Scarred Lands: Ask the Sage [Version 3.65729 with Upgrades!]

[Trickstergod]

OK, this is really open-ended... but it's serious. I'm not impressed with the 8 (9?) SL gods. In my mind they're just extreme archetypes of each alignment... LG as "knight", CE as "thoughless slaughterer", N as "unaligned nature-lover", LN as "judge", etc.

Do you think this is the case, or am I painting with too broad of a brush? Are there places that they deviate noticably from the archetypes?

Alternatively, is this a good thing and why? I can see this somewhat as, "Focus on the cool titans, not the boring gods"... is that what you see?

I believe the archetype was what they were going for, and this is what attracted me to the gods in the first place. The gods fit together better because of it, and by taking these broad archetypes, as opposed to breaking them up into little subtypes, there's more room for any number of concepts that can be fitted to them.

For my part, the titans really don't draw my interest in any big way, at least in comparison with the gods themselves.

So no, that's not what I see.

 

[Harlock]

OK, this is really open-ended... but it's serious. I'm not impressed with the 8 (9?) SL gods. In my mind they're just extreme archetypes of each alignment... LG as "knight", CE as "thoughless slaughterer", N as "unaligned nature-lover", LN as "judge", etc.

Do you think this is the case, or am I painting with too broad of a brush? Are there places that they deviate noticably from the archetypes?

Alternatively, is this a good thing and why? I can see this somewhat as, "Focus on the cool titans, not the boring gods"... is that what you see?

Hi Charles, congratulations on the Ennies Judge nod. To answer your query, yes, they are the archetypes of those alignments on Ghelspad. On the continent of Termana (and presumably Asherak, even though it isn't out yet) the gods are very different from these archetypes and there is a new religion altogether based on spiritualism.

As to whether it is a good thing in my opinion, yes, it is. I don't think this is for the "focusing on the cool titans" reason however. I personally like the strong, clearly defined archetypes of the gods. In fact, it is what attracted me to the setting most, when I decided to learn more about it. To me, the gods are not boring at all. They intrigue me. They have familial ties that are astounding and have proven that they do have the capacity to put aside their differences and work together even while maybe still plotting against one another, just not overtly.

It is entirely possible to worship all of the gods, and many people in the setting do. At times they may call on the fortune and luck aspect of Enkili rather than hoping he gives misfortune to your enemies. Someone may call on the moon aspect of Belsameth for a particularly fortunate tide for fishing, crabbing, clam digging. An adventurer may pray to Belsameth to keep the lycanthropes away, even though she is evil. Even a general of an army may sometime pray to Chardun for his blessing in an upcoming campagin.

Also, don't forget that in the Scarred Lands setting it is perfectly acceptable to follow a demigod. Most of the inhabitants do in fact follow some demigods or another and pay reverance to most, if not all of the gods and Denev. I like the fact that that there is very little grey area for the gods. Evil is evil, and good is shining goodness. Of course this is a setting where necromancy isn't this evil tabboo, either. There are a lot of twists at times, but I like to be surprised by a setting.

A sterling example of all of this is a short story in the Serpent in the Fold module. An elven archer named Lilliandel recounts her part in the battle in which Mormo was destroyed. Here is a quote from that tale which I think exemplifies just how cool these gods are:

We fought well. Madriel hovered overhead, casting bolts of pure white sunlight into the fray, while radiating a warmth that healed the bite of venom. Chardun directed our forces, his mastery of tactics and his supreme dominion overcoming even our own love of freedom -- we wished only to please the Slaver and obey. I shall never forget that feeling. I loath it still.

That is awesome. This is a setting in which, so far from my experience, has actually stuck with the plan of venerating mutltiple gods. Even clerics of one god or another cannot help but give credit where credit is due. I hope that answers your question somewhat. I know it is a rather subjective answer, but then again, it was a subjective question.

 

[CRGreathouse]

(Thanks for answering my question and not taking it the wrong way. I hope that continues -- I really want this to stay positive...)

You both think that the gods are best this way, that it's one of the things you like. Perhaps I'm missing something; I've spent a long time in my homebrew world trying to do just the opposite -- give the gods each their own identities, quirks, and so on. *Why* is it good to have gods like in the SL?

Trickstergod -- you said that the gods "fit together better" when they're archetypes. Why is that, and why is it good for the game?

Harlock -- you were pretty vague about why you liked the gods as they are now. Care to expand? You said, "To me, the gods are not boring at all." In my mind, anything not boring about them is despite their nature, not because of it. Why do you think it's beneficial to have them fit in these rigid archetypes? (And yes, I was only talking about Ghelspad; I don't have the new continent books.)

You both said that the titans weren't the focus and weren't as interesting as the gods -- or at least I implied as much. To me, the titans and demigods (as presented in The Divine and the Defeated) are more interesting than the gods. Why do the titans and demigods interest you less than the gods?

 

[Nightfall]

OK, this is really open-ended... but it's serious. I'm not impressed with the 8 (9?) SL gods. In my mind they're just extreme archetypes of each alignment... LG as "knight", CE as "thoughless slaughterer", N as "unaligned nature-lover", LN as "judge", etc.

Do you think this is the case, or am I painting with too broad of a brush? Are there places that they deviate noticably from the archetypes?

Alternatively, is this a good thing and why? I can see this somewhat as, "Focus on the cool titans, not the boring gods"... is that what you see?

Firstly there are only 8. Denev is still a titan and thus only has druids. There is essentially a gap in the TN save for Nemorga but he's kind of weird to begin with.

It's not a matter of too broad a brush as probably unlike most panethons, we don't have multiple gods of nearly the same alignment/portfolios all competing for worship. The 8 might not work together but they do hold to trying to keep order unlike the primal force nature of the titans. Worshipping titans is like worshipping a disease or a hurricane. You get about as much respect and some cases as much power. I see mainly as focus on the gods for what they CAN do, but also focus on the titans for what they represent. The gods can hear prays, do some divine interventions, have mortal servants, and also have people that serve all of them to varying degrees. Even in Calastia, Chardun has to give a little leeway to Hedrada and Madriel. Thus it's not a matter of one god favored as much as the 8 getting some of the power and the demi-gods getting the leftovers. Are they archtypes? Sure. But that doesn't preclude them from being interesting archtypes. A peacock winged goddess angel of healing isn't that new but it still geniune. That's something you can't feel with a goddess of magic or goddess of the earth sometimes. That's why, even though I like Orcus being in Faerun, the Faerunian panethon and the racial ones feel a lot more disjoined and incohorent. The Scarred Lands panethon is the growth come from decades of faith and belief, not just sponateous appearance. Are the titans cool? Probably. But doesn't mean I want one living next door to me any more than the Old Ones. I certainly thank them for making sorcery more than just dragon blooded. That being said what the gods do, much like the titans, is set the boundaries/differences a lot further apart than in most worlds. Arcane magic is no longer just "magic". It's either an "Art" (wizardry) or "Craft"/"Blood" (sorcery). Druidism aren't just nature clerics, they are servants of the earth, the spirits and many cases, titan worshippers of various stripes. Clerics and paladins are finally free to persue new goals rather just fight religious wars on the call.

 

[Nightfall]

(Thanks for answering my question and not taking it the wrong way. I hope that continues -- I really want this to stay positive...)

Don't worry Mark. I don't allow flaming on my thread.

You both think that the gods are best this way, that it's one of the things you like. Perhaps I'm missing something; I've spent a long time in my homebrew world trying to do just the opposite -- give the gods each their own identities, quirks, and so on. *Why* is it good to have gods like in the SL?

Think perhaps you're being a little simplistic here. Sure Corean is pretty much a paladin god, but he has the aspect of fire to his attribute. That's not a common approach unless you're already a forge god. Most paladin gods aren't. Chardun, unlike other LE guys, DOESN'T let anyone get away with failure. You fail, he moves on. He is pretty perfectionist minded, especially when it comes conquest and war. This isn't to say they aren't archtypes, but there is more to them than just one particular aspect. The 8 are pretty multi-faceted even if they stay within their alignments.

You both said that the titans weren't the focus and weren't as interesting as the gods -- or at least I implied as much. To me, the titans and demigods (as presented in The Divine and the Defeated) are more interesting than the gods. Why do the titans and demigods interest you less than the gods?

If you ask me, the demi-gods, at least beyond Nemorga (cause he runs hollowfaust) and Drendari are about the only truly interesting ones. The rest are semi-forgetable. (The racial ones at least. Idra is my home town goddess.) I still get chills when I think of the Horsemen of Vangal, with Galdor the Deathless riding down orcs, children and men. He's just as scary as any other Reaver type that's come before him. And his god approves of it, which makes him even more formidible. That's just one of many aspects of why I like the gods. Each of their servants stands in unique constrast but they all serve the same god in various way.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Firstly there are only 8. Denev is still a titan and thus only has druids. There is essentially a gap in the TN save for Nemorga but he's kind of weird to begin with.

I know about Devev. I chose to leave her in as a parenthetical because she's just... herself. She's a titan who's all but forsaken titanhood.

She even gets her own chapter in DatD.

Are they archtypes? Sure. But that doesn't preclude them from being interesting archtypes. A peacock winged goddess angel of healing isn't that new but it still geniune.

What do you mean when you say "geniune"?

That's why, even though I like Orcus being in Faerun, the Faerunian panethon and the racial ones feel a lot more disjoined and incohorent. The Scarred Lands panethon is the growth come from decades of faith and belief, not just sponateous appearance.

What makes you think this? I agree that the FR pantheons feel disjoint, but I don't (yet?) see why the SL pantheon comes from "decades of faith and belief, not just spontaneous appearance."

Are the titans cool? Probably. But doesn't mean I want one living next door to me any more than the Old Ones.

I meant cool "to use as a DM", not cool "I'm a player having frenzied cultists of Mormo rip out my internal organs".

Clerics and paladins are finally free to persue new goals rather just fight religious wars on the call.

Hmm... I haven't particularly seen anything different here than in other worlds, not even in Mithril: CotG. Why are the religions more free to pursue other goals?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Think perhaps you're being a little simplistic here. Sure Corean is pretty much a paladin god, but he has the aspect of fire to his attribute. That's not a common approach unless you're already a forge god. Most paladin gods aren't.

OK, you have a point here. I'll give you that, and I should have thought of this. For the most part, though, the 8 stick very close to the archetypes -- closer than in most worlds.

If you ask me, the demi-gods, at least beyond Nemorga (cause he runs hollowfaust) and Drendari are about the only truly interesting ones.

I *love* Nemorga. This may have something to do with being a DM, not a player...

I still get chills when I think of the Horsemen of Vangal, with Galdor the Deathless riding down orcs, children and men. He's just as scary as any other Reaver type that's come before him. And his god approves of it, which makes him even more formidible. That's just one of many aspects of why I like the gods. Each of their servants stands in unique constrast but they all serve the same god in various way.

Certainly the followers of the gods are different from each other, I have no issue there. But still, look at the gods again: to me, it looks like Chardun is the same entity that is Bane/Hextor/Kain...

 

[Harlock]

(Thanks for answering my question and not taking it the wrong way. I hope that continues -- I really want this to stay positive...)

Hey, who am I to gripe about someone's opinions?

You both think that the gods are best this way, that it's one of the things you like. Perhaps I'm missing something; I've spent a long time in my homebrew world trying to do just the opposite -- give the gods each their own identities, quirks, and so on. *Why* is it good to have gods like in the SL?

My feeling on the matter is that it is good because it is clean. It is simple. In its simplicity lies elegance, in my mind. The gods in SL do have their own quirks and identities the way I am reading them. Chardun has to hate Corean, yet he has to respect his abilities to marshall troops and lead, as he did in the Divine War. Belsameth, while an Angel of Mercy must despise her wicked sister, Belsameth, because of her evil. Yet, after seeing what happened to Denev when Mormo was literally sundered into pieces, they both have to respect the fact they they may depend on one another more than they care to admit. I think it is good because there is not a lot of ambiguity between the religions. That does not mean there cannot be ambiguity in the game, however. Look at the simple fact that the destruction of most of the titans Scarn literally became the Scarred Lands.

Harlock -- you were pretty vague about why you liked the gods as they are now. Care to expand? You said, "To me, the gods are not boring at all." In my mind, anything not boring about them is despite their nature, not because of it. Why do you think it's beneficial to have them fit in these rigid archetypes? (And yes, I was only talking about Ghelspad; I don't have the new continent books.)

I'm sorry if I came off as vague. I was trying to be specific, even going so far as to cite an example from Scarred Lands literature. I think you can see above why I think it beneficial to have them fit in rigid archetypes. Some more things I enjoy is the dichotomy they present against the titans. The titans were a part of the land itself. Primal, uncaring, absolute powers and eventually, mad destroyers of the world. The gods are not even a part of Scarn. They are off on their own planes. They are more aloof than the titans, yet, they are completely dependent upon Scarn's people for their power. These gods are not infallible. They are not all-knowing. They are struggling to make a niche for themselves. I think it best to look at the Scarred Lands, at least in a religious sense, with gods and titans. It is impossible for me to separate the thrill of the cosmology of the setting from both gods and titans.

You both said that the titans weren't the focus and weren't as interesting as the gods -- or at least I implied as much. To me, the titans and demigods (as presented in The Divine and the Defeated) are more interesting than the gods. Why do the titans and demigods interest you less than the gods?

I'm sorry if I came off as presenting that the titans and demigods are not as interesting as the gods as it was certainly not my intention. To me they are just as interesting, or, make the whole more interesting. As I said above, it is impossible for me to look at the setting without all of its cosmology intact. I like the demigods so much that in the one SL game I get to play in, rather than DM, I actually play a cleric of Syhana, the "fey" demigoddess, daughter of Madriel. Again, to me the elegance of the gods is in their simplicity. Having an expanded pantheon would dilute the nature and power of the gods. I think as the setting grows, we may see more reason for more and more diverse gods. As it stands now, in a sense of verisimilitude, it makes sense to have fewer gods, and I would not be surprised if they might work together to keep it that way, so as not to dilute their own power and pool of worshipers. Does that help any?

 

[Parlan]

No, she's not.

Syhana is the result of Madriel coupling with a fey-lord.

This also dawns on me with sudden amusement that the chaste Swan Knights (only one, indeed...) would more appropriately fit with Corean.

He's the god whose followers get all into a tizzy over when it's brought up that he might have had children; Divine and the Defeated infers that many of his followers believe him to be chaste.

Whereas Madriel almost definitely is not.

Thanks for the clarification Nightfall and Trickstergod.

My character doesn’t know any of this of course, but he s going to be spending a LOT of in-game time researching the answer!

I played a practical joke on an NPC and he got REALLY PO-ed. Made me swear on Madriel’s virginity that I wouldn’t tell anybody about it.

Now, as a CG follower of Tanil, I wouldn’t have to worry about it, except the DM frigidly reminded me that gods in SL take god-oaths VERY personally. (Got a heck of result on that Intimidate check. Must have been the +10 DM bonus)

OTOH, WTF, it might be nice to meet Madriel, even just to have her beat the snot out of me.

It’s nice to know (even just OOC) that I definitely can break the oath with impunity now.

 

[CRGreathouse]

My feeling on the matter is that it is good because it is clean. It is simple. In its simplicity lies elegance, in my mind. [...] I think it is good because there is not a lot of ambiguity between the religions.

I think these hold for any pantheon that has few gods (or at least few major gods, since SL has lots of demigods). I can certainly respect the elegance of a small pantheon.

I still can't get over how, well, 'trite' the SL pantheon is. Yes, there are occasional surface changes, but for the most part we have Corean = Heironeous = Torm, Chardun = Hextor = Bane, etc.

I'm sorry if I came off as vague. I was trying to be specific, even going so far as to cite an example from Scarred Lands literature.

I liked your quote, but it didn't ameliorate my feelings. The NG god of mercy and compassion was acting as the healer (in the perfect archetype of NG, no devation), while the LE was acting as a tyrant and war-leader (again, the perfect LE archetype).

Some more things I enjoy is the dichotomy they present against the titans. The titans were a part of the land itself. Primal, uncaring, absolute powers and eventually, mad destroyers of the world. The gods are not even a part of Scarn.

This is, in essence, why I like the titans.

Again, to me the elegance of the gods is in their simplicity. Having an expanded pantheon would dilute the nature and power of the gods. I think as the setting grows, we may see more reason for more and more diverse gods. As it stands now, in a sense of verisimilitude, it makes sense to have fewer gods, and I would not be surprised if they might work together to keep it that way, so as not to dilute their own power and pool of worshipers. Does that help any?

Simplicity doesn't have to mean flatness, though.

Imagine a campaign setting divided into four empires:
* The white-bannered empire of the West, led by a kindly aging king and supported by a benificent priesthood,
* The red-bannered empire of the North, led by an ever-changing coalition of powerful citizens; less concerned with the other nations than its own affairs,
* The black-bannered empire of the East, led by an iron-fisted tyrant who ruthlessly supresses all opposition, and
* The blue-bannered empire of the South, led by a strong king who rules by right of law, whose rule is harsh but not unfair.

I would have trouble playing in a setting like this. Yes, it's simple and elegant; yes, there are clear distinctions between the nations. But the countries are so archetypical it's hard for me to imagine giving up my multifaceted nations for them...

Even if I learned that the White Empire of the West had a propensity for fire magic and the Red Empire once helped the Black Empire, my initial problem would remain -- they're still too close to the archetypes.

You and Trickstergod said that the gods were archetypes, but that's a good thing, not a bad thing. We agree on that aspect -- the SL gods are strongly archetyped. I still don't see why, though if we're just not seeing eye to eye, we can just agree to disagree. I'm here for ideas on making the SL work for me, not to sow dissent.

Nightfall said that the gods aren't flat: "The 8 are pretty multi-faceted". In that case we agree -- flat is bad for gods. I still don't see more than, well, one facet per deity... help here?

That's all I'm asking: either explain why they aren't flat, or why it's actually a good thing. Yes, I have my own tastes; yes, it's very subjective. I think it could be worthwhile, though, since I suspect there are others who think as I do.