Implied setting elements made concrete

[buzz]

3E's differences from the original philosophy are so driven by gameist thinking that it would be a perverse entertainment to reflect them into their own custom world, but not a good basis for worldbuilding.

I disagree with that last bit. Thinking about it has inspired me with a lot if ideas that I think would be fun to put to paper, and the end result of which would in no way change the way default D&D functions. Sounds like a good basis to me.

 

[Psion]

3E's differences from the original philosophy are so driven by gameist thinking that it would be a perverse entertainment to reflect them into their own custom world, but not a good basis for worldbuilding.

Let's just say I beg to differ.

 

[Voadam]

Scarred lands has a greater god of LG who is THE PALADIN and the basis for them in the world (although I think the NG goddess can have them as well and probably the no god option is still viable). Greyhawk has Heironeous as the Paladin although he is not tied as closely to the concept as many others can also have them as well as the no god concept.

 

[Quasqueton]

I know you specifically asked for "published" settings, but if you are just looking for ideas and/or anecdotes:

Back in my old AD&D1 campaign, there was a major human god of Good, and a major human god of Law. These were the only two gods of my campaign world that trusted each other and got along (theologically speaking). Paladins held both of these gods as their patrons. That in-game reason was the explanation for why only humans could be paladins, and they had to be LG.

Quasqueton

 

[buzz]

Back in my old AD&D1 campaign, there was a major human god of Good, and a major human god of Law. These were the only two gods of my campaign world that trusted each other and got along (theologically speaking). Paladins held both of these gods as their patrons. That in-game reason was the explanation for why only humans could be paladins, and they had to be LG.

Spiffy! This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.

 

[Keith]

All the quirks of the original AD&D -- alignment, level limits, classes -- are inseparable from the original World of Greyhawk, as the game and world emerged in concert. Second edition ignored many of these underlying principles while keeping a lot of their eccentric rules.

3E's differences from the original philosophy are so driven by gameist thinking that it would be a perverse entertainment to reflect them into their own custom world, but not a good basis for worldbuilding.

So, so true. Exactly what I was thinking while reading the thread. There are some other interesting ideas in the thread, as well. I just agree with Faraer that, to paraphrase, the D&D rule system now has the cart in front of the horse in this regard. Hence the need for the question in the first place, in my view.

Cheers

 

[Belen]

<chuckles> Didn't I post this same argument a few weeks ago?

I am actually writing a new setting that takes into account "why." Why the world works, why do gods exist, why does the afterlife work in a certain manner, why is the planar arcology the way it is?

Yep, even why are monsters evil etc.

Dave

 

[buzz]

<chuckles> Didn't I post this same argument a few weeks ago?

Maybe, though what you describe in your post isn't exactly the same as what I'm talking about. I'm looking for settings that provide explanations for the druid's ability to wildshape, or why barbarians can rage, or why there are nine alignments, or why gnomes are such good bards, etc. I.e., taking a rule construct and finding a rationale for it within a setting.

Though I'd like to read the other thread you started, if it's relevant. Link?

 

[Pielorinho]

I justify some things, disregard others, and make up still more in my homebrew .

Examples:

ALL magic is really just the innate powers of spirits, working for their allies.

Divine magic = the patronage of very powerful spirits (who fancy themselves gods). Pray to the god, and it'll perform powerful tasks for you, or else it'll send its lesser minions to perform the tasks.

Sorcerer magic = friendships formed with specific lesser spirits, who'll hang around the sorcerer and perform odd favors. The lesser spirits get bored easily, and when you've asked too many favors of them in a day, they won't help you any more.

Wizard magic = codified bargains with specific spirits. Someone has discovered that the Spirits of Darkness will allow you to see through the dark (i.e., cast darkvision) if you perform specific favors for them (i.e., prepare the spell). As long as you can perform these favors and remember the complex codes for calling on the spirits to deliver, they'll remember the bargain they struck and perform spells for you.

Psionic=the innate powers of spirits. Only creatures with spirit-blood (including gnomes, elves, djinn, and others) can become psionic characters.

It works pretty well.

Daniel

 

[Psion]

I just agree with Faraer that, to paraphrase, the D&D rule system now has the cart in front of the horse in this regard. Hence the need for the question in the first place, in my view.

I don't see in any way why thoughts like these are especially "wrong". In fact, I think that this sort of though process is natual and useful.

The simple fact is that D&D is a collection of stylistic elements that we as D&D players appreciate. We like to see these tropes used. They are familiar and comfortable to us.

But at the same time, many players appreciate variety. So it only makes sense to examine what other situations logically facilitate these elements.

To imply that Greyhawk is the only proper context to use these elements is, well, ludicrous. For one, these elements were cribbed from other fantasy fictions - Tolkien, Moorcock, Anderson, Vance, and others. Gygax ported this elements. Why is it okay for Gygax to work these elements into a world, but it is not okay for the rest of us?

Second, IIRC Greyhawk was not the first D&D game world. Blackmoor was.

Question: In the Traveller RPG, it was typical to try to decide what a world was like by trying to explain a random pattern. Is this "putting the cart before the horse"? No, it's just using patterns and drawing logical conclusions for inspiration, and a very useful technique.

If someone finds a different interperetation of existing elemetns that provides ideas for the campaign, how is that bad? After all, it's this sort of thinking applied to elements from fantasy fiction that brought us D&D in the first place.

So please, set aside this appeal to primacy, it is inherently faulty.