Custom Race Idea.... The Living Weapon

[Thomas Bowman]

Who says, shrug as I said reflavor a way gungadin you are talking about a non-character you might as well reflavor a normal player character who talks with his sword.

A sword that can hover and dance ie attacking enemies and attack the one holding it if they do not want to be wielded and so on are not blind, deaf and dumb without possessing someone .. AND these are traits of most of the living weapons from the stories I mentioned even taking humanoid form is not uncommon. Your super dependent smart sword that either is totally in control or totally dependent on the wielder... isnt itself a player character caliber thing in my opinion it is a flavor text.

Well they are called "intelligent weapons", seems like they should be a character if they are played properly.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

In myth and legend heros, nobles and kings are of special bloodlines divine or dragons and fey most of the time. Lancelot had a peasant squire that he made ennobled but for every one of those there were over a hundred named characters in those stories who were born to it with magical blood lines that included Dragons, the Fey and Gods and Sun born.

Birth heritage even in reality is one big source of human power (the most obvious now is money but that wasnt the only way). The peasant farmer can get his fancy mostly passive but dependent toy taken by the Nobleman and most of the time it would if you are fond of talking statistical likelihood. Heck the realistic Nobleman probably has better stats because he hasnt been starved and had more opportunity for training heck he likely knows how to use a sword.

Why would a magic sword want to be wielded by someone who doesnt even have training with a weapon? Hanging out with the class who labors the fields isnt their best option.

And an awesome known magical weapon being just left in the mud is not entirely realistic either if that is the idea of your story line.


The odds of a given peasant keeping a gold watch they found is pretty low... let alone a fancy sword they do not know how to use.

Additionally are you rolling your backgrounds and playing 1e? In 4e I pick a background and theme ...

That farmer theme was never exciting to me back when i did play 1e.

In the Lord of the Rings we have a fated king, a princeling, an elf and dwarf also of noble lineage and even Frodo was a wealthy landowner the closest his culture had to a nobleman.(he brought his squire as a side kick). The two rogues that accompanied them are the closest to peasants but significantly out numbered.

Sir Isaac Newton was a peasant, he was probably one of the smartest people that lived at his time, he was knighted after his brilliance became evident. Isaac Newton had a peasant's bloodline, he was not of noble birth, it was by raw intelligence that he rose to the top. In a magical world, someone like him could be a wizard. Isaac Newton was also known as the "father of calculus!" I always found calculus a difficult subject to learn, so I guess Isaac Newton must have been really smart to invent it!

Being a prince or a noble is a social construct, there is nothing more to it than that. Whether their is something more to noble bloodlines in a fantasy world than this social construct is up to the author. Usually I assume that magic is a thing, but things like nobility are social constructs just like they were in our own middle ages. Would a sword that is not human actually care about social constructs? I don't think so.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Being a prince or a noble is a social construct, there is nothing more to it than that. Whether their is something more to noble bloodlines in a fantasy world than this social construct is up to the author. Usually I assume that magic is a thing, but things like nobility are social constructs just like they were in our own middle ages. Would a sword that is not human actually care about social constructs? I don't think so.

This is of course a legitimate way of portraying things. It has the advantage of comporting well with the modernistic viewpoint of the players. In my main D&D campaign world, Erithnoi, such things ARE actually concrete, much as they were thought to be in old times. I like the idea of constructing an antique mindset to go along with the medievalesque world being depicted. Diseases are also caused by character flaws, curses, etc. Crops grow because the goddess of the field is properly propitiated, and the forging of metal is a type of magic. Kings rule by the divine will of Atur, King of Gods and God of Kings. Teelia protects and blesses the homes of those who perform the proper obeisances, etc.

I don't think one or the other way of building a world is better. I just aim to give the players a little bit different experience than they normally get in generic fantasy.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

You know stories such as King Arthur is a bit of propaganda to justify the rule of kings. But a fantasy world is bigger than just one kingdom, and in other parts of the world, Nobility is not recognized. Genghis Khan for instance, didn't care about he nobility of the knights he was fighting when he invaded Europe. The Forgotten Realms had a version of Genghis Khan by the way.

On the other side, a person's character level could correspond to a noble title, thus all knights would be second level if you really want to go feudal on this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You know stories such as King Arthur is a bit of propaganda to justify the rule of kings. But a fantasy world is bigger than just one kingdom, and in other parts of the world, Nobility is not recognized. Genghis Khan for instance, didn't care about he nobility of the knights he was fighting when he invaded Europe. The Forgotten Realms had a version of Genghis Khan by the way.

On the other side, a person's character level could correspond to a noble title, thus all knights would be second level if you really want to go feudal on this.

Sure, in the real world 'nobility' is just a social condition, and the propaganda that it is based on some sort of divine favor or whatever is just that, propaganda. Perhaps you could say it helps lead to social stability and cohesion, but its still just a story that has no objective truth behind it. That's fine, people STILL believed it in most instances. Sure, Genghis Khan might not have been impressed with the pedigrees of European gentlemen, but he wouldn't have to accept their status in a fantasy world either. In that milieu he would probably represent some opposed cosmic force (as historically the west associated the Mongols with Satan).

I was never all that much impressed with the idea of NPC class levels associating with social status. I mean, sure, knights are trained warriors, they fight better than peasants, that's pretty historically accurate. You could further imagine that a King who's right to rule is assured by divine favor has elements of fate, perhaps martial skill in some cases, etc. on their side and rates some levels, if you want. I found the classic D&D Greyhawk kind of idea that every king is some 12th level guy a bit silly though.

 

[Garthanos]

Sir Isaac Newton was a peasant, he was probably one of the smartest people that lived at his time, he was knighted after his brilliance became evident.

You were the one who wanted the most likely story (and you bring up a literal one in a billion LOL) ... The likely story is still a peasant finds it and someone who knows how to use it and with training using weaponry from an early age perhaps it will be level 1 and not so impressive so it will probably have no difficulty landing with the a fairly basic member of the fight class, takes it from him and the entire farmer fantasy falls flat... Now the good news is if a player wanted the farmer story even if it wasn't very likely I wouldn't begrudge him it and with no morel ability than you attribute to the sword we wouldn't need any mechanics just roleplaying and the inherent advancement like a heirloom weapon. Your character might even be Socrates both a soldier and a philosopher.

 

[Thomas Bowman]

Sure, in the real world 'nobility' is just a social condition, and the propaganda that it is based on some sort of divine favor or whatever is just that, propaganda. Perhaps you could say it helps lead to social stability and cohesion, but its still just a story that has no objective truth behind it. That's fine, people STILL believed it in most instances. Sure, Genghis Khan might not have been impressed with the pedigrees of European gentlemen, but he wouldn't have to accept their status in a fantasy world either. In that milieu he would probably represent some opposed cosmic force (as historically the west associated the Mongols with Satan).

I was never all that much impressed with the idea of NPC class levels associating with social status. I mean, sure, knights are trained warriors, they fight better than peasants, that's pretty historically accurate. You could further imagine that a King who's right to rule is assured by divine favor has elements of fate, perhaps martial skill in some cases, etc. on their side and rates some levels, if you want. I found the classic D&D Greyhawk kind of idea that every king is some 12th level guy a bit silly though.

You have to think about what would really happen in a World with magic and multiple gods and goddesses, not just what the King would like to happen. What the King wants is some sort of divine sanction to rule his kingdom, so why should the gods give it to him? Are the gods nothing but cheerleaders for the current ruler, or do they have their own agendas, separate from that of the king? You see, kings pay people to write stories about them, glorifying their deeds, and declaring what a great ruler they were. I'm sure their are plenty of kings in a fantasy world that have a high opinion of themselves, which may or may not correspond to the game world reality.

A sword is a made thing, thus an intelligent sword is in some ways similar to an intelligent computer, it is not human, it is an outsider looking in. From a sword's point of view, the whole idea of nobility, chivalry, and feudalism is just a tad ridiculous. intelligent swords don't have a society. To a sword, all humans look alike, in a manner of speaking. They don't care if someone is supposedly of "Nobel Birth" all they see is someone made of flesh and blood.

 

[Garthanos]

You have to think about what would really happen in a World with magic and multiple gods and goddesses, not just what the King would like to happen. What the King wants is some sort of divine sanction to rule his kingdom, so why should the gods give it to him?

The gods want that their children to rule in the world of men it in effect extends their influence ... or at least that could be a world rational... the other less thought out reason which seems to be real world the general randiness of gods and humans, "superior" offspring and thus rulership of those with divine and magic bloodlines was a natural repercussion of magic and multiple gods and how they interact with humans.

Yes propaganda for people with often nothing but luck of the draw to hold their position is the real explanation but that really isnt the story once gods and potent elder races who interacted with humanity or at least used to enter your picture.

Aragorn was awesome for personal choices yes but he could call down a ghost army because of the power of blood-line and history.

 

[Garthanos]

A sword is a made thing, thus an intelligent sword is in some ways similar to an intelligent computer, it is not human, it is an outsider looking in.

I would say most of them in literature are Daemons not necessarily evil like Stormbringer but still complex beings and most of them understand hierarchies and how those can be used to manipulate and gain power.

 

[Garthanos]

I once envisioned a magic sword that was indeed a computer program with many subroutines and procedures it was more like a spell casters tool in some sense. Could be implemented as a Sword mage weapon that encodes a ritual book built in.

I hadn't thought of having that result in sentience till now.