the attack.
The one Mystrich is bringing up had effective spell levels of 15, so she could through all kinds of metamagic on level 9 spells.
At Gen Con I asked Kieth if the 'power scale' had changed with 4th edition, because in third there was no limit really to a heroes power where in 4th they will never exceed 30th level. I specifically asked about what level would this put the Rajahs. He said 'still around 40'
Really damn powerful. Under 3.5 rules the ones that Keith stated up in Dragon Magazine 337 had 40 levels of PC classes and a metric ass load of special abilities on top of all that.
The one Mystrich is bringing up had effective spell levels of 15, so she could through all kinds of metamagic on level 9 spells.
I forgot about those statted rajahs. I'm rather surprised that they surpass even the greatest of D&D's archfiends. Even Zuggtmoy in the same issue only has 35HD.
if they are the final boss and you want your players to kill the closest thing to gods that Eberron has... (be it very evil and crazy)... use the Biggest Demons in the MM as your road map and keep them around a solo 30...
One thing about them is that not all of them were Equals... so to say that all were level 40 is missing something...
A fight against a Rajah isn't a simple fight, it's epic, which means complicated, long, and hard. Maybe the Rajah teleported itself from Flamekeep to Sharn and the PCs need to figure out where he is (by going to a Sivis station) and then forcing an Orien heir to teleport them in the middle of the destruction of Sharn to continu the fight, maybe this could be considered a short rest so they can use again the encounter powers they've used and be reloaded with healing surges.
Maybe the Rajah draws power from the fear of each individual, which means that's why he went to Sharn, it's the most populated city on Khorvaire, so more power to the Rajah. If the PCs figure that out, they could try to bring the Rajah to a wasteland (Xen'drik or Mournland) to lower its power. But the Mournland has side effect to the PCs, imagine a fight against a Rajah in the Mournland.... Or they could rally the people of Sharn in hope and vanquish their fear of the Rajah, making it less strong.
What I mean is, on a design view, maybe the way to defeat a Rajah isn't by direct fighting, but with an epic ritual or putting hope back in the people of Sharn, etc. and that the way to defeat it could be important when designing the Rajah and its abilities.
Rekko
I see the Overlords as being the primal embodiments of fearsome concepts. Given that the true gods don't manifest in Eberron, the Rajahs provide you with a chance to fight a creature with that level of power - something you otherwise wouldn't have. And again, my thought is that the release of a single Overlord should be something that can threaten a nation or even continent. Thirtiyish Overlords were able to dominate untold hosts of dragons, couatl, giants, and for that matter demons. The classic archfiends don't quite have that power in my opinion. I think they are great for that exarch role - but the Overlords should be the ultimate scary thing you can face.
I think that a power level close to that of Orcus is appropriate. Saying that a creature's power is so great that the player's will never be able to fight it is a cop-out.
But it is what Keith Baker imagined when he created the setting. They aren't meant to be fought. You're supposed to end the campaign in a dramatic fashion. If the PCs lose, beings as strong as gods are released, desiring nothing but total destruction and nothing can stop them. If they win, then they have successfully stopped these beings from coming in the first place, saving the world.
Saying that a creature's power is so great that the player's will never be able to fight it is a cop-out.
And that's not what I'm saying, SkyOdin, or I wouldn't have given stats for one in the first place (I also statted a second for an article that, sadly, never saw print). The point is that the Overlords are the most epic challenge that exists in the setting. You CAN fight them, but they are on a power level closer to gods than to archfiends... because, after all, in Eberron you aren't going to encounter gods. Overlords are where you get to make some use of some of the material you'd use for gods in other settings - except instead of being gods, they're primal horrors.
In my opinion, a party of epic adventurers should be able to face and defeat an Overlord. After all, Tira Miron did it (though in my opinion, she wasn't alone; we just haven't talked about her bold companions). However, the point is that you don't defeat a rajah by just running up and hitting it. The release of an Overlord is an event that should be felt across a continent. It is one of the most epic events that can happen in the setting. And its defeat should BE an epic event, in every sense of the word. This is the sort of thing that will require PCs to acquire artifacts, to make terrible sacrifices, to make deals with higher powers. Tira Miron defeated an Overlord, but she did it by becoming the vessel of the Silver Flame, and ultimately, sacrificing her existence (though in the process ascending to become the Voice of the Flame). This is epic destiny stuff - Tira's story is pretty much a perfect example of a character fulfilling her epic destiny. Essentially, a party of heroes can succeed where an army of dragons will be destroyed - because it's not about simple power, it's about going on the adventures required to get the tools and knowledge needed to attain victory, and overcoming the threat you were born to face.
Another key to defeating an Overlord is the Prophecy - which, if you recall your history, was the weapon that turned the tide in the original wars. You can't defeat an overlord just by hitting it; even if you do defeat its physical form, it's just going to come back. But the Prophecy holds the knowledge of how it can be bound again. What weapon must you use? What sacrifice must you make? How can you defend yourself against its powers? Where must the battle occur? All of these are the sorts of answers the Prophecy may hold... again, going to the epic destiny. Defeating a Rajah should be an epic story arc, as you gather the allies and tools you need - not just a single random encounter.
At least, that was my intention in creating them.
As for power, it's going to depend on the nature of the Overlord. For example, the one I created that hasn't been seen was a spirit of cold; she spread ice age conditions within a hundred mile radius, could craft undead creatures of ice, and so on. As an Overlord, Tiamat embodies the touch of Khyber within the heart of dragons. She can't create the Mourning by snapping her fingers, but she can enslave dragons and corrupt their spawn. The Rage of War is likewise more of a psychic threat than a physical powerhouse, driving his enemies to destroy one another. The Rajahs are powerful enough to devastate nations, but the form of that power varies dramatically.
In my opinion, a party of epic adventurers should be able to face and defeat an Overlord. After all, Tira Miron did it (though in my opinion, she wasn't alone; we just haven't talked about her bold companions).
I have been wracking my brain trying to figure out how to plug in the Six in Shadow and the Disciples of Legend from Complete Champion into Eberron. Now I've got something to work with!
The point is that the Overlords are the most epic challenge that exists in the setting. You CAN fight them, but they are on a power level closer to gods than to archfiends... because, after all, in Eberron you aren't going to encounter gods. Overlords are where you get to make some use of some of the material you'd use for gods in other settings - except instead of being gods, they're primal horrors.
First off, I would like to say that my comment was not directed towards you directly. I was responding a bit more to comments like Bossemeyer's or Mystrich's, which argue for putting Rajahs on a tier above even Epic.
However, I think I do have a bit of a difference of opinion with you on some of this.
Part of it comes from how I imagine Epic level D&D and beings like the Rakshasa Rajahs or the classic archfiends. My model for beings like these comes from the depiction of Ravana, King of the Rakshasas, in the Hindu epic the Ramayana. In that story, Ravana, with his son and brothers, wages war against the Hindu gods, and manages to defeat them in their own palaces, gaining free reign to terrorize the world. However, he is eventually defeated in single combat by Rama, the human reincarnation of Vishnu. It is the best example of Epic level that I have ever come across in literature, and one of my favorite stories.
Since I base my view of Epic level D&D on classical mythology, I also think that Thor and Loki would make good epic-level PCs. In other words, gods don't exist in a realm completely beyond mortals. Now then, I know that this view is not completely compatible with Eberron, where gods exist as something completely distant and unknowable. However, I am inclined to think that PCs in Eberron should be able to become as close to gods as anything else in the setting.
I should point out that I generally agree with you on needing to go on extensive quests in preparation for a battle against a Rajah. After all, even the Norse gods had to go to great lengths to have Gleipnir crafted so they could deceive and bind the beast Fenrir.
However, I don't think a party necessarily has to even be Epic level in order to get involved in such quests. Back in third edition, I was part of an excellent Eberron campaign where the PCs were dragged into an ongoing struggle to prevent the release of a Rakshasa Rajah after we discovered an important prophecy and confronted a powerful Rakshasa who was acting as the instrument of a Rajah at level 5 or so (we had to run, of course). In my opinion, the difference between what we were doing at low levels, and an Epic level team is that the Epic level team can actually challenge the Rajah if the binding ritual fails, and have a fair shot at killing him.
Yes, I think that PCs should be able to kill a Rakshasa Rajah for real, and for a very simple reason: it is my philosophy that the players should be able to change the world. If you say that Rajahs can't be killed, then you are saying that there is something about the world the PCs can't ever change, no matter what they do or how hard they try. That just rubs me the wrong way.
In summation, I don't think that Rajah's god-like status should make them exempt from challenge, since Epic-level PCs have obtained god-like status themselves.
BTW: I get the feeling that either I missed one of your articles, or one of the Eberron books I didn't get covers some of this, since I don't recognize your use of the word Overlord in that context, nor have I seen the write-up for a Rakshasa Rajah. Where can that be located?
In 4E, you can't both have Rajahs be "stronger than archfiends" and still make it remotely possible for them to be beaten by PCs. Orcus, the iconic archfiend os D&D, is statted up as a level 33 solo monster, the single strongest kind of creature that can actually be fought under the rules of the game. There isn't even any point to making something stronger, since there is no way for an PC to possibly defeat such a thing.
I guess you could argue that you should defeat such a thing through rituals or ceremonies, but I don't like that option at all. D&D is a game about heroes bravely challenging their foes and matching them in direct combat, and Eberron embraces that side of it with the Pulp aspect of the setting. If a Rajah threatens the world, the PCs are going to want to fight it themselves with their own strength at some point, and it runs counter to the most fundamental goals of the game to deny them that chance and ask them to be happy to merely fend of the Rajah's minions while someone completes a Rajah-sealing ritual, especially if they are at high Epic levels.
After all, if heroes can start doing heroic things at 1st level, the start of the Heroic level, and they can easily be affecting whole kingdoms by 11th level, the start of the Paragon level, why shouldn't they be able to save the world on their own at the very heights of the Epic tier, or even before?
Yes, I think that PCs should be able to kill a Rakshasa Rajah for real, and for a very simple reason: it is my philosophy that the players should be able to change the world. If you say that Rajahs can't be killed, then you are saying that there is something about the world the PCs can't ever change, no matter what they do or how hard they try. That just rubs me the wrong way.
To me, you're description, first off, seems to imply that you should feel the opposite. The Rajah was able to defeat the gods in their own domains, it's above the level of even the gods, and practically unbeatable.
Another big comparison to make is compared to Call of Cthulhu. The protagonists might be able to delay the inevitable, but they cannot win as they are mortals dealing with forces greater than they can even begin to imagine. The Rajahs are similar beings, well beyond anything else found on Eberron, or it's planes and deity level in comparison to a setting where the deities aren't beings that walk around.
As Keith said, things can happen that would let them win, but it's not just swing a sword or cast a spell to take down a being of god-like power. You need the prophesy on your side and the resources of the strongest spells, equipment, and organizations you can find.
Back in third edition, I was part of an excellent Eberron campaign where the PCs were dragged into an ongoing struggle to prevent the release of a Rakshasa Rajah after we discovered an important prophecy and confronted a powerful Rakshasa who was acting as the instrument of a Rajah at level 5 or so (we had to run, of course).
Certainly. That's the point of the Lords of Dust article I wrote for Dragon. You can get involved with the Lords of Dust at ANY level. But I don't see low-level characters physically engaging in battle with an overlord. Per my article, even the prakhutu (essentially, exarch) of the Overlord was an epic-level challenge.
Yes, I think that PCs should be able to kill a Rakshasa Rajah for real, and for a very simple reason: it is my philosophy that the players should be able to change the world. If you say that Rajahs can't be killed, then you are saying that there is something about the world the PCs can't ever change, no matter what they do or how hard they try.
The funny thing is that I completely agree with your philosophy that PCs should be able to change the world, and much of Eberron is designed with that in mind. Want your PCs to solve the Mourning? Do it. Want them to turn the age of Dal Quor? Do it. However, I still don't want them killing the Overlords, because in my opinion the true immortality of the Overlords is what makes them the greatest evil of Eberron - the one force that can NEVER be defeated, that will always remain in the backdrop. In The Call of Cthulhu, Cthulhu is defeated - but not killed. The players CAN change the world - because if the Overlord is released, they are the only ones with a chance to stop it. But that doesn't require its death. After all, if it's only got the chance to come out once every 100,000 years, isn't rebinding it good enough?
With that said, the main reason I'm against the death of immortal outsiders is that I view them as essentially being energy. They are the embodiment of ideas. You cannot just kill the concept of death itself. Now, perhaps there is some way to force its rebirth in a different form, or take some other action that will change it - but the key is that these are NOT just big monsters. An Overlord isn't Godzilla. It is as close to an incarnate god as you get on Eberron - and again, they held dragons, couatl, titans and more in bondage for hundreds of thousands of years.
So like you, I don't feel they should be exempt from CHALLENGE: I just feel that being held in powerless bondage is a suitable alternative to death, and the fact that they are the enemies that CANNOT be destroyed is what makes them stand apart and above from all other forces you'll face. Again, you can throw an army of dragons at them, and from sheer numbers alone probably destroy the Overlord's physical form; but since it can return, that won't help. Only the hero can DEFEAT it - only the hero can make that change.
BTW: I get the feeling that either I missed one of your articles, or one of the Eberron books I didn't get covers some of this, since I don't recognize your use of the word Overlord in that context, nor have I seen the write-up for a Rakshasa Rajah. Where can that be located?
I think it's Dragon #337, and it's available in PDF form from Paizo. The article is called Eternal Evil, and includes a lot of information about the Lords of Dust and the Overlords. I prefer the term Overlord (which you'll also see in Dragons of Eberron) to "Rakshasa Rajah" because a) it divorces them from cultural context and b) it clarifies that while they ruled the rakshasa, they themselves are NOT simply powerful rakshasa; they are an entirely different order of being.
In 4E, you can't both have Rajahs be "stronger than archfiends" and still make it remotely possible for them to be beaten by PCs. Orcus, the iconic archfiend os D&D, is statted up as a level 33 solo monster, the single strongest kind of creature that can actually be fought under the rules of the game. There isn't even any point to making something stronger, since there is no way for an PC to possibly defeat such a thing.
Sure you can. There's dozens of options. Through their alliances (such as Tira's divine channeling the force of the Flame), you can increase the power of the PCs beyond even what they are normally capable of. But beyond that, the point is that you can say the Overlord, in THEORY, is a level 80 solo monster - but that if you slay it's prakhutu, throw the ring that holds a fragment of its soul into the crack of doom, forge a sword in the blood of the ancient dragon who inspired the myths of Dol Arrah, and bring the six chosen champions together on the spot where the Prophecy promises it can be defeated, THEN it can be considered to be a level 33 creature. Now it CAN be defeated - because you have undergone the quests that make it possible to defeat. But if it's just a level 33 monster off the bat, I can defeat it by throwing a pile of ancient dragons at it.
You should be able to have a climactic fight with an Overlord. Tira did it. But again, there should be a huge difference between fighting an overlord and fighting a dragon that happens to be level 33.
I'm thinking, would Yog-Sothoth be some kind of Rajah?
Again, CoCd20 wise, too weak. But he would probably be. Either that or a powerful Xoriat, perhaps even a Daelkyr.
I'm thinking, would Yog-Sothoth be some kind of Rajah?
I'd be inclined to go with Mystrich and make YS a spirit of Xoriat. The daelkyr aren't actually supposed to be the most powerful beings in Xoriat; they just happen to be the ones interested in going out to other planes.
With that said, Lovecraft and the Cthulhu mythos is certainly one of the inspirations for the rajahs - the concept of an ancient primal evil, something that cannot be destroyed, waiting for the chance to rise again and bring doom in its wake.
With that said, it is the case the the Overlords embody distinct concepts. The release of the Keeper of Secrets is going to be very different than the release of the Rage of War. The return of Rak Tulkhesh would be heralded by a wave of bloodshed and war, while the rise of Sul Khatesh might go unnoticed as her influence slowly spreads across the land, touching those who draw on arcane powers. Should Tiamat rise from the Pit of Five Sorrows, it might be some time before the people of Khorvaire learned of it - but the impact on Argonnessen would be immediate and devastating. So things really depend on which of the Rajahs you're dealing with.
The funny thing is that I completely agree with your philosophy that PCs should be able to change the world, and much of Eberron is designed with that in mind. Want your PCs to solve the Mourning? Do it. Want them to turn the age of Dal Quor? Do it. However, I still don't want them killing the Overlords, because in my opinion the true immortality of the Overlords is what makes them the greatest evil of Eberron - the one force that can NEVER be defeated, that will always remain in the backdrop. In The Call of Cthulhu, Cthulhu is defeated - but not killed. The players CAN change the world - because if the Overlord is released, they are the only ones with a chance to stop it. But that doesn't require its death. After all, if it's only got the chance to come out once every 100,000 years, isn't rebinding it good enough?
With that said, the main reason I'm against the death of immortal outsiders is that I view them as essentially being energy. They are the embodiment of ideas. You cannot just kill the concept of death itself. Now, perhaps there is some way to force its rebirth in a different form, or take some other action that will change it - but the key is that these are NOT just big monsters. An Overlord isn't Godzilla. It is as close to an incarnate god as you get on Eberron - and again, they held dragons, couatl, titans and more in bondage for hundreds of thousands of years.
So like you, I don't feel they should be exempt from CHALLENGE: I just feel that being held in powerless bondage is a suitable alternative to death, and the fact that they are the enemies that CANNOT be destroyed is what makes them stand apart and above from all other forces you'll face. Again, you can throw an army of dragons at them, and from sheer numbers alone probably destroy the Overlord's physical form; but since it can return, that won't help. Only the hero can DEFEAT it - only the hero can make that change.
I guess I can see the root of some of our difference in opinion. To start with, I am not really a fan of the Cthulhu Mythos and the works of H. P. Lovecraft, so that changes my expectations and the way I imagine ultimate evil compared to you and many other people.
A big part of my thinking is that I don't consider resealing a released super-demon to really be changing the world, even if the PCs are the only ones to do it. In a sense, that is really just enforcing the status quo. In any event, given the choice between resealing the Rajah and letting it run free over the world, the PCs don't really have any choice.
The reason that I like the idea of killing a Rajah is that it creates an interesting dilemma for the players, since they now have two choices: reseal the Rajah, or try killing it once and for all. If they choose to reseal the Rajah, they will probably have an easier battle, but will have to spend the rest of their lives knowing that the Rajah may one day be released upon the world again (furthermore, the sealing ritual may involve making a significant sacrifice on the PC's part in some way). If the players choose to try to kill the Rajah, they face a bigger gamble, since their chances of succeeding are much slimmer. Even if they do succeed, there may be drastic and unpredictable repercussions for their actions.
While you don't think Rajahs should be killable because they exist as the embodiment of fundamental forces, I like the idea of killing one of them off for that very reason. What happens when the incarnation of the Rage of War is slain? I enjoy exploring the cosmological fallout of something like that. If I was to let a D&D party slay a Rajah, they would have to face a slightly more uncertain future, in which the forces that held the universe together have been altered slightly, perhaps allowing new threats to emerge (probably for a follow-up campaign, though).
I guess I enjoy putting players in complex moral dilemmas. It seems to suit the Noir flavor of Eberron.
Sure you can. There's dozens of options. Through their alliances (such as Tira's divine channeling the force of the Flame), you can increase the power of the PCs beyond even what they are normally capable of. But beyond that, the point is that you can say the Overlord, in THEORY, is a level 80 solo monster - but that if you slay it's prakhutu, throw the ring that holds a fragment of its soul into the crack of doom, forge a sword in the blood of the ancient dragon who inspired the myths of Dol Arrah, and bring the six chosen champions together on the spot where the Prophecy promises it can be defeated, THEN it can be considered to be a level 33 creature. Now it CAN be defeated - because you have undergone the quests that make it possible to defeat. But if it's just a level 33 monster off the bat, I can defeat it by throwing a pile of ancient dragons at it.
You should be able to have a climactic fight with an Overlord. Tira did it. But again, there should be a huge difference between fighting an overlord and fighting a dragon that happens to be level 33.
Honestly, I don't think this argument works well. If the only time the creature can be defeated is when it has the stats of a level 33 monster, then it is a level 33 monster. Everything else you add are just qualifiers that modify what conditions exist before it can be fought, not its actual power as it will ever appear for the players. You can't say that it is actually a level 80 monster, since there is no point to statting up a level 80 monster (all characters essentially retire at level 30 in 4E), and there are no rules governing depowering a monster. When it all comes down to it, it will be a fightable monster of a normal level, or it might as well not exist.
Also, the "throw an army of ancient dragons at it" statement completely ignores a central premise of 4E, in which stats do not control a creature's story role, and are not presumed to control NPC/NPC interactions.
Overall, I don't think you are giving epic-level characters enough credit. Let me phrase things a bit differently... Let me try describing what I consider an "ideal campaign", based on the structure of "heroic parties save local towns, paragon parties save countries, and epic parties save the world".
At the beginning of the heroic tier, the party protects their hometown against an invading horde of evil goblins.
At the end of the heroic tier, the party ventures into the stronghold of the goblins and defeats their leader, protecting their home from the threat once and for all.
At the beginning of the paragon tier, the party manages to thwart an attack by an enemy nation, sparring their country from what otherwise have been a crushing blow in a desperate war.
At the end of the paragon tier, the party manages to bring the war to an end and creates a lasting peace.
At the beginning of the epic tier, the party thwarts the incursion of a terrible army of demons into the world.
At the end of the epic tier, the party ventures into the stronghold of the demon army and defeats them, protecting their world from any future threat.
To be honest, this structure is built on the basis of playing way too many videogames, but I don't think it is unreasonable. The things you describe, such as "throwing a ring holding the fragment of its soul into a chasm", are not truly Epic solutions to the threat of a great evil, they are Paragon level or very early Epic level solutions. What you describe are the actions of mere mortals fighting against forces far beyond their kin, but Epic-level characters advance far beyond that stage. The heroes of a Call of Cthulu story or the Fellowship of the Ring were not Epic characters, and their stories should not be used as the basis for determining what Epic characters should be able to do. A character with the Demigod destiny is a demigod from the very beginning of his life, has the full power of one from 21st level onward, and becomes a true god when he completes his journey. For such a character, it should be natural to confront a god-like being on an even level, not abnormal.
Anyways, to give you an idea of my perspective, one of my favorite inspirations for Eberron happens to be, for some reason or another, a Playstation 2 RPG called Shadow Hearts (it has a lot of great fighting over plot McGuffins between rival shadowy organizations that use a lot of twisted magic, and it starts on a train). In this game, the ultimate threat is a Cthulu-esque alien entity that has been described as being so far beyond mankind that it is worshipped as a god, and has been summoned to the world in order to wipe out humanity. Its listed name is "Meta-God". The game player stops it by fighting it in a regular battle, at the conclusion of which it is killed. I am perfectly fine with that. After all, it is the final battle faced at the end of a difficult struggle, and the battle itself is easily one of the toughest in the game. The presentation of the battle is more important than justifying how a random group of super-powered humans can kill a god.
What happens when the incarnation of the Rage of War is slain? I enjoy exploring the cosmological fallout of something like that.
What's funny that I was actually thinking about posting something to the same effect earlier. The key point to me is that you are talking about beings that entire armies of dragons, couatl, and titans couldn't slay... beings armed with epic magic and knowledge of the Prophecy. Thus, if they can be killed, it shouldn't be as simple as just HITTING them; if it were that easy, the dragons would have already done it. The couatl sacrificed their entire immortal race to just hold the rajahs in bondage. However, the alternate answer is to say that the dragons COULD have done it and chose not to, because of the potential consequences of that action. My original point is that you can't kill Death by stabbing it with a sword. But say you could. What happens next? There's lots of versions of the story where someone kills/traps Death and ends up with a world in which there's no release to suffering, where they eventually need to find a way to restore death to the world.
Personally, I don't see the Overlords as being that all-encompassing. I see Katashka as embodying the CONCEPT of death - mortals' fear of death and the undead - as opposed to being the force that is actually responsible for death (after all, Katashka HAS been bound). However, it's a route you could go and certainly one that would have lots of interesting potential. If you kill the Rage of War, will you strip humanity of the motivation to fight? On the surface, it may seem that this would usher in an age of peace - but you can also look to the Pax in Serenity as a possibility for what happens if aggression is stripped away.
A big part of my thinking is that I don't consider resealing a released super-demon to really be changing the world, even if the PCs are the only ones to do it. In a sense, that is really just enforcing the status quo. In any event, given the choice between resealing the Rajah and letting it run free over the world, the PCs don't really have any choice.
That's entirely dependent on the Overlord you choose for the job. If it's the Rage of War or the Truth in the Darkness, you're quite right; if they don't stop it, the world will start to crumble. But in the case of a Rajah like the Keeper of Secrets, they might choose to work WITH the Rajah. In fact, one of the PCs in one of my 4E Eberron campaigns is based on exactly that idea: a Star Pact warlock who is working for one of the Overlords, because, essentially, one of them will eventually return, and the one he serves is the one who will (in his opinion) best preserve the world as we know it (remember, one reason the Overlords were defeated was because they DIDN'T all work together). He still expects it to be a horrible transforming event, but his opinion is "Better the devil I know than the Scar That Abides".
Personally, I think it's very interesting to give the players the choice NOT to fight the risen demon. After all, unless you do give the Rajah cosmological influence as described above (which isn't called out in canon material, as interesting as it is), how is killing the Overlord really any different than binding it? Assuming that the rebound fiend can't return for another ten thousand years, the world will be the same either way. But if you make battling the fiend something that is in some way optional - and something that will require long work and sacrifice to do - then things get interesting. So say the Keeper of Secrets returns, and that as a result of this, arcane magic becomes a corruptive force - all users of arcane magic are touched by the Overlord, and continued use of arcane magic pulls people towards evil. It's not going to be immediately clear what's going on. The Overlord isn't stomping around the world drawing attention to herself. And those who DO choose to serve her can gain great arcane power. Suddenly Aundair shoots to being the most powerful of the Five Nations - but at the same time, it's people become darker and crueler (making the Ashbound vital allies and heroes!). Say one of the PCs is an Aundairian wizard. Does he oppose this? Or does he embrace it as the tool that will let his people seize the throne of Galifar? Identifying the source of the change, doing what must be done, and eliminating the Rajah will restore the status quo regardless of whether you kill her or bind her; but leaving her alone - or working with her - will change the world. (Of course, you could decide that killing her would in some way cripple arcane magic forever, as noted above, and that would certainly be a good reason why the dragons wouldn't have done it before - but again, that's not something that's been suggested as a danger by canon).
In any case, I certainly have no argument with the path you're taking - we've got different opinions, and that's fine.
You can't say that it is actually a level 80 monster, since there is no point to statting up a level 80 monster (all characters essentially retire at level 30 in 4E), and there are no rules governing depowering a monster.
I think you misunderstand what I'm suggesting - I was giving a general example, not suggesting a literal mechanical action. Why would I need rules for depowering a monster? Why stat it up at level 80 - since as you say, at level 80, no one could fight it? I'm not suggesting that you actually make a level 80 monster. Rather, I'm holding exactly to that 4E premise that a monster's abilities serve its role in the story. My point is that under normal circumstances this creature has the ability to defeat an army of ancient dragons, which are defined in the MM as level 30 creatures. I don't NEED to actually stat up its powers to do that; it's enough to simply say that it can. Thus, if it is attacked by dragons (which do have a defined level), it's as powerful as need be to accomplish the story goal of defeating the dragons. I then establish the story arc that enables the PCs to attain their destiny and defeat it, whatever that might be. When the PC finally accomplishes all of the goals and tasks laid before them, whatever those might be (and the examples I gave were literally off the top of my head), and finally face the creature, sure, they can face it as a level 33 creature. That's not because each action knocked 5 levels off of it (because if it did, the dragons could jump in) - it's because they've done what they needed to do in order TO face it on that equal footing.
Looking to the epic destiny angle, to me, the obvious example is Tira Miron. In my opinion, if you use the currently available epic destinies, she would be a demigod. When born, of course, she is human, but she has the destiny to become a demigod. She becomes a paladin of Dol Arrah, and that's her Heroic Tier path - fighting monsters and honing her skills. As she enters the paragon tier, she is touched by the Silver Flame, and it's now that she learns that she is destined for something greater - that she must become a vessel for this light if she is to save the world from a great darkness. Now she needs to gather champions from across the world. She needs to find Kljoiner, to battle fiends both openly and through exposing their hidden schemes, and to find a way to touch the ancient power of the Flame - a quest that could take her to Xen'drik or Sarlona, facing the Inspired in order to seize powers hidden in old Khalesh or overcoming a great evil brewing in Xen'drik.
That final Paragon quest is what allows her to free a mighty couatl, which bonds with her spirit and allows her to become the vessel of the Flame she was always meant to be. She has taken her first step on the Demigod path. But even as she dows, the Rajah stretches its hand across Thrane. Over the course of the next ten levels (which could be 20 adventures, depending on the pace you go!) she will challenge the Overlord, learning its strengths and weakness, battling its many minions and rallying the people of Thrane. She will lead the Thranes in the defense of their land; they cannot fight the Rajah itself, but they can defend their citadels against its hordes. She may even battle the Overlord itself, and kill it - only to have it return, proving that she must learn the secret of its defeat. This quest could take her anywhere. Ashtakala? The Depths of Khyber? The Crystal Cities of Syrania? The heart of Argonnessen, to debate the mysteries of the Prophecy in the Tapestry? Ultimately she returns to Thrane, and to her final battle. Now she is 30th level. She's ready for her ultimate conflict - and she faces the overlord as an equal. But this is because she HAS performed those epic tasks. She wields Kljoiner, the blade destined to defeat the demon. She has freed the last couatl and bonded with its spirit. She has found the wellspring of the Silver Flame, spoken with the generals of Shavarath and the dragons of the Tapestry. She has learned what she must do - and now she fights the Overlord, and he is considered to be a level 33 creature. And she defeats him - but in order to make that defeat last, she sacrifices her existence, binding both of them together forever within the Silver Flame. The demon is bound, and Tira becomes the Voice of the Silver Flame, forever inspiring champions to come.
Epic destiny accomplished; character has moved on from play.
My point is that it's not as simple as saying "the Overlord is a level 33 creature." If you are capable of facing it, then it may be a level 33 creature - because after all, otherwise you can't face it. However, you may not BE capable of facing it until you acheive your destiny. If the army of dragons attacks, I don't need to figure out what its level is, because the army of dragons cannot win the fight. I don't want someone telling me "Yeah, but the army of level 30 dragons could beat a level 33 creature." When they attack, its power is what is required for the story. When Tira finally overcomes the challenges and faces it, its power is what is required for the story.
So we may or may not be on the same page. It should be possible to face an Overlord and defeat it, as Tira did. But for Tira it was the culmination of her epic destiny and the event that ended her story; she and her pals shouldn't have been able to just come 'round at level 29 and smack it down then because they got a few lucky criticals. Its power serves the story.
In 4E, you can't both have Rajahs be "stronger than archfiends" and still make it remotely possible for them to be beaten by PCs. Orcus, the iconic archfiend os D&D, is statted up as a level 33 solo monster, the single strongest kind of creature that can actually be fought under the rules of the game. There isn't even any point to making something stronger, since there is no way for an PC to possibly defeat such a thing
The thing is that the power of the archfiend waxes and wanes with the different editions.
In 1e every archfiends was a full-blown lesser deity. So playing a 1e Eberron the archfiends and the rajas should be on the same powerlevel.
In 2e some archfiends still were lesser deities, other were demoted to demigods and other were completly stripped of their divinity and just big bad fiends. So playing a 2e Eberron the rajas should be equally powerfull than some archfiends, more powerfull than some other archfiends and vastly more powerfull than the third group of archfiends.
In 3.x all archfiends lost their divinity and just became big bad outsiders. So playing a 3.x Eberron the rajas should be vastly more powerfull than any archfiend.
In 4e the archfiends (under their new title "primordials") are once again on deity level power. So playing a 4e Eberron the rajas and the archfiends should be equally powerfull.
Note: 4e did an overall reduce of the powerlevel of divine entities. Now we have some weaker divine/primordial entities that are actually below some of the most powerfull mortal creatures (e.g. ancient dragons being stronger like Yeenoghu). So in 4e even rajas might not be immune and a lvl 29 solo raja (who is thus a little less powerfull than a lvl 30 solo dragon) would indeed fit in the new 4e scale. 4e just did that to cosmic entities without any regard to were they have been placed in the hierachy prior to 4e
I think you misunderstand what I'm suggesting - I was giving a general example, not suggesting a literal mechanical action. Why would I need rules for depowering a monster? Why stat it up at level 80 - since as you say, at level 80, no one could fight it? I'm not suggesting that you actually make a level 80 monster. Rather, I'm holding exactly to that 4E premise that a monster's abilities serve its role in the story. My point is that under normal circumstances this creature has the ability to defeat an army of ancient dragons, which are defined in the MM as level 30 creatures. I don't NEED to actually stat up its powers to do that; it's enough to simply say that it can. Thus, if it is attacked by dragons (which do have a defined level), it's as powerful as need be to accomplish the story goal of defeating the dragons. I then establish the story arc that enables the PCs to attain their destiny and defeat it, whatever that might be. When the PC finally accomplishes all of the goals and tasks laid before them, whatever those might be (and the examples I gave were literally off the top of my head), and finally face the creature, sure, they can face it as a level 33 creature. That's not because each action knocked 5 levels off of it (because if it did, the dragons could jump in) - it's because they've done what they needed to do in order TO face it on that equal footing.
While I agree with your position about monsters or tasks defined according to story, there are many players, some of them I know personaly, who disagree with that. They want monsters with their stats to be able to judge (or try to judge) their power against PCs ... and on Epic level it's not a easy task. Because epic powers are hard to stat and bind in rules to remain epic. While I would, personaly, vote for just descriptive process of epic battles like Tira Miron & co. against Rajah, I'm sure that many players would like to see concrete powers against different powers on the other side. And they would like to know WHY those hundreds of dragons were not able to defeat Rajah.
My knowledge of 4E on epic level is very poor, so I don't know if it's even possible to create such stats for Rajah, Tira Miron & co. and Dragons to fit in your description, may be somehow.
So I understand that it can give headaches even to skilled DM trying to prepare such encounter. Just off the record I'm still not sure if I would let my players, even in the end of their careers, face Rajah(s) in real battle ... for me, Rajahs are more spiritual beings, even while they can produce some image of themselves in material world and act as real beings. Somehow I don't feel right as a DM to let characters battle ideas
But I understand DM who sees that as a another epic battle for which he needs stats and process of elimination
Mechanically, you could say that a Rajah Overlord "mind-seeds" the one that kills him.
Think Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean. You could say that he is some sort of Overlord of Death that guides the souls of the dead to their final resting place, but also kills those who's time have come. He is a mix between the Grim Reaper and "le Passeur" (french name, sorry. In greek mythology, he is the boatman that makes dead people cross the river to the realm of the deads)
In the movie, Davy Jones wasn't doing his job well, killing people for pleasure and doesn't guide them to their final resting place. You could say that the characters (Jack, Will, Barbosa, and others) are on a quest to put him back on track, so he does his job well. However, for that, they would need to get Jack back from the dead, make Will meet his father, make Davy Jones weild Norrington's sword made by Will, rally the Pirates from all seas, create a maelstorm by releasing Calypso, marry Elizabeth and Will, make Will die, make Jack stab Davy's heart with Will's hand. Which result in Will taking the place of the Overlord of Death and doing his job right.
In the movie, everything happened without careful planning. However, in Eberron, we have the Prophecy, a living map of the events of time which indicates what needs to be done to succeed in killing Davy Jones by dying Will. In Eberrron, the PCs could either take knowledge of the Prophecy, or accomplish those events without knowling, or learn later that the Prophecy predicted their actions.
For example, Tira Miron might have accomplished her destiny with the knowledge of the Prophecy, while Will and Jack were unaware of such thing. However, in the end, both ends are similar: Will and Tira are removed from play and become vessels for a greater force and the Overlord is defeated.
Rekko
What do you think? Are there good Rajah Overlords? Or any does any pure concept, even a good aligned concept, ultimately turns out to be evil?
Here's another one:
Could there be a Rajah Overlord of Time, better known as the Prophecy?
Rekko
I was thinking, are the Overlords always evil, can they be good?
In my opinion, no. They aren't gods. They are the spawn of Khyber, and the purest distilation of evil on Eberron (and again, my thought is less that death exists because of Katashka, and more that Katashka exists because of our fear of death). There were spirits of light on Eberron, but they were/are the couatl and children of Siberys, not spawn of Khyber. And if there was anything Rajah-level that was a force for good, we've never mentioned it as a factor in the first war.
But again, this is just drawing on canon sources. If you want to make one, sure.
4e did an overall reduce of the powerlevel of divine entities. Now we have some weaker divine/primordial entities that are actually below some of the most powerfull mortal creatures (e.g. ancient dragons being stronger like Yeenoghu). So in 4e even rajas might not be immune and a lvl 29 solo raja (who is thus a little less powerfull than a lvl 30 solo dragon) would indeed fit in the new 4e scale. 4e just did that to cosmic entities without any regard to were they have been placed in the hierachy prior to 4e
Sure, but my point is that the primordial being who is truly weaker than an dragon isn't an Overlord; he's simply a powerful spirit of the first age, just as I suggested for Demogorgon in the Savage Tide. The story of Eberron is that the overlords were and are capable of facing full flights of dragons and devastating nations. That story isn't changing. There's many powerful spirits below the level of the Overlords; looking to material already presented for 3E, you've got the fact that the prakhutu can be epic level, to the idea that you could have archfiend-level lietuenants or exarchs.
HOWEVER, with that said, I could see having a 4E Overlord appear at a lower power level on exactly the basis I've been discussing with TwinBahamut. If it fits your story to have the PCs fight an Overlord at 25th level, you're going to need to make it a creature they CAN fight at 25th level. However, my question will remain "How is it they are capable of doing this at this level, when more powerful dragons could not acheive the same result?" In my campaign, it would again be based on the nature of the PCs and their previous deeds. The power of the Overlord is a reflection of the power of the players. If it's fought by a bunch of dragons, I wouldn't pull out dice and roll it out; I'd simply describe the battle and the dragons would lose. The players should have a clear understanding of why it is that this is a battle that they are capable of winning - that it is a reflection of their own power and accomplishments.
And with all of that said, I should note that, IMO, the dragons actually DID win battles against the Overlords on occasion. They had THEIR epic champions - beings like Ourelonastrix and Hezcalipa - along with knowledge of the Prophecy to guide them. But until they found a way to permanently bind them, this victories were always temporary - which is why the struggle lasted as long as it did. So that's always another option - the swarm of dragons can overwhelm the Rajah, but it doesn't solve the problem.
While I agree with your position about monsters or tasks defined according to story, there are many players, some of them I know personaly, who disagree with that... they would like to know WHY those hundreds of dragons were not able to defeat Rajah.
Right, and my point is that you can't have it both ways. If you create stats for an Overlord (and I expect we will at some point, as we did in 3E) so PCs can fight it, it follows that you can measure it against other creatures. Once you define a Rajah as a level 33 solo, you can simply do the math and say "X number of level 30 solos will be able to defeat this." My point in saying "the monster serves the needs of the story" is not that you don't actually make stats - it's that the stats exist for the creature's interaction with the PLAYERS.
Let's take Tiamat as an example. Per Dragons of Eberron, she's capable of corrupting dragons... potentially corrupting them across the length of the world. And those who fall, fall forever (as shown by the fact that the guardians of the Pit of Five Sorrows are usually killed once they have served their term, to ensure there is no corruption). In and of itself, I would not represent this with any sort of 4E power. It's not a Will-based attack that dominates (save ends). It's a story-based power: when Tiamat rises, corrupted dragons will flock to her side. Should an army of dragons face her, they will be turned to her side.
With that said, when it comes time for the players to fight Tiamat, she'll need stats. At that point, the question is how hard this fight should be for the PLAYERS. If I decide to give her a breath weapon that does Xd10 damage when she fights the PCs, that won't stop me from having her level Sharn with her breath when the PCs aren't around; I'm not going to stop and roll the damage against the stone and say "She needs to breath 12 times to melt a tower" or conversely "Since she was able to melt a tower with one breath in that previous story, any PC caught in her breath is instantly vaporized." The stats are for the interaction with PCs, bearing in mind all the factors I've given before. This does, of course, mean that while fighting the players she won't be melting towers with one breath, but that's fine.
With that said, if, as part of the story, the PCs have allied themselves with draconic champions who have resisted Tiamat's influence (again, purely based on story and NOT some specific immune-to-dominate ability possessed on the dragon's stats), I probably would give Tiamat a save-ends Dominate Dragon ability, saying that she can temporarily turn even the most pure-hearted dragon against their allies. But that's a temporary ability that serves a specific purpose within the fight. Tiamat can defeat an army of dragons because she is Tiamat, not because she has 2000 hit points; however, when she comes to face the PCs, hit points are going to matter.
If you see official stats for an Overlord, I would expect them to be in that 33-34 range, because as Twinbahamut says, if you make an 80th level creature no one can fight it. All I'm saying is that those stats would exist for purposes of scenes like that climactic fight between Tira and the demon, assuming that to reach this point the PCs HAVE undergone epic challenges and attained their destiny. When you're not in battle, the Overlord shouldn't be limited or handicapped by its stats. The Truth in the Darkness can spread madness across a nation. The Keeper of Secrets can corrupt magic itself. These aren't things you'd roll for; these are effects that would change the world around the PCs... and which would likely be reflected by its stats when the PCs actually do fight it. So Tul Oreshka would surely have a range of madness based attacks she can use on PCs in battle - but her sow-madness-across-the-nation ability is a story power that interacts with NPCs as the story requires.
Could there be a Rajah Overlord of Time, better known as the Prophecy?
COULD there be? Sure, if you want. However, I'd say no, because the Overlords are specifically the spawn of Khyber. Looking to various theories of the Prophecy, some say it is the merged will of the Progenitors, thus reflecting the influence of Siberys, Khyber, and Eberron; others say that it existed before, and that the reason Khyber fought the others was to gain control of the Prophecy. Beyond that, as presented the Prophecy is a tool as opposed to an active force - something that can be used to manipulate the future, but not something that shapes the future on its own.
With that said, you could certainly argue that an Overlord like the Keeper of Secrets might possess insight into the Prophecy, and use that in her own dealings with mortals.
But again, this is based on the idea that Overlords aren't gods - that they don't exist for every idea, but rather embody fears. The Keeper of Secrets may have the power of a goddess and dominion over magic, but she isn't the goddess of magic. She's the reflection of our fears and suspicions about magic, the belief that arcane power corrupts its users... and through her influence, she makes it so. Tiamat embodies the fear of the dragon, and turns the dragon to evil with her power. So to me, you wouldn't have a rajah of the abstract concept of time; you'd have a rajah who represents the ravages of time, our fears of what time does to us all.
But is there an official number out there?
The Eternal Evil article said "Approximately thirty". Of the top of my head, I can think of eight that we've mentioned. I don't think you'll ever see a complete list, because we want to make sure you've got room to add your own.
I don't think you'll ever see a complete list, because we want to make sure you've got room to add your own.
Well that is what I love with this setting, there is loads of elbow room. And about 30 works well, one for each level :p
And about 30 works well, one for each level :p
Yes, at first level you should be ready to take on the Pain of Papercuts, one of the lesser-known Overlords.
Yes, at first level you should be ready to take on the Pain of Papercuts, one of the lesser-known Overlords.
Ahahahaaaaarg... great now I died of laughter, well well of to Dolourn with me...
The story of Eberron is that the overlords were and are capable of facing full flights of dragons and devastating nations. That story isn't changing.
Well, that was the story of D&D too.Didn't stop the responsible designers from simply changing it with 4e.
Glad that at least Eberron will remain unchanged, although this now creates difficulties with comparing beings who used to be on the same level and now no longer are.
I can't say how strongly I dislike seing the likes of Doresain and Yeenoghu being made into "dragon meals" were the ghoul king, as a demigod of old, was able to previously eat entire flights of dragons for breakfast.
Maybe you could let the PCs kill the Rajah Overlord. However, since the Rajah is the embodiment of an immortal concept, the PC that delivered the final blow becomes the physical manifestation of that concept, gains the powers of the Overlord, and his behavior/personality is changed to match the concept that he now carries as the new Overlord.
Mechanically, you could say that a Rajah Overlord "mind-seeds" the one that kills him.
Think Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean
-snip-
Spoiler tags plsthx.
Spoiler tags plsthx.
I would say that in this case the expiration date for spoiler tags has long since passed. The movie is far from being an actual movie and has been relased on DVD and shown on TV long ago.
I can't say how strongly I dislike seing the likes of Doresain and Yeenoghu being made into "dragon meals" were the ghoul king, as a demigod of old, was able to previously eat entire flights of dragons for breakfast.
Depends how old we are talking. My 2E group murdered Doresain, and we were only 9th level. AFAIK he didn't get promoted to proper god till 3rd.
And 4E Yeenoghu can beat up any number of dragons. Just not any number of ancient dragons, who just happen to be very high on the power scale right now. Which I can't say I mind.
I would say that in this case the expiration date for spoiler tags has long since passed. The movie is far from being an actual movie and has been relased on DVD and shown on TV long ago.
People still tag spoilers of The Wheel of Time. It's a matter of courtesy.
And 4E Yeenoghu can beat up any number of dragons. Just not any number of ancient dragons, who just happen to be very high on the power scale right now. Which I can't say I mind.
Are there even stats for him yet? I just browsed through the Monster Manual and didn't see any.
Are there even stats for him yet? I just browsed through the Monster Manual and didn't see any.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drigg/20080606a
Just not any number of ancient dragons, who just happen to be very high on the power scale right now. Which I can't say I mind.
And yet ancient dragons are mere mortals and come dime a dozen on every prime world compared to real cosmic entities like primordials, deities and rajas (at least the later seem to escape the big demotion in 4e).
The thing is that the ceiling of the 4e D&D powerlevel is too low for the differentiation of the upper cosmic tiers. Run-off-the-mill balors and pitfiends are already on demigod-level and between them and archdevil level there's simply not enough room for all the inbetweens (dukes, archdukes, dark eight, ...)
Then again I'm just a noob.
If players insisted on using this tactic to defeat the enemy, I'd have to get creative. Would killing the embodiment of death and decay put an end to the natural cycle? Would the entire realm assume similar characteristics to the Mournland? If the embodiment of fear were destroyed, would all mortals lose their fear and begin to perform reckless deeds, even if they were guaranteed bodily harm?
Just for difficulty's sake, killing such a being would require much more than direct damage in my game. Similar to the tarrasque, it would have to be whittled down to 0 hp, bound with a wish, and destroyed with an extremely ancient arcane ritual.
No matter what there would be significant repercussions for actually destroying such an entity. In some cases, imprisonment with allowance for existence can be the best option.
Reading through this thread I would have to say I'd agree with the poster (I think that was Keith) that stated that as the embodiment of a concept, the real way to defeat this kind of being shouldn't necessarily be through direct confrontation with damage.
Then again I'm just a noob.
If players insisted on using this tactic to defeat the enemy, I'd have to get creative. Would killing the embodiment of death and decay put an end to the natural cycle? Would the entire realm assume similar characteristics to the Mournland? If the embodiment of fear were destroyed, would all mortals lose their fear and begin to perform reckless deeds, even if they were guaranteed bodily harm?
Just for difficulty's sake, killing such a being would require much more than direct damage in my game. Similar to the tarrasque, it would have to be whittled down to 0 hp, bound with a wish, and destroyed with an extremely ancient arcane ritual.
No matter what there would be significant repercussions for actually destroying such an entity. In some cases, imprisonment with allowance for existence can be the best option.
I'm not sure if it was like that ... overlord doesn't represent death itself, imo, but more or less our fears and imaginations and feelings of death ... So even killing that overlord wouldn't affect things on their way to Dolurrh. and again ... powers behind those fears, imaginations and feelings could/shall return sooner or later ... question is if that could lead to another similar overlord/entity ... or not. In my opinion those overlords are more, so it would take eons to "respawn" from those energies ...
I'm not sure if it was like that ... overlord doesn't represent death itself, imo, but more or less our fears and imaginations and feelings of death ... So even killing that overlord wouldn't affect things on their way to Dolurrh. and again ... powers behind those fears, imaginations and feelings could/shall return sooner or later ... question is if that could lead to another similar overlord/entity ... or not. In my opinion those overlords are more, so it would take eons to "respawn" from those energies ...
good point there, perhaps it would be even more complicated than i imagined.
Yes, at first level you should be ready to take on the Pain of Papercuts, one of the lesser-known Overlords.
Is the Heartbreak of Psoriasis a 2nd level threat, or will we have to wait until 3rd?
Anyways, I guess I will just have to say that I don't agree with Mr. Baker's idea that, at high epic levels, you need to do all kinds of things to even justify fighting something like an Overlord. You don't need to give something that powerful plot protection simply because it is already so much more powerful than anything else. Epic level things should be incredibly rare, with each individual epic creature being something of importance and influence.
I mean, look at the supposed "army of ancient dragons" that is casually referred to. What is this army supposed to be made from? 4E doesn't have the "power by age category" rule written into the monster manual, so there is no reason to believe that dragons will reach the Ancient level simply by growing old, let alone within any kind of reasonable timeframe. There is no reason to assume that an Ancient Dragon is any more common than any other creature of that level of power. Having a whole army of them is wildly implausible in of itself, and shouldn't be used as a justification for anything. It is far more likely that it would be an army of Adult Dragons, led by a number of Elder Dragon captains, with perhaps a single Ancient Dragon, whose legendary might is enough to make even his fellow dragons bow down to him and worship him as a demigod.
If there are a few, rare Draconic Champions powerful enough to actually challenge the Rajahs, then they should be the Ancient Dragons, and the power scale adjusted accordingly.
Anyways, it is not like the current list of Ancient Dragons even stand a chance against a level 33 Solo, with the exception of Ancient Reds (and they would be outmatched). Lesser Ancient Dragons would hardly stand a chance if they got pulled into battle between a level 30 party and a level 33 anything.
(Well, unless there's a really good in-game reason for the presence of steroids or nerf, but that's solely my opinion. I'd love to fight an otherwise ordinary goblin that just so happened to have the power of a god)
This means that you could conceivably have a level 35 Great Red Wyrm, and it would still get stomped on by a level 80 rajah because it wouldn't have done any of the things required to make it a level 33 rajah in time for the fight.
4E doesn't have the "power by age category" rule written into the monster manual, so there is no reason to believe that dragons will reach the Ancient level simply by growing old,
Wow. I couldn't disagree with you more.
It is true that unlike previous editions, the 4E MM does not specifically include an age progression chart. We don't know exactly how old an ancient red dragon is. However, the terms used to describe the different categories of dragons are all descriptions of age or time... "Young", "Adult", "Elder", "Ancient". In fact, as is they removed the titles that had nothing to do with age from 4E ("Wyrm" and "Great Wyrm"). I haven't seen the new Draconomicon yet, but I see nothing in the 4E MM to suggest that age isn't still a defining factor in draconic power.
It's true that 4E says that high-level dragons could clash with gods. But that's for the default 4E world... a world that doesn't have a continent filled with dragons, with a culture that has been in existence for hundreds of thousands of years, and whose agents pull strings of human civilization. What's been said is that 4E Eberron isn't going to invalidate previous Eberron material - which means that Dragons of Eberron will still be canon. So you've still got the Eyes of Chronepsis, the guardians of the Pit of Five Sorrows and the like. There may not be lots of epic challenges in Eberron, but Argonnessen is specifically called out as home to all sorts of epic challenges.
You don't need to give something that powerful plot protection simply because it is already so much more powerful than anything else.
I don't see the issue being giving a poor helpless Overlord "plot protection". As I read it, the point is making it feel like it IS an "epic" challenge. Looking to Hellcow's example:
Show
Looking to the epic destiny angle, to me, the obvious example is Tira Miron. In my opinion, if you use the currently available epic destinies, she would be a demigod. When born, of course, she is human, but she has the destiny to become a demigod. She becomes a paladin of Dol Arrah, and that's her Heroic Tier path - fighting monsters and honing her skills. As she enters the paragon tier, she is touched by the Silver Flame, and it's now that she learns that she is destined for something greater - that she must become a vessel for this light if she is to save the world from a great darkness. Now she needs to gather champions from across the world. She needs to find Kljoiner, to battle fiends both openly and through exposing their hidden schemes, and to find a way to touch the ancient power of the Flame - a quest that could take her to Xen'drik or Sarlona, facing the Inspired in order to seize powers hidden in old Khalesh or overcoming a great evil brewing in Xen'drik.
That final Paragon quest is what allows her to free a mighty couatl, which bonds with her spirit and allows her to become the vessel of the Flame she was always meant to be. She has taken her first step on the Demigod path. But even as she dows, the Rajah stretches its hand across Thrane. Over the course of the next ten levels (which could be 20 adventures, depending on the pace you go!) she will challenge the Overlord, learning its strengths and weakness, battling its many minions and rallying the people of Thrane. She will lead the Thranes in the defense of their land; they cannot fight the Rajah itself, but they can defend their citadels against its hordes. She may even battle the Overlord itself, and kill it - only to have it return, proving that she must learn the secret of its defeat. This quest could take her anywhere. Ashtakala? The Depths of Khyber? The Crystal Cities of Syrania? The heart of Argonnessen, to debate the mysteries of the Prophecy in the Tapestry? Ultimately she returns to Thrane, and to her final battle. Now she is 30th level. She's ready for her ultimate conflict - and she faces the overlord as an equal. But this is because she HAS performed those epic tasks. She wields Kljoiner, the blade destined to defeat the demon. She has freed the last couatl and bonded with its spirit. She has found the wellspring of the Silver Flame, spoken with the generals of Shavarath and the dragons of the Tapestry. She has learned what she must do - and now she fights the Overlord, and he is considered to be a level 33 creature. And she defeats him - but in order to make that defeat last, she sacrifices her existence, binding both of them together forever within the Silver Flame. The demon is bound, and Tira becomes the Voice of the Silver Flame, forever inspiring champions to come.
Epic destiny accomplished; character has moved on from play.
As I see it, that's all Hellcow has been trying to say - that a battle with an overlord should be a truly epic event, something that has world-shaking consequences and which requires the actions of heroes. It's not just about the levels of the forces involved, but the challenge and drama leading up to it... What makes the story of Tira interesting to me as a STORY is the idea that she underwent the challenges to become the champion the world needed to face the rajah... not simply that she did a bunch of stuff that made her a bad-ass, and any old bad-ass would do.
That's pretty much what I've been trying to say, yes. In my mind, an Overlord should never be "just another monster". The release of an Overlord should have the potential to change the world, as will its defeat. The example of the Silver Flame is dead-on. Yes, at the end of the day, Tira didn't destroy the Overlord. But in the process of defeating it, she changed Khorvaire forever. What if she'd chosen a different path to power? What if she'd remained a champion of Dol Arrah instead? What if she'd allied with the Inspired... which could have given the Quori an excellent opportunity to get a foothold as the "saviors of Thrane"? The idea is that facing the Overlord was something that required a heroic journey. She needed to acquire knowledge, power, celestial allies, a sacred weapon. Through that journey she changed the world - and that if she'd made different choices (embracing the Dark Six instead of the Silver Flame) the world would be a different place today. Essentially, Tira didn't defeat the Overlord because she was a 30th-level demigod; Tira BECAME a 30th-level demigod in order to defeat the Overlord (I'll point out that the Overlord was actually free for a year; it didn't just pop up and get smacked down by super-Tira over the course of a few weeks).
So to me, the role the Overlords are supposed to play in the setting is far more important to me than their stats. They are the most terrifying individual beings in Eberron, with the power to shatter nations and cultures. When the story calls for a physical conflict between PCs and an Overlord, develop the stats that are needed to make that possible. But IMO it should never be trivial. By canon, there ARE multiple ancient dragons in Argonnessen. An encounter with an ancient dragon should be significant, but it's not a world-changing event. It's unlikely to be your epic destiny. A battle with an Overlord, as I see them, could easily be both.
Regarding statistics, it's not that an Overlord should literally be "depowered". It's not that an 80th-level creature should become a 30th-level creature. It's that not everything needs to or should be represented by hard stats (IMO). Tira's becoming a vessel of the Silver Flame may have hard mechanical benefits that manifest in combat, but it may have dozens of manifestations that are purely flavor, that don't need to be codified. Likewise, we never strictly defined the Daughter of Khyber's ability to corrupt dragons from half a world away in 3E - and it's not something we'll define in 4E either. Could there be an Overlord with the power to cause another Mourning just by blinking his eyes? In my opinion, absolutely, if you as DM want there to be. Clearly you cannot fight such a being if all he has to do is look at you crosseyed and your party dissolves into goo. Thus, if I was to use such an Overlord, I'd make a significant part of the character's 30-level story arc deal with coming to understand the nature of the Mourning, and ultimately coming to terms with it or finding a way to counter its effects. So by the time they fight the Overlord, that power is off the table. I wouldn't actually represent this by giving the Overlord a huge "Mourning Blast" and the PCs "200 pts Mourning Blast resistance"; it's simply clear that if you fight him before you are prepared to deal with this power, you will die - and then finding the way to overcome that power becomes part of your epic destiny. The stats serve the story, and he becomes the REASON you adventure in the first place, the reason you strive to fulfill your ultimate potential; each victory moves you closer to being able to defeat this ultimate threat and achieve your epic destiny.
The main issue is that I see the Overlords as, one-on-one, the most dangerous and powerful beings on Eberron. I see them as being worthy of an epic destiny, beings whose present it the world will be a catalyst for change. When you come down to the fight, you'll need stats that work within the system. But the journey TO the fight should be as epic as the battle itself.
So to me, the role the Overlords are supposed to play in the setting is far more important to me than their stats. They are the most terrifying individual beings in Eberron, with the power to shatter nations and cultures. When the story calls for a physical conflict between PCs and an Overlord, develop the stats that are needed to make that possible. But IMO it should never be trivial. By canon, there ARE multiple ancient dragons in Argonnessen. An encounter with an ancient dragon should be significant, but it's not a world-changing event. It's unlikely to be your epic destiny. A battle with an Overlord, as I see them, could easily be both.
The main issue is that I see the Overlords as, one-on-one, the most dangerous and powerful beings on Eberron. I see them as being worthy of an epic destiny, beings whose present it the world will be a catalyst for change. When you come down to the fight, you'll need stats that work within the system. But the journey TO the fight should be as epic as the battle itself.
Just wondring as I couldn't find any larger text about that: is there any info about possible relationships among Overlords? Did they (and would they in future if they have chance) cooperate heavily? Do they seem themselves like brothers and sisters or more like completle different beings? While I understand that we cannot give them just common humankind feelings and thoughts, I would like to know more about this
I'm curious about a comment I read earlier in this thread -- that the power ceiling for any 4E monster is a 33 solo. This thread is the only place I've read that -- is that being inferred from the highest-level monster in the MM, or have the designers actually stated somewhere that there is such a power ceiling?
Some designers once made a commant about Moradin.
As one of the most powerfull GGs he's supposed to be a lvl 38 solo in his full glory and if the PCs ever need to fight him the should finde some way to tempory weaken him down by about 5 levels.
I beleive there is where the lvl 33 ceiling for actual encounter comes froms
Just wondring as I couldn't find any larger text about that: is there any info about possible relationships among Overlords? Did they (and would they in future if they have chance) cooperate heavily?
It's something that will vary by Overlord. There could easily be some that would work together, or who when freed would seek to free their siblings, and these would be the most dangerous of them. However, Dragons of Eberron says "Despite their raw power - or, perhaps, because of it - the Overlords were scattered and overconfident. This allowed the combined might of the dragon-couatl alliance to defeat them one by one." City of Stormreach also notes that the Scar that Abides was highly territorial and "demanded obeisance even from others of its own kind." This likewise comes up with the Lords of Dust themselves; the "Eternal Evil" article calls out the fact that while the members of the Council of Ashtakala will occasionally assist one another, they will always put the interests of their Overlord (or their own personal agenda, for those chasing intrigues that aren't necessarily for the benefit of the Overlord) first... and as such, defeating one of the Lords of Dust isn't going to turn the entire organization against you, because Eldrantulku's agents don't especially care that you've interfered with the plans of the Rage of War.
In fact, this ties back to the concept of the character in my current campaign... the warlock who's an agent of an Overlord, based on the concept that at least one of the Overlords will be released, and that while the release of his master will be a terrifying transformative event for the world, all things being equal, the world he will create will be better that you'd get under the Rage of War or someone similar. By this same principle, you could easily get a rakshasa subtly helping the PCs to interefere with the plans of another member of the Lords of Dust, because the plans of their rajahs are in conflict.
So again, it all depends Overlord you pick and if you WANT it to be a possibility. I can certainly see the Keeper of Secrets trying to free others of her kind and forge an alliance... but there are certainly others who put self-interest ahead of the good of their imprisoned brethren.
I mean, look at the supposed "army of ancient dragons" that is casually referred to. What is this army supposed to be made from? 4E doesn't have the "power by age category" rule written into the monster manual, so there is no reason to believe that dragons will reach the Ancient level simply by growing old, let alone within any kind of reasonable timeframe. There is no reason to assume that an Ancient Dragon is any more common than any other creature of that level of power. Having a whole army of them is wildly implausible in of itself, and shouldn't be used as a justification for anything. It is far more likely that it would be an army of Adult Dragons, led by a number of Elder Dragon captains, with perhaps a single Ancient Dragon, whose legendary might is enough to make even his fellow dragons bow down to him and worship him as a demigod.
If there are a few, rare Draconic Champions powerful enough to actually challenge the Rajahs, then they should be the Ancient Dragons, and the power scale adjusted accordingly.
Anyways, it is not like the current list of Ancient Dragons even stand a chance against a level 33 Solo, with the exception of Ancient Reds (and they would be outmatched). Lesser Ancient Dragons would hardly stand a chance if they got pulled into battle between a level 30 party and a level 33 anything.
So by your estimation, Argonessen has less than 100 Ancient Dragons in it? Seriously?
I mean, look at the supposed "army of ancient dragons" that is casually referred to. What is this army supposed to be made from? ...There is no reason to assume that an Ancient Dragon is any more common than any other creature of that level of power. Having a whole army of them is wildly implausible in of itself, and shouldn't be used as a justification for anything.
This seems like an odd thing to say to the designer of the setting. He's not "justifying" anything. He's describing an aspect of the setting he created, which is confirmed in multiple sourcebooks... such as, say Dragons of Eberron. Looking at some facts...
1. The terms used in the 4E MM are "young", "adult", "elder", and "ancient". The first three are terms used to describe stages in a creature's life. The fourth is a word that means "extremely old". To suggest that age is not supposed to be linked to draconic power simply because we don't know EXACTLY how old an ancient dragon is seems silly; there's many more sensible adjective chains they could have used if this was the intention. And if it is in fact true that the 4E books won't "invalidate existing 3E Eberron books", well, page 26 of DoE specifically says "For a dragon, age is power."
2. "There is no reason to assume that an ancient dragon is more common than any other creature of that level of power." Of course there is. It's called "a campaign setting." The campaign setting tells us where demon lords, abominations, dragons and other creatures fit into the world. It tells us that there's a continent with 50,000 dragons on it (and meanwhile, that there's only 30 Overlords, that devils are largely found on Shavarath, etc). It's the campaign setting that specifically describes the actions taken by armies of dragons in the past, battling those demon lords and utterly devastating an entire continent populated by giants who themselves had the power to sever the connections between planes. Admittedly we don't have the 4E ECS yet, but we've been told that it's not going to rewrite everything, and that the FLAVOR of existing sourcebooks will remain valid. So the existence of Argonnessen and the role of dragons in the world isn't going to change.
3. There's the question of how you define "Army". Dragons of Eberron is actually quite clear on the construction of the Light of Siberys, the dragon army. Of the 6,500 dragons serving in the light, there's dragons "of all colors and ages", broken into squads led by older dragons. But obviously they could pull together the elders if they needed to. The Eyes of Chronepsis "are wyrms or great wyrms, many with class levels", and there's around 150 of them. So, the ACTUAL army of Argonessen is 6,500 dragons, with an unknown number of wyrms and great wyrms among them. But they've got at at least 150 dragons of extreme power among them, and if 150 dragons with that level of power showed up on my doorstep, I'd be willing to call them an army.
As I see it the real question is how one of the Eyes of Chronepsis - a great wyrm with class levels - is converted to 4E. If you would call that creature an ancient dragon in 4E, then by definition there are hundreds of them in Argonnessen - more than you might see in the typical 4E world, but Eberron isn't the typical 4E world. On the other hand, if you'd say that great wyrm/Hidecarved Dragon 12 would only be an elder dragon in 4E, than it could be that there are NO ancient dragons in Eberron. Which is perfectly fair. However, what I don't expect to see is "a single Ancient Dragon, whose legendary might is enough to make even his fellow dragons bow down to him and worship him as a demigod" - because the culture of Argonnessen has been clearly defined, and does not include a tiny handful of living dragons worshipped as demigods.
Not to put this directly on you, TwinBahamut, but have you read Dragons of Eberron? It IS the sourcebook that discusses "armies of dragons", after all - and again, we're told it's still valid in 4E. If the issue is that you think Dragons of Eberron is "wildly implausible", that's fine, but now you've got a problem with a canon sourcebook of the setting.
Not to put this directly on you, TwinBahamut, but have you read Dragons of Eberron? It IS the sourcebook that discusses "armies of dragons", after all - and again, we're told it's still valid in 4E. If the issue is that you think Dragons of Eberron is "wildly implausible", that's fine, but now you've got a problem with a canon sourcebook of the setting.
And one that is getting a full 4E conversion at some point, apparently, same as City of Stormreach.
As I see it the real question is how one of the Eyes of Chronepsis - a great wyrm with class levels - is converted to 4E.
This is indeed the issue. The established lore of the setting is that Argonnessen can and has fielded armies of dragons - typically small squads, but potentially thousands. The leaders of the Light of Siberys, the Conclave, and the Eyes of Chronepsis are supposed to be creatures of tremendous might. And as noted in Dragons of Eberron, they DID have victories over individual Overlords. The problem was that a simply physical victory over an Overlord proved to be ultimately meaningless, as they would simply return. It took Hezcalipa's sacrifice and the creation of the Silver Flame to actually end the war.
In any case, the question is whether you see the Eyes of Chronepsis - as established, the most powerful and capable dragons in the setting - as ancient dragons in 4E terms, or whether you view them as elder dragons. This choice will in turn reflect on the flavor of a battle between dragons and an overlord, and on the power Argonnessen can exercise in the world. Personally, I go the ancient route, and further give the oldest dragons of Argonnessen even greater powers - after all, they are supposed to have been honing epic magic for a hundred thousands of years, and taught the giants who in turn broke the axis of Dal Quor (and then utterly destroyed that civilization). When unified, the dragons should be a truly awe-inspiring force... a force that can at least FIGHT the Overlords, even if they cannot acheiving a lasting victory on their own.
So, you could say that the Eyes of Chronepsis are ancient dragons and a dragon olike Ourelonastrix is something about this. Or you could say that the Eyes of Chronepsis are elder dragons, and Ourelonastrix would be an example of an acient dragon. Really, again, it comes back to stats serving the story; how powerful do you want Argonnessen to be?
Anyways, it is not like the current list of Ancient Dragons even stand a chance against a level 33 Solo, with the exception of Ancient Reds (and they would be outmatched). Lesser Ancient Dragons would hardly stand a chance if they got pulled into battle between a level 30 party and a level 33 anything.
A single lvl 27 solo might not have a chance of defeating a lvl 33 solo (although he would hurt the lvl 33 solo a lot before being defeated). 2-3 lvl 27 solos would easily bring down a single lvl 33 solo
I've been reading Dragons of Eberron and this thread really emphasizes the significance of the Vale of the Fallen Rajah.
So true.
I've been reading Dragons of Eberron and this thread really emphasizes the significance of the Vale of the Fallen Rajah.
-Reading this made me go and read it! :OMG!
18DELTA (Chosen of Cyric)
I'm asking also because I'm a little bit sceptical about 4e being able to work well in those situations, but may be I'm wrong
So true.
-Reading this made me go and read it! :OMG!
Seriously, the idea of a Rajah/Overlord -- with the power level indicated by Keith -- having fallen and leaving such a vile stain that acts as an abyssal cyst on the face of Argonnessen itself is quite awe inspiring. I almost wish there was a story of that epic battle somewhere written. Something like that should leave a significant historical record beyond the stain on the landscape.
I have no experience with 4E epic battles ... could anybody try to describe his vision (according to mechanics) how such a battle could be run?
Due to popular demand for some Rajah crunch -
Rajah Overlord powers (4e):
Dragons Bane (minor-action, recharge 56)
Area burst 100 within 400; targets dragon enemies; kills 1d6 dragons in burst (2d6 when bloodied)
Moon Crushing (standard action, encounter)
target: one continent
hit: a moon hits the target continent destroying all life on it
miss: the moon hits a nearby continent destroying all life on it
Inspire Religion (move, recharge 6)
close burst 100
while moving around the Overlord appearance inspire the creation of 1d4 new religions
:D
I have no experience with 4E epic battles ... could anybody try to describe his vision (according to mechanics) how such a battle could be run? Imagine some 30 level PC/party, ancient red dragon and some coversion of 3.5 Overlord from Dragon magazine to 4E?
Either it goes just as the battle of 4th lvl PCs vs. a young dragon (just with bigger numbers and more dice rolled) or (more likely) the PC-party just stunlocks the enemy and beats him without taking any damage at all
If it's a battle of two NPCs they will take forever hitting each other, chipping away tiny bits of each others hp each round until finally one of them dies (4e stats are not meant for monster vs. monster action because the underlying math doesn't work in this situations because of the different hp/damage scaling of PCs and NPCs)
Due to popular demand for some Rajah crunch -
Rajah Overlord powers (4e):
Dragons Bane (minor-action, recharge 56)
Area burst 100 within 400; targets dragon enemies; kills 1d6 dragons in burst (2d6 when bloodied)
Moon Crushing (standard action, encounter)
target: one continent
hit: a moon hits the target continent destroying all life on it
miss: the moon hits a nearby continent destroying all life on it
Inspire Religion (move, recharge 6)
close burst 100
while moving around the Overlord appearance inspire the creation of 1d4 new religions
:D
Interesting numbers. How would, say, Chuck Norris compare to the Rajah, though?
Interesting numbers. How would, say, Chuck Norris compare to the Rajah, though?
Chuck Norris sold his soul to the Rajah for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the Rajah in the face and took his soul back. The Rajah, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
Chuck Norris sold his soul to the Rajah for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the Rajah in the face and took his soul back. The Rajah, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
... and the Rajah loses. On purpose. Just to be safe.
Chuck Norris sold his soul to the Rajah for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the Rajah in the face and took his soul back. The Rajah, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
... and the Rajah loses. On purpose. Just to be safe.
close burst 100
while moving around the Overlord appearance inspire the creation of 1d4 new religions
:D
Psht. They're all just Cults of the Dragon Below, maybe with a few tens of thousands of members each.
Anyway as for known Overlords we have
Sul Khatesh, The Keeper of Secrets, imprisoned under the towers of Arcanix in Aundair. Magic and secrets are her playthings.
Ral Tulkesh. The Rage of War, location unknown, but merely passing over his prison supposedly is enough to turn someone into a bloodthirsty murderer. Destruction, bloodlust, and war are his.
Eldrantulku. The Oathbreaker, Location unknown. Delights in corruption, and causing betrayal.
Tul Oreshka, The Truth in Darkness. Location Unknown. Said that children conceived near her tomb are always insane. Embodies horrible secrets, and lets them loose to break the minds of those whom were lied to for protection.
Katashka, The Gatekeeper. Location Unknown. Holds sway over life, death and undeath. Said to have made the Dracolich who resides in the Lair of the Keeper, and was briefly freed some 3,000 years ago (ties into the Age of Worms Eberron Conversion).
Sakinnirot, The Scar that Abides. Imprisoned under the City of Stormreach. He lets none of his cultists or servants use his name being known only as The Scar that Abides, saying his name will only be used after he rises again. Lord of vengeance, but not as a crime of passion, rather slow methodical revenge. Said to be one of the most powerful Overlords he was supposedly conceived first but born last from Khyber.
Tiamat, The Daughter of Khyber. Imprisoned in the Pit of Five Sorrows in Argonessen. Corrupter of Dragons.
I heard that the conversion for Keep on the Shadowfell named Orcus as another Overlord.
Something like that should leave a significant historical record beyond the stain on the landscape.
And it certainly has. The Light of Siberys patrols the perimeter of the Vale; they have not forgotten what occured there. You can be sure the the loredrakes of the LoS have records of almost every major battle in draconic history. HUMANITY knows nothing about it, because it happened over a hundred thousand years ago and has left a mark on a continent that humans know nothing about. But the dragons certainly have records. Who knows? Perhaps Dularanahk herself was involved in the battle.
. The problem was that a simply physical victory over an Overlord proved to be ultimately meaningless, as they would simply return. It took Hezcalipa's sacrifice and the creation of the Silver Flame to actually end the war.
I've always wondered what was meant by this little piece of information on the Rajahs. Was the physical body of the Rajah destroyed and the spirit banished back to Khyber where it slowly coalesced into a new form? Oh and the soul retained memories from it's previous body. Or was it something similar to Dal Quor where the Rajah dies but the soul is recycled as a new being (with fresh memories)? I mean either case is scary enough, how the heck do you fight something that keeps regenerating (and there isn't a handy pool of molten metal nearby to terminate it with :P )?
I've always wondered what was meant by this little piece of information on the Rajahs. Was the physical body of the Rajah destroyed and the spirit banished back to Khyber where it slowly coalesced into a new form? Oh and the soul retained memories from it's previous body. Or was it something similar to Dal Quor where the Rajah dies but the soul is recycled as a new being (with fresh memories)? I mean either case is scary enough, how the heck do you fight something that keeps regenerating (and there isn't a handy pool of molten metal nearby to terminate it with :P )?
Whenever a demon (specifically Rakshasas, but other demons reform on their planes) die, they reform in Khyber. The time changes depending on the death and the power of the being, but they always reform. A rakshasa killed by a normal weapon might take a few days, and if killed by a Holy Avenger, perhaps even a few months. Rajahs are so much more powerful, killing them results in almost instant reformation in Khyber, no matter how they are killed. Hence why the dragons bound them (and why it typically took 500-a couple thousand dragons for each individual Rajah) instead of killing them. They are immortal and unkillable, they keep all memories, personality, etc., the only thing that changes is that they have a brand new body, just as powerful as the last.
As Mystrich says, the Overlord returns to Khyber to reform. Actually, by the article, this isn't instant; it takes 4d6 hours. And I'm still of the mind that circumstances could affect this. Perhaps through use of the perfect tools or actions (which Ourelonastrix and Hezcalipa could learn of through the Prophecy) that time could be extended... but on its own, the rajah would always return, and fairly quickly. Of course, you also haave things like the Vale of the Fallen Rajah; there what has happened is that instead of the rajah reforming or bing safely bound, its immortal essence has spread out to taint the land. So there's always possibilities... and as came up earlier in the thread, even victory can have its consequences.
No wonder the Couatl were willing to sacrifice their immortal lives to put these monsters down for all eternity. Fighting something like that is just... mind-boggling.
I mean either case is scary enough, how the heck do you fight something that keeps regenerating (and there isn't a handy pool of molten metal nearby to terminate it with :P )?
You lure it onto a ship full of gold, and set fire to the ship, of course.
(
if you get the reference.)You lure it onto a ship full of gold, and set fire to the ship, of course.
(
Its Ninja Scroll a cinda cool movie, mostly because it was one of the few animes i could get my hands on when i grew up (in Norway) and because it had ninjas and i was 13 and had an easily "manipulated" mind...
"Burn in your golden HELL"does this mean I have joined the dark side?
does this mean I have joined the dark side?
You don't know the power of the Dark Side ... or do you?
You don't know the power of the Dark Side ... or do you?
I know it gave me a free cookie. Does that count?
I know it gave me a free cookie. Does that count?
sure thing
So by your estimation, Argonessen has less than 100 Ancient Dragons in it? Seriously?
Put simply, yes. There should not be hundreds of Ancient, epic-level dragons running around. There is no need for that to be so. This may be mere personal preference (after all, I have never quite liked the monolithic and unmatchable power that Argonessen enjoys when compared to the rest of Eberron), but I simply don't imagine there being that many Ancient Dragons. As such, I will go the route that Keith Baker was arguing and say that the majority of the powerful dragons, like the Eye of Chronepsis group, would only be Elder Dragons with maybe 1 or 2 Ancients thrown in the mix. Otherwise, it really begins to distort the "only the PCs can protect the world from epic threats" idea that permeates the rest of the setting.
Overall, I will just say that I don't agree that a creature needs to be given plot protection in order to be something other than "just another monster". An Orc Chieftan can be something far more than "just another monster" if handled properly, simply because of the DM. I also don't think it is the job of game designers and writers to tell the DM what monsters are important or deserve plot protection.
Still, based on what I have heard about Tiamat's stats in the Draconomicon, it seems WotC has found a set of rules that will probably works as a reasonable compromise between my viewpoint and Hellcow's (depending on exact implementation, I suppose).
Now if only I could wrap my mind around the difference between Overlords and the actual gods of Eberron... If you actually want to presume that the gods of Eberron actually exist (which has been getting harder for me to justify as of late), and that they are something qualitatively different than the Rajahs (since no one can prove the existence of gods, but the Rajahs are relatively well known), then they need to be something more distant from the world than immortal currents of energy that embody ideas (which is actually my standard assumption of what gods are). This is getting tricky for me.
Put simply, yes. There should not be hundreds of Ancient, epic-level dragons running around. There is no need for that to be so. This may be mere personal preference (after all, I have never quite liked the monolithic and unmatchable power that Argonessen enjoys when compared to the rest of Eberron), but I simply don't imagine there being that many Ancient Dragons. As such, I will go the route that Keith Baker was arguing and say that the majority of the powerful dragons, like the Eye of Chronepsis group, would only be Elder Dragons with maybe 1 or 2 Ancients thrown in the mix. Otherwise, it really begins to distort the "only the PCs can protect the world from epic threats" idea that permeates the rest of the setting.
Well, it wasn't a route KB was arguing so much as one he was presenting as an option in contrast to his own, which was that most of the Eyes are Ancient.
What you are essentially arguing here is a house rule. Which is fine. But canon, core Eberron says, "Nope, sorry, Dragons of age categories which fall under Ancient now are numerous enough to make an army." Which is sort of the point of Argonessen. If you want to houserule it, that's fine, and I'm fine with discussing it as a house rule. But your previous tack was to announce it like it was an argument over what was canon. If you want advice on your houserules, that's fine. Just don't try to state your houserules like they're authoritative somehow.
Well, it wasn't a route KB was arguing so much as one he was presenting as an option in contrast to his own, which was that most of the Eyes are Ancient.
I know that, and responded as such.
What you are essentially arguing here is a house rule. Which is fine. But canon, core Eberron says, "Nope, sorry, Dragons of age categories which fall under Ancient now are numerous enough to make an army." Which is sort of the point of Argonessen. If you want to houserule it, that's fine, and I'm fine with discussing it as a house rule. But your previous tack was to announce it like it was an argument over what was canon. If you want advice on your houserules, that's fine. Just don't try to state your houserules like they're authoritative somehow.
You seriously misunderstand me.
I was not arguing what was canon, nor am I talking about a house rule (though I wonder how an interpretation of a setting is a "house rule"). I am actually trying to make an argument about what should be canon (as much as "canon" should ever exist in a campaign setting). I am not a fool who thinks that I can change everything just by posting on a message board, and I understand that Mr. Baker disagrees with my viewpoint, but at the same time I do have the right to mention that I disagree with what may be canonical, and that I would have preferred things to be a different way.
Of course, until the 4E Eberron books are actually released, who knows what will actually be "canonical" or not. Mr. Baker has always been pretty clear that he is not the absolute source of canon for the Eberron setting, since it was always a joint project and is owned by WotC.
I know that, and responded as such.
You seriously misunderstand me.
I was not arguing what was canon, nor am I talking about a house rule (though I wonder how an interpretation of a setting is a "house rule"). I am actually trying to make an argument about what should be canon (as much as "canon" should ever exist in a campaign setting). I am not a fool who thinks that I can change everything just by posting on a message board, and I understand that Mr. Baker disagrees with my viewpoint, but at the same time I do have the right to mention that I disagree with what may be canonical, and that I would have preferred things to be a different way.
Of course, until the 4E Eberron books are actually released, who knows what will actually be "canonical" or not. Mr. Baker has always been pretty clear that he is not the absolute source of canon for the Eberron setting, since it was always a joint project and is owned by WotC.
Well, actually, any previous edition source is by definition canon until overwritten. As such, without specific mention otherwise, 3.5's prodigious amount of Great Wyrms with class levels in Argonessen would translate into 4e as an equally large number of Ancients. So unless there is literally a line in the ECG or EPG that mentions the breakdown of dragons by age category, this issue is resolved with the 3.5 sourcebook.
Edit: Eberron, however, has never been and hopefully never will be the setting where canon mattered much. I'm just saying, if you want to say "What would happen if every type of quori were all level 30+ power in 4e?" this is you positing something for the boards to look at as a house rule in your game. It's still worth exploring as a what if, and so is this. It's just a deviation from both what has been written and will be valid until contradicted by a 4e source, which is unlikely even after the books come out, unless Dragon Mag touches on it or the full 4e conversion of the sourcebook comes out as promised way back when.
Otherwise, it really begins to distort the "only the PCs can protect the world from epic threats" idea that permeates the rest of the setting.
I just wanted to clarify this point, because it's actually quite counter to the way I see things. The critical point is that the dragons only protect the interests of the dragons, and when they do so they do so with ruthless force and efficiency. They took no action against the Daelkyr that laid low the Empire of Dhakaan. They have taken no action against the ongoing threat of the Dreaming Dark. They care nothing for the fate of humanity; on the contrary, if it serves a particular path of the Prophecy, many members of the Chamber wouldn't hesitate to set something in motion that will cause the death of tens of thousands of humans.
Look to Xen'drik for an example of this. The dragons took no action in the Quori-Giant conflict. They took no action to help elf or giant in the Elf-Giant wars. it was only when the giants threatened to abuse planar magics that the dragons acted, and they didn't take any sort of surgical action: they completely devastated Xen'drik, destroying the civilizations of elf, giant, and many more, and if you believe in the Du'rashka Tul, laying a curse across the land to prevent any powerful civilization from ever rising there again (and bear in mind, the giants were far more powerful and advanced than any modern humanoid civilization).
The dragons are not your friends. They aren't your fallback position. If the dragons come to Khorvaire to deal with a threat, they will likely destroy human civilization in the process. They are ANOTHER threat you need to save the world from - because you need to solve problems before they feel that they need to get involved.
While it wasn't the inspiration, one comparison to be made is to look at the dragons and demons as the Shadows and Vorlons in Babylon 5: ancient and powerful, with motives that cannot be understood by the lesser races, almost never seen, and yet possessing the power to destroy entire worlds if they choose to act. It's possible that a band of heroes can find a way to topple these titans and change the balance of power, but pure force will never be the answer.
Now if only I could wrap my mind around the difference between Overlords and the actual gods of Eberron... If you actually want to presume that the gods of Eberron actually exist (which has been getting harder for me to justify as of late), and that they are something qualitatively different than the Rajahs (since no one can prove the existence of gods, but the Rajahs are relatively well known), then they need to be something more distant from the world than immortal currents of energy that embody ideas (which is actually my standard assumption of what gods are). This is getting tricky for me.
Well, here's how I distinguish them.
Assuming that the Sovereigns and Six do exist, the core assumption of the designers and novelists has always been that they will never physically manifest on the world. A god exists on a truly higher plane of existence, something beyond the known outer planes, and does not physically interact with the world. If they DO affect the world, they affect it through inspiration and through divine power and divine channeling. A vassal smith believes that Onatar guides his hand at the forge. He beleives that Onatar is there with him whenever he does his work. He does NOT believe that Onatar will ever walk through the door of his smithy and say "Good job there, Bob, but keep your elbow tighter." He MAY believe (some do and some don't) that he will meet Onatar after death - after his soul passes through Dolurrh and reaches the realms that lie beyond any mortal understanding - but again, this is not a place that can every be known by the living.
On the other hand you have the Overlords (and for that matter demons and angels) who are the incarnate embodiments of ideas. While it's come up in this thread, I don't personally think of Katashka as being the SOURCE of death - but rather a representation of the fear of death. If he exists, the Keeper may be there at the moment of your death. Katashka DOES exist, but he's not there at the moment of your death; he's bound in Khyber. But should he rise, he will spread fear of death and the undead across the world.
Since the Overlords are embodiments of fears,thoughts and ideas, would some of the dragons of Argonesson would deliberately go out and try to kill all other forms of sentient life on Eberron, believing that with them gone, and no longer able to fear the Overlords or have fear, that it will some how weaken the Overlords?
Anything is possible, but a few things to consider...
- Just because the Overlords embody concepts doesn't mean that mortals are responsible for them; a dragon might believe that they are ideas in the minds of the progenitors themselves, bound to the existence of the world and the Prophecy.
- If you decide they are shaped by mortal minds, well, the dragons themselves are mortal creatures with fears. Tiamat is said to represent the potential for evil that lies within dragons; if they seek to kill all other sentient life and if the actions of mortals influence the Overlords, I'd think this massacre would greatly strengthen Tiamat. Of course, it might be her influence that convinces dragons this is a good idea to begin with.
Still it might be an interesting idea for a campaign.
That is an extremely interesting idea for a campaign, actually. Even using one dragon as an antagonist in a game with this theme would make for a great and very full 1-30 campaign.
Thank you for the complement Auspex7.
You're welcome, Vig.
The beauty of this as a campaign seed is that the truth of the theory is basically irrelevant. This is easily capable of being a full 1-30 campaign whether or not the dragon's idea is actually correct--he just has to believe that it's correct, and take action upon those beliefs.
The possibilities are staggering, and frankly, I have to say it would be a truly awesome reveal to allow the PCs to discover that the theory was wrong (if, indeed, it is), and that all of the bloodshed leading up to that moment was completely unnecessary.
Anything is possible, but a few things to consider...
- Just because the Overlords embody concepts doesn't mean that mortals are responsible for them; a dragon might believe that they are ideas in the minds of the progenitors themselves, bound to the existence of the world and the Prophecy.
- If you decide they are shaped by mortal minds, well, the dragons themselves are mortal creatures with fears. Tiamat is said to represent the potential for evil that lies within dragons; if they seek to kill all other sentient life and if the actions of mortals influence the Overlords, I'd think this massacre would greatly strengthen Tiamat. Of course, it might be her influence that convinces dragons this is a good idea to begin with.
One of my favorite ideas for immortal beings who embody concepts or fears, is that they exist as long as that thing does. So as long as people fear death, then Katashka can not be killed. Or in your case Tiamat may not grow powerful from more evil dragons, but as long as dragons are tempted by evil she will be there waiting.
But I like the idea of them being the thoughts of the original three dragons, they can't be killed because the are immortal thought given form. I'm now toying with good ideas for my next campaign, so thank you.