So I was thinking about using elementals as a major enemy in a campaign down the road. If so I might tie the Primordials in with them. It would be an invasion from the elemental Planes type of thing. What if before there was an Age of Dragons, there was an Age of Primordials? They were the true rulers of the planet and the titans and giants were their servants and worshipers. That is why the giants of Xendrik were so interested in Planar magic and Eldritch Machines, they were trying to find a way to open large gates to get their brethern from the planes to Eberron and help them free the Primordials. What if the Rajahs were not the first beings imprisoned deep within Eberron?
Anyway this was my idea on how to use Primordials, how have you worked them into your EB game?
Seems fine, but why not just make them one and the same? There's no reason that you can't have Overlords of elemental forces... and in assigning the Abyss, Fernia, and Risia to Khyber this was essentially our intent. Both overlord and primordial are epic-level ancient beings from the dawn of the time, whose release could be the end of the world. Is there a compelling reason to separate them out? Again, while we call them "rajahs", the Overlords are not actually supposed to have any sort of direct connect to the rakshasa; it's simply that the rakshasa were the most numerous of their servants. And with Tiamat, we've already established that there are overlords who don't associate with rakshasa.
In fact, I had an unpublished 3.5 Dungeon backdrop that involved an Overlord named Draal Khatuur, the Heart of Winter; she was a spirit of cold and death, and her servants were elementals and undead as opposed to rakshasas or demons; essentially, primordial. But she was still a spirit of the first age, now bound beneath the Frostfell.
I'm using the thunder serpent primordial, can't remember his name, from a dragon article as an overlord, possibly the insperation for the Devourer. This of course ties into the Storm Front cult trying to free him.
Primordials transfer really well into overlords, as do the major demons/devils/evil dieties. Some need more flavor tweaking than others.
I just like the idea of Primordials being something else than ancient evils and more along the lines of forces of nature/planes. I like the idea that the dragons had to win the planet from another group before they became it's masters. I felt the Primordial angle also works well if I want to tie the titans/giants into the whole mix. Perhaps it may seem redundant that another group of godlike beings is being secretly trapped within Eberron but it also would lead to pcs wondering what is so special about Khyber that it can contain so many powerful extraplanar beings. Then they learn that removing Khyber Shards from the planet is slowly breaking down their prisons. Kind of like an Al Gore awakening but this is actually true story! 
I also wanted to run some type of Planar Invasion story but the threat comes from Fernia and other planes tied to Earth, Wind, and Water/Ice ect.
I just like the idea of Primordials being something else than ancient evils and more along the lines of forces of nature/planes. I like the idea that the dragons had to win the planet from another group before they became it's masters. I felt the Primordial angle also works well if I want to tie the titans/giants into the whole mix. Perhaps it may seem redundant that another group of godlike beings is being secretly trapped within Eberron but it also would lead to pcs wondering what is so special about Khyber that it can contain so many powerful extraplanar beings. Then they learn that removing Khyber Shards from the planet is slowly breaking down their prisons. Kind of like an Al Gore awakening but this is actually true story! I also wanted to run some type of Planar Invasion story but the threat comes from Fernia and other planes tied to Earth, Wind, and Water/Ice ect.
Perfectly dueable, and sounds like a fun campaign. Personally I think there little need to add more to the history when the estblished fluff works for what you want as well. But tat is me, it sounds like you have an idea you like and thats whats important.
It is purely just a thought. The key thing is to have an invasion by nature/elemental forces from the planes. I wanted to use things like giants, azers, archons ect and not have them be part of the Rajahs or Daelkyr. I could always have the giants be the chief BBEGs here but I thought I might like to tie in the Primordials into the story somehow. I just didn't want every evil plot in EB to be part of the DD, Daelkyr, and Rajahs master plan.
It is purely just a thought. The key thing is to have an invasion by nature/elemental forces from the planes. I wanted to use things like giants, azers, archons ect and not have them be part of the Rajahs or Daelkyr. I could always have the giants be the chief BBEGs here but I thought I might like to tie in the Primordials into the story somehow. I just didn't want every evil plot in EB to be part of the DD, Daelkyr, and Rajahs master plan.
That makes sense. Primordials do have a much more elemental feel then the "Rakshasa Rajahs" (given you can say they originate from a different plane with primordials if you so desire
).A couple of interesting questions that pop out at me concerning your campaign are:
- Did the primordials form an alliance? Were cold-based primordials allied with fire-based ones?
- Why did they attack Eberron?
- When they were imprisoned, why were they imprisoned in Khyber and not the plane(s) they came from?
- Why did the Dragons go on to help the Giants with their civilization if the Giants were servants to the primordials?
It could be imprisoning creatures in Khyber is much easier then trying to imprison them in Fernia or wherever they came from. It could also be in your Eberron the giants didn't learn magic from the Dragons.
Primordials do have a much more elemental feel then the "Rakshasa Rajahs"...
As a side note, this is precisely why I dislike the term "rakshasa rajah" and prefer "Overlord of the First Age" - since again, the Overlords are not actually rakshasa and many (Tiamat, The Scar That Abides, The Heart of Winter, etc) don't even have rakshasa servants.
Again, it's no bearing on the actual issue here - but a lot of people think that the Overlords are in fact just high-level rakshasa... when in fact they are spirits of a different order, who were often served by rakshasa. Essentially, they are "rakshasa rajahs" in the sense that they are rulers of rakshasa... not that they are raksahsa who are also rulers.
So "rakshasa rajah" doesn't have an elemental feel at all. Draal Khatuur, the Heart of Winter, the Overlord of Cold and Death, has a slightly more elemental feel.
Hmm. Just to present a completely different option, since this is all about exploring non-canon ideas... you're suggesting putting the primordials before the Overlords. What if they came after? If the goal is to tie them to the giants, why not place them in the Age of Giants instead of predating the Age of Demons? We've already suggested that the first giants of Xen'drik were far more powerful beings (titans, but not necessarily in the 4E sense of the word) than the giants of today. What if the elemental primordials arose AFTER the downfall of the Overlords, and after the couatl made their sacrifice and fell from the world? If I were doing it, I'd want to make the dragon-giant war a much more dramatic thing - but when you consider the fallout of it (the Durashka Tul, the Curse of the Traveler) we're talking about a battle that shattered the laws of reality. We're also talking about beings who overthrew two feyspires, created elves and drow, and shattered a planar orbit... we are talking about terrifying power. And you've got the Sulatar and their Promise of Fire, which could easily be a primordial.
It's not a big thing - but rather than making it even MORE ancient that the ancient battle we've currently got, it could be a way to add depth to the existing history of the giants... saying that the great wars were Overlords, Primordials, Daelkyr. And it certainly highlights the heroism of the Tairnadal heroes, if they were actually clashing with primordials - and makes a very strong backstory for a Valenar PC who wants to play a Primordial-fighting avenger or invoker.
Just a thought.
So "rakshasa rajah" doesn't have an elemental feel at all. Draal Khatuur, the Heart of Winter, the Overlord of Cold and Death, has a slightly more elemental feel.
Fair enough. For me (based entirely on my interpretation), I consider some of the statted out demons to make good Overlords. For me, Orcus is a good fit as to what the Overlords were like. He's got:
- countless followers
- thirst for power (power of the Raven Queen)
- dynastic tendencies (he currently rules a layer of the Abyss)
To me that is the epitome of an Overlord. Despite the fact demons originate from the Elemental Chaos in core 4th ed, it doesn't feel like an elemental to me. Elementals to me aren't interested in death and destruction for the sake of death and desctruction. They also don't seek to create empires or kingdoms simply because they wish to.
To me elementals embody the essence of their element. What attributes you appoint to the elemeent of fire or the element of water are of course entirely up to you.
If you want to pose elementals as a definite and clearcut enemy to the players, you could say that destruction is part of each element and so elementals always seek destruction to one degree or another. Fire burns life out. Earth smothers life in earthquakes and sandstorms. Water drowns and crushes life (gravity near the bottom of an ocean can kill creatures that haven't adapted to it).
Or if you want to pose elementals as a definite and clearcut ally to the players, you could say that creation and life are part of each element and so elementals always seek to create new things and nuture life. Fire only burns forests so that life can blossom even more then it did beforehand. It also provides warmth, heat and a source of power to fuel the creation of new foods and items (e.g. blacksmith needs a fire to create items). Life springs forth from earth while water gives one of the most important ingrediants to living creatures. It is only only through the combination of all the elements that civilization can arise and so elementals will always work together to benefit civilization.
Personally I prefer something a bit more mixed and less clearcut. So for me, Mual-Tar would make a good and very powerful Water Elemental. But only by ignoring certain aspects of the fluff It would be so powerful, that some refer to it as a primordial. In some cases the players may find an ally within Mual-Tar. While in other cases they may find an enemy in Mual-Tar. As such if I were to have a Dragon-Primordial war which ended with the Dragons victorious and the Primordials imprisoned in Khyber, I probably wouldn't make either side clear-cut bad guys. I'd give my players incentive to side with the dragons or the primordials and then have a fulfilling conclusion to the campaign based on the choice of the players.
Getting around to the Overlords again. I consider them to be one of the few cases in Eberron where something is clear-cut. The Overlords are (in my view) unquestionably bad guys. Although the followers of the Overlords can still be an ally to the players despite this. If saving the world from a Xoriat invasion helps to ensure an Overlord is released in a millenia or two, then the players will be aided by these otherwise evil creatures.
For me, Orcus is a good fit as to what the Overlords were like. He's got:
- countless followers
- thirst for power (power of the Raven Queen)
- dynastic tendencies (he currently rules a layer of the Abyss)
To me that is the epitome of an Overlord. Despite the fact demons originate from the Elemental Chaos in core 4th ed, it doesn't feel like an elemental to me. Elementals to me aren't interested in death and destruction for the sake of death and desctruction. They also don't seek to create empires or kingdoms simply because they wish to.
Personally, I don't see all the Overlords as BEING interested in empires or kingdoms. This is one of the points of the Lords of Dust raised in "Eternal Evil" - that they've never bothered to try to conquer the world despite their epic power, because what have they got to gain from doing it? SOME of the overlords are interested in tyranny and control, because that is what they are. The Rage of War enjoys endless war and crushing an enemy. But the Heart of Winter doesn't want to dominate; she wants to freeze. The Oathbreaker enjoys turning allies against one another; that's his nature. Tiamat is the evil in the hearts of dragons, and they are her joy and her prey. One of the main reasons the Overlords were defeated is because they DIDN'T work together; they were too powerful, too arrogant, and too different in their natures and desires. The Heart of Winter had no common ground with The Scar That Abides.
I see nothing wrong with Orcus as an Overlord, and if I used him I'd replace any reference to Katashka the Gatekeeper with him. I've no issue with SOME Overlords having dynastic desires. But I don't see it as an innate part of the Overlords. They are eternal and omnipotent (in their eyes). They wish to return the world to the glorious days of Khyber ascendant, when they were free to spread their hands across land, sea, and moon. But empires are toys to play with, things to pass the time - not something that will last an eternity.
But that's just my opinion. ;)
Getting around to the Overlords again. I consider them to be one of the few cases in Eberron where something is clear-cut. The Overlords are (in my view) unquestionably bad guys. Although the followers of the Overlords can still be an ally to the players despite this. If saving the world from a Xoriat invasion helps to ensure an Overlord is released in a millenia or two, then the players will be aided by these otherwise evil creatures.
I agree with this.
Personally, I don't see all the Overlords as BEING interested in empires or kingdoms. This is one of the points of the Lords of Dust raised in "Eternal Evil" [and then a few other paragraphs all with interesting points]
Aaah okay. I hadn't gotten that from what I'd read in the books. There was one part I had noted in the 4th ed ECG that was similar to that
the fiends have little interest in ruling mortals, whom they cvonsider to be little more than insects. For one of the Lords of Dust, ruling Breland has the same appeal that Lording over a pigsty has for humans.
except I interpreted that as the Lords of Dust don't seek to rule humans because they're too busy with trying to free their overlord. What you say does make them sound a lot more like Elementals as I envision them. Simply instead of embodying an element, they embody a concept.
For me I prefer to have certain aspects of the game to fill specific and unique niche. So I'm not that interested on that interpretation of Overlords. I prefer that to be filled by gods and elementals. So I see the various high-level forces to be something like:
- Elementals: They embody the characteristics of an element. (if you've read Kevin J Andersons Saga of the Seven Suns series, its sort of similar to that).
- Deities: If the Sovereign Host and Dark Six exist, they embody ideals. Nature, civilization, fertility, death, courage, betrayal, etc.
- Devils: They exist only one plane. Shavarath. There they battle Angels and Archons. Not because they want to win, but because they are being of the plane of battle and so they exist solely to battle. While devils feel elation in claiming a new stronghold or defeating a particular army, they do so not because they seek to win the war they're locked in. They feel joy because these are mere symbols or trophies of their fighting prowess. If ever the Devils won the war on Shavarath and completely destroyed the Angels and Archons, they wouldn't know what to do next. They would be lost.
- Daelkyri: From the Plane of Xoriat, understanding the Daelkyri mind is an impossible task. However as best as can be understood, the Daelkyri don't see themselves as kings but artists. They seek to remake Eberron in the image of Xoriat because Eberron's nature is simply too alien for them to feel comfortable within. If given the option, some argue that the Daelkyri would unhesitatingly return to the Plane that is madness given shape. Of course others argue that having learned of other realms, the Daelkyri see it as their duty to spread Xoriat to all the planes. Some assign malign motives to the Daelkyri for this. Saying they want to wipe out all life. Others assign benign motives, saying the Daelkyri are trying to save all of us in a misplaced sense of pity. However due to the alien nature of the Daelkyri, it is impossible to say which motivation is correct. It is quite possible they're both incorrect and the Daelkyri are motivated by something else. Something we perhaps simply lack the vocabulary to communicate.
- Overlords: These were the rulers of the Age of Demons. They are as imperialistic as the devils of Shavarath. However unlike the devils, they do not battle for the mere sake of battle. They do so because they want to rule Eberron in its entirety. They want to have a society that bends to their desires. Each one sees itself as the true heir of Eberron and that only through ruling Eberron can they fulfill their ultimate destiny.
So with that interpretation of Eberron, Overlords a bit redundant with deities and elementals. So I've changed their role in my version of Eberron.
Of course all of that completely ignores a lot of canon. Particularly my take on Devils and Shavarath. But its the interpretation I enjoy the most so far, so I use it 
Simply instead of embodying an element, they embody a concept.
Right. So The Heart of Winter embodies a concept that is an element. While the Rage of War embodies the brutality of warfare, the Oathbreaker embodies betrayal, and so on. To me, the Heart of Winter isn't about conquest. She can't be; by her nature, she kills many lesser creatures that come to her domain. She spreads a deadly ice age hundreds of miles around her. While Tiamat lives among the dragons she bends to her will, and Katashka's domain would be a place of death.
I guess it's part of my love of Lovecraft, and seeing the Overlords in that light. The release of an Overlord doesn't necessarily mean conquest. It might for dragons, because they are mighty enough the be worthy of conquest. But for humans, it means being swept away, whether by ice, death, rage, or madness.
Your system certainly works fine; it's simply that under it I'd make some of the predefined Overlords primordials instead, just as some demons would become Overlords.
Of course all of that completely ignores a lot of canon. Particularly my take on Devils and Shavarath. But its the interpretation I enjoy the most so far, so I use it
Well, it ignores 4E canon; it pretty much is 3E canon. And I actually prefer that myself. :P
To totally nitpick, it's the pressure that kills creatures below a certain depth in water. Basically it's the water squashing you to death. Which, I guess, in a way is still gravity, since the water wouldn't generate pressure without it.
Other than that, I like this thread.
Yeah the idea about using the Primordials and elementals in the Age of Giants is a good one. Perhaps that is the true reason the dragons laid waste to the giants...
Hmm. Just to present a completely different option, since this is all about exploring non-canon ideas... you're suggesting putting the primordials before the Overlords. What if they came after? If the goal is to tie them to the giants, why not place them in the Age of Giants instead of predating the Age of Demons? We've already suggested that the first giants of Xen'drik were far more powerful beings (titans, but not necessarily in the 4E sense of the word) than the giants of today. What if the elemental primordials arose AFTER the downfall of the Overlords, and after the couatl made their sacrifice and fell from the world? If I were doing it, I'd want to make the dragon-giant war a much more dramatic thing - but when you consider the fallout of it (the Durashka Tul, the Curse of the Traveler) we're talking about a battle that shattered the laws of reality. We're also talking about beings who overthrew two feyspires, created elves and drow, and shattered a planar orbit... we are talking about terrifying power. And you've got the Sulatar and their Promise of Fire, which could easily be a primordial.
It's not a big thing - but rather than making it even MORE ancient that the ancient battle we've currently got, it could be a way to add depth to the existing history of the giants... saying that the great wars were Overlords, Primordials, Daelkyr. And it certainly highlights the heroism of the Tairnadal heroes, if they were actually clashing with primordials - and makes a very strong backstory for a Valenar PC who wants to play a Primordial-fighting avenger or invoker.
Just a thought.
I'm sold . Excellent as always. My question is about the primordials' entrance in Eberron's history in this scenario.
- Would they simply be children of Khyber like the fiends?
- Perhaps they were an unexpected and for centuries undetected "byproduct" of the inconceivable magic unleashed during the dragon-fiend war?
- And what if they are nothing less than the giants' version of ascendants, the greatest of mortal magic-wielders having shed their mortal coil and actually become immortals?
since this is all about exploring non-canon ideas...
Well, unless I've missed something, there is no canon place for them in Eberron. It's an empty canvas. Perfect material for Xen'drik and/or Khyber
.
My question is about the primordials' entrance in Eberron's history in this scenario?
- Would they simply be children of Khyber like the fiends?
- Perhaps they were they be an unexpected and for centuries undetected "byproduct" of the inconceivable magic unleashed during the dragon-fiend war?
- And what if they are nothing less than the giants' version of ascendants, the greatest of mortal magic-wielders having shed their mortal coil and actually become immortals?
You could compromise on #1 and #2. According to legend, the couatl were the pure children of Siberys, and as such, immortal. The fiends were the pure children of Khyber, and thus immortal. Dragons, on the other hand, were the result of the blood of Siberys falling to Eberron, and a blending of his immortal spirit and the natural life of Eberron.
Perhaps the Primordials aren't the children of Khyber - but rather the pure, immortal children of Eberron. Khyber's pure spirits were the fiends; Siberys the celestials; Eberron, the primordials. Either they didn't emerge until after the Age of Demons, or they simply didn't grow into their full power. But with the binding of the fiends and the sacrifice of the couatl, the powers of Siberys and Khyber were weakened - giving the potential for the Primordials to grow.
Alternately, you could still tie it to Aureon's Folly in the legends of the dragons. It's not that the dragons taught the giants to use magic. Instead, through their studies of the Prophecy, some of the loredrakes showed the giants how to attain their true potential and become Primordials... and it's this Primordial power that let them shake the foundations of the multiverse. What I like about this is that it means that the giants weren't just using hand-me-down magic; the dragons opened the door for them, but didn't realize just how much power they were unleashing. It also means that you have the potential for a modern giant to master this ritual and to become a new primordial. So perhaps it's not that the primordials are bound in the same way as the daelkyr or Overlords... but rather that their essence is dormant awaiting a suitable host. You don't unleash the primordial itself; instead, a giant finds a way to become the new incarnation of that Primordial, so it can walk the world again. Like the Overlords, the primordials can't be permanently destroyed; but if the host is killed, it is dormant until a new host performs the proper rites and rituals, and the stars and moons are right.
Alternately, you could still tie it to Aureon's Folly in the legends of the dragons. It's not that the dragons taught the giants to use magic. Instead, through their studies of the Prophecy, some of the loredrakes showed the giants how to attain their true potential and become Primordials... and it's this Primordial power that let them shake the foundations of the multiverse. What I like about this is that it means that the giants weren't just using hand-me-down magic; the dragons opened the door for them, but didn't realize just how much power they were unleashing. It also means that you have the potential for a modern giant to master this ritual and to become a new primordial. So perhaps it's not that the primordials are bound in the same way as the daelkyr or Overlords... but rather that their essence is dormant awaiting a suitable host. You don't unleash the primordial itself; instead, a giant finds a way to become the new incarnation of that Primordial, so it can walk the world again. Like the Overlords, the primordials can't be permanently destroyed; but if the host is killed, it is dormant until a new host performs the proper rites and rituals, and the stars and moons are right.
Wonderful. Consider it used in my campaign. Many thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Wow, what a fantastic discussion.
I think if I were to use a Primordial, I'd definately go with the "empowered giants" way. I don't know if I'd say that a particular Primordial is a force that has different "hosts" throughout time though. I think that goes off into god territorty, with Primordials being concepts.
I'd rather each individual Primordial being one giant, that can be killed and slain permanently. If another Primordial arrises with the exact same powers as a slain one, it's more like... someone putting on a dead superhero's costume. The Giant becomes the Primordial in title only, but is actually an entirely seperate being from the first one. People not in-the-know might think the Primordial has risen again, but it hasn't.
I'd do it this way because I like the idea of "elemental" creatures just being pure matter and substance. Gods and Overlords are, in essence, concepts given form while Primordials, as I see them, are "what you see is what you get". It's just there is a LOT to see. So if you destroy a god or Overlord, their "concept" is still floating around in some mental state, and reforms a new body. Where with a Primordial, if you actually manage to slay one (Which, at full power, is much harder to do than kill a god, at least in the Points of Light setting fluff) it's dead.
Just as an odd aside segue, since we're mentioning blood mingling and all that jazz (btw excellent discussion thus far). If the Couatal are said to be the pure-blood of Siberys and the Demons the pure blood of Khyber, what's the pure blood of Eberron? Would you say every living creature of Eberron, or would it be something much more... I dunno potent? Because the Demons and the Couatl are fairly powerful entities. Mayhap that reflects the core embodiment of the two Progenitor Dragons. Siberys and Khyber were probably quite full of themselves, hence their children being big, shiny and conspicous. Whereas Eberron is more subtle, she never really shows overt action, hence binding Khyber in her coils rather than all-out conflict. This again could reflect the children of Eberron, who singularly will get swept away by the children of Siberys, Khyber or the Dragons (a mix of Siberys and Eberron).
But when they band together, when they work as one, miracles are accomplished. The Elves of Aerenal breaking free from the Giants, the wonders of Khorvaire and it's achievements. Yes the Lovecratian ideal of the younger mortal races standing no chance is cool and all, but it also tends to forget the tendency of humans (and by extension any of the fantasy races since they are merely constructs of our mind) to band together when times are tough and achieve the impossible against all odds. When the chips are down and humanity is backed into a corner, even Cthulu doesn't stand a chance :P .
After all, in time even Katashka may die...
Just as an odd aside segue, since we're mentioning blood mingling and all that jazz (btw excellent discussion thus far). If the Couatal are said to be the pure-blood of Siberys and the Demons the pure blood of Khyber, what's the pure blood of Eberron?
Per canon, the general view of most arcanists would be "Life." Khyber birthed the fiends, Siberys the celestials, and Eberron all natural creatures. Where they mingle - such as Siberys' blood falling to Eberron - you get mighty but mortal creatures like dragons.
With that said, the underlying principle of both the Silver Flame and the Blood of Vol is that there is a spark of divinity in all mortal creatures. The SF holds that this spark can join with and strengthen the Flame; the BoV holds that you can fan that spark into its own flame, and that every mortal holds the seed of divinity in its blood - that mortality is itself unnatural, and that the children of Eberron DO have the innate potential to match any child of Khyber or Siberys.
Which in 4E is game mechanical true as well since most epic destinies do lead to immortality ;)
Note that I really like the primordial is awakened giant idea. It fits my proposal on how to adept the new mega adventure.
I think if I were to use a Primordial, I'd definately go with the "empowered giants" way. I don't know if I'd say that a particular Primordial is a force that has different "hosts" throughout time though.
Yes, considering my last post, I think it's all about the Blood of Vol/Children of Eberron thing. Giants, being mortal creatures, are children of Eberron... and their elemental nature actually works well for that. Children of Eberron aren't immortal like fiends or celestials, but there's that spark within. The primordial is the giant who has unlocked that full potential. Thus there were only a handful even in the Age of Giants, because most giants just couldn't tap into it.
I like it because it gives Valenar a strong basis for pursuing Primordial-fighting Paragon Paths (as their heroic ancestors battled primordials), and because it also sets the stage for the idea that a BoV follower could become something like a Primordial himself if he truly unlocks the Divinity Within (perhaps not quite that level because giants are tougher than humans to begin with, and it might reflect that - but still, it's something to work with).
Likewise, it really adds depth to the dragon-giant war - a sense of what forces would have been unleashed and how it would devastate Xen'drik. And I really like the fact that while the dragons may have shown the giants the way, it makes clear how the giants gained a power the dragons didn't expect... instead of just saying that they were abusing magics the dragons themselves already had.Beyond that, I really like adding more depth and interest to a recent war, then just adding something even older as a pre-age-of-demons thing. And I agree, I think it is better to say that when a primordial giant is slain, it's slain - another could rise bearing the same mantle of power, but it is a different being, and you can revel in your success when you pull it off. With that said, I still like the idea that a few of the titan/primordials escaped death by flinging themselves beyond life and death... which is to say, becoming vestiges.
What's great about this is that since it moves primordials to the dragon-giant conflict, and since dragons seek to emulate the Sovereigns, it actually creates room for recent myths of the Sovereigns and puts a different spin on the gods-fighting-primordials thing. Dol Arrah and Dol Dorn DID fight Primordial X, and Dol Dorn was solely wounded... of course, Dol Dorn was an epic dragon, the greatest of those following that path.
And yes, the spark of divinity in mortals recognized by the Silver Flame and Blood of VOl is certainly something one can play with in dealing with epic destinies in Eberron.
Hmm...
- The out-of-the-book fluff in PHB2 says the first invokers made covenants with the gods to fight the primordials on their behalf. Invokers also tend to be pantheist, acknowledging all the gods even if personally dedicated to only one.
- In Eberron, the Sovereign Host and Dark Six are recognized by just about all the peoples of Khorvaire and Xen'drik, and tend to have a general pantheist following. These deities have popular anthropomorphic representations, but most also have draconic interpretations.
- According to tradition, the first Gatekeeper druids were taught their primal secrets by the renegade dragon Vvaraak so that they could fight off/contain the Daelkyr. So what if...
- ... the first invokers were taught divine secrets by the dragons of Argonessen so that they could fight off the primordial giants?
I'm not sure if that works out entirely, based on the humanoid populations available at the time, but I love the potential for parallel moments in history. It'd certainly put a fun spin on other dragons' reactions to Vvaraak's instruction. ("Remember the last time we tried that... we started religion.")
So what if the first invokers were taught divine secrets by the dragons of Argonessen so that they could fight off the primordial giants?
Personally, I place very little weight on class fluff. For example, I'm happy to use the shaman class for a kalashtar who pulls your nightmares out of your dreams and attacks you with them, or for a Valenar who can summon the spirits of his ancestors to do battle... even though per class fluff they are spirits of nature. So I'm happy to have an invoker of the Silver Flame who's simply drawing on the power of the Flame to accomplish different effects, and invoker of the Blood of Vol who's calling on the Divinity Within, etc.
With that said, you certainly have a humanoid force who fought the primordial giants: the elves. Today, they are focused on ancestor worship... but we haven't talked about the religions of their ancestors much (with the exception of the line of Vol inheriting some of its beliefs from the Qabalrin). So it's certainly possible that you could have had elven invokers taught by a Sovereign-archetype dragon, whose ancestors hold to that today. It would actually be somewhat interesting, as you essentially get two religions for the price of one - I follow the Spirits of the Past, and seek to emulate my ancestor, but my ancestor was taught to harness the power of the light by Dol Arrah herself! As a DM, I'd probably let you choose between Channel Divinity from either faith.
The other humanoid race that could have been trained in this way would be giants themselves. The giants had different nations, and didn't all stand together; there could easily have been giants who hated the primordial giants and sought to bring them down. These would have been the ancestors of the modern Guardians of Rusheme, who do tell myths about their versions of the Sovereigns. for me, this would be a great way to introduce new rituals (from new sourcebooks) or even throw in as a key to getting a paragon path - the invoker from Khorvaire has to go and learn ancient prayers from the Guardians of Rusheme. In the case of a Paragon Path, this would likely be preloaded - that is to say, if the player had a sense around 8th level of what path he wanted, I'd tell him "You'll need to go to Xen'drik to learn those secrets" so it becomes the point of the next few adventures... not make him sit around at 11th level with no path.
Just as an odd aside segue, since we're mentioning blood mingling and all that jazz (btw excellent discussion thus far). If the Couatal are said to be the pure-blood of Siberys and the Demons the pure blood of Khyber, what's the pure blood of Eberron?
Per canon, the general view of most arcanists would be "Life." Khyber birthed the fiends, Siberys the celestials, and Eberron all natural creatures. Where they mingle - such as Siberys' blood falling to Eberron - you get mighty but mortal creatures like dragons.With that said, the underlying principle of both the Silver Flame and the Blood of Vol is that there is a spark of divinity in all mortal creatures. The SF holds that this spark can join with and strengthen the Flame; the BoV holds that you can fan that spark into its own flame, and that every mortal holds the seed of divinity in its blood - that mortality is itself unnatural, and that the children of Eberron DO have the innate potential to match any child of Khyber or Siberys.
What could be Eberron's attitude towards undead? Are they considered unnatural because at least two of the Lords of Dust overlords are associated with undead (the Overlord of Cold and Death and the other one mentioned in 3.5 Dragon, forgot his name), so undead should be considered spawns of Khyber?
As per 3.5 machenic, some of the healing spells (like Vigor and Healing Cocoon) cure the living and the undead alike, and many of them are in the druid's spell list. So I'm thinking about claiming Eberron's power treats the naturral and the undead equally. What's your take on that?
What could be Eberron's attitude towards undead?
I'm not sure if you mean Eberron the progenitor/planet, or Eberron as in "the people of Eberron". In general, I don't consider the undead to be tied to a progenitor; their existence-sustaining power flows from Mabar, Dolurrh, or Irian, depending on the source. Beyond that, different faiths hold different opinions:
* The Blood of Vol believes that mortality itself is unnatural - therefore there is nothing innately unnatural about sustaining life beyond death.
* The Undying Court holds the opinion that negatively charged undead innately eat away at the life-force of Eberron, and therefore must be destroyed. The Silver Flame generally supports this position - undead are an unnatural threat - but would be more likely to accept the possibility of a good lich; the UC holds that regardless of the behavior of the lich, its existence alone harms the world.
* The Children of Winter hold that any sort of undeath - both the lich, vampire, and Undying councilor - defies the natural cycle of life and should be destroyed. So they would VEHEMENTLY argue against the idea that undeath could somehow be tied to Eberron. They hold that Eberron is source of both life and death, that the journey is important, and that those who break that cycle challenge the order of the universe.
* Most others - Vassals, Path of Light, etc - at the very least consider undead to be disturbing, which is why the Blood of Vol have so few friends. They may not say "All undead must be destroyed on sight!" - but they certainly aren't saying "They're fellow children of Eberron!"
From a purely theological view, even the Blood of Vol holds that undeath is, ultimately, an inferior and unnatural state. They believe that mortals have the spark of life, the divinity within, which is that piece of Eberron. The undead do not. It's tied to the blood - and once life leaves you, that spark leaves you too. The vampire, the mummy, the lich - these can be champions of the faith who have broken the bonds of mortality - but they are also martyrs, because they can never truly unlock the power of the Divinity Within. This is reflected by the fact that Erandis Vol can't use her dragonmark; she may now be immortal, but she's been cut off from her true dream by her unnatural undead state.
I guess I failed to find the right word...
I'm obviously running into an odd but interesting situation myself. What if, say, a character has gained great power from Eberron the pregenitor to start her journey on an epic quest, and she uses this power to heal the wounds of the world? Will she heal the undead as well as she does the living, or will she destroy the undead instead?
I'm trying to come up with the impact of her power from the very nature of the pregenitors, regardless of faith and belief, with an attempt to interpret the wills of the creators of the world. If Siberys and Khyber represent justice and greed respectively (and other words with meanings close to those, you name it), Eberron may stand for life and love. Althought undead perhaps do not possess life, love should be equally distributed, like what she did to Khyber, which I consider a proof of love.
The question actually comes from this chain of thoughts: Child of Eberron (a Sovereign Archetype) has access to druid spells. Spells that cure the living and the undead alike are druid specialties. Those who cure the living and the undead alike consider them equal. Thus Eberron and her children will choose to treat the living and the undead as equal.
Maybe I'm getting too far, but in an epic adventure, I'd really love to discuss those things behind the religions and organizations, more of macroscope values rather than details of different faiths.
Spells that cure the living and the undead alike are druid specialties. Those who cure the living and the undead alike consider them equal. Thus Eberron and her children will choose to treat the living and the undead as equal.
The bolded part is where I must disagree, because it strongly depends on your druid sect. The Children of Winter may, by the rules, possess the power to heal undead. However, they consider the undead to be abominations who defy the natural cycle of life; the fact that they CAN heal them doesn't mean that they believe it is the right thing to do.
To me, the critical question is whether you decide that there is such a thing as a naturally occuring undead. If there is, then you can make the case that the undead are part of nature and thus part of Eberron. However, the general view is that they are NOT natural. They are either restless spirits whose unfinished business, unresolved issues, etc have prevented them from having a natural death; predators who prey on the living to sustain their lives beyond their natural span; or the product of magic; or a combination of all three (vampires are predators, and the first vampires were the product of magic). A lich is the creation of mortal magic; Eberron doesn't innately give birth to liches. You can make the argument that many natural predators prey on other creatures to sustain their lives, but the question is whether new vampires are ever produced through natural means - or if vampirism is an unnatural strain that now propagates itself.
The fact that magic can heal both living and undead suggests that this magic deals with raw life energy. Undead are creatures who are sustaining their existance beyond death, but they still need that energy to survive. The vampire and wraith forcibly strip their victims of that energy. The lich does not - but the Undying Court believes that ALL undead innately consume the lifeforce of Eberron to survive. So the fact that life magic sustains them doesn't mean that they are somehow natural or good; it simply means that life energy sustains ANY creature, living or undead.
Now, if you said that undead were naturally occuring - that ghosts are NOT restless, that vampires can just spontaneously occur in nature, etc - then I think you could make a case for the undead being children of Eberron. But I don't think the existence of druidic magic that can heal the undead alone is much of a case. Many undead feed on life energy to survive, by forcibly stealing it from the living; the fact that this same energy helps them when it is freely given is really just a logical thing.
As a side note, this is also the basis for the existence of the Undying Court. They are undead sustained purely by positive energy they draw from manifest zones, and more important, from the reverence of their followers. If you killed all of the followers of the Undying Court, the court itself would die as well - because it needs that freely-given life energy to survive. This was a central point of contention between the UC and line of Vol, who pointed out that their vampires and liches could always fend for themselves and weren't despendant on others - while the priests of transition say that it's the fact that the energy is freely given that makes the deathless a force of light, while the other undead are parasites that eat at the lifeforce of the world.
... the first invokers were taught divine secrets by the dragons of Argonessen so that they could fight off the primordial giants?I'm not sure if that works out entirely, based on the humanoid populations available at the time
Don't forget you have deva which (AFAIK) don't have a defined place in history. It could be devas were angels who came to fight on behalf of the dragons who worshipped their deities (giving a unique relationship between Dragons and Angels) and after the war some decided to remain on Eberron to ensure they would always be there to fight the primordials if they returned. Angels being Invokers is definitely thematic for each race and class.
You could also have devas be a construction by the Dragons. An algamation of various primitive races, they finished the process by blending the hybrid race them with energies from the Sea of Syberis to make them immortal. They then taught the devas how to channel the powers of the deities in the draconic manner (leaving clerics, paladins and other traditional divine classes to be created by later races).
Personally, I prefer to leave devas without a unified racial backstory and treat them more like revenants, because there are so many stories in Eberron that can work for the deva mechanics:
* A Valenar elf closely in touch with the ancestral spirits; it's these spirits that advise him and guide him, translating to Memories of A Thousand Lives.
* A survivor of the Mourning infused with the spirits of those who died around him. The presence of these spirits within him protects him from others (IE necrotic resistance), and it is their memories that guide him - so Memories of a Thousand Lives, but they aren't PAST lives. I played a deva avenger with this as his background and basis for his class powers.
* A follower of the Silver Flame with a close connection to the Flame itself - remember, the Flame is supposed to be the souls of hundreds of thousands of noble spirits. Tira Miron, the Voice of the Flame, was said to have such a connection; you could be destined to be the next Voice of the Silver Flame.
* A follower of the Blood of Vol who has actually made the first step of touching the Divinity Within. MoaTL isn't memories of the past; it's calling on his full future potential. And necrotic/radiant resistance reflects his strong sliver of divinity protecting him from darkness.
* Someone truly touched by the Draconic Prophecy; MoaTL reflects your letting destiny work through you.
... And so on. I think the mechanics work very well for all sorts of different concepts; I prefer that to adding a new actual race in the world (in all the above, I'd lose the white-and-purple skin and the wing decorations, but that's me). One could potentially use the revenant racial emulation feats to make a Valenar deva actually still have that touch of elfiness.
The bolded part is where I must disagree, because it strongly depends on your druid sect.
I'm glad you pointed out this logic mistake. I agree that different druid sects will think of this matter differently, and I can see a greensinger could argue that both the living and the undead are forms of *life* (in fact a player of mine is an undead greensinger druid himself)
If it's all about opinions, the problem can be solved pretty quickly, but when it comes to what the world really is, or what Eberron would think of undead when she were awakened, I become very hesitant in making the decision, because many of my players are hardcore Eberron fans, and I don't want to conflict with the central point of the setting.
From what you mentioned, I believe most residents in the world would not consider undead a form of life, and if I recall correctly, lots of dragons who become undead have gone rogue, which means undeath is considered the dark side of reality. And most likely Eberron will not tolerate this blasphemy of life herself?
I'm glad you pointed out this logic mistake. I agree that different druid sects will think of this matter differently, and I can see a greensinger could argue that both the living and the undead are forms of *life* (in fact a player of mine is an undead greensinger druid himself)If it's all about opinions, the problem can be solved pretty quickly, but when it comes to what the world really is, or what Eberron would think of undead when she were awakened, I become very hesitant in making the decision, because many of my players are hardcore Eberron fans, and I don't want to conflict with the central point of the setting.
From what you mentioned, I believe most residents in the world would not consider undead a form of life, and if I recall correctly, lots of dragons who become undead have gone rogue, which means undeath is considered the dark side of reality. And most likely Eberron will not tolerate this blasphemy of life herself?
I don't think there is a "one true" answer. As with many other case in Eberron, it's up to the players and the DM. Really, it's not a different issue than, say, the (non)existence of the Host and the Six. As for the dragons, they do have a racial bias against necromancy. There is no reason that their beliefs are correct though. Concerning Eberron's view, who can ever know? We're talking about an entity above any other-how can we prove without any doubt what she would tolerate and what she would not? It's always a matter of interpretation...and I wouldn't have it any other way. As it has already been pointed out, undeath is a greatly contested topic. Do we really want a "canonical" answer to this?
Don't constrain yourself too much with what's canonically true about undeath-do whatever suits your story and the players. Being open to different interpretations is,after all, a "central point of the setting".
Anyway, back to the Primordials. Here's an "alpha" attempt at Eberronising Mual-Tar, the Thunder Serpent.
DC 20: Mual-Tar the Thunder Serpent is the name of a legendary primordial, one of the greatest Giant archamages who actually achieved immortality. He is known as the embodiment of thunder and the rage of storm.
DC 25: According to Tairnadal lore, some of the greatest elven heroes fought the Thunder Serpent during the elven rebellion. Where raw courage and mastery of arms failed cunning succeeded, as elven mages and druids managed to imprison Mual-Tar, binding him with magical, supposedly unbreakable chains.
DC 30: Mual-Tar was a mighty sorceror-king, ambitious and brutal to the extreme, even before his rising to primordial status, one of the first Giants to do so. He frequently clashed against Xen'drik's other realms in battles where awesome might and destruction were displayed, as uneasy alliances between invokers were formed: Giant followers of the Host and Qabalrin disciples of the Shadow rose against the mighty primordial. Every time Mual-Tar's and his forces'onslaught was contained but the Thunder Serpent was never truly defeated.
DC 35: It is implied that the Thunder Serpent entered an introspective phase after a long sequence of wars against his neighbours' realms and only rose when the forces of Dal Quor invaded, destroying whole regiments of Quori by himself. In every battle he was victorious, but the Serpent's rage destroyed half his realm.
DC 40: According to draconic lore an attempt to release the Thunder Serpent was thwarted by the Light of Siberys at the eleventh hour. A few sentries were appointed to guard him but vanished after a few millennia. Their last reports stated that, although Mual-Tar had degenerated into animalistic savagery and his power is greatly diminished from what it once was, his intellect is slowly coming back to normal, a most troubling development indeed. Due to the passing of time and the Traveller's Curse, it is now unclear where the Thunder Serpent was actully imprisoned. Some loremasters claim that his prison has sunk below the ocean, others put it near or at Everice, whereas others claim that the Ring of Storms was aptly named.
It's actually interesting that the discussion on the Giants and their "former glory" has brought up the issue of the Primordials and more specifically the Titans in 4e.
I'd been pondering similar issues for a while and decided to create a nice little sub-history for the Titans. The way I've seen it, also using what scant rumours that exist in 3.5e, the Titans left the regular Giants after they saw the path that their children were following. The Titans had helped Uplift (thank-you David Brin) the Giants up much as the Dragons had Uplifted the Titans, but the Titans children weren't taught by the patient and wise Dragons, instead they had the Titans who were still heady with power.
So when the newly empowered Giants begin exploring the very Crichton'y "knowledge that we should not know", the Titans aren't impressed. They try to reason with their children, pointing out the inherent danger of their dark magic and the limits on morality when you pursue knowledge "at any price". When they finally realise that the Giants are on a crash-course with disaster the Titans leave, removing all but the faintest of traces of their existence. They are so ashamed of their failure that they don't even want future generations of Eberron to know of their once shining culture.
And then the Dragons strike. They strike so hard and so furiously that even the angered Titans are shocked. They knew the Dragons to be strong, but the level of destruction, the absolute annihilation and almost callous wielding of power. The Titans are both humbled and fearful. The few that remain suspect that the Dragons may come after them next, to clean up all the loose ends.
So using their remaining reserves of power, they literally hide themselves in the Prophecy. They reshape fate to tell a different story, a story that ends with their death. Anybody looking back, especially those that would use the Prophecy (such as the Dragons), would learn that the Titans were destroyed or left, they simply disappeared.
And so for forty thousand years the remaining Titans, forming a core group known as "The Citadel" (to rival The Chamber, the name was already taken :P. And yes I know the Chamber were formed much more recently). They have patiently watched and waited, waited for the right time to strike their revenge. Yes their children the Giants were abusing their power, but the genocide and complete destruction of Xen'drik, that was too far. Now the Titans thirst for revenge, nursing a grudge older than the cultures of Khorvaire and predating even the Aerenal Elves. They have had millenia to plan... and the final pieces are falling into place *insert machiavellian laugh here*
I don't think there is a "one true" answer. As with many other case in Eberron, it's up to the players and the DM. Really, it's not a different issue than, say, the (non)existence of the Host and the Six. As for the dragons, they do have a racial bias against necromancy. There is no reason that their beliefs are correct though. Concerning Eberron's view, who can ever know? We're talking about an entity above any other-how can we prove without any doubt what she would tolerate and what she would not? It's always a matter of interpretation...and I wouldn't have it any other way. As it has already been pointed out, undeath is a greatly contested topic. Do we really want a "canonical" answer to this?
Don't constrain yourself too much with what's canonically true about undeath-do whatever suits your story and the players. Being open to different interpretations is,after all, a "central point of the setting".
You're probably right. Just suddenly realized how far I've gone on the road of seeking canons. Maybe I should just see how the story naturally turns out. Many a problem can be solved that way...
I don't think there is a "one true" answer. As with many other case in Eberron, it's up to the players and the DM. Really, it's not a different issue than, say, the (non)existence of the Host and the Six. As for the dragons, they do have a racial bias against necromancy. There is no reason that their beliefs are correct though. Concerning Eberron's view, who can ever know?
Highlighted for truth, because it's EXACTLY the same issue. Because the fact of the matter is that the majority of people in Eberron don't actually believe that the myth of the Progenitors is literal truth. Most think it's a metaphor. "Evil things come from the underworld; natural things come from the surface world; therefore, the underworld is a great evil spirit bound by the benevolent world."
The people who do believe in the myth as literal truth take it very seriously, and THEY will have opinions on the matter. The Children of Winter will swear than undeath is anathema to the natural order Eberron created. The dragons of Thir feel the same way. But a Greensinger might say "Who cares?" And if you ask the Sharn street vendor what Eberron thinks about undead, he'll say "Come on, mate - what's next? What does this tower wall think about taxes?"
As DM, YOU need to decide if the myth is true. If Eberron is a great spirit, if she has desires, if she could some day rise again.
To me personally the critical thing is if, in your campaign, undead occur naturally. If the first vampires were created by Katashka and the Qabalrin necromancers, and all vampires spread from these sources, then I don't feel that you can say vampires are creatures of Eberron; again, the fact that they can be healed by raw life energy is simply a logical extension of the fact that they consume raw life energy to survive. For vampires to be children of Eberron, I'd want to see them occuring naturally in the world somewhere. However, the fact that they don't occur in nature doesn't necessarily mean that they are the anathema the UC and Children of Winter claim.
To me personally the critical thing is if, in your campaign, undead occur naturally.
What does it mean to "occur naturally?"
Does it mean that the creatures in question have always been on Eberron? If so, it rules out all the hybrid races, it rules out elves, etc.
Does it mean that the creature is wholly "of" Eberron? That is, is a creature natural only if its entire existence can be traced to this single plane? If so, this rules out the dragons as the blood of Siberys blended with Eberron to make them.
Does it mean that the creature appears without conscious interference, that they haven't been deliberately created? That rules out warforged but brings in ghosts.
I think that when it gets to natural/unnatural, one starts uncovering the arbitrary definitions of "natural" that the various druid sects and other religions use, without actually getting closer to some kind of cosmological truth about natural.
The vampire issue is an interesting one. Some druids might consider them anathema for being being the most common cycle of life and death. Others might see them simply as unusual predators, often evil, but not demanding the attention of a druid any more than a human or warforged.
The Undying Court might insist that undead are vile and life-draining things unnatural to Eberron - but they would say that, wouldn't they? And by the way, they don't have much room to comment on the un/natural debate, given that they are a collection of ancient immortals sustained by reverence and extraplanar energy. One can easily argue that undead and deathless are equally unnatural - but who's worse? The lone vampire who drinks blood once in a while, or the pantheon that stifles the cultural evolution of an entire race?
What does it mean to "occur naturally?"
I'd say "Can it occur without the direct action of a demon or spell" is a good start.
Does it mean that the creatures in question have always been on Eberron? If so, it rules out all the hybrid races, it rules out elves, etc.
No, I don't think it does. Half-orcs didn't exist before humans met orc. But both are naturally occuring races. Elves, however, are an intersting case. Per 3E fluff they would be natural. Per 4E fluff they trace their roots to Thelanis and were modified through magic. At this point, you would come to the question of the influence of the progenitors on the other planes, as they are thought to have created those planes as well - and thus, whether Thelanis is a "natural" plane.
Does it mean that the creature is wholly "of" Eberron? That is, is a creature natural only if its entire existence can be traced to this single plane? If so, this rules out the dragons as the blood of Siberys blended with Eberron to make them.
If you accept that myth as anything more than legend. With that said, I think the dragons themselves would argue that they ARE supernatural - that it is this blended status that places them as far above "natural" creatures as their gods are above the Sovereigns.
Does it mean that the creature appears without conscious interference, that they haven't been deliberately created? That rules out warforged but brings in ghosts.
You'd have a very hard time convincing me that warforged could be called "natural". Looking to ghosts, I touched on this before. The question I'd raise is whether a ghost is ever a good thing. DO ghosts occur when a soul is at peace? Or are they always about unfinished business, unsettled emotions, etc? If the latter, I'd say that it's that unfinished business preventing them from accepting the natural order. If the former, then hey, maybe ghosts are part of the natural order.
I think that when it gets to natural/unnatural, one starts uncovering the arbitrary definitions of "natural" that the various druid sects and other religions use, without actually getting closer to some kind of cosmological truth about natural.
No argument there. All of the above statements are just my opinions. Looking to elves versus vampires, I think the vampire gets the short end of the stick for reacting to the world in so many unusual ways. The elf may, in fact, have been created through magical means. But it still breathes, eats, excretes, can walk in the sun, can give birth to children the same way a human can. It may not BE natural, but it doesn't shout it. The vampire doesn't breathe or excrete, only consumes blood and life energy, is harmed by sunlight, and spawns through infection. The elf lives a long time, but the vampire can live forever - as long as it is able to consume the life force of others. If I'm the druid, which is going to feel like more a part of my natural world?
Others might see them simply as unusual predators, often evil, but not demanding the attention of a druid any more than a human or warforged.
The Ashbound and Children of Winter aren't necessarily so hot on warforged, either. And the Ashbound are violently opposed to magebreeding. It would be somewhat interesting if they discovered that elves are, essentially, magebred. However, I'd say that when it comes to magebreeding they are more against the practice than the unfortunate creation... though on the other hand, I think they might be VERY concerned about a magebred creature released into the wild disrupting the balance of nature.
The Undying Court might insist that undead are vile and life-draining things unnatural to Eberron - but they would say that, wouldn't they? And by the way, they don't have much room to comment on the un/natural debate, given that they are a collection of ancient immortals sustained by reverence and extraplanar energy. One can easily argue that undead and deathless are equally unnatural - but who's worse? The lone vampire who drinks blood once in a while, or the pantheon that stifles the cultural evolution of an entire race?
If you're ever looking for work, the Illmarrow PR office has a spot for you...
Anyway, back to the Primordials. Here's an "alpha" attempt at Eberronising Mual-Tar, the Thunder Serpent.
Looks good to me. Although I know very little about Eberron compared to most here.
It strikes me as odd that a giant turned into a serpent though. If it were me, I'd explore why and how that happened. Was he trying to become more draconic as he saw the power the dragons had and sought to mimic and eventually surpass it?
Did an outside entity (such as a rival giant) somehow influence his transformation and make him more beastial and so less intelligent (explaining his rampages and destructive nature).
Was it simply because he was one of the first to become a primordial and so the technology that he used to undergo this process was unrefined and so he had less control over his physical transformation?
I'd been pondering similar issues for a while and decided to create a nice little sub-history for the Titans.
I like that story quite a bit. Thanks for sharing
You'd have a very hard time convincing me that warforged could be called "natural".
Exactly my point. If a druid can find it in his heart to accept or at least tolerate the existence of the warforged, he ought to be able to do the same for a vampire. Of course, I grant that plenty of druids (and people of other religions) cannot tolerate either.
Looking to ghosts, I touched on this before. The question I'd raise is whether a ghost is ever a good thing. DO ghosts occur when a soul is at peace? Or are they always about unfinished business, unsettled emotions, etc? If the latter, I'd say that it's that unfinished business preventing them from accepting the natural order. If the former, then hey, maybe ghosts are part of the natural order.
I don't understand why it'd have to be occasionally good to be natural. Is filth fever ever a good thing? Not really, but a terrible disease is still undeniably natural. Is a heart attack every a good thing? Death from aging? I think if druids and other people of faith started really putting their standards for "natural" under a microscope, it'd fall apart pretty quickly. Of course, these religions (just like others) don't have a true definition of "natural," but rather seem to be using the "I know it when I see it" standard.
But! Even if some druid/Seeker/Vassal manages to cobble together a logically and observationally consistent definition of "natural," so what? Unnatural <> Objectionable <> Evil. It might be possible to demonstrate that something is ultimately unnatural, but that doesn't really do anything to inform one of a proper course of action.
If you're ever looking for work, the Illmarrow PR office has a spot for you...
The spot must have been vacant for a while. They don't seem to be a good idea of defending their own beliefs against some of the terrible slander that they must hear every day!
It strikes me as odd that a giant turned into a serpent though.
Was it simply because he was one of the first to become a primordial and so the technology that he used to undergo this process was unrefined and so he had less control over his physical transformation?
Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology, eh?
The latter had certainly been a factor, but it mostly has to do with the primordial power unleashed. Mual-Tar was a storm sorceror and chose to unlock his full potential and embody it, and this amount of power could not be contained by a giant's body. It needed a more powerful vessel and would change the primordial until he became what was needed...and thus, Myal-Tar became the serpent. In my opinion, it was not the giant that decided to choose the serpent form-it was the primordial power itself that dictated the form it would take.
If a druid can find it in his heart to accept or at least tolerate the existence of the warforged, he ought to be able to do the same for a vampire.
Though just to clarify, the point of the original question specifically WASN'T what a druid thought - it was how the thing interacted with Eberron herself, and whether if a mythic time arrived and the progenitor arose, if SHE would consider undead to be natural. I was discussing the opinions of different groups... but the OP wanted a much more fundamental "How does the earth itself react."
Looking to it on that level, I see absolutely no reason to think that EBERRON - if she exists in a sentient form - would view warforged in any more favorable light than, say, an airship. They are not her children. She might not HATE them - just as many druids may have nothing against warforged, for all that they are unnatural creatures. But certainly, warforged are deeply unnatural creatures.
Is filth fever ever a good thing? Not really, but a terrible disease is still undeniably natural. Is a heart attack every a good thing? Death from aging? I think if druids and other people of faith started really putting their standards for "natural" under a microscope, it'd fall apart pretty quickly.
Actually, this brings us right back to the Children of Winter. They assert that filth fever IS a good thing, and absolutely natural: that it serves the purpose of culling the weak, and that civilization coddles those who the natural order would kill. They likewise feel that death from aging is part of the cycle of birth and death, summer and winter. They hate the undead because they break that natural cycle. They do not age. They cannot be touched by disease. They should be dead, and they will not die.
Now, the fault here is my use of the term "good" for ghosts. Let's go back to "natural". As you say, filth fever is natural. It's caused by microscopic life interacting with a creature's immune system (not knowing filth fever I can't be too specific, but you get the point). The bacteria occured in nature. So if we're asking "From a mythological perspective, do we see this as something created by Eberron?" - well, she created all life, so yes.
Vampires were created by demons and the magic of necromancers. It's not the same as half-orcs beign created by humans and orcs meeting and getting it on; without magic and demons, vampires wouldn't exist. Which makes it a valid question as to whether they have anything to do with EBERRON, if we are looking to mythologically assign things to the progenitors.
Now... what about ghosts? Can ghosts occur anywhere? Have ghosts always occured since the dawn of time? Or is it somehow related to manifest zones to Dolurrh? To close ties to Khyber? To areas touched by Katashka? Did Katashka or Draal Khatuur create the first ghosts when they unleashed a necrotic plague against the dragons, trapping their tormented souls? THIS is what I meant when I first asked if undead occured in nature. If ghosts have ALWAYS occured, with no interference on the part of other sentients... then yes, ghosts are essentially no different than filth fever. They are a thing that happens naturally in this world - strange, perhaps, but the laws of nature aren't the same in Eberron as they are elsewhere. But if ghosts can only occur with the intrusion of Mabar, Dolurrh, necromancers, or the like - then they are not a part of Eberron.
Canon is silent on this matter - so it's really up to you to decide, which was my original point. If you WANT undead to be natural, MAKE them natural - my point is simply that I'd see the defining factor here being that they occur in nature.