/vx/ - Videogames and Paranormal

Did we ever determine if those prayer beads were magic or not?

>>194066 →
I really like the idea of the church of Celestia having Secret Police, and that they would be uniquely mobilized during these dark times. Maybe Special Agent Sweetie Drops could be a Shadow Guard (Complete Champion).

I do think Shadow Sun Ninja (Tome Of Battle) and Shadowbane Inquisitor should also be classes affiliated with the Shadow Guard, as they represent good aligned characters who delve into the darkness to snuff out evil while resisting the temptations of evil themselves.
Tenebrous would be a good Shadowbane Inquisitor, because it's a Batman-like Aesthetic that is still close to the OG Paladin (no casting progression, but other good abilities)
Virgin Flame would make a great Shadow Sun Ninja, because Shadow Hand and Tiger claw maneuvers can fit the Barbarian-like aesthetic her player liked, Desert Wind gives fire powers, and the Setting Sun is great for grappling and tripping. It's overall a good upgrade from Monk, and has a theme about channeling ones dark impulses into the path of good.

Perhaps if either character rank up their affiliations with vestiges of the church, they could meet secret agents who might give them special missions and maybe promote them to Shadow Strikers or Shadow Spies.

Also GM seems to be fond of moral grays even among clergy, and this really fits that niche.

>>194067
Also, I just love how in the Adaptions paragraph they said that these organizations with the initials "SS" can serve the role of "Secret Police". The Burning Hate of Pelor smoulders.

I'm tempted to change my characters personality and class with it to a malkavian form vtm. I thinking something like monk/cleric but then just a bunch of divination spells.

Though I won't because first off I remember GM not liking divination spells, secondly then I need to make the sheet. And, I don't really enjoy the process.

Besides, the only reason I'm thinking about it is because the idea that she'd get sudden insights along with her craziness would be appealing but I really jsut wanna play a crazy character... and nothing is stopping me from jsut doing htat.

>>194067
Btw, I appriciate you enthusiam. Sorry, if I made you feel dismissed or something (if that happened), it's just I don't really know or understand much about dnd mechanics... and I guess I didn't wanna pretend i know what you talk about ig idk ^^

>>194106
If you would like help with your sheet or character ideas, I can help anytime.
>>194105
Monk/Cleric is decent with the Sacred Fist prestige class. Clerics are powerful, and Divination is incredibly underrated.
>I need to make the sheet. And, I don't really enjoy the process.
I enjoy the process. I could help you with that.
>she'd get sudden insights along with her craziness would be appealing but I really jsut wanna play a crazy character...
You could also do this as a Swordsage/Crusader, who may rely on flashes if divine inspiration to fuel their martial arts, particularly with the Devoted Spirit discipline. The Setting Sun discipline is also all about insight, the Diamond Mind Discipline about Clarity Of Thought, and the Tiger Claw discipline is involves flashes of feral anger. Would be good as a Shadow Sun Ninja too, which involves channeling ones violent impulses into holy martial arts.

This could also work as a Monk / Psychic Warrior, or Monk / War Mind build. Monks and Psionics go well together.

>>194107
Thank you, that's very generous of you.
Is there something... like wild magic sorcery exist, which takes control over your magic. Perhaps, I could work in a mechanic like that so I have to throw a dice to see if I get an insight or not. That sounds cool.

How would you make a, as close as possible, malkavian in dnd 3.5, do you think? I understand that this is bit of a big endeavor but do you have any idea pop up on how you would go about it?

>>194108
>Is there something... like wild magic sorcery exist
Yes. Several forms of "wild magic" sorcery exist. There's the Anarchic Bloodline Sorcerer feat. The Wild Mage prestige class (works ala random effects and chaos), the Wild Soul prestige class (Fey related), and the Anarchic feat group (a couple of which go well with Wild Mage, because they let you reroll d100 tables).
>Perhaps, I could work in a mechanic like that so I have to throw a dice to see if I get an insight or not. That sounds cool.
Oh, you mean for your martial character.
Well, there is the Crusader, a Paladin-like Martial Adept which gets it's maneuvers granted randomly.
There is also the Chaos Monk variant monk, which has a random number of attacks in place of flurry of blows.
But really, there's no end to "random" or "wild" mechanics. The real question is what you want your character to be able to do, and what sort of power systems you are interested in (Divine Magic, Arcane Magic, Sublime Way Maneuvers, Psionics, Incarnum, Soulbinding, etc)
>How would you make a, as close as possible, malkavian in dnd 3.5, do you think?
You mean like the vampires? It's certainly possible in multiple ways, but you'll need to be a bit more specific about what you want so I can find resources on it. The Sacred Fist Cleric/Monk or Shadow Sun Ninja Swordsage/Monk can easily accommodate that niche already, but it depends what you really want your character to be able to do.

>>194109
Thank you for this information you provided. Don't feel like you owe me any spoonfeeding but I'm grateful.

I think, what I want is just a strong horse that can fight with her hooves well but also has flashes of insight of different types so I can speak in gibberish, prophecies, and riddles without having to make sense but sometimes I do.

>>194111
Okay, we have unarmed combat, but what do you want the "flashes of insight" to do? Do you want to cast spells? Use Psionics? Use martial arts? Something else?
What abilities do you want?

>>194112
>Okay, we have unarmed combat
Indeed we have. ^^
>but what do you want the "flashes of insight" to do?
I want them to give her random information about the world. Knowledge of the past, present, or future. I want information about what's in a random bag. Or what someone random is thinking or feeling. Esoteric knowledge that I personally have no use for.
It's not so much to serve a purpose but to roleplay I guess. I mean, it would be fun that random tidbits of information can be useful in someway. That sounds fun to.
I guess I wish I had divination spells that gave me info about stuff so I could ask the GM about irrelevant things connected to important things. Like, I meet this important pony, and I ask what he ate for breakfeast and then use that information to mess with him, or something idk.

Sorry, if I'm unclear and fickle. I guess I haven't really figured out myself what I really want.

>>194113
Well, Clerics are good at divination. You could do Cleric Monk 2, Cleric 3, Sacred Fist 1. Clerics have fully flexible lists that you can swap out every day, so you can experiment with different divination spells.

The Lunatic Insight feat comes to mind, but it's simply a mechanical bonus to skill checks, and I'd rather suboptimal while requiring a lot of investment.

A psychic warrior specialized in Clairsentience (Divination) powers could also work. Alternatively, there's the Truthseeker prestige class for Monks, which natively grants Clairsentience and Telepathy powers. It does need to be updated though. I'm actually rather fond of that class right now, because I'm running a game that features the Scarlet Brotherhood. It has potential to do a lot of unarmed damage if you stack it with Tashlatora. It also has good diplomacy and insight related abilities you can use to act like DM inquisitor. It only gets Clairsentience and Telepathy powers though, so it's not quite as strong in combat.

Imo, the Shadow Sun Ninja Swordsage is the most thematic for this setting, but it doesn't do a lot in the vein of divination. It does get the best martial arts though.
Sacred Fist would be the strongest option overall, probably just because Clerics are so strong, and it also gives the most spellcasting.

The Knowledge Devotion feat is good for combat, and involves gaining insight bonuses to attack and damage based on knowledge checks.

>>194114
Oh, I think the Dragon Prophesiser feat could work. It's all about random insight and prophecy. It could also be a very powerful open-ended feat with Prophecy's Hero, although it might be annoying to GM since the rest of us don't have action points (then again, d20 Modern characters have Action Points by default).
It would fit on any build too. It's based on Wisdom and Monk has the Arcana skill.

>>194115
>Oh, I think the Dragon Prophesiser feat could work.
That sounds cool.
>>194114
^^
You know what's funny. I'm kinda tempted to ask you to make the entire character sheet for me, if you wanted to that is. But I don't wanna put that burden on you nor can I really request it yet because I'm not sure what I even want yet. Like a fickle mare. ^^

>>194116
I could try to make a character sheet, although maybe say which of the ideas you like the most before I start.
I will also need your starting ability scores, alignment, and other inflexible information.
>But I don't wanna put that burden on you
If I decide I don't want to do it, I'll just put it off.

>>194117
Thanks fren. ^^
Lets see what happens. Before we do anything, it would make sense to learn what divination spells he allows.

>>194118
What were Vir's starting ability scores, before racial bonuses?

>>194121
I don't remember. I think I pushed her str score as high as it would go with point buy and then don't remember.
That's probably how I would do it today too, just pump str as high as it will go and but the rest equally, maybe more wis than int tho.

>>194122
>point buy
How many points?
What are her stats now?

>>194067
>I really like the idea of the church of Celestia having Secret Police
In the setting, the Celestial Church was supposed to have operated an Inquisition of its own, though it never acted as the political police of the nation in the way that the Griffonian Inquisition does there. It was founded presumably to root out worship of Nightmare Moon that still lingers after the Scouring, and probably took on monster management as its primary role over time. Something a bit more like the Witcher than Warhammer 40k or the SS. I don't think that cults/hostile religions would be that big of an issue outside of the bat ponies. However, with Equestria having so many unicorns, there is a decent chance they'd have to hunt down dark magic users. An in-universe fiction series was supposed to reference an Equestrian "Office of the Witchfinder General," so maybe that was a thing, Warhammer Fantasy style or otherwise.

In more modern times monster hunting is supposed to have been delegated to S.M.I.L.E, who function as an intelligence agency for Equestria and most likely as a political police as well. However, the Celestial Church should still operate a "Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith" which is a hoof in the door for an official secret police. In show and comic canon Equestria has the "Secret Monster Interdiction League of Equestria" which hunts monsters and changeling infiltrators.

It's a little difficult for me to imagine that the Celestialist would feel that they need to act like ninjas or "delve into darkness" to take out evil. I imagine a more Solomon Kane like figure. Someone whose moral values don't necessarily align with modern moral values, but most certainly he has strongly held values. But maybe that's not accurate, I am not sure. I've put more thought into a fictionalized version of the Equestrian Witch Finder General

>>194105
>I remember GM not liking divination spells
It's fine, just don't expect me to be as interested in fictional magic spells as I am in at what temperature Bunker Oil solidifies, or whether marine diesel is suitable for molotov cocktails.

>the idea that she'd get sudden insights along with her craziness would be appealing
Vir could most definitely have an adult onset of schizophrenia brought on by Toxoplasmosis induced psychosis infusion of religion insight

>>194123
I honestly don't know where her sheet is anymore, maybe on my external harddrive.
I'm partly thinking of just making her sheet again. Afterall, it really wasn't that special. She was basically a monk with high str and had knowledge of religion. So that's probably what I will do again. We'll see.
>>194124
>It's fine, just don't expect me to be as interested in fictional magic spells as I am in at what temperature Bunker Oil solidifies
That's completely fine, we all have our interests.
>Vir could most definitely have an adult onset of (schizophrenia brought on by Toxoplasmosis induced psychosis infusion) of religion insight
^^
Yeah, I'm thinking it would be fun if you controlled the time it happens and I have to make a wisdom save to stop it or something. And, I like there to be a drawback. Like, good info but also bad somehow. Perhaps debuff? Not that important info. Or perhaps info that Vir doesn't wanna know like, that the nice nun she meet is actually the bay harbour butcher, or something.
Regardless, if I control it, its not as fun i think.

>>194124
EaW is a lot more grimdark than the show (obviously), with vast and sometimes absurd degrees of political complexity, and there are themes of rising extremism in every region/run of the game. Although ponies have never been depicted as devout in the show, perhaps sectarian extremism and zealotry could recently be on the rise in context of the fall of the kingdom and the war in general. It's a context that any paladin/monk/Cleric/etc character dedicated to the princess should consider. If the Princesses were ever at all considered to be the center of Equestrian religion (which is a big if), hearing that they have been cocooned by changelings could have affected the devout in very severe ways. Some might've lost faith, others might have grown more zealous. It's actually something I would have liked to discuss with Tenebrous, because I thought he would make a cool Batman-like Paladin/Rogue/Shadowbane Inquisitor, but alas.
>However, with Equestria having so many unicorns, there is a decent chance they'd have to hunt down dark magic users. An in-universe fiction series was supposed to reference an Equestrian "Office of the Witchfinder General," so maybe that was a thing, Warhammer Fantasy style or otherwise.
Perhaps agents of the office are still trying to uphold their responsibilities, knowing that ambitious necromancers might be moving in with the exact intent on taking advantage of the political chaos and lapses in faith to practice their art.
>In more modern times monster hunting is supposed to have been delegated to S.M.I.L.E, who function as an intelligence agency for Equestria and most likely as a political police as well. However, the Celestial Church should still operate a "Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith" which is a hoof in the door for an official secret police. In show and comic canon Equestria has the "Secret Monster Interdiction League of Equestria" which hunts monsters and changeling infiltrators.
Yeah, that a good canonical example of special forces. Even in the show the joke was basically the idea that there could be hidden political complexities operating in the margins of society.
S.M.I.L.E was dissolved in disgrace after the Bugbear escaped Tartarus, but perhaps it may have risen again since the fall of the kingdom, as the chaos and war makes the continent a breeding ground for monsters (as Posey says, there is always work for a Necrologist where there is war). Perhaps some of them joined the ELF (an organization that has already been depicted has employing former knights), taking on the role of inquisitors, and spies. It wouldn't make them all that different from Pelor's Shadow Guard.

There's also the possibility of sectarian extremists who technically work for the church but are so secretive and politically/ideologically removed from it that they are functionally a separate entity entirely. These could be foreigners from equestrian enclaves like Farbrook, originally formed in the middle ages and being so far removed from modern equestrian society that their extremism festered to absurd degrees. There could also be corrupt templars and renegade knights, convinced that they are still honoring their oaths despite resorting to common banditry and heretical apostasy. Opus Dei, from the The Da Vinci Code comes to mind as well.
>>194125
>I honestly don't know where her sheet is anymore, maybe on my external harddrive.
I'll just assume she would have had at least elite array.
>Perhaps debuff?
Iirc, there's some mention of mental illness/PTSD/delusions in Forge Of War. The book says they could be treated as character flaws (meaning a bonus feat).

It could also be another way to fluff Action Points, especially if they're used to temporarily emulate feats such as Dragon Prophesiser, or Domain feats from the complete champion. Action Points are sometimes described as "flashes of divine insight).

>>194067
>>194124
>>194126
Fascinating! This was well-researched I should read Solomon Kane. In EaW, Equestria is both harmonic and more open-minded than other nations, so a literal Inquisition in the modern day would be out place. Celestia is not Daybreaker, after all, even if some of her followers might want her to be. Also considering Celestialism's inherent relationship with the now defunct political state of Equestria, any overt backing of armed groups would be quickly stomped out.
Of course, Equestrian harmonism and Celestialism are so deeply intertwined that even if there is no overt backing, ELF and other paramilitaries would both defend the interests of their churches and receive donations from them. This also means that such churches would be watched and targeted by opponents of the ELF. Think of Irish Catholics, the IRA, and the Troubles, as an example.

How is firearms proficiency distributed in this game? Do classes come proficient in firearms, or do they need to take the feats for them?

I've been looking at the d20 modern firearms rules to better engage with the setting. There are some decent feats that ranged characters should consider for this setting. The Gunslinger and Soldier classes can be entered pretty early too.
Autofire weapons are tempting, but the non proficiency penalty would mean I might just do no damage at all in most cases.

For those of you interested in crafting magic guns, the Enhance Item feat applied to Extraordinary Artisan could be used to produce a machine gun with a higher autofire Reflex DC. That info is probably only useful to an Artificer though. Hopefully I could call up an arcane gunsmith to help equip my army once I create my guild.

>>194145
I remember talking with GM pone about this a couple of times, and I think we figured out a good list of which proficiencies various firearm types in the game would fit.

Simple: Handguns, Single Action Rifles & Shotguns (bolt action, lever action, break action, muzzle-loader)

Martial: Semi-Automatic Rifles & Shotguns, Submachine Guns, Light Machine Guns (prone)

Exotic: Fully-Automatic Rifles, Magic/Spark Rifles, Light Machine Guns (standing)

Despite this I'm not so sure Posey would know how to use even simple firearms effectively given she's from the Dread League. Maybe she'd know how to use muzzle-loading firearms?

>>194146
As a Dread Necromancer, Posey is proficient in all simple weapons and one (1) martial weapon. She is also proficient in archaic weapons (select medieval martial weapons).
>I'm not so sure Posey would know how to use even simple firearms effectively given she's from the Dread League
Posey can use a heavy crossbow. A gun isn't that difficult to use.
>Maybe she'd know how to use muzzle-loading firearms?
A muzzle-loaded gun would be MORE difficult to use than a modern one.

The in-character reason Posey doesn't use firearms is just because of her vanity.

This list looks decent.
>Magic/Spark Rifles
What is this?

>>194147
It's more than just the difficulty of the weapon. Posey is a Dread Necromancer from the Dread League, a technologically backwards nation that starts EaW with their only unlocked infantry equipment tech being Pre-Gunpowder Equipment, and with a massive research speed malus due to their isolation from the world it takes them a while to research anything better. Probably by this point in the game they've learned how to make muzzle-loaded rifles, but there's a good chance Posey has never held one before much less fired one.

>Magic/Spark Rifles
Magic Rifles, also called Spark Rifles by some nations, are rifle-shaped weapons that use crystalline ammunition to fire bolts of destructive magic. Heavy, requiring rare magic-capable crystals to produce, and more prone to malfunction than traditional firearms, early magic rifles nevertheless have unmatched destructive potential which makes them a good choice for support units, such as Mage Corps support battalions, and special forces units. Though perhaps only slightly off from the current game year, magic rifles do get refined as time goes on, becoming both more effective in combat and more reliable which allows them to be used for normal infantry battalions.

>>194148
>there's a good chance Posey has never held one before much less fired one
Maybe. Posey would prefer to use her bone bow in most instances anyway (it's part of her prophecy), and she does more damage with a bow than a gun in most instances. Even with her newly reduced Str/Dex score, she's predisposed to rely on her physical and magical prowess over mundane weaponry, because she is an arcane-supremacist. It's more of a vanity thing than anything else. Pic related. She might change as she learns more about warfare though.
The same can't be said for her minions though, who might retain weapon proficiencies they had in life.
>Magic Rifles, also called Spark Rifles by some nations, are rifle-shaped weapons that use crystalline ammunition to fire bolts of destructive magic. Heavy, requiring rare magic-capable crystals to produce, and more prone to malfunction than traditional firearms, early magic rifles nevertheless have unmatched destructive potential which makes them a good choice for support units, such as Mage Corps support battalions, and special forces units. Though perhaps only slightly off from the current game year, magic rifles do get refined as time goes on, becoming both more effective in combat and more reliable which allows them to be used for normal infantry battalions.
Ooh? What are the statistics of these weapons? Are they specific magic weapons, or are they base weapons that can be independently enchanted? Magic weapons are definitely something that Posey would be interested in, coming from a society that revolves around magic; in fact, it's part of her job as a spy to research them, and with Graveborn Warrior she would be glad to equip her army with them.

As far as Background related proficiency goes, that reminds me of a section from the complete warrior. Pic related. Maybe certain weapons could have different proficiencies for different cultures, such as the Serpent Bow being a martial weapon for lamias, or spark rifles being martial for magically-inclined cultures. My sunday game has Space Marine inspired Elan Psychic Warrior who was frozen in time from the age of Atlantis who uses futuristic weapons, but he still has to manifest Call Weaponry to summon them (he prefers to use his relic "Clockwork Macuahuitl", aka chainsaw, and only summons guns when he needs to hit something that flies).There's also potential for expanded weapon familiarity.

>>194116
>>194114
I forgot to mention that the Sacred Fist prestige class has an anathema against using any kind of weapon in combat, which can be limiting because it means relying on spells to fight flying enemies, which is something to be considered before entering. It is strong though.
Shadow Sun Ninja has no weapon restrictions, but requires Good alignment to advance.

Tashlatora Psychic Warrior/Monk, or any other psionic fusion, has no roleplay prerequisite. Idk how well Psionics fits into the setting though (although the aesthetic would fit well in the Crystal Empire).

The best kind of unarmed build (or any other non-broken melee build) tends to be a tripper, which Monks can do well because they don't need 13 Int for Improved Trip, and therefore can easily take both Improved Trip and Knockdown. The limitation to tripper in this setting is that the majority of characters have 4+ legs, which gives them +4 to oppose trips: this by extension makes the Setting Sun martial discipline weaker, because so many of the Setting Sun's maneuvers involve making checks to trip the opponent.

>>194145
>Do classes come proficient in firearms
Some would, I think, yeah

>>194147
>The in-character reason Posey doesn't use firearms is just because of her vanity.
I've been thinking about writing this massive post about the... how do I say? The fundamental philosophical disagreements between Posey and probably you as a player and the main factions in the setting in terms of how conflicts are to be fought/resolved. Basically the factions of the setting for both practical and moral/philosophical reasons think the entire nation should be fighting a war with popular armies that are as big as 12% of the entire population conscripted, and a large portion of the rest supporting the war effort in some manner. Meanwhile Posey's view is... more Heroic? Noble? Where a small caste of individuals (and possibly even just a band of heroes) are responsible for fighting wars/solving other conflicts and problems. Posey's view leads to an emphasis on weapons that are expensive, hard to produce, and hard to use, like complex magic, while the view of the major factions places an emphasis on weaponry that can be mass produced and easily used by people whose real jobs are as being farmers or trolley drivers. It's a product of philosophy and intent more than technology. I could go on about this

>>194148
Magic rifles are more expensive to make, but have better penetration and hard attack. They are mostly used by special, magical troops.

However, in certain recent versions of EAW, magic weapons have a new special feature that makes them extremely useful and I think relevant to this campaign: they have a non-lethal "stun" setting. Because of that, they may actually be mass produced and distributed to occupation soldiers.

>>194149
>osey would prefer to use her bone bow in most instances anyway
Bows don't automatically alert everyone within two miles that you are there and a threat, so that isn't necessarily the worst thing

>Are they specific magic weapons
They are weapons built from the ground up to shoot bolts of magic like a unicorn horn. they use magic stored in crystals as ammunition.

>frozen in time from the age of Atlantis who uses futuristic weapons
I did have an idea to have basically Atlantian futuristic weapons like direct energy weapons or railguns, yes. Just an idea

>Magic weapons are definitely something that Posey would be interested in, coming from a society that revolves around magic
Posey is from a Mageocracy where the right to rule is predicated upon magical skill. This means that the aristocratic and highborn unicorns must study for years, then deploy out to the cold fields to fight the griffin hordes, while the commoners stay at home. Contrast this with the new pony kingdoms where there is a greater emphasis on the equality of ponies. This means that the highborn unicorns toast in their mansions while the earth pony laborers take cover in muddy trenches. It's a philosophical disagreement. One philosophy requires a warrior to study and train for five years. The other requires ten farmers to train for six weeks. Magical rifles belong to the latter school of though. A magical rifle isn't designed to let a unicorn mage do its work better. It's designed to allow an earth pony with a cutie mark in farming to do the role of a unicorn mage after six weeks training.

>>194154
I remember discovering that in a recent playthrough. Personally it makes sense that magic rifles could be used for more than just pure destructive capability. Perhaps the crystal ammunition can be enchanted with different spell effects for specialized purposes, such as with Military Police support companies having stun spell ammunition.

>>194154
>The fundamental philosophical disagreements between Posey and probably you as a player and the main factions in the setting in terms of how conflicts are to be fought/resolved.
Well, I intentionally wrote Posey's vainity as a character flaw: it's something she may grow out of as she develops as a character and learns about the world.
>Basically the factions of the setting for both practical and moral/philosophical reasons think the entire nation should be fighting a war with popular armies that are as big as 12% of the entire population conscripted, and a large portion of the rest supporting the war effort in some manner.
I am aware. The Dread League has an even higher recruitable population.
>Meanwhile Posey's view is... more Heroic? Noble? Where a small caste of individuals (and possibly even just a band of heroes) are responsible for fighting wars/solving other conflicts and problems.
Posey wants to be a leader, a ruler and a conqueror, with her own army of followers chanting her name alongside her undead hordes. Mass combat is part of her dream, but before that she has to develop her personal powers to make any of that possible. She wants to become the hero that others will follow.
The heroic trope was intentional, because it's part of her false savior theme.
>Posey's view leads to an emphasis on weapons that are expensive, hard to produce, and hard to use, like complex magic
This comes from Posey's limited and archaic perspective on warfare. In her experience, she has witnessed vampire mages personally laying waste to entire armies with a single swipe, and monsters who were impervious to anything but the enchanted silver swords wielded by the paladins of the Arcturian Order. Her understanding of warfare is fantastical and outdated, and not exactly grounded in modern history. Aside from the Arcturian front, her only other experience in warfare has been guerilla raids on Farbrook, attacking ponies who were basically defenseless.
Having been in New Mareland for less than a week, she has had little context to develop a modern understanding of warfare or appreciate the importance of things such as technology, supply chains, noncombatants aiding the war effort, non-undead infantry, transportation, etc. This was a deliberate flaw in her character that I wrote with the intention of representing a character from the Dread League. It is a flaw that I hope to develop as Posey has more experience with warfare.
If her character flaws are "it's what my character would do" tier annoying, then I could just stop roleplaying them too, if you want.
>They are weapons built from the ground up to shoot bolts of magic like a unicorn horn. they use magic stored in crystals as ammunition.
Cool. What are their stats/prices? I might like to buy or craft a few later. If they're made cheaply enough to be distributed to nonelite farmers, my minions could certainly use them.
Actually, I think I still have a magic crystal that was for a rifle. I was wondering what it did.
>One philosophy requires a warrior to study and train for five years. The other requires ten farmers to train for six weeks.
The former school might also involve killing the farmers and turning them into undead monsters under the elite mage's control, who may or may not retain their military training.
But from Posey's perspective, she has not even gotten to that level. That's why developing her personal powers is her priority.

>>194156
Oh, furthermore, as Posey develops as a character and learns to appreciate the importance and value of technology in warfare, she would grow increasingly fascinated and excited about the interactions between necromancy magic and technology. Skeleton legions armed with rifles and surviving indefinitely in trenches. Haunted Shifted planes and tanks animated by vengeful spirits, crewed by soldiers, and fueled by sheer hatred of life. Incorporeal spirits serving as spies to acquire military and technological secrets. Zombies loaded up with explosives and detonating when they reach their targets, or burying themselves like target seeking landmines. Zombie pigeons with grenades strapped to them like drones.
Using Monstro as a bomber and the Dreads as flying artillery is an early example of Posey's attempt at necromantic innovation.

>>194124
You know what, I threw that premination stuff onto you but only do it if it's not too much work. In fact, I'm completely okay with just continue on the story with my normal, average monk.
I think the reason I sought the supernatural element was that I was inspired and a bit confused about who Virgin is these days, since it had been a while since I played. So I guess I felt I wanted more identity for her, but a superpower doesn't make a character; it's their heart. ;P

>>194154
>Meanwhile Posey's view is... more Heroic? Noble? Where a small caste of individuals (and possibly even just a band of heroes) are responsible for fighting wars/solving other conflicts and problems.
Makes sense given she comes from a society frozen in medieval times. Though, by medieval standards necromancers practice a form of mass warfare.
>However, in certain recent versions of EAW, magic weapons have a new special feature that makes them extremely useful and I think relevant to this campaign: they have a non-lethal "stun" setting. Because of that, they may actually be mass produced and distributed to occupation soldiers.
That is very useful. It beats our present tactic of shooting enemies to near-death and spending all our medical supplies to keep them alive.
>>194156
>Having been in New Mareland for less than a week, she has had little context to develop a modern understanding of warfare or appreciate the importance of things such as technology, supply chains, noncombatants aiding the war effort, non-undead infantry, transportation, etc. This was a deliberate flaw in her character that I wrote with the intention of representing a character from the Dread League. It is a flaw that I hope to develop as Posey has more experience with warfare.
That's pretty cool!
>Oh, furthermore, as Posey develops as a character and learns to appreciate the importance and value of technology in warfare, she would grow increasingly fascinated and excited about the interactions between necromancy magic and technology. Skeleton legions armed with rifles and surviving indefinitely in trenches. Haunted Shifted planes and tanks animated by vengeful spirits, crewed by soldiers, and fueled by sheer hatred of life. Incorporeal spirits serving as spies to acquire military and technological secrets. Zombies loaded up with explosives and detonating when they reach their targets, or burying themselves like target seeking landmines. Zombie pigeons with grenades strapped to them like drones.
Scary stuff

>>194154
>I did have an idea to have basically Atlantian futuristic weapons like direct energy weapons or railguns, yes. Just an idea
Once you have something in the game, it's very hard to take it out. Futuristic weapons in a WW2 setting not only feel out of place (yes I know EaW has a technology tree all the way to nearly modern levels of technology) but they would be game-breaking. But maybe they could be locked to a setting like an automated weapon system, and not something one could simply pick up. Magic would serve the same purpose for that however.

>>194160
>muh genie bottle
Don't discourage the GM from giving us cool loot.

>>194160
>they would be game-breaking
This isn't really true. The majority of damage 3.5e martial character does comes from their feats and glass features, not their base weapon dice.
Case in point, Silver, an unoptimized fighter with a greatsword, still consistently out-damages the rest of the party when power attacking, because the flat bonus he gets from power attacking with a two handed weapon makes the world of difference. If he used a quarterstaff instead of a greatsword, he would still do a lot of damage. If he used a heavy mercurial full blade, his damage increase would be marginal.
That's not saying that weapons don't matter, there's are many martial/exotic/futuristic/magic weapons that can I crease damage overall, but for 3.5e they're still marginal in comparison to class features. Weapons make more of a difference in d20 modern though, because d20 modern classes generally don't have class features that deal enormous damage to account for ballooning monster HP and instead focus on tactical and utility features.

>>194162
I do very much love pulling off a successful Power Attack and absolutely obliterating whatever I hit

>>194154
>It's a product of philosophy and intent more than technology. I could go on about this.
I am actually still interested in this topic if you're willing to talk about it.

>>194170
It's difficult to talk about because it is a very complicated set of subjects. There is a great deal of nuance to be had, and it's easy to be distracted by tangents on related topics. I can try, though

Much of human history follows a certain pattern: a region is reasonably densely inhabited by an existing civilization. An outside tribe or nation conquers them. The leader of the conquering tribe distributes the land of the conquered area to the soldiers who fought for him as a payment for the conquest, but also for their continued support of the leader. With the passage of time, the descendants of the soldiers become the nobility of the country, with an obligation to fight for the king, and the original inhabitants of the land become a peasant or serf class with less political power and fewer rights, but without necessarily an obligation to fight. The most obvious an extreme example of this is ancient Sparta, with its warrior citizenry class and the indigenous helot class, but this is also the history of France, or Norman England, or spain and portugal after the reconquista, or of brandenburg, silesia, Hungary, Prussia, the Livionian states (Lativa and Estonia), Finland, most of Indian civilization, and so many other states.

The essential point is that in the classical as well as the medieval world, a majority of societies could be divided into "those who fight," a nobility that is only a small portion of the population, and a class of "those who work" who are a plurality of the population, but are not necessarily obligated to fight. Generally, those who fight have more privileges (and especially more wealth) than those who do not, so there is an inequality in the population where those who fight are higher than those who do not. So what justifies this inequality? Just about every possible answer that could be given has, from better blood of the nobility, better upbringing and education, greater intelligence, greater virtue, divine order, and reciprocal obligations of the classes. But the essential points are these: The few fight, and the few must be an expression of quality and usually need to justify their position somehow.

Then came the modern era. To me, the modern era begins with the writings of one man: Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli helped oust the ruling elite of Florence and establish a republic, and was a part of the Republic's government. But the Republic was defeated by Spanish troops, who reestablished the old ruling party. Machiavelli wrote his Prince while in captivity. In that work and his Discourses on Livy, he explores the questions "Why was the Roman Republic able to last as long as it did? Why did it so consistently win wars, and why did it finally fall?" The answer he came to was the Popular Army. By a "Popular" army, I mean an organization of society wherein the largest class of people have an obligation to fight in wars on behalf of the society. This contrasts against Noble armies, where a privileged or landed class fights, or a mercenary army, or the use of foreign auxiliary forces. It was Rome's use of the Popular Army, he argues, that gave the proletariats so much power within the Republic, and forced the ruling elite to give them reciprocal benefits. This army was large and it was easier for the Romans to replace their losses than it was for their enemies, which gave them an advantage in war. And then Machiavelli argues that the singular change in the Roman Republic that ultimately lead to its downfall was when it expanded in the campaign against the Samnites. The distance to march was greater than could allow the army to return in time for the harvest season, thus meaning that the soldiers of the army could not be the local farmers of the republic, ultimately forcing the existence of a professional army where the soldiers received their pay from - and owed their loyalty to - their generals, and this lead to the collapse of the Republic. And thus is at least the philosophical birth of the Popular army in modern political thought.

A popular army is intended to do two things. First and most importantly, a popular army is intended to give more political power to "the many," with the theory that an armed citizenry is a freer citizenry. But it is also intended to be a stronger army, with the theory that a larger army will tend to beat a smaller army. A popular army can replace its losses. When France loses ten thousand nobles and the king of Burgandy in Argincourt, it is a disaster. When France loses a half million of its best soldiers in an invasion of Russia, it simply drafts an entirely new army. There's also the theory that popular armies improve the discipline, patriotism, and virtue of the common citizenry, but that's an entire tangent.

Whereas a noble army relies on a theory of quality and difference as the fundamental philosophical justification for the inequality of the society that supports it, a popular army does not. Rather, the theory behind a popular army is that the many, the plebian class of the society, ought to dominate it by shear virtue of its number. Quantity over quality. It is based on a theory of human equality, that the nobles do not possess an intrinsic or earned superiority over those who work. Machiavelli's justification for equality was that everyone is in need. Hobbes' justification is that everyone can be killed. Whatever the justification, that is the theory.

I haven't even gotten to the wars of the French Revolution yet, holy hell

>>194171
Continuing

Liberalism, and Liberal political theory, is more or less the origin of the popular army in modern political thought. If you read classical sources like Plato or Aristotle, you'll see that these philosophers favored an aristocratic class as the fighting class. Whereas, for example, the United States constitution includes the idea of a "Well Regulated Militia," which has been argued to mean the citizenry as a whole, disciplined and able to act as an army in a time of need, but do not serve as a standing army.

But it was the Wars of the French Revolution that established the popular army as a respected or even dominate practice. The Levee en Masse allowed France to field an absolutely massive army and fight against the professional armies of multiple European great powers, and win. It allowed Napolean to replace heavy losses in combat, with essentially the entire fighting force of the military being replaced.

The special, new element of the Wars of the French Revolution was Nationalism. Nationalism, and Collectivism/Corporatism more generally. As mentioned before, the societies that utilize Noble armies are based primarily on relationships and class-based obligations. What an individual noble owes to the king. This arrangement works well with feudal societies, and territories may be added or subtracted without much fuss. The country may thusly be polyglot and multiethnic. A uniting religion is desirable but not always essential. The ruling class often was of a different national origin than the ruled. But the types of societies that could make use of a popular army are a bit different. Humans have an inate ability to subsume the individual identity into that of a greater whole, and in doing so, willingly undergo sacrifice for the sake of this greater whole. This was a whole new, previously untapped source of motivation for a fighting force when the French made widespread use of it. And when they did so, they (for practical purposes) invented the concept of the nation. A collective identity that the people of France belonged to, and that is its own corporate entity. Warfare changed dramatically after this point, with countries increasingly relying on conscripted or volunteer armies of what would otherwise be the peasant or proletariat classes. Mercenaries almost entirely fell away.

The nature of wars changes as well. Whereas in the time of professional armies wars were almost like litigation between nations to resolve questions over small pieces of territory or the balance of power, wars became about moral questions, and the destiny of entire nations. When wars were conducted on behalf of professionals who fought for the king, "because the king said so" was often a good enough reason, so long as there was pay. When a war is fought by a common laborer, the reason behind the war must be very great for such the laborer to be invested in its outcome. I do not think that it is any kind of coincidence that post-French revolution warfare has higher stakes than most medieval and early modern wars. There were of course, high stakes wars of the medieval and early modern eras, like the 30 years war or the Mongol wars. But even these are wars of nations and religions at least somewhat analogous to the clashes of civilizations we see in the modern era. What is less common in modern times were the prolific wars of succession and other minor wars of the medieval and early modern eras.

>>194172
>>194171
Interesting takes. I largely agree with all of it. I have written several papers echoing these points throughout highschool and college for history classes about how warfare has changed, specifically in the sense how the concept of an elite warrior class has all but vanished in place of civilian armies, and how technology enabled that transition.

Moreso, however, I am interested in how this relates to the current setting, and how it should reflect on our perspectives as D&D characters from our various backgrounds.
>So what justifies this inequality? Just about every possible answer that could be given has, from better blood of the nobility, better upbringing and education, greater intelligence, greater virtue, divine order, and reciprocal obligations of the classes. But the essential points are these: The few fight, and the few must be an expression of quality and usually need to justify their position somehow.
See, this is where fantasy settings get a bit tricky, because most fantasy settings have at least in some regard the concept of scaling power levels and individual heroes. The most obvious example is magical power, which is personal to the caster and cannot be widely distributed to the populous because it depends on the genius of individual heroes. Mid level Wizards can instantly turn the mightiest fortresses to rubble, and high level fighters are unlikable Eldritch bulwarks who can cleave mountains in two with a single stroke.
But fantasy societies aren't exclusively led by high level wizards (even though Equestria was), in fact, it's often the opposite, with court mages serving as advisors rather than leaders. This is in part due to the fact that arcane technocrats who dump Charisma aren't necessarily oriented towards leadership or bringing people together organically.
>Popular army
About her reason why the popular army is so important is because of the concept of total war, where the entire country is in one way or another mobilized to aid in the conflict, militarily or economically, which gives it an enormous advantage over a country that only fights with its elite class.
Posey does recognize the importance of a popular army, in her own twisted evil way. In Magehold, there are no civilians, only masters, monsters and slaves: everyone is either a necromancer, a vampire, or a monstrous servant thereof, all ready to rip and tear at a moment's notice. I will state again that the Dread League has a very high recruitable population for this reason. Posey has been raised to see any and all bodies, living or dead, as her potential soldiers, or materials to make more. As they say in Thay "Our army is already here. We just need to wake it up."
In the Dread League, the lowest caste are the ghouls, but even a lowly ghoul is inherently a ready for battle, and is easily mobilized too because they're so desperate for fresh meat.
>The ghouls provided the unglamorous backbone of the empire. Intelligent and undead, they needed to feast on flesh, especially brains, to prevent decay into mindless zombies, and provided the labour, manufacture, and intelligence needed to run the empire.
This is the Dread League's equivalent to a popular army.
>theory of quality
Posey doesn't really believe in equality, due to her upbringing. She had a bit of a reverse Glimmer character arc. The horrible brutality of existence and the nature of power was hammered into her when she was just a filly, and she has formed her entire worldview around it. For this reason, she values personal power above all else, and the means to control others and bring them under her command, because she trusts nopony.

She could probably use some friendship lessons.

>>194171
>>194172
This was a fascinating read and part of why this game is so great.

>So what justifies this inequality?
Outside the consideration of power dynamics which can be reduced to "Grug beats up weaker Grug," the clear answer is that as society grows, specialization arises. You need a lot of people making things so they're better off or at least can stay alive, but when you make things there is an incentive for bad actors to steal as an alternative to production. Therefore, you need some people to be specialized toward protecting the rest. If producers are the only ones defending themselves, they run into several issues. First is that if they protect themselves as they're attacked instead of coordinating with a group, then even a small group of aggressors can target them piecemeal with little hope for resistance. Second is that even if they do coordinate, they simply won't be as good at defending themselves than dedicated soldiers or guards. Third is that any investment in improving their own defensive capabilities comes at an opportunity cost for producing more stuff, and is dead weight if it's not used. When it is used, any casualties taken will impact the general economy because there will be fewer productive people. Therefore, it's more efficient overall to have a few dedicated soldiers or guards protecting a much larger productive group. Except in the most dire cases, there are generally far fewer than producers because one dedicated to fighting can't support himself economically except in service to the producers, and therefore whatever is invested into defense long-term has to be equal to or less than the surplus produced over what producers need to support themselves. They are also fewer because they are much better and more coordinated at defending, and unless if there's an offensive campaign not that many are needed in defense. Finally, and this is the reason why dedicated fighters tend to be prized over producers, is that putting oneself out there to fight involves martial skills and virtues that may be absent in others. The rote toil of work and production is all good and absolutely necessary, but it does not typically result in endangering one's life like being a soldier does. Moreover, being a trained soldier places special value on cohesion, duty and leadership to the degree that veterans can often sense other veterans merely by a military sort of bearing.

It should be noted that the degree to which this separation exists is never constant in history but changes owing to technology and sociopolitical realities. Mass armies like what Rome had were impractical and unsustainable after the rise of a feudal sort of structure, which was far more efficient at defending a local area of producers in an era when communication was slow and unreliable. Technology didn't actually play much of a role in this; late medieval plate armor certainly was sophisticated and no doubt extended this status quo, but early medieval times were no less stratified and certainly didn't have better armor technology than the Romans. However the introduction of gunpowder and faster communication certainly brought about mass armies which preceded liberalism, though they were still largely professional under absolutist kings. Arquebuses and even muskets weren't individually better than other weapons, but they were easier to train with and compounded well in mass formations. The Industrial Revolution brought this to the logical conclusion with massive armies of conscripts: not only was a far smaller number of producers able to sustain a much larger army, but interchangeable, mass-produced parts meant weapons on an individual basis were trivially cheap.

What's interesting is that this trend toward mass warfare reversed starting in WW2 and has continued today. As weapon systems have become far more sophisticated and rifle infantry are just one component of a combined arms apparatus, sheer numbers of basic weapons will lose out on an open battlefield to a decent number of advanced weapons. The average rifleman's kit has also ballooned in cost in terms of weaponry, armor protection, and utility items like night vision. Later advancements will likely put even more emphasis on fewer, better trained and better equipped troops.

>the United States constitution includes the idea of a "Well Regulated Militia," which has been argued to mean the citizenry as a whole, disciplined and able to act as an army in a time of need, but do not serve as a standing army.
Sort of but this is much more relevant to the concept of English yeomanry than to the political concept of liberalism, at least in the French sense. For centuries England was unique in the practice of recruiting especially skilled archers from free farmers. While they weren't as skilled in other forms of combat as other noble retinues, their specialization in archery made them useful and allowed for some upward mobility, which in turn gave rise to the more moderate form of liberalism that Britain adopted. Jefferson and his peers saw the advantages of this system, but with yeomanry being less of a rigid social class and more of an idealized self-sufficient farmer. Professionalism and voluntaryism revolving around local militias was at the core of it, as opposed to the centralized Levee en Masse that France practiced. Mass conscription really only took hold in America starting during the War Between the States.

I do agree, as do many others, that war in its nature has changed like you said.

>>194173
>See, this is where fantasy settings get a bit tricky, because most fantasy settings have at least in some regard the concept of scaling power levels and individual heroes
I was thinking about writing an entire post on the subject of Heroic fantasies and contrasting them with what I'm trying to do with Occupied on a thematic level

I'm just not a fan of extreme power scaling... at all. Just... I don't know, it's really not something I care for.

The Lord of the Rings is very obviously the inspiration of most of the Dungeons and Dragons setting, yet oddly its a relatively low magic and lower power scaling setting. In the Lord of the Rings, the only wizards that exists are literal angels, the Maiar, Sauromon and Gandalf (and Sauron for that matter). Elves, Dwarves, Halflings and Humans cannot be wizards. Almost all magic we see that is performed by someone other than the three Maiar is done by means of a ring of power, and even much of the magic performed by the Maiar is done through rings of power, like Gandalf's fireworks through his eleven ring, or the manipulation of the water to fight the nazgul. And even with all of that, relatively little magic is used. Gandolf isn't lobbing artillery at Helms Deep. As for Eldrich Bulwark fighters, well... "Even the mightiest warrior may be felled by an arrow. And Boromir was pierced by many."

Superheros have just never appealed to me. Or any kind of anime that's the same thing. Like someone punches another person, they fly back and hit an object with no visible damage to themselves, or a beam of light hits them and does no visible damage. I'm supposed to believe that that's much more damaging than a bullet? Eh? I have no point of reference to connect with it. I cannot imagine it. It has no meaning to me. It's just punches and light beams that do nothing and signify nothing happening to plastic figures. It's the same thing with magic. What is this magical thing? It's some kind of arbitrary bullshit made up on the spot. How does it work? It's magic. Has the author thought through the implications that the existence of such magic would have on the larger world and society? Not just no, but hell no. And how do we defeat such powerful magic? With equally arbitrary magic that we just pulled out of our asses so that we can defeat this completely arbitrary magic. Actually. the later seasons of My Little Pony have this problem. It's a completely self-made problem. Take for instance Discord and Starlight Glimmer going to fight Chrysalis. How does Chrysalis fight against a god? "Fuck your magic, I have a rock." I can rant about this but I probably shouldn't

This discussion relates to something similar I've wanted to talk about for a while: what I'm trying to do with Occupied Equestria, in terms of themes.

I think a good place to start is, what is the purpose of heroic fantasy in general? That is, what is it about?

Fantasy is of course composed of diverse literature from the ancient heroic epics like the Illiad and Beowulf, to medieval literature like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, to Tokein's works, to My Little Pony. And yet, I think there are definite commonalties.

I will never forget hearing former producer on My Little Pony Jim Miller say "My Little Pony is a Morality Play. Either the Good Guys will win because they are good, or the Bad Guys will lose because they are bad. And yeah, that's exactly right. What is my little pony? A morality play to teach children what behavior is good. Oddly I've actually heard almost exactly the same phraseology in regards to Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. "The Good Guys will win because they are good and the bad guys will lose because they are bad." Obviously there is much more going on in the Lord of the Rings, but at least a major part of the Lord of the Rings is to say "This is what virtue is, this is what defines goodness, this is what defines evil, these are the limits of goodness, these are the limits of evil, this is what will happen if you lead a virtuous life/do good, and this is what will happen if you do evil." Medieval works like Sir Gawain and the Green Knight are much the same. Certainly they reflect on human weakness and the limitations of human nature, but they are still very much about virtue and doing good. The ancient epics are less focused on virtue, to be sure, but its still a major focus. The Illiad opens with the Wrath of Achilles over being cucked by Agamemnon, then moves on to Achilles being enraged by his friend dying, and then ends with him finally calming down. The larger reflection of both the Illiad and Beowulf is how we find purpose in a universe where death looms over all and everything seems to be fated.

There are of course other reasons why certain fantastical epics were written. For example, The Aeneid is mythological telling of the origin of the Roman people, and to a very large extent, Tolkein's various works are exactly the same thing for the British and Northern European peoples. And yet still, overwhelmingly, fantasy is about what it is like to live as a human in a world full of struggles. How to be good, what is good, what is evil, and what to do in the face of evil and the inevitability of death. It is about becoming a better person.

You'll notice that this meshes well with ancient concepts of Nobility, in that the struggles that must be faced by society are faced by a narrow band of people, and this narrow band of people must prove themselves - they must prove that they were fit to lead. Sir Gawain must prove himself in facing the Green Knight. Aragorn must prove that he is fit to be the air of Isildur and Twilight Sparkle must prove herself to be the Princess of Friendship. All of these people are born into, fated to be in the role they are in, and yet, they must prove themselves by facing trials to earn the position. They are elite warriors facing threats no one else can.

The stories are (almost) always about individual people, and good and evil, even when not immediately apparent, have a definite form.

That is not what Occupied Equestria is about.

So if it isn't about heroism, then what is it about?

Well, Occupied in the convergence of three things. Dungeons and Dragons, My Little Pony, and Hearts of iron 4. If both Dungeons and Dragons and My Little Pony are about heroism, then what is Hearts of Iron 4 about? Well... It is a map painter of World War 2. But this isn't about painting maps. So then, what was World War 2 about?

Well... Have you heard of the Hegelian Dialectic? The gist is this: history has a progression to it, with each era being defined by a central conflict and learning from the last, with history advancing as time progresses. The era defining conflict is between two ideas, a thesis and its antithesis. Eventually, one idea defeats the other, but in doing so, they create a new synthesis that merges parts of both concepts into a newer, better whole.

Hearts of Iron 4 actually has this kind of dialectic as an essential part of its game mechanics through ideology. There are three, technically four, ideologies. Each nation may chose one of the three (four, whatever) ideologies as its path, align with likeminded nations, and ultimately come to dominate the world. In doing so, it proclaims the victory of its ideology. World War 2 was in part an ideological struggle between Fascism (and similar ideologies), Liberalism, and Communism. Fascism was destroyed, shamed, and removed from history, leaving Liberalism and Communism as the victors, until eventually through the Cold War Communism was destroyed and shamed, leaving Liberalism as the sole victor, here at the End of History. Or at least it was until this new era has revealed the contradictions in Liberalism, and a new thesis and antithesis will emerge.

Of course World War 2 was about much more than ideology. It was about great power politics, ethnic rivalries, the predilections of individuals in power, and so much more. But it was above all the clash of civilizations. And that is what I want to explore. A sociological rather than individual psychological examination of the human experience. The way that humans behave in groups more so than as individuals. And I am especially interested in the philosophical aspects.

In Tolkein, what is good and what is evil is firmly established. Good is what his version of Catholicism or Liberal Christianity says is good, and evil is what it says is evil, and there isn't all that much of a question to it. The problem is that not everyone agrees on the same set of values as good and evil. People disagree. People have vehement disagreements over many aspects of morality. To what degree are we allowed to favor our own kind over outsiders? To what degree is social conformity necessary for cohesion and to what degree is it a source of unacceptable exclusion? To what degree is freedom in sexual behavior acceptable, and to what degree is it unacceptable licentiousness? Are the various races of mankind to be treated exactly the same? All of this and more was in dispute at the time. It still is. Even if people can agree on 95% of what is good and what is evil, they are willing to kill each other over that last 5%, and that is what I wish to focus on in Occupied.

Where does this leave the individual? Where does this leave heroism? I mentioned in my last post of the advantages of Popular Armies, where an army of the common people can be lost in its entirety and replaced, where the individual's identity is subsumed into a greater whole for whom the body as well as the soul is sacrificed, and how wars fought by such armies are clashes of civilizations, where entire nations fight to the death. Stop for a minute and think of how fucking awful it would be to be a warrior in such an army and such a war. Wars are no longer a set of professional warriors fighting with honor for the sake of honor to achieve the very limited objectives of their superiors. Wars are now total. Every man, woman, and child - every lump of coal and blade of grass in the empire - is a part of an industrialized war literally 50% of the population may somehow be involved either directly as a soldier or in the supporting economy. And the stakes are impossibly high, with the very real risk that if your side loses, not only will you be dead - that was a given even if you won - but your entire race, your civilization, your country, your way of life, your language, may all be eradicated or at least relegated to serf status.

Consider that last paragraph of the opening text of Warhammer 40K: "To be a man in such times is to be one amongst untold billions. It is to live in the most cruel and bloody regime imaginable." Those words could be said, switching out billions for millions, for soldiers of the Soviet Union, or of Nazi Germany, or Imperial Japan, or Nationalist China, or even to a lesser extent of the various allied nations. When you are a part of the 34 million Soviets, 18 million Germans, 16 million Americans, 14 million Chinese, 9 million Japanese, or of any of the other soldiers of the 100+ belligerent nations placed in a uniform, you truly are "one amongst untold millions." Individual identity is completely lost.

In the Lord of the Rings, the warriors of Rohan lost 2000 horsemen in the Battle of the Pelanor Fields, that big penultimate battle in Peter Jackson's Return of the King. That's as many soldiers as the United States lost ferrying airplanes to their destinations. The number of American aircrew lost to training accidents in WW2 is 15,000, probably not far from total losses for the coalition of Free Peoples in all of The Lord of the Rings. Never mind the losses of a battle like Kiev or Leningrad or Kursk.

>>194177
There are of course many tales of heroism in WW2. There's that American dive bomber pilot who sank not one but two Japanese Aircraft carriers in the same day. There were multiple Finish, Russian, and German snipers who shot 400+ people. There's pilot who shot down 400+ planes and several more with more than one hundred. Audie Murphy, who fended off 50 Germans and two tanks with the machine gun of a burning tank. Those are heroes. Those are heroes with kill counts and accomplishments on the same level as Legolas, or Gimli. And when you expand the list of heroes to include politicians and generals, some are arguably on the level of Aragorn. But these were real men who lived and died, were decorated or disgraced, and remembered or forgotten for their deeds. And these men are the equals of even fantasy heroes.

But what you do not have is a hero who, through tossing a single ring into a volcano, instantly ended the war. Then again, even Tolkien didn't have such a hero None of these people brought the war to an end single handedly. The outcome of the war does not change if they all collectively were removed. All of them could have been replaced by others - some of them were - and the needle barely moves.

But consider the final two lines of the Warhammer 40k introductory text: "Forget the power of Science and Technology, for so much has been forgotten, never to be relearned. Forget the promise of progress, for in the Grim Dark Future of the 41st Millenium, there is only war." That is decidedly not what we have with a World War 2 setting. In fact those two statements are more true of most fantasy worlds, were technology is more or less in statis and societal structures most certainly are. World War 2 is unique against such settings in that there really is a fast pace of technological advancement, such that technology upon the war's conclusion was noticeably advanced compared to the war's beginning. But it isn't just technology. There was a genuine belief in human progress that is hard to understand now. There was a belief that we can change society for the better through laws, institutions, and economic development. There was a genuine belief that your children could have a better life than you could have, or for that matter, that you could have children. There was a belief in the possibility of utopia - or at least, of a better world than the one we live in. And it could be achieved. Fantasy settings very rarely have that kind of hope. Our modern world most certainly does not.

I like the World War 2 setting in no small part because in my generation - I am certainly at least slightly older than all of you - World War 2 was the fabled war of the recentish past, the one everyone was fascinated with and wanted to study. But beyond that, World War 2 is the last great crossroads of history. Where we are now, it feels as if somewhere down that long road, we took a wrong path, or at least, that something has gone horribly wrong. In World War 2, there seemed to be a genuine choice between multiple, distinct outcomes. There was hope for a better world. If the world was doomed already, that was not obvious at the time.

That is what I wanted to capture. This feeling of historical crossroads, and a clash of ideologies and philosophies. Not a triumph of good over evil necessarily, but a definition of the terms.

>>194174
>as society grows, specialization arises.
That's why I mentioned magic, which is specialized by nature. Only more powerful mages can cast high level spells or craft world-changing magic items. The need for heroes is especially true in fantasy worlds that have nigh-indestructible monsters who can lay waste to entire armies and are immune to mortal weaponry.
>As weapon systems have become far more sophisticated and rifle infantry are just one component of a combined arms apparatus, sheer numbers of basic weapons will lose out on an open battlefield to a decent number of advanced weapons.
Yeah, especially with drone warfare. A flying zombie strapped to a bomb can skullfuck conventional conventional infantry.
>>194175
>extreme power scaling... at all. Just... I don't know, it's really not something I care for
Extreme power scaling does exist in Equestria. That's arguably a flaw in the later seasons.
>The Lord of the Rings is very obviously the inspiration of most of the Dungeons and Dragons setting, yet oddly its a relatively low magic and lower power scaling setting.
I actually think that Conan is the bigger inspiration for D&D, not just in the world building but also in the basic adventure design. People invoke Lord Of The Rings more often because it's popular. A lot of the world building for the monster races and classes in D&D is derivative from Conan, which is a relatively high magic setting that happens to feature a martial protagonist. This was especially true in the Mystara era of D&D.
Lord Of The Rings is low magic overall, but not low power, imo. It's at the very least as high power as Equestria, because Gandalf basically has the same power kit as Celestia (he could literally move the sun to make it daytime). Even the martial characters could be considered to be quite high level, especially the elves.
>Superheros have just never appealed to me. Or any kind of anime that's the same thing. Like someone punches another person, they fly back and hit an object with no visible damage to themselves, or a beam of light hits them and does no visible damage.
You shouldn't think of HP as physicality, or you will frustrate yourself and break immersion. HP is a narrative device that represents how many near-misses and grazes a hero can take before their story ends. HP represents luck, skill and even divine blessings more than it does any measure of physicality.
Think of John Wick: there's nothing magical about him, but he represents a high level d20 Modern character with high HP.
>I'm supposed to believe that that's much more damaging than a bullet?
The one place where the mechanics of 3.5e differ from d20 modern is the massive damage thresholds. In d20 modern, massive damage thresholds are at a base only equal to a character's constitution score, so a single crit from a bullet that does 14 damage can in fact kill a mid-high level characters with 70+ HP if they fail the save. This is the one mechanic that enforces realism in d20 modern.
That being said, d20 Modern characters use Action Points by default to represent their heroic luck.
Eberron uses action points by default too, and it is generally a low level setting.
>the later seasons of My Little Pony have this problem. It's a completely self-made problem. Take for instance Discord and Starlight Glimmer going to fight Chrysalis. How does Chrysalis fight against a god? "Fuck your magic, I have a rock." I can rant about this but I probably shouldn't
I agree completely.
>>194177
>Occupied in the convergence of three things. Dungeons and Dragons, My Little Pony, and Hearts of iron 4. If both Dungeons and Dragons and My Little Pony are about heroism, then what is Hearts of Iron 4 about?
I would really encourage you to check out the d20 modern SRD. The DMG says to refer to it for all issues regarding modern settings. D20 Arcana has tips on using magic in a modern setting too.
>Where does this leave the individual? Where does this leave heroism?
Another question though: where does that leave us, individual heroes, as the protagonists of this game? What is our role in this world? If it's not about heroism and destiny, what is it about?
I actually thought it was going to become a map-painter game at higher level, which is why I made a charisma based character with an emphasis on leadership mechanics and rulership, but my character would need to prove herself before she can even start.
>That is what I wanted to capture. This feeling of historical crossroads, and a clash of ideologies and philosophies. Not a triumph of good over evil necessarily, but a definition of the terms.
Well, I didn't think that much about what Posey believes in when I made her. Actually, her worldview could be summarized as a rebuke of all of the ideological modern nuances posted above. Posey is obsessed with personal power and vainglory, and she also believes in heroism and destiny, albeit in a twisted and villainous way. She would have grown up somewhere around the beginning of the equivalent of the Victorian era, witnessing the end of the medieval lifestyle. The Victorian era likewise ended around this time period as well, so she's an undead character who has witnessed the end of two eras with the advancement of modernity, but Posey never believed in modernity, because the antithesis thereof was was hammered into her at such an early age.

Ran out of space.
Wanted to say I drew a bit of inspiration for Posey's ideological worldview from the Scarlet King SCP article:
>But beneath this lay a fury. A cry for authenticity, for a reality, even as we expressed ourselves more and more in their language and their categories, even in our struggle against them. It lay in our literature, in Tagore and the others; it lay in our adda4, in our menial jobs as clerks. The endless, struggling tension between old and new, between modernity and premodernity. And in those fault-lines, in that cry of rage and fury, in our hatred of the old and the hatred of the new, there rose a hybrid obeying nothing but the law of the howling. There rose the Lāla Rājā.
>Because what is he but the cry for a forgotten age? He is the British peasant staring up at the red sky, the Bengali widow's weeping and shaven head, the Aztec priest ripping out another's heart. He is all of those things transformed, as modernity does to everything, into modernity's own destruction. He is the resistance, the fury, the hatred of all that was for all that presently is.
>What we were was full of good and evil and all else mixed together. The happiness, the beauty of the world, the struggles and heartache and reality of it all. But now we have lost almost all of it to the machine- except our rage. That's all that's left. And thus comes the King. The howl of the destroyed and forgotten and oppressed. His only purpose is to destroy, rape, maim, enslave and smile, smile that smile of a king whose enemies weep before him.
>He cannot exist where there is no modernity, because his entire purpose is given to him by modernity. He is a god of blood, a god of spine and bone and sinew, to remind the denizens of this world that it is not good. It is cruel and hateful and that is good, that is right. Modernity is a sin and he is the correction, so that we can once again live as we must: cold, and hungry, and starving, and very, very afraid.
Yeah, edgy and generic, but Posey still believes that she's the herald of the apocalypse destined to bring and end to this unclean world.
Maybe her worldview might change if she has done friendship lessons though.