Yeah, the references to Merthians and Obstarians would be confusing to the uninitiated. If you follow the link in the sub to Atheus, then you can see a map, as well as a link to Atheus's history. Those two subs might make things clearer. Long story short: Taurians and Obstarians vs. Merthians and Kathians (I believe I mentioned Kathia at some point in this, and too lazy right now to go check). An in depth explanation to the fight is below in my reply to Axelrowes.
As for the Raveten getting food, I'll explain that in my reply to Dossta.
And, by the by, get well soon. If you're feeling the effects, that means the cold's almost over. Go to Comment
Now a biology lesson: the Raveten pulls magic energy from pecked corpses to provide it energy. The Raveten doesn't actually get blood on its beak from eating food. The act of pulling energy acts something like a magic implosion: the lack of magic energy equates to a quasi-vacuum, implosion, and thus explosion. That is a helpful (at least, I hope it's helpful) tidbit that conjure up a good mental picture while at the same time being completely wrong. The actual magic meta is at this point in Atheus construction complicated, fuzzy, and with a couple of holes in it discretely covered with a bit of cloth and grass.
And actual Ravens are pretty smart. YouTube them. When I was writing this, I found a video if them problem solving to get food. Too lazy to find the link now. The magic amplifies that.
And the bigger returns thing- arm exploded here means less dead bodies, or no dead bodies. That means no more food. Arm exploded there means lots of dead bodies, or lots of food. More food=good.
And your power-lowering suggestion- the Ravetens are only really dangerous when there's a corpse lying around. Do PCs typically wander around with a corpse? Not unless they failed in their rescue mission for Princess Alice and are bringing her corpse back to her father, King Zod, so he can grieve and bury her (and maybe still pay them something). Or when they get in a fight with some dragon. Yes, PCs do tend to accumulate corpses, but they don't stick around them. And if they're smart, they'll run when they see that strange Raven in the tree after they participated in a little "dragon-slaying."
The force of the explosion is 2/3 (roughly) that of a grenade. I believe I compared it to a m16 grenade? Whichever one it was, it was the standard frag grenade of the US army. Go to Comment
How bout giving it pitch black eyes not reflecting any light (blood red is so cliché), a serrated beak that divides itself into three parts when opening, a long barbed frog like tongue, and several black bumpy tentacles with black talons at the end instead of a body. Make it drag itself slowly across the floor only to spring into the air and fly into the faces of victims at the last minute. Go to Comment
I actually quite like this simple somewhat mundane plot. In particular, I like Part 3 and how this sub incorporates some moral elements and allows for changing objectives for PCs as they learn new info. Go to Comment
Why would the king be embarrassed about raiders? Raiders attack stuff all the time. I think kings usually just throw a lot of knights at the problem until it goes away. It's also unusual that he'd have such poor intelligence about the nature of the raiders.
Maybe the king's brother or bastard son is leading the logging company, and he needs to keep it super-quiet. Or the king sent the logging company, breaking a treaty in the process, and now regrets it.
Also the ship is probably way more defensible than some palisades on the beach.
Also, I'm a little bit confused about who the original raiders are. The elves? The dwarves? None of the five tribes seem to have boats.
The party motivation seems a little bit muddled, too. If the dwarves are the ones raiding and killing humans, then they would probably be the ones targeted.
Last point: I think this sub could use a good dose of the unexpected. More weirdness. I've already killed a bunch of evil logging companies in WoW. Maybe the logging company is building a giant guardian wickerman? Or the land was once occupied by elves and orcs, who are both persecuted the loggers, and the party needs to unite the elves and the orcs by beating both sides at their ridiculous contests, all while avoiding lumberjack assassins?
Summary: I'd say the plot can be simplified and tightened up. The addition of some PCs would be cool, too, and I'd totally like to hear about what type of Annointed the leader of the logging company is (and this would be a good way to tie your Atheus subs together). Go to Comment
Update: Forganthus. For your comment, either an answer will be provided here, or has been put up above in the edit.
The King is not embarrassed. Its just that he can have nothing to do with the Barbarians, since both his and Obstaria's policy is to simply keep the Barbarians outside the human lands, and nothing else. Both Tauria and Obstaria are highly racists against Barbarians, partly because of the losses the humans faced when the Barbarians attacked during the Territory Wars. Since then, the raiding has decreased substantially. And then, of course, it increased enough to annoy a king because some logging company set up camp in northwestern Atheus.
The dwarves could be targeted, yes. But by the time the PCs could find the dwarves, they meet the elves. And if the elves learn that there buddies, the dwarves, got killed off by some of these d*** humans, the party is probably going to face an unfortunate ambush on their way back to the ship. Besides, killing the dwarves would only temporarily relieve the problem. The logging company would take more and more land, forcing the other tribes to less and less land, which would result in more and more raiding. The problem would be temporarily relieved, but then the king would get mad. Go to Comment
This is very intellectual and abstract take on a religion. You have outlined a theological core but given little of the practice of it. Certainly these philosophies of life could be followed by somebody who is looking for direction, meaning or structure-but why make religion out of it?
What do the gods get out of it?
Do the Gods grant powers in your world? If there is no supernatural power associated with this religion what role does it play in society?
Does it effect the moral codes of the land?
I think we really should to write this up as part of a narrative, put this through the crucible of story telling, and see what comes out.
Well I really enjoy your stories, the one about the smart sword, the serial killer and such all good stuff. I think that stuff, more than listing facts helps to crystalize ideas. Perhaps Bob had a crisis of faith, perhaps Bob is torn between God and Country....whatever. The overall question for everything on this site that is not a story is - Do these ideas revolving around ( in the this case the tri-faith) help you to tell stories? Go to Comment
Leaving rambling nonsensical comments is a trap I fall into all too often. I am wary of it.
I like the new story thread. Yeah beaver don't technically eat wood, but they must swallow some wood during all their gnawing, can we really say that the beavers don't eat wood? It adds real hands on feel to the religion and more importantly implies a depth with regard to inner faith conflicts and mores. Shoes forged from nickel and tin.
So let me know if the comments are just nonsense or hard to follow. Go to Comment
I actually quite like this faith system in that it provides a somewhat refreshing take on morals/life principles. I particularly like the afterlife and myth sections. However, like some of the previous comments, I have some problem with the concept that there could be evil altruists. Go to Comment
Okay, if this is what you have in mind, then I think a evil cultist would fit right in. Sth along the lines of "I'm doing xxx (evil action) b/c it will contribute to the cause of Cult xxxx and benefit all of my fellow members". I guess this is sort of the opposite case of being involved in charity for selfish reasons i.e to make a name for yourself/broaden your network of connections/create a positive image etc.
btw, saw the edit and liked them. They are not substantial enough for me to revote but I do still think they improve this piece.
Although I find this sub more fully fleshes out Trianarianism compared to what I've read pre-Cataclysm, I have the following two questions:
1. I know a large part of this sub is the actual religious text but just wondering that given the set-up at the start, why is it important for the Three to stop ppl from turning away from their worship? As far as I understand it, they need to keep the balance b/w themselves and are interested in maintaining the world Atheus (i.e. make sure it doesn't get destroyed). But as the sub currently stands, it doesn't lead me to have any pre-disposition as to thinking that the Three actually cares abt getting worshipped.
2. The Deific Antangonist section, I was somehow expecting a set of opposing deities for the Three but instead it's just abt the re-discovery of Trianarianism and then it branches off into angels and devils. I also get the impression that the Lunists and the Barbarianism's Polytheism (which you haven't released yet) might be the actual 'antagonists' so maybe just change the heading to prevent such mis-leading impressions?
Meanwhile, my gut feeling tells me that I'm still leaning towards my old vote. I appreciate the effort put into this particular piece and they have all improved the sub from previous versions. For example, in this current version, I like the fact that in practice section has been expanded quite a bit. But sorry to say that I cannot say that the improvements are substantial enough for me to upvote this particular piece. Go to Comment
I like anything that proposes an alternative to the weary old Good/Evil and Order/Chaos axes.
However, this seems to have distilled the definitions of these principles down to "caring about yourself", "caring about something else", and "caring about some Kantian principles". The problem, I think is that people are inclined to combine all three of these things. I selfishly care about myself, but I am altruistic towards my family, less so towards my friends, and a set of morals (honor?) dictate how I behave towards people otherwise. (Although some would argue that I behave however I want and then assign the morals post hoc.)
I also have a hard time imagining how altruists can be evil as often as ambitious egoists. And this definition of ambition reminds me of Ayn Rand's objectivism, which I've only known to produce a terrible sense of entitlement.
I guess my objections are mostly philosophical.
These three words are already well-defined and burdened with connotation. I would rename them something that doesn't mean anything. Maybe the names of the three genderless gods? It'd add some exoticism, as well.
I also think this works better as a system for *centering* morality rather than *defining what is desirable*. Such as: the self-centered dude helps the drowning man because that's what he would want if he were drowning. The community-centered dude helps the drowning man because the village needs every citizen. The honor-centered dude helps the drowning man because "it is just the right thing to do".
The self-centered dude robs the bakery because he needs money for food. The community-centered dude robs the bakery because his children need money for shoes. The honor-centered dude robs the bakery because the baker is a coward and does not deserve it. Go to Comment