Need advice on a Norse villian

[Ameronth]

I have an idea that I'm trying to translate into 5E terms for a villain in a Norse setting. Here's what I have for backstory and and some of the character. Our insidious villain is of jotun blood. As a baby, he was spirited to a jarl's hall by his parents at Loki's direction. His parents switched him with the jarl's own baby, who was sacrificed to Loki. The jarl, none the wiser, raised the child as his own. As the boy grew, was secretly educated on the nature of his being by Loki and his agents and the boy kept this secret in turn, until a day came when he slew the jarl and his wife, and let a ravening hoard in the city gates. The city was sacked and Loki's descendant began a march to Valhalla to bring about Ragnarok early. His helm's faceplate is a yellowed skull's face. On each arm is tattooed an eye, and on his chest a Viking hammer, a symbol of Thor, but inverted. He is a walking blasphemy against Asgard. His battleaxe, he fashioned himself. The haft was hewn from a pillar of Odin's temple in the jarl's city (now destroyed). The axe head was the jarl's, and was plunged into the jarl's heart before it took the head of his wife. The pommel is a piece of the jarl's crown. The axe was then bound to him by Loki (think pact of the Blade Warlock feature).

He is of jotun blood and a descendant of Loki, but was accepted as a human during his upbringing, so I don't think he'd be an out-an-out giant, but I'm not sure what race he should be. As far as class goes, I'm thinking barbarian/warlock (pact with Loki, which can be Infernal or Fey or I can try to homebrew one) with an emphasis on Barbarian (14 Barbarian/6Warlock?). I would like to base this as much in Norse lore as possible (and not Marvel) and I'm not rich in 5E supplements, so... help?

Thanks in advance.

[lunaticfringe]

Well he wouldn't really have to be Gianty at all. Giant is a bit confusing to Modern day folk with regards Norse Myth. A better term is Devourer or Destroyer. Giants in Norse Myth did not have to be literal giants, they were anthropomorphic representations of Destruction/Entropy/Death.

So do what you like, he could be a tiefling/cambion or monstrosity or undead. These are all fitting. Go nuts.

[Ameronth]

In that case, he may as well stay human. That'll still open options up.

[Fable Wright]

1. Avoid giving him PC stats. He'll die too easily in combat and be a disappointment.
2. Pick a big bruiser monster a bit below the CR you're looking for. Use its stats as a baseline.
3. Give it cool abilities to make it unique. Sword summoning is good. Maybe a few spell slots to cast Armor of Agathys. If you want to give him flat resistance to all damage, remove around 1/2 to 1/4 of his HP. Maybe give him a boulder throw and fluff it as axe chucking before he resummons it.
4. Add Legendary and/or lair actions to taste.
5. Run him into the party and see how they like him.

[Unoriginal]

He is of jotun blood and a descendant of Loki, but was accepted as a human during his upbringing, so I don't think he'd be an out-an-out giant, but I'm not sure what race he should be. As far as class goes, I'm thinking barbarian/warlock (pact with Loki, which can be Infernal or Fey or I can try to homebrew one) with an emphasis on Barbarian (14 Barbarian/6Warlock?).


Take any powerful Giant you like, make him Medium-sized, give him magic items/ special powers you like and there you go.



I would like to base this as much in Norse lore as possible (and not Marvel)

Well, sorry to say, but you're basically as far from Norse myth as Marvel is, if not more.


Let's dissect that, shall we?


Our insidious villain is of jotun blood.

How is he insidious?



As a baby, he was spirited to a jarl's hall by his parents at Loki's direction. His parents switched him with the jarl's own baby, who was sacrificed to Loki.

Norse Myth Loki would never do such a thing.


The jarl, none the wiser, raised the child as his own. As the boy grew, was secretly educated on the nature of his being by Loki and his agents and the boy kept this secret in turn, until a day came when he slew the jarl and his wife, and let a ravening hoard in the city gates.

Myth Loki would never do this either.



The city was sacked and Loki's descendant began a march to Valhalla to bring about Ragnarok early.

And was immediately destroyed by the gods, who laughed about this foolish guy's story for a long time.

You can't start Ragnarok early, and no attack against Asgard like this one would work


and on his chest a Viking hammer, a symbol of Thor, but inverted.

"Viking hammer" doesn't really exist. Also, an upside-down hammer wouldn't be disrespectful of Thor.


He is a walking blasphemy against Asgard.

There is no such thing as a "blasphemy against Asgard".



The pommel is a piece of the jarl's crown.

Minor nitpick, but I don't think axes have pommels.


Well he wouldn't really have to be Gianty at all. Giant is a bit confusing to Modern day folk with regards Norse Myth. A better term is Devourer or Destroyer. Giants in Norse Myth did not have to be literal giants, they were anthropomorphic representations of Destruction/Entropy/Death.

No, the Jötnar (plural of Jötunn) were anthropomorphic representations of various natural things, just like the Aesir were (for ex., Thor is the Thunder). Nothing in particular about entropy or death (except Hel).

It is true Jötnar didn't have to be gigantic, though. Hell, a good share of the commonly known Aesir are at least half-Jötunn. Thor, for exemple.

[Ameronth]

First, I think I described how he is insidious. His nature was kept secret by him and others until he betrayed the jarl. Second, yes, I took some liberties with Loki, but I think it's obvious that Loki is, in the end, wicked given his and his children's role in the end of the world. I don't think this role is too far a leap, and I think it makes for a good story. Third, I know Ragnarok can't be triggered early. You also can't trigger Armageddon early, but that doesn't stop some madmen from trying. That's not the point, it's a plot device. The idea is that the heroes' party stops him. Fourth, blasphemy is impious action or utterance against sacred things. I used the term "Asgard" to encapsulate the Aesir, and they can be insulted just like any other god. There are poems about such occurrences after all. Fifth, fine, no rune. Sixth, yes, axes can have pommels.

[Unoriginal]

First, I think I described how he is insidious. His nature was kept secret by him and others until he betrayed the jarl.

Fair enough, but you have to admit that "ax-wielding rampaging warlord with a skull helmet" doesn't really scream "insidious", even if he followed an insidious plan thought by others.


but I think it's obvious that Loki is, in the end, wicked given his and his children's role in the end of the world.

He's really not. Loki's not really worse than the other Aesir. Which is to say he's sometime a murderous jerk and sometime not, like the other Aesir.

As for his kids, they didn't do anything against Asgard until the Aesir wronged them.


I don't think this role is too far a leap, and I think it makes for a good story.

It is a big leap, believe me.



Third, I know Ragnarok can't be triggered early. You also can't trigger Armageddon early, but that doesn't stop some madmen from trying. That's not the point, it's a plot device. The idea is that the heroes' party stops him.

Why would the heroes bother? Thor, Freyr or any of the Aesir would show up and demolish the madman within the hour, as soon as they see his army.

Are the heroes trying to gain glory with their deeds?




Fourth, blasphemy is impious action or utterance against sacred things. I used the term "Asgard" to encapsulate the Aesir, and they can be insulted just like any other god. There are poems about such occurrences after all.

Sure, but there are very different conceptions of "sacred", and very different conceptions of "god".

In Norse myth, insulting a god is basically like insulting a powerful person who can kick your butt, there is no particular taboos or the like around it. Hell, winning at flyting against the Aesir would probably have been seen as glorious and awesome.


Sixth, yes, axes can have pommels.

Thanks, learn new things every day.

EDIT:

On my "half-Jotunn gods" comment earlier:

Odin is half-Jötunn, Thor is three-quarter-Jötunn.

[Ameronth]

Tell you what, scrap the whole idea and come up with something else. Clearly, I'm doing this wrong. You tell me how it should be done.

[GlenSmash!]

Tell you what, scrap the whole idea and come up with something else. Clearly, I'm doing this wrong. You tell me how it should be done.

Saying the idea is far from Norse myth is not the same a s saying it's bad for a D&D campaign. I think it's a fine idea.

But I do agree with the above posters that the rules for making player characters are not great for making Bad Guys. The rules for making monsters do a much better job at that. I would actually use a Cambion as the starting place for this kind of bad guy. They seem like the type that would impersonate a Jarl's son and kill him and his family.

[Unoriginal]

Tell you what, scrap the whole idea and come up with something else. Clearly, I'm doing this wrong. You tell me how it should be done.

Don't take it badly, Ameronth. Your story and villain can work, and it could make a memorable campaign, I'm not saying the contrary or criticizing your work on that ground. But you specifically asked to make it as accurate to Norse myth as possible, and it can't really be that way.


But if you want a suggestion:

Make the bad guy the son of Surtr, with him being adopted by the jarl after being found in the forest and not knowing of his origins until he consulted a seer on the subject (which then lead to him rampaging in the city). And instead of attacking Asgard, he decided to terrorize the region, with the heroes hearing about it and deciding to stop him.


Saying the idea is far from Norse myth is not the same a s saying it's bad for a D&D campaign.

Indeed.



But I do agree with the above posters that the rules for making player characters are not great for making Bad Guys. The rules for making monsters do a much better job at that.

Also true.

Honestly, taking one of the powerful giant's stats and making him medium-sized is probably a good start for this guy.

[Flashy]

Honestly, taking one of the powerful giant's stats and making him medium-sized is probably a good start for this guy.

I want to chime in to add my support for using/building/modifying an NPC statblock in general, but also to say that this in particular is SUCH an elegant approach.

What CR are you looking for on this guy?

[Ameronth]

I don't know. I was thinking in character terms because this idea is in it's infancy. I just thought of it yesterday.

[imanidiot]

Don't take it badly, Ameronth. Your story and villain can work, and it could make a memorable campaign, I'm not saying the contrary or criticizing your work on that ground. But you specifically asked to make it as accurate to Norse myth as possible, and it can't really be that way.


.

I think he's going for more of a pop-culture/Marvel-esque Norse mythology. Not real Norse mythology.

Mechanically, don't build him as a PC villainous antagonists with PC rules dont work very well.

Use an appropriate CR dragon as a base. Refluff and change its size. Multiattack is just 3x attacks with the axe (that is way less powerful wielded by anyone else). No flight, no wing buffet. Refluff the breath weapon into a point blank AoE, a necrotic wave or something.

With a little tinkering you can turn a dragon into any kind of big bad youlike.

[Mechaviking]

Don´t overthink the stats, blackguard, champion or Warlord stats from Volo´s should be enough for a human(oid) character, the fluff is fine, if he has any magic items remember to add their bonuses to the "monster" stats, I wouldn´t give him pc stats. Remember that level 20 is reality/dimensional/temporal based threats to many(or all) worlds.

What you describe to me sounds like a 7-12 level endgame, but you know your campaigns need better than me.

Rather than use the monster creation rules I sometimes merge two monsters and add their hitpoints together and give it an "extra action" to cast its spells. This isn´t the "best" way but I find it has worked good enough for me.

[hymer]

Norse Myth Loki would never do such a thing.

Loke (as we prefer to spell it around here) has some very wide-ranging roles. Among his darkest are causing the death of Balder, and then preventing his resurrection. Loke also goes on to fight on the Jotun side in Ragnarok. Not nice, and well beyond his more usual mischief and manipulation. Though somewhat more blatant than most of his trickery, I don't think OP's suggestions are particularly beyond Loke's capability for being a four-letter word.

[scalyfreak]

Loke (as we prefer to spell it around here) has some very wide-ranging roles. Among his darkest are causing the death of Balder, and then preventing his resurrection. Loke also goes on to fight on the Jotun side in Ragnarok. Not nice, and well beyond his more usual mischief and manipulation. Though somewhat more blatant than most of his trickery, I don't think OP's suggestions are particularly beyond Loke's capability for being a four-letter word.

I think it depends on who you ask about Loke.

Unless I remember wrong, the myths about the Norse gods weren't really written down into compilations until the Catholic church and their scholars arrived in the Scandinavian countries, and they brought their beliefs and biases to the stories. Loke became evil, because in their world view, everything that wasn't good as evil.

The original Loke is an agent of chaos, which isn't evil by nature. It's just chaotic.

[Saint Jimmy]

If your giants are how mine are in the Norse/Viking campaign I'm running, you may want to look at the Goliath race from Volo's Guide to Monsters. With a bit of refluffing, it makes an excellent half-giant. At least in my 4e game, I think the 5e ones are pretty similar.

[Unoriginal]

Loke (as we prefer to spell it around here) has some very wide-ranging roles. Among his darkest are causing the death of Balder, and then preventing his resurrection. Loke also goes on to fight on the Jotun side in Ragnarok. Not nice, and well beyond his more usual mischief and manipulation. Though somewhat more blatant than most of his trickery, I don't think OP's suggestions are particularly beyond Loke's capability for being a four-letter word.

Causing the perma-death of Balder was a major jerk move from Loke/Loki, sure, but that kind of "not nice" was something pretty much all the Asgardians did often.

Hell, right after Balder's death, Thor kicked a dwarf into Balder's funeral pyre, killing the dawrf for absolutely no reason.

However, kidnapping a baby and killing him as a sacrifice would be far beyond even Loke/Loki's darkest moments.

Killing people to steal their stuff wouldn't be something Loki would object, true. Sacking a city for the hell of it... not his style, but eh.



The original Loke is an agent of chaos, which isn't evil by nature. It's just chaotic.

Loki wasn't really "an agent of chaos", he was just a mischievous douche who sometime got into troubles, sometime helped, and sometime killed people. Pretty much like all the Aesir, but in peculiar and entertaining ways. Loki doesn't care about chaos, he just wanted to have fun or to avenge himself.

We're not sure how much the Christian influence changed the stories, in any case.

[Herobizkit]

Half-giant (EE supplement, Volo's Guide) or even Changeling (Eberron) would work well.

I would have also accepted a re-flavored Drow or Tiefling (in some ways, they're re-flavorings of each other).

[hymer]

I think it depends on who you ask about Loke.

Unless I remember wrong, the myths about the Norse gods weren't really written down into compilations until the Catholic church and their scholars arrived in the Scandinavian countries, and they brought their beliefs and biases to the stories. Loke became evil, because in their world view, everything that wasn't good as evil.

The original Loke is an agent of chaos, which isn't evil by nature. It's just chaotic.

While I don't doubt that Snorre et al. changed things quite (deliberately and otherwise) a bit in gathering the tales and writing them down, these are the sources we have to work with. And since Norse mythology was largely oral during its lifetime, and spread over an area the size of, well, Scandinavia, there's hardly a single truth to be had even before someone puts a Christian spin on it.
Which goes back into my original point: Saying something is out of character for Loke is shooting at shadows. Loke's character isn't singular or unchanging.


Causing the perma-death of Balder was a major jerk move from Loke/Loki, sure, but that kind of "not nice" was something pretty much all the Asgardians did often.

Causing Balder's death is very similar to causing the death of a baby if you think about it. Balder is the beloved of all the gods, and all things can be persuaded to promise not to harm him.
At any rate, if you consider this the start of Loki's darkness, and Ragnarok the end, then somewhere between those two points I don't see why he couldn't have degenerated to the point of eating babies.


Hell, right after Balder's death, Thor kicked a dwarf into Balder's funeral pyre, killing the dawrf for absolutely no reason.

Unfortuantely, we've lost the meaning of the dwarves. They (or some of them) represent something, but we don't know what, how or why. If we still had that knowledge, understanding what happened there (in a literary sense) would be much easier. I rather doubt that the point was 'Thor is a bastard', but we'll probably never know.

[EvilAnagram]

Loki wasn't really "an agent of chaos", he was just a mischievous douche who sometime got into troubles, sometime helped, and sometime killed people. Pretty much like all the Aesir, but in peculiar and entertaining ways. Loki doesn't care about chaos, he just wanted to have fun or to avenge himself.

In this sense, "agent of chaos," refers to his role in stories as one who spreads disorder and confusion (dressing Thorn in a wedding dress, sexing up a horse, insulting every god at a feast immediately after killing Baldur etc). I do not believe the poster was suggesting that he was an agent of The Divine Chaos, or a devotee to disorder or anything, just that he caused chaos and delighted in doing so.

[EvilAnagram]

Causing Balder's death is very similar to causing the death of a baby if you think about it. Balder is the beloved of all the gods, and all things can be persuaded to promise not to harm him.
...No. Just... no.

Loki's role, from a storytelling perspective, is usually to expose hypocrisy on the part of the other characters. Odin won't pay his debts? Loki will help out, but he'll mock him the whole way. The other gods don't want him around? He points out how little room they have to speak down to him. Frigg wants to prevent fate from coming to pass? He has Baldur killed. When giants behave arrogantly, he has Thor put in a dress and kill them. When the gods try to undo their wyrd, he shows then that avoiding their fate is impossible, that banishing and chaining his children was futile, that their doom is certain.

Baldur was not a baby. He was a warrior as much as any other god, and he was Norse enough that the moment he found out he was invulnerable, he and his buddies got drunk and tested how far it would go. The comparison is fundamentally flawed.




At any rate, if you consider this the start of Loki's darkness, and Ragnarok the end, then somewhere between those two points I don't see why he couldn't have degenerated to the point of eating babies.
Letting people know that their sons are as tied to fate as your own is very different from eating babies. Some might say that leading the forces of chaos in battle against the gods is less evil than eating a baby.

[hymer]

...No. Just... no.

Loke as the upright servant of the fates is... a new one to me. :smallwink:

[EvilAnagram]

Loke as the upright servant of the fates is... a new one to me. :smallwink:

I never said he served the fates. I said he exposed hypocrisy, and with Baldur he exposed the hypocrisy and hubris of the gods in trying to prevent their doom.

[hymer]

I never said he served the fates. I said he exposed hypocrisy, and with Baldur he exposed the hypocrisy and hubris of the gods in trying to prevent their doom.

I'm not sure parsing what you said would be very productive, so I'll leave it at that: Yet another way to see Loke. Which I hope Ameronth will take as a good reason to stand by the story originally outlined in the original post. There's little consensus on interpretation, so you can use your own as you like.

[EvilAnagram]

I'm not sure parsing what you said would be very productive, so I'll leave it at that: Yet another way to see Loke. Which I hope Ameronth will take as a good reason to stand by the story originally outlined in the original post. There's little consensus on interpretation, so you can use your own as you like.
You're position is that Loki is a character with multiple interpretations, so he might as well eat babies.

The fact that a character has many interpretations does not make all interpretations valid.

In this particular case, I wouldn't gave Loki kill the baby because finding and restoring the rightful heir is a better plot hook than, "welp, the rightful heir is dead."

[Mjolnirbear]

I'm not sure parsing what you said would be very productive, so I'll leave it at that: Yet another way to see Loke. Which I hope Ameronth will take as a good reason to stand by the story originally outlined in the original post. There's little consensus on interpretation, so you can use your own as you like.

I can't actually speak to the things you're doing to Nordic lore. It isn't actually based in lore except in the most superficial way. I'm feeling quite upset at the way you've twisted my religion.

So to the actual NPC you want. Loki is a shape changer. It's what he's famous for. He impersonates people, animals, magical things, and does it so well he actually gives birth to a (only slightly deformed) horse. If this NPC is the offspring of Loki, chances are it's also a shape changer.

Now Sleipnir was not his first offspring but was probably the most normal. His children with Angrboda pretty much all came out bad, but Sleipnir was just a super horse, so maybe your NPCs mother will more directly influence the NPC's powers.

The giants are more enemies than monsters. They're not exactly forces of nature either, no more than the Vanir were. Powerful, strong, magical, yes. Monstrous? That depended. The aesir broke bread with many giants and married some of them.

So, maybe an Oni. Magical, giantish, strong. Possibly a shapeshifter. Blue skin has echoes in Hel and horns has echoes in Jormungandr.

[scalyfreak]

In this sense, "agent of chaos," refers to his role in stories as one who spreads disorder and confusion (dressing Thorn in a wedding dress, sexing up a horse, insulting every god at a feast immediately after killing Baldur etc). I do not believe the poster was suggesting that he was an agent of The Divine Chaos, or a devotee to disorder or anything, just that he caused chaos and delighted in doing so.

That is exactly what I meant. Thank you.

[Grim Portent]

The usual role a jotunn would serve as an antagonist would be as a warlord seeking to pillage and destroy the lands of men that is stopped by a mighty hero or Thor, or something more like Skadi in her wrath marching on Asgard to claim vengeance for her murdered father, backed by mighty spells and the armies of Niflheim. Normally they were just wandering enemies of mankind or bearers of secrets or artifacts though, Odin and Thor were friends with a bunch of them, and many of the gods had children with them. One even stopped Thor and Jormungandr fighting prematurely by cutting the serpent free from Thor's fishing line while they were out fishing together.



I would suggest a variation on the giant Thiazi, who sought to steal the golden apples of Idunn so he could live forever while the gods withered and died.

Something like an aging mortal king, who happens to be a powerful seidr; a sorcerer. Unable to prevent his aging with his magics, the king has become bitter and jealous of the gods, and seeks to seize the means of their eternal life for his own use. In his desire he has made bargains with the dwarves and jotunn, the former crafting trinkets to let his agents steal into the walls of Asgard, the latter to help him conquer the mortal lands until he has dominion over all the world around Yggdrasil. To the dwarves he gave all but one of his sons and daughters to keep for whatever purpose they see fit, and to the giants he has promised great wealth.

The dwarves are fashioning a cloak of shadows and mist, a bag of chasms and tall mountains and mail of shield iron and bravery, to be used by the king's last son to sneak into Asgard, kidnap Idunn and survive any arrows or spears launched in pursuit by the gods before he can vanish. (The nature of the items is something of a reference to the fetter of Fenrir, Gleipnir, which in some translations was made from things like the breath of a fish.)

The giants are clearing a path to Yggdrasil, having skulked into the mortal realm under cover of witchcraft, and joined the vanguard of the king's army, fighting with monstrous forms, brute strength and more magic.

If you want to involve Loki, I'd have him be captured and threatened into helping the king, as with the myth of Thiazi in which he was forced to lure Idunn out of Asgard so she could be kidnapped. It would further help if he was trapped in some manner after fulfilling his duty so he could not inform the gods of what had happened, as is usually the case in such stories. In the tale of Thiazi he returned to Asgard and was ordererd to steal Idunn back, so any wise man would seek to prevent his return to Asgard even though it would break the terms of the deal.


In any case, this gives the king a mighty army, potent magics, items of dwarven cunning and depending on when the players get introduced to events the apples of Idunn, which would return him to his prime and allow him to be a formiddable warrior in addition to a seidr. There's also room for his own human people to rebel against him with the player's urging, between giving up his children and being a seidr there would be plenty the norse would consider to make him a bad king.

The Aesir would not get directly involved because they would have little knowledge of where Idunn was and what had happened. Without Loki they were kind of blind really, and without Idunn they rapidly grow old and weak. I could see Odin in disguise helping out the heroes, but he's not going to be in fighting condition if Idunn has already been kidnapped.

[Unoriginal]

Not the time to comment on more, but on this:


His children with Angrboda pretty much all came out bad

Not really. Hel just got an unpleasant but crucial job, the Midgard Serpent was just big and didn't threaten anyone, and Fenrir was just a big scary wolf who wanted people to know he was awesome but didn't antagonize anyone until the Asgardians decided to imprison him.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Wonder: Closed for Real-World Religion.