Narnia d20?

[hammymchamham]

Hm? Wasn't Hell in Illinois, not Michigan?


Hong "or was it Finland?" Ooi

Yes, but their is a strech of land in UP Michigan named Narnia. Really beautiful. I want to go back their.

 

[jester47]

As I understand it, he denied that they were strict allegory, and that instead they were an example of how Christianity might have played out in a fantasy world. Frankly, the Narnia books are great fun until the quasi-Christian bits take over. Those bits are often nonsensical and surreal -- especially to a young kid.

Actually as I remember it, Narnia is not an allegory. It does not represent anythig that happened in the real world or in another story. You cant take the white whitch and say she represents person x in history or in the tale of christ. That is what allegory is all about and the Chronicles of Narnia don't do that. Yes The Chronicles of Narnia share elements from the story of christ but that is because christ(aslan) is a major character doig what christ does best. The reason Aslan is not an allegory for christ is because he is christ. What Lewis is doing in the chronicles of narnia is to educate about how the christian faith works on the metaphysical level. Fantasy is a great avenue for this goal. In that I would say the chronicals of Narnia are about as allegorical as The Book of Mormon. Its just a different story of Jesus.

LIke Lord of the Rings, many people seem to get confused between allegory and applicibility.

It occurs to me that if you played a version of D&D in narnia you would not have all that many Humans.

Aaron.

 

[mmadsen]

Actually as I remember it, Narnia is not an allegory.

You say that as if you're contradicting what I said. I'm confused. To clarify, Lewis denied that his Narnia stories were strict allegory. Instead they were an example of how Christianity might have played out in a fantasy world.

In that I would say the chronicals of Narnia are about as allegorical as The Book of Mormon. Its just a different story of Jesus.

Except that Lewis openly considered his works fiction.

 

[Capellan]

It occurs to me that if you played a version of D&D in narnia you would not have all that many Humans.

I'd expect all or most of the PCs would be human children from Earth, just as most of the central characters of the books were.

Assuming characters who are human children coming into Narnia, then class-wise, I'd suggest allowing only Fighters & Bards. Everyone would start as a 1st level Fighter. It would be assumed that they had lots of other skills that were not on their sheets (from school on Earth) but that those wereb't applicable for Narnia (knowing about the Industrial Revolution is not much help at Caer Paravel!). Later, as they completed adventures, they could gain levels of either Fighter or Bard.

I'd limit the total maximum level to 4th. That keeps the Bardic spell selection pretty small (and never more than 1st level spells). Such limited magical repertoire should be easy enough to explain in terms of something other than spells (eg cure light wounds could be explained away as Lucy's vial, or resistance might simply be a reflection of their determination).

Finally, I'd give all human children a +2 Earthborn bonus to all saving throws, to represent the innate heroism that they all (eventually) demonstrate.

 

[mmadsen]

Assuming characters who are human children coming into Narnia, then class-wise, I'd suggest allowing only Fighters & Bards.

Bards? Why Bards?

 

[Capellan]

Bards? Why Bards?

It's the best fit. First, here's why I think the other classes don't fit:

Rangers and Paladins would obviously be imbalanced in a 1st-4th level setting (too front-loaded).

Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards are not appropriate Narnian heroes (though Sorcerers might work for villains).

Rogues are also not appropriate Narnian heroes. Nor are Barbarians (their rage doesn't really work for the setting).

I don't see many human children as monks.

Now, as for Bards ...

Bards have access to a good range of skills, though without a bewildering number of skill points. This is good for setitng them apart from fighter types, and letting characters learn new things. They also get Cha-based skills as class skills (a good thing for the setting) and stealth. Thus, they fill out a lot of the gaps that Fighters have.

Now, looking at class abilities:

Bardic knowledge and Bardic performance abilities are quite in keeping with the Narnian flavour, I think. Characters pick up scraps of lore, which help them work out puzzles or challenges in the stories/games. Rallying friends and allies with inspiritng words is also a common theme in the books (Eustace needed some more Bard levels in The Last Battle, I think )

Finally, Bardic spells give the players access to a useful selection of magical abilities (such as cure light wounds) without making magic too central and potent a part of the game.

I think that, by changing their flavour text a bit, Bards fit pretty neatly into the Narnian setting, and balance quite well, to boot. This is not true for most of the other classes, IMO.

 

[mmadsen]

Rangers and Paladins would obviously be imbalanced in a 1st-4th level setting (too front-loaded).

Obviously? That's a bit strong. At any rate, the D&D Ranger doesn't fit in Narnia, and the D&D Paladin doesn't quite either.

Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards are not appropriate Narnian heroes (though Sorcerers might work for villains).

Spellcasters should probably all access the Druid spell list, by the way. Nature spells certainly fit (where magic is used at all).

Rogues are also not appropriate Narnian heroes.

No, but the class might almost fit children; they naturally sneak around, etc.

Nor are Barbarians (their rage doesn't really work for the setting).

OK.

I don't see many human children as monks.

We certainly agree that monks don't fit!

Bards have access to a good range of skills, though without a bewildering number of skill points. This is good for setitng them apart from fighter types, and letting characters learn new things. They also get Cha-based skills as class skills (a good thing for the setting) and stealth. Thus, they fill out a lot of the gaps that Fighters have.

So they're benign Rogues. OK.

Bardic knowledge and Bardic performance abilities are quite in keeping with the Narnian flavour, I think. Characters pick up scraps of lore, which help them work out puzzles or challenges in the stories/games. Rallying friends and allies with inspiritng words is also a common theme in the books (Eustace needed some more Bard levels in The Last Battle, I think )

The children from earth routinely become nobles in Narnia, and a Noble class, mixing the NPC Aristocrat and the PC Bard, might fit perfectly.

Finally, Bardic spells give the players access to a useful selection of magical abilities (such as cure light wounds) without making magic too central and potent a part of the game.

I don't see how Bardic spells fit at all.

 

[Azlan]

I think that, by changing their flavour text a bit, Bards fit pretty neatly into the Narnian setting, and balance quite well, to boot.

I concur.

Rogues are also not appropriate Narnian heroes.

This I don't agree with.

What was Edmund, in the first Narnia book, "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe", if not a 1st level rogue? I suppose he could've been considered a 1st level bard, with good stealth and search skills, but without any spells (at least not yet, not at 1st level). But Edmund didn't seem at all bardic to me, no matter how you redefine it.

Of course, all of this is mere conjecture, without C.S. Lewis himself around to set things straight. (Or even a real C.S. Lewis expert among us. I certainly am not, despite my username here. I am merely a fan.)

Too bad D&D didn't exist back in C.S. Lewis' days. I wonder what he would've made of it? He had a great appreciation for myth, legend, and heroic fantasy, despite most people nowadays considering him to be a fundamentalist Christian. (Myself, I wouldn't apply that awful label on him.)

 

[Capellan]

The children from earth routinely become nobles in Narnia, and a Noble class, mixing the NPC Aristocrat and the PC Bard, might fit perfectly.

I don't see how Bardic spells fit at all.

Something like this?

Narnian Noble (Nar)
Alignment: Any Good
Hit Die: d8
Class Skills: as Aristocrat
Skill Points: as Aristocrat
Weapon and Armor Proficiency: proficient in the use of all simple and martial weapons and with all types of armor and shields.
BAB: as Aristocrat
Saves: as Aristocrat
Class Abilities: Inspire Courage as a Bard, usable once per day per level of Narnian Noble. Requires 3 ranks of Diplomacy (rather than Perform).
Bardic Knowledge as a Bard of the Narnian Noble's class level.

About the only major thing the class would lack is the stealth abilities of the Bard. Perhaps there would need to be a "Scout" class as well, under this model.

 

[Azlan]

No, but [rogues] might almost fit children; they naturally sneak around, etc.

Heh. That's true enough for a lot of kids. And some of them are truly rogue-like, being that they are want to shoplift candy and small toys from a store, steal money from their mommy's purses, set up boobytraps in their bedrooms in case a burglar breaks in (or maybe just to catch their siblings, unaware), etc.