Quote from: jhkim on November 11, 2021, 07:13:10 PMI feel like we're talking past each other here. The intent with Land of New Horizons is to be high fantasy in a similar manner to Star Wars or Middle Earth. Overall, I think that it is comparable. I don't feel that there is any more mysticism or "God Presence" in New Horizons than in either of these worlds. Yes, New Horizons has its immortal past emperors - but Middle Earth has a bunch of millenia-old elves - plus old demi-gods like Tom Bombadil, the Istari, and of course Sauron who has very widespread effects. Star Wars in the Old Republic period has hundreds of Jedi around.

Outside of Tom (who is more interested in nature), the demi-gods of LOTR actually are so involved in the plot they are either primary characters are secondary characters. And the elves are leaving because there is a lack of magic juju. They ARE the plot.

The reasons they do or do not do things is generally governed by internal logic. Only in the broadest strokes do things go into 'Its like this because its like this'.

QuoteI feel like what you're complaining about is that logically, the Jedi should have used their mind control and other powers to take over and rule the galaxy as it's overlords. The only reason why they don't is mysticism

Ethics isn't mysticism (in a direct sense). But yes, if the Jedi could enlighten people through force zaps (not mind control them since thats what you posit is happening), then why don't they? But they can't. And the ones that do mind control/mind cloud are the central antagonists and central to the plot.

But the Jedi may be good spiritual advisors, but not great rulers. Which is why they generally advised (but also did engage in violence and enforcement). If the force only picked out rulers-then yeah by and large only jedi would rule.

Because all those settings posit enlightenment/wisdom as something earned or deserved. While zapping enlightenment into past immortal emperors (deserving or not) feels more like a workaround for the fact that by default it would be a terrible idea if it happened to everybody.

I feel it would make more sense if it didn't last forever (the emperors crumble eventually), and it was a thing chosen by the family in place of the gods (similarly to how the family was what kept the incan ancestors alive).

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 11, 2021, 11:45:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on November 11, 2021, 07:13:10 PM
I feel like what you're complaining about is that logically, the Jedi should have used their mind control and other powers to take over and rule the galaxy as it's overlords. The only reason why they don't is mysticism

Ethics isn't mysticism (in a direct sense). But yes, if the Jedi could enlighten people through force zaps (not mind control them since thats what you posit is happening), then why don't they? But they can't. And the ones that do mind control/mind cloud are the central antagonists and central to the plot.

But the Jedi may be good spiritual advisors, but not great rulers. Which is why they generally advised (but also did engage in violence and enforcement). If the force only picked out rulers-then yeah by and large only jedi would rule.

Because all those settings posit enlightenment/wisdom as something earned or deserved. While zapping enlightenment into past immortal emperors (deserving or not) feels more like a workaround for the fact that by default it would be a terrible idea if it happened to everybody.

But I haven't discussed at all about what is earned/deserved -- and you haven't asked. I would absolutely say that in New Horizons, enlightenment/wisdom is something earned and deserved, not something casually zapped into people. The emperors aren't undeserving schmucks who happen to be high born - any more than Aragorn or Galadriel are undeserving schmucks who just happen to be high born. If an emperor screwed up and designated an undeserving heir, then the empire would decline and perhaps fall.

I feel like the problem you're running into is a clash of high fantasy and more modern-day views of nobility.

In real life, I don't believe in having hereditary noble rulers. However, it's a tradition of high fantasy - and I think it's internally consistent. In Middle Earth, Aragorn was both born to be the true king and a deserving person. The same goes for King Arthur in Arthurian myth (and Pendragon the game). Like those, this is supposed to be a high fantasy game of fighting monsters and doing good, not grimdark backstabbing like Game of Thrones or Warhammer.

Quote from: jhkim on November 12, 2021, 01:59:39 PMBut I haven't discussed at all about what is earned/deserved -- and you haven't asked. I would absolutely say that in New Horizons, enlightenment/wisdom is something earned and deserved, not something casually zapped into people.

But you did

QuoteWhen their mortal body perishes, they undergo a ritual and have a divine vision that makes their mortal concerns seem small and petty. They still have free will - and they can still make mistakes or grow more corrupt later. Still, the experience will deeply influence and change them.

And you posited this point in response to my concerns that immortal rulers would squabble and cause conflict.

QuoteI feel like the problem you're running into is a clash of high fantasy and more modern-day views of nobility.

Im not G.R.R Martin. Its more the context. If Aragorn was immortal, and blessed with even more magical enlightenment from Eru-Iluviatar: why would he step down? The immortal elven rulers by and large did not step down.
Your combining a bunch of disparate elements I by and large follow and like into a single collection I think works against itself.

Shrieking Banshee -- I've been writing answers off the cuff, so sorry if I've miscommunicated. Taking your suggestions here:

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 11, 2021, 11:45:45 PM
I feel it would make more sense if it didn't last forever (the emperors crumble eventually), and it was a thing chosen by the family in place of the gods (similarly to how the family was what kept the incan ancestors alive).

I don't have any problem with these, and I'd be open to adopting them. Maybe past emperors slowly fade from a mummy to a demi-lich and then disappear after 500 years. And it makes sense that the family would have to go through the proper rites for an emperor to be mummified and thus kept in place. Going through mummification is a spiritual experience - like Jedi training, say - but it isn't an overt choice or act by the gods.

I don't quite see how it makes a difference, though, particularly for your main complaint. The fading would make no practical difference in the present of the setting since the empire is less than 500 years old. And all of the past emperors would be chosen by their family.  Your previous issue was:

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on November 12, 2021, 03:19:09 PM
Im not G.R.R Martin. Its more the context. If Aragorn was immortal, and blessed with even more magical enlightenment from Eru-Iluviatar: why would he step down? The immortal elven rulers by and large did not step down.
Your combining a bunch of disparate elements I by and large follow and like into a single collection I think works against itself.

If your changes were true, I don't see how that answers the question. The just-dead emperor only has four more centuries around and he has the support of his family. Why would he step down in that case?

I think the answer in the real setting would be the same regardless of whether I incorporate your changes or not. A living emperor isn't a horrible tyrant - he is like the Elvish kings or Aragorn or Jedi - an ethical ruler who takes his beliefs and responsibilities seriously. Upon dying, the emperor goes through a sacred ritual performed by his family that is deeply profound on a spiritual level. He arises disconnected from Earthly needs and desires like food or romance. He probably feels more call to sleep close to the earth and/or watch the stars. He has lived a full life and has children he loves and trusts - including his chosen heir. He retires because he now wants to focus on less worldly affairs, and because the job of ruling has been difficult.

Quote from: jhkim on November 12, 2021, 06:17:27 PMHe probably feels more call to sleep close to the earth and/or watch the stars. He has lived a full life and has children he loves and trusts - including his chosen heir. He retires because he now wants to focus on less worldly affairs, and because the job of ruling has been difficult.

Fair enough. Thats an explanation. Eventual psychological disconnection with the living. But in a benign way instead of a insane way.

Thats all very reasonable. Its just different then 'Because its mythological'.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 09, 2021, 12:22:42 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on November 09, 2021, 10:10:02 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on November 09, 2021, 09:56:01 AM
It's like the argument about orcs. It's your campaign. Make your undead however you like.

Your vampires can be like those freakshow nightmares from Lumley's Necroscope; or spirits puppeting a preserved corpse; or damned souls; or some strange biological offshoot. It's your game.

(personally, my go-to for unnerving undead has always been a toss up between the mohrg and the bodak)

My argument is semantic. To put it simply, I am disappointed that we can't use words like phylactery or lich in their original real world meanings because the fandom is full of autists who would find it confusing even though real language is chock full of ambiguities like that. The English word "set" has 430 distinct meanings.

I'm not saying we should stop calling them phylacteries and liches, since in a pedantic way they still count. The D&D lich is still a dictionary lich (i.e. a corpse), just with a ton of extra baggage tacked on (reanimated, wizard, soul jar). And it's profane phylactery is still a dictionary phylactery (i.e. a protected container of holy relics) in the same sense that a Satanic mass is still a mass.

That's semantics. Words can have multiple meanings, and there are multiple words to describe a given object.

As an Autist that has no problem with you using whatever word in whatever way let me ask you:

Your complaint is not being able to use the original meaning of a word while still using the D&D one? In the game?

So I'm the GM and I'm telling the party they find A Lich and they don't know what the fuck I'm talking about because it has several meanings, so I need to especify what do I mean by Lich. This time.

Yeah, I can see how that would make the game faster & more fun for everybody

It's not my fault that Gygax trained fantasy gamers to automatically think "lich" equals the ridiculously specific concept "an undead wizard with a soul jar" and arbitrarily crowded out all other possible uses of the word, such as "Clark Ashton Smith's word for zombie." Would you prefer that I used a different spelling like "lytche" or something to distinguish it? (At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if I have to use cheap tricks like that to keep readers' pattern recognition from kicking in.)

Your example is disingenuous. A decent GM would clarify from the onset that s/he was using "lich" in a different fashion than the MM says and provide a glossary for players to reference. Said GM would also use qualifiers for different varieties of liches to avoid confusion, similarly to how other monster families do: e.g. dragons are divided by color, age category, etc. If the game was called Labyrinths & Liches then we might have long lists of variants like so. Given the ridiculous variety in that list alone (not counting the many varieties not listed there that I've personally read about, like akaliches, sound liches, arcane liches, awakened demiliches, etc), I wouldn't be surprised if we had a "menial slave lich" that was indistinguishable from a MM zombie. Altho I prefer a name that sounds really pretentious and on-the-nose, like "lich corpse cadaver" (patterned after the French-Haitian "zombie corps cadavre").

Also, what GM says "you see a lich"? That's so boring and meta-gamey. A decent GM would say "you see a withered corpse dressed in moldering finery, floating a few inches above the ground. It holds a large book in its hand and its eyes glow with an eerie green light. It points a finger at you and utters a curse, sending a ball of sickly green light hurtling towards you."

In real life words routinely have multiple meanings that require context to discern. For example, a "chimera" is both a mythological monster and a real world biological concept and I don't see fantasy gamers getting confused by the multiple meanings. There are random generation tables for chimera components and I don't see gamers getting confused that every possible combination doesn't have a unique name.

Anyway, I readily admit that my suggestion isn't going to catch on. I don't expect it to. It's far more likely that it would be renamed "voldemort" or "koschie" or "undead wizard with a soul jar" in fifty or a hundred years.