Second opinion

[Empyreal Dragon]

Im... not entirely sure where to start. But I guess this is need for GM advice?

I've been running the same setting for 15 years now. Its had a long continuous plot shaped by every set of players coming through. Been changed, reshaped, remodeled. Its unrecognizable from its origin, and I love it for that.


But after 15 years. A player has come forth and asked me..... if he could end the world in our next campaign.


Due to time travel shenanigans, some people (both OOC and IC) know the world is guaranteeably doomed to fall from its lofty and grandiose nature into a blighted wasteland, all other attempts to shape the future create alternate timelines that are doomed to die in their own way.



And I've done work and used it as a plot hook to delay the inevitable, but.... it's coming.


And he wants to be the one to finally do it. I.... dont know how to feel about this.


Should I take away the player agency that had defined the setting for over a decade and say no?


I'm not sure what to do with it.

[Batcathat]

How do the other players feel about it? If it were me, I think I'd start there.

From a story telling perspective, it does seem pretty cool to bring such a well-developed world to its final conclusion (and the players working towards the end of the world is certainly a reversal of the typical plot) but at the same time, I could see why it'd be hard to let it go after so long.

[Mnemius]

The thing the undead and story-tellers often have trouble with... all stories must eventually end.

Why not let the players do it?

[Vaern]

It has to end eventually, right?
And if time travel shenanigans are already a thing, this might also set up a future post-apocalyptic campaign where the players have to go back and stop this particular series of world-ending events from taking place after the fact...

[Khedrac]

Regardless of anything else, your answer should not be "yes" - at most it should be "you can try". Saying "yes" removes the possibility of failure.

The rest of your question still stands, it would be unfair to pre-determine the outcome of his attempt before he makes it (unless you wanted to the world to end and have other forces ensuring the success).

I would look at this as you look at any campaign. Sketch out what the PC will need to do and what will be trying to stop them (e.g. the other players). This should give you a much better idea of whether you are happy to let the player succeed or not and thus the answer to your question.

[Firest Kathon]

Your wording "fall from its lofty and grandiose nature into a blighted wasteland" does not sound to me like this would be a final end to the world. Maybe it is just a start of 15 years worth of a new kind of story?

[TheStranger]

If it has to happen anyway, the players might as well be the ones to do it. It sounds like you’ve gone to the “delay the inevitable” well often enough that it’s time to try something new. Set up some kind of scenario where the collapse of civilization is the “win” condition because the alternative is worse. Alternately, play an evil campaign and burn it all down. Either way, you can start the next campaign X years later and pick up the pieces.

[Empyreal Dragon]

How do the other players feel about it? If it were me, I think I'd start there.

From a story telling perspective, it does seem pretty cool to bring such a well-developed world to its final conclusion (and the players working towards the end of the world is certainly a reversal of the typical plot) but at the same time, I could see why it'd be hard to let it go after so long.

The other players want to be part of his team and help cause the end times.

And while the end of the urban wilderness sounds like a cool idea. The simple fact is that with everything I've put into it, and all the stories that have been told to bring it where it is.... it just feels somehow.... strange to see such a world.... stop. The 16th anniversary is coming up and it feels wierd to see it end. I've grown fond of the thing, even when the rulings I've made have been troublesome, or the setting becomes broken. It WORKS in it's own way. And I thought it was loved.

I'm almost wondering if they just..... dont like it anymore?



The thing the undead and story-tellers often have trouble with... all stories must eventually end.

Why not let the players do it?

I've grown attached. And I'm wondering why, after all the work they've put in, the love they held for the characters they made, and the world THEY shaped... why they would want to destroy it now?

All things must end but.... I dont know if I want it to.




It has to end eventually, right?
And if time travel shenanigans are already a thing, this might also set up a future post-apocalyptic campaign where the players have to go back and stop this particular series of world-ending events from taking place after the fact...

Time travel shenanigans exist. But changing the timeline proper doesn't. The consequences of it are wierd. And more of a "branching timelines" thing. People from the other timelines are "doomed" and if they are lucky, cross over into the main one. If it ends... it ends.

But.... I get that it has to end but... when did they stop loving the world we made together?



Regardless of anything else, your answer should not be "yes" - at most it should be "you can try". Saying "yes" removes the possibility of failure.

The rest of your question still stands, it would be unfair to pre-determine the outcome of his attempt before he makes it (unless you wanted to the world to end and have other forces ensuring the success).

I would look at this as you look at any campaign. Sketch out what the PC will need to do and what will be trying to stop them (e.g. the other players). This should give you a much better idea of whether you are happy to let the player succeed or not and thus the answer to your question.

I just... I'm not sure if I'm ready for the current party, who are apparently in support of him, to end the world that not only them, but every player I've DMd for built together.

And even if I rallied all the forces in the world that would oppose them.... the simple crossfire of such an event could accomplish their goal anyways.


Your wording "fall from its lofty and grandiose nature into a blighted wasteland" does not sound to me like this would be a final end to the world. Maybe it is just a start of 15 years worth of a new kind of story?

I... guess that's one way of looking at it. As said above, it just kind of feels like.... when did the stories we loved telling before.... stop being wonderful?



If it has to happen anyway, the players might as well be the ones to do it. It sounds like you’ve gone to the “delay the inevitable” well often enough that it’s time to try something new. Set up some kind of scenario where the collapse of civilization is the “win” condition because the alternative is worse. Alternately, play an evil campaign and burn it all down. Either way, you can start the next campaign X years later and pick up the pieces.


Its just... hard to come to grasp with the idea that a world where level 99 characters exist, where the ruler of a nation WALKED a hundred thousand layers down into the abyss, because it was there. Where legends are not told of the gods and their champions, but of the great men who have MATCHED and BESTED them.

To... a blasted our wasteland, filled with the apocalyptic remnants of the former glory of this world. Where godlike men and women are memories of days gone past, and the world is naught but a dead corpse of once lived glory.


I dont know.... why this is a desirable outcome to them.

[Silly Name]

I can definitely see why, as a DM, it's hard to come to gripes with ending not just a setting you like, but one that has been part of your life for so long, filled with memories of good times with friends and epic adventures. It easily leaves a bad taste in the mouth, the idea of actually destroying the world rather than, say, put it on a shelf for some time while you explore new settings, ready to be brought back if you ever want to.

However, are you sure your players are tired of this setting, rather than wanting to send it off with a bang? Why did this one player ask if he could destroy the world, and why does the rest of the party agree? I doubt it's simply out of sadistic glee at the idea of blowing up a planet, they probably have a better reason.

Hell, maybe they don't want the world to stop - maybe they want to fundamentally change it, and keep playing and exploring a familiar landscape that's been turned upside down. From your comments, it seem the kind of apocalypse they want to bring about wouldn't be the "pulverise the planet" kind, but rather a social and technological collapse.

Whatever happens, though, the memories are still there. Even if the NPCs are dead and the towns razed, the shared experiences of this setting will still remain in the minds of your players, and yours.

My suggestion would be to talk with the players, and discuss your feelings and why they want to try this plot. Maybe you'll find out that "destroy the world" isn't the actual objective, just a mean to an end. Or maybe they'll explain why they think this is cool ending for the setting, and that they want to craft this last story with you.

But communicate. Don't let this turn into you having second thoughts and doubts and paranoia about your players' intentions and your skills as a storyteller.

[TheStranger]

Ah. This thing is your baby and you’re not ready to let go.

That’s completely understandable. I’ve certainly never had a setting run nearly that long. And if you’re not comfortable burning it down you shouldn’t feel like you have to.

But it does sound like your players are ready for a change. If you’re not comfortable telling the story of the collapse and moving this setting into its next phase (which in no way negates everything that’s come before), it might be time to put this setting on the shelf for a while and run the next campaign somewhere else.

Edit: seconding what Silly Name said.

[Toliudar]

This happens in serialized sci-fi and fantasy all the time. Marvel or DC blow everything up. Doctor Who. The Star Trek movie reboot. There is a natural desire to step into a fresh context, and that may be what the players are telling you.

Of course you can say no, especially if you had a very different kind of storyline leading to the predetermined end point in mind. But 'let's see where this goes' seems like a much more interesting answer. Especially if there's a teaser at the end that gives you, the storyteller, an out that would allow you to resuscitate whatever aspect of the world you want in a future story.

First and foremost, though, what I wanted to say is: congratulations on having a campaign of that duration and scope, and of inspiring players to take on that kind of agency and participation. Even if they want to blow up your world, they're miles ahead of those who can't remember the name of their world, and only want a better plus on their sword.

[Tvtyrant]

Im... not entirely sure where to start. But I guess this is need for GM advice?

I've been running the same setting for 15 years now. Its had a long continuous plot shaped by every set of players coming through. Been changed, reshaped, remodeled. Its unrecognizable from its origin, and I love it for that.


But after 15 years. A player has come forth and asked me..... if he could end the world in our next campaign.


Due to time travel shenanigans, some people (both OOC and IC) know the world is guaranteeably doomed to fall from its lofty and grandiose nature into a blighted wasteland, all other attempts to shape the future create alternate timelines that are doomed to die in their own way.



And I've done work and used it as a plot hook to delay the inevitable, but.... it's coming.


And he wants to be the one to finally do it. I.... dont know how to feel about this.


Should I take away the player agency that had defined the setting for over a decade and say no?


I'm not sure what to do with it.
You are a player as well, you have a right to say "it would be extremely painful for me to kill my setting off and I wouldn't enjoy it." If they want to move on you can turn the setting off or step back from DMing, but you are under no obligation to play through the destruction of your setting.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Tvtyrant
If they want to move on you can turn the setting off or step back from DMing, but you are under no obligation to play through the destruction of your setting.

This is very true. If you, as creator of this world, don't want to destroy it, then you have every right to keep it going.


Originally Posted by Empyreal Dragon
...when did they stop loving the world we made together?

Here's a challenge for you: Make the next campaign about bringing them back to that love.

[Hiro Quester]

Another option would be to let them try to fundamentally reshape the world rather than end it.

Let your players play a role in bring the world to a new existence. Make it a (perverse) collective creative project, not to unmake the world, but to make it a new (dark and devastated) wasteland of a world. (I imagine you encouraging one player to play a blighter or something like that.)

The important part is that, depending on how the story goes, you will be able to try to keep various parts of wreckage and detritus of your world, that will be scattered around the new world in physical and legendary ways.

Start to cultivate in yourself aesthetic appreciation of the ruinous and calamitous, and of what this world will be like after the devastation. It's not ending. It's just becoming historical.

But perhaps this is also a game in which history will play a role, as the inhabitants of your world struggle to preserve the cities and caverns, cathedrals and citadels, that your previous games have shaped. the NPCs can remind the players about why they resist their attempts to unmake these aspects of the world.

That way, the process of fundamentally changing the world can be an occasion for storytelling/celebrating about heroes and adventures of bygone years, as well.

So as DM make it a challenge for them, without a guaranteed outcome. Fight for the world you have created while enabling the players to try to fundamentally change it in creative ways that you will work out together through the challenges you present to the players.

And you get to (try to) keep in the ruins, the remnants and clues about the coolest bits, or memorialize them as ruined cities, dusty libraries full of long-forgotten stories and know-how, mis-remembered legends whispered by the undead denizens, collapsed temples, or whatever.

And this will be the material of mysteries uncovered by archaeologists and bards of the long-distant future that rises back out of the wasteland in yet another distant age.

Edit: Also this:

First and foremost, though, what I wanted to say is: congratulations on having a campaign of that duration and scope, and of inspiring players to take on that kind of agency and participation. Even if they want to blow up your world, they're miles ahead of those who can't remember the name of their world, and only want a better plus on their sword.

It sounds to me like you have teased in these players the knowledge that the end is coming. And they want to be part of that event.
That's an achievement.

They don't want to destroy your world. They want to be part of the historical world-changing part of the story you have told them will come one day. They don't want to miss that, and you should be proud that they want to be part of those events.

[Spellweaver]

Let them try. I've done it lots of times, often to the same campaign.

As said above, comics and shows like Doctor Who do this all the time. And I have a background in both: I was the girl buying her Wonder Woman, Thor and Aquaman comics at the grocery store so boys could not poke fun at me. Anyway...


First off "The End" is not final. Think of the Ragnarok concept: it's a cycle. Everything is destroyed, and then reborn. Marvel Comics has done this to Thor lots of times. It's even the concept found in Battlestar Glaticia "this has all happen before, and this will all happen again".

You might even have fun playing in the new, old world with everything changed and mixed up and different.

Also, even IF you put the capstone on the campaign, and agree that it has no future: you can always play in the past. For example I play in the Forgotten Realms, but only before 1375, aka 4th edition. One of my current campaigns is set in 1301, for example.

And for one more, you can always to an Alternate Reality. Where in reality six the world did end, but it's live and well in realities 1-5. Star Trek does this plot a lot with the Mirror Universe, and it's all over comics too.

And, even IF you blow it all up...well, it can still come back. A new special adventure of save the world. Star Trek has done this plot to death too.

So, have fun with it.

[False God]

when did they stop loving the world we made together?

To cut to the chase, why do you think they no longer love the world? Loving something is as much enjoying it as it is letting it go.

The players want to end the world on a bang. What better way to go?

[Psyren]

I'm almost wondering if they just..... dont like it anymore?

Your players are the only people on the planet who can answer this question, so you won't get anywhere without talking to them first.

With that said - even if it were the greatest RPG setting in history, 15 years is a really long time to be in one place. If they truly want something fresh - and again, nobody but them can tell you if that's the case - that isn't an indictment of your setting.

[Vaern]

My DM runs all of his games in the same world, but the timeline of one campaign to the next tends to be non-linear. If time travel can't rightly prevent the destruction of the world in the future and that option is off the table, there's still the possibility of preparing prequel campaigns that are properly set in the past and set up the events of an adventure that you've already run.
Although, this also presents the risk of the players going off of the rails and doing the exact opposite of what they're meant to, which I guess causes a paradox in your timeline...

[Empyreal Dragon]

Thank you all for your input and kind words.

i've spoken to the newest party which... It's almost like a who's who of my previous players.

and.... while bittersweet, i think i have to say goodbye to the urban wilderness after all these years.



And if it must go.... it should be by the players hand, and it should be magnificent.


But you are all also correct that i cant simply let them have it.

they spent the past decade and a half with me, creating this world, making sure that INDIVIDUAL COMMONERS would be optimized.


breaking the system over its knee OOC and pushing the laws of power, magic, and science to their upper limits IC. They made this world for themselves. and they brought it up strong, and cruel, and wondrous.


if they want to drag it to an end..... well. it doesnt have to be easy right? perhaps a taste of their own medicine is in order? and who knows... maybe the next age of this world will be even more enjoyable.

[Gusmo]

Why is the player created apocalypse so bad compared to the disasters already prophesied to come? There's way too much magic in D&D for any sort of apocalypse to truly be permanent.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Empyreal Dragon
A player has come forth and asked me..... if he could end the world in our next campaign.

...And if it must go.... it should be by the players hand, and it should be magnificent.

It’s clear that you’ve put tremendous effort, both mental and emotional, into developing and shepherding your world through all its ages thus far.

It’s more than likely that this player has no particular attachment to the world, and for whatever reason he thinks it would be cool to destroy it.

There’s no reason why you need to accommodate that request. There's no real reason why it must go. And since this is a long-running world, and many groups of players have been through it, you need to think about future campaigns after this one. Do you really want all your future campaigns to take place in a blasted wasteland? Do you think future groups of players will all want to play in a blasted wasteland?

If not, then this may not be something you'll want to do.

[Bronk]

So you've decided to nuke your game world. What is the scope of this destruction going to be? Is your world's destruction limited to one planet, or one crystal sphere, or all the planes?

[mashlagoo1982]

I would be more surprised if after 15 years of interest nobody wanted to participate in the destruction.

If I was in a similar campaign and knew 15 years of world building was going to be destroyed regardless of what I did, my first question would be "Can I push the button?" :smallbiggrin:

Following that, I would be asking if I could play a part in determining how the things I created are impacted.

[Batcathat]

One way to sort of have your cake and eating it too might be to have some people (whether dozens or millions) escaping the destruction of the world (to another plane? A pocket dimension? Depends on what's available, I guess) either helped by the players or despite their efforts. That way the world gets an epic ending but some of the society and culture can survive (and establishing all the refugees in a fresh world should provide plenty of future adventure opportunities).

I suppose some might see it as a cop out so you might want to stress their struggles and how different everything is for them.

[Empyreal Dragon]

Currently I've turned my efforts to exactly what they will need to do to achieve the predestined time of the wasteland.


What means, exactly, will prevent its passing.


Deciding whether the gods are going to be taking a hand in it all. Figuring out who and what will make it through in some fashion.


If they succeed, magic, psionics, etc will be damaged to an unbelievable extent. Entire landscapes will be reformed.


For thousands of years the natural cycle has been maintained by druidic circles on one side, and Blighter covens on the other.


The very nature of divinity could be rewritten. If an entire race dies, their racial god is diminished in power if not rendered meaningless altogether. That power can be claimed or redistributed.


If all civilization is destroyed, the position of God of cities(a rather lofty force as of now,) would be up for grabs before the next settlement is established.


The world will never be the same.

[Quertus]

If, after 15 years of trying to say "no" to an upcoming event, why *wouldn't* the PCs want to shape that event instead?

"Well, we tried (and tried, and tried) to stop it, and failed (and failed, and failed) - how about we see what we can get out of bringing it about?"

It's like players finally giving in and following a railroad GM's script.

Personally, I might well aim to steal portfolios from de-powered gods, creating new races to replace the old, genocidally-eradicated ones (did your world have kinder? Yeah, kill off all those, replace with something new and cool). Maybe even become my own nemesis (god of cities, and new "anti-city" race, but pretending to be two *different* gods, for example).

I might redefine the laws of physics. Do you have cold north and south poles? Yeah, **** that - let's introduce Minecraft logic for topography. And variable-length days / seasons. And reproduction? That's for higher lifeforms only - plants and animals just spontaneously appear. (Arcane) Magic? It's not "chance" or "genetics", it's diet - and (whether they realize it or not) Dragons are the only ones who can sense which bits of matter have become infected with midichlorians (although having draconic ancestry certainly helps your odds of eating dirt as a kid and becoming a Sorcerer in the process).

Let your players *try* to direct the world-building of the new world. Anything you just cannot stomache (like Kender or 4e), you let them know you're gonna give a hard pass to; everything else, let them try.

[Psyren]

As much as I find kender unappealing, I don't think "hey, let's do a genocide" is something even my most bored characters would come up with.

[Quertus]

As much as I find kender unappealing, I don't think "hey, let's do a genocide" is something even my most bored characters would come up with.

Lol. Well, the OP had indicated that not all species would make it; I had actually intended a more opportunistic approach of, "oh, sadness, mammoths, dodos, and humans didn't make it", rather than, "wouldn't the new world be better without mosquitos, sea otters, and humans?", but then I remembered Kender and, wanting to talk about proactive things the PCs could do, well… Kender gotta die :smallwink:

I'm not sure what being bored has to do with anything, but I suspect that even my least annoyed PC would be down for some Kender genocide.

[DarkSoul]

You said yourself that you intend for the world to end anyway, so unless your intention has changed they're probably looking forward to seeing what exactly will happen.

Put some cosmic macguffins in the world that, if removed from their intended places for enough time, large portions of the world are destroyed. The PCs have to return them. Or not. Or they have to destroy them themselves because they're powering the villains' doomsday devices which, if activated, WILL destroy the entire world/plane/multiverse, rather than just most of the world.

Make the post apocalyptic version of your setting the best possible outcome of the end times.

[Quertus]

Personally, going meta for a moment, I find this supposed inevitability of death, and the practice of telling a loved one "it's OK, we've got this, you can let go now" disturbing.

To me, this thread is a strange metaphor for that, in that your players, having taken the world to the hospital repeatedly, and put it on ventilation, and are now telling it, "it's OK - you can die now".

-----

Anyway, what's the world fated to become? How's it fated to die? Why?

Unless the PCs can attack/change the "why", yeah, they have to work with and make the best that they can with the other factors.

-----

Continuing my previous world-building, I might well try to use both the "god of <race>” and "god of Wizards" portfolios to remove "Wizard" is a class, and create a new race of "Querti", beings with inherent learned magical potential, and the ability and inclination to research new spells. Their "Sorcerers" lack the "spells known" limit; or, rather, can break that limit through spell research.

Druids, as defenders of the new "Nature", might look at higher races (and themselves) with disgust, calling them "free births", and encouraging a quixotic, Glaconda-like return to the more natural spontaneous spawning.

Elves should do what elves do, and evolve new variants, adapted to the intervening wastes. "Wastes elves", ethereal elves, maybe even sea elves seem plausible.

Undead… not sure where to go here. Definitely want the return of Baelnorm. Not sure how to go about that. Maybe make a world where "undead" are the "good guys", bringing life to the world with their very presence. Yeah, that's it! Undead are powered by Life, they're the heroes who brought the world back from desolation. They explain how life just spontaneously generates. Kill off too many, and the world goes back to being a wasteland. Maybe it is in some places, because of the strength of the local Clergy of Pelor. Places rife with undead become rich with life - overgrown jungles, forests with powerful nature spirits, etc.

It would be nice to change the 4 elements while we're at it… I'll give it some thought.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Quertus
Druids, as defenders of the new "Nature", might look at higher races (and themselves) with disgust, calling them "free births", and encouraging a quixotic, Glaconda-like return to the more natural spontaneous spawning.

Could you elaborate on this? I don't get the reference and can't work out what it means, although it sounds like the seed of an interesting concept.

[noob]

Personally, going meta for a moment, I find this supposed inevitability of death, and the practice of telling a loved one "it's OK, we've got this, you can let go now" disturbing.

To me, this thread is a strange metaphor for that, in that your players, having taken the world to the hospital repeatedly, and put it on ventilation, and are now telling it, "it's OK - you can die now".

-----

Anyway, what's the world fated to become? How's it fated to die? Why?

Unless the PCs can attack/change the "why", yeah, they have to work with and make the best that they can with the other factors.

-----

Continuing my previous world-building, I might well try to use both the "god of <race>” and "god of Wizards" portfolios to remove "Wizard" is a class, and create a new race of "Querti", beings with inherent learned magical potential, and the ability and inclination to research new spells. Their "Sorcerers" lack the "spells known" limit; or, rather, can break that limit through spell research.

Druids, as defenders of the new "Nature", might look at higher races (and themselves) with disgust, calling them "free births", and encouraging a quixotic, Glaconda-like return to the more natural spontaneous spawning.

Elves should do what elves do, and evolve new variants, adapted to the intervening wastes. "Wastes elves", ethereal elves, maybe even sea elves seem plausible.

Undead… not sure where to go here. Definitely want the return of Baelnorm. Not sure how to go about that. Maybe make a world where "undead" are the "good guys", bringing life to the world with their very presence. Yeah, that's it! Undead are powered by Life, they're the heroes who brought the world back from desolation. They explain how life just spontaneously generates. Kill off too many, and the world goes back to being a wasteland. Maybe it is in some places, because of the strength of the local Clergy of Pelor. Places rife with undead become rich with life - overgrown jungles, forests with powerful nature spirits, etc.

It would be nice to change the 4 elements while we're at it… I'll give it some thought.
The undead might spontaneously create undead life through negative energy density: it is described in libris mortis as a possible worldbuilding tool.
If the positive plane is corrupt or wrecked or something maybe the living creatures now must rely on having negative energy in their body to live instead of living with positive energy (ex: in effect all the living would need the tomb tainted soul to not die from the deleterious effects of the positive energy).
At that point all the good gods (except pelor because pelor hates undead) would say "Let us stop giving the ability to use positive energy to our clerics: it is making them die fast by channelling an energy dangerous to them also it is not as if turning and destroying undead is a good idea when they literally are what allows life as we know it to work" and then clerics would probably get a replacement gift from their gods (Maybe an extra domain or if an extra domain is too much the clerics could get one of those alternate channellings from pathfinder depending on the god such as disable/destroy traps for a god of thievery)

[Quertus]

Could you elaborate on this? I don't get the reference and can't work out what it means, although it sounds like the seed of an interesting concept.

(The "free birth" reference doesn't matter, but is from Battletech, where the Clans are all clones. Kinda. Long story.)

The *other* reference was my previous post, where I suggested that, outside higher (PC) lifeforms, reproduction was no longer a thing: plants and animals just spontaneously appear in the world. I guess you could say, "like in video games".

My goal was to make Nature highly unnatural, and to make static Survival checks make sense (maybe?).


The undead might spontaneously create undead life through negative energy density: it is described in libris mortis as a possible worldbuilding tool.
If the positive plane is corrupt or wrecked or something maybe the living creatures now must rely on having negative energy in their body to live instead of living with positive energy (ex: in effect all the living would need the tomb tainted soul to not die from the deleterious effects of the positive energy).
At that point all the good gods (except pelor because pelor hates undead) would say "Let us stop giving the ability to use positive energy to our clerics: it is making them die fast by channelling an energy dangerous to them also it is not as if turning and destroying undead is a good idea when they literally are what allows life as we know it to work" and then clerics would probably get a replacement gift from their gods (Maybe an extra domain or if an extra domain is too much the clerics could get one of those alternate channellings from pathfinder depending on the god such as disable/destroy traps for a god of thievery)

I… hadn't even considered that route. Cool.

I was going with more "undead function completely differently 'under the hood', being powered in this new world by Life". Thus, if anything, "old-world" good Cleric Turning world control them, whereas old-world Evil Cleric Rebuking would destroy them.

Equally likely, neither would do anything, so clerics would get new, different powers (or not - they are Tier 1, after all). This is part of why I hadn't addressed Clerics yet. :smallwink:

-----

Druids build great "Stonehenge"-style structures; the power of which, secretly, is to control the various "biomes" - life here is "desert"; life next door is "arctic"; next to that is "forest", etc. The code for these is in the unreadable, otherwise unlearnable Druidic language.

These Stonehenge control structures dictate *which* plants and animals will spontaneously appear, what the temperature will be like, etc. Actually building or changing them is an Epic-level ability.

Geometers (not sure what they are, mechanically - perhaps Warlocks or Artificers or Factotems, or perhaps something entirely new) have learned to hack the system with (what they don't realize is) pidgin-Druidic, creating magical sigils that will cause a single plant to spontaneously grow in a particular area.

Thus, in some parts of the world, "commoners" are replaced with Geometers, and nature-oriented Geometers, known as "farmers", practice the heretical arts of controlling nature through "crop circles".

-----

Most races of "Monsters" are the result of flaws in the system.

For example, if a cow attempts to spawn at the edge of a zone, and the adjacent zone does not recognize cattle as valid, a gorgon might be formed instead. If a cow tries to spawn in an area occupied by a human, you might get a Minotaur.

Thus, the world can be filled with Wondrous one-offs, like milkweed trees that give actual milk.

Such defects are far more common where the system is being hacked (such as near crop circles). Thus, because cities normally require agriculture, in a perversion of expectations, city zones are actually among the most dangerous in the world.

[noob]

(The "free birth" reference doesn't matter, but is from Battletech, where the Clans are all clones. Kinda. Long story.)

The *other* reference was my previous post, where I suggested that, outside higher (PC) lifeforms, reproduction was no longer a thing: plants and animals just spontaneously appear in the world. I guess you could say, "like in video games".

My goal was to make Nature highly unnatural, and to make static Survival checks make sense (maybe?).



I… hadn't even considered that route. Cool.

I was going with more "undead function completely differently 'under the hood', being powered in this new world by Life". Thus, if anything, "old-world" good Cleric Turning world control them, whereas old-world Evil Cleric Rebuking would destroy them.

Equally likely, neither would do anything, so clerics would get new, different powers (or not - they are Tier 1, after all). This is part of why I hadn't addressed Clerics yet. :smallwink:

-----

Druids build great "Stonehenge"-style structures; the power of which, secretly, is to control the various "biomes" - life here is "desert"; life next door is "arctic"; next to that is "forest", etc. The code for these is in the unreadable, otherwise unlearnable Druidic language.

These Stonehenge control structures dictate *which* plants and animals will spontaneously appear, what the temperature will be like, etc. Actually building or changing them is an Epic-level ability.

Geometers (not sure what they are, mechanically - perhaps Warlocks or Artificers or Factotems, or perhaps something entirely new) have learned to hack the system with (what they don't realize is) pidgin-Druidic, creating magical sigils that will cause a single plant to spontaneously grow in a particular area.

Thus, in some parts of the world, "commoners" are replaced with Geometers, and nature-oriented Geometers, known as "farmers", practice the heretical arts of controlling nature through "crop circles".

-----

Most races of "Monsters" are the result of flaws in the system.

For example, if a cow attempts to spawn at the edge of a zone, and the adjacent zone does not recognize cattle as valid, a gorgon might be formed instead. If a cow tries to spawn in an area occupied by a human, you might get a Minotaur.

Thus, the world can be filled with Wondrous one-offs, like milkweed trees that give actual milk.

Such defects are far more common where the system is being hacked (such as near crop circles). Thus, because cities normally require agriculture, in a perversion of expectations, city zones are actually among the most dangerous in the world.
I wonder if spells like control undead and command undead would be seen as evil when the unliving are the source of life (because someone going and taking the sources of life under their control gains an enormous power over the others)
Also what happens when a druid defects and wants to do agriculture?
Do other druids try to kill them?
Do they lose their Druidic talent?

[Psyren]

Personally, going meta for a moment, I find this supposed inevitability of death, and the practice of telling a loved one "it's OK, we've got this, you can let go now" disturbing.

To me, this thread is a strange metaphor for that, in that your players, having taken the world to the hospital repeatedly, and put it on ventilation, and are now telling it, "it's OK - you can die now".

This degree of personification isn't necessary. Plenty of folks in the thread have been suggesting the setting be put on the shelf rather than obliterated entirely, and unlike a living thing there would be no issue with doing that.

[Quertus]

I wonder if spells like control undead and command undead would be seen as evil when the unliving are the source of life (because someone going and taking the sources of life under their control gains an enormous power over the others)
Also what happens when a druid defects and wants to do agriculture?
Do other druids try to kill them?
Do they lose their Druidic talent?

I'm not sure if I'm encouraging or scaring the OP, but I'm trying to show just how open to Player Agency they can finally make their heretofore literally "railroaded to death" world - the level of change that they could allow their players to attempt.

However, to answer your question: who said anyone actually knows that undead work that way (other than *maybe* the gods, who probably aren't telling)? There's still lots of (ie, the exact same) prejudice against undead in this world (as projected) as exists in any other world. Everything is understood backwards ("undead like to congregate in high life areas", "witches who own black cats cause the plague", "a good rain tends to cool things down", "this area needs the protection of the city because of the terrible monsters here", etc).

So, yeah, were I there, this *might* be the world I would try to create. But it depends on my personal history with the world as to what I would *actually* do (and, of course, the character I was playing at the time).

[icefractal]

Its just... hard to come to grasp with the idea that a world where level 99 characters exist, where the ruler of a nation WALKED a hundred thousand layers down into the abyss, because it was there. Where legends are not told of the gods and their champions, but of the great men who have MATCHED and BESTED them.

To... a blasted our wasteland, filled with the apocalyptic remnants of the former glory of this world. Where godlike men and women are memories of days gone past, and the world is naught but a dead corpse of once lived glory.

I dont know.... why this is a desirable outcome to them.I guess my question would be - why is it a desirable outcome to you? Because unless I'm misunderstanding (and if so, maybe your players are misunderstanding in the same way) then the world is inevitably doomed, and I don't get the impression that the doom is "in the far distant future" like the sun going nova, but rather an unknown but worryingly close time in the future.

Given that fact, what can one do? Push things off for one more day, which is seems they've done in several campaigns. Try to ignore the looming future and accomplish personal goals in the present. Or ... defuse the threat by becoming the threat. If they succeed, then (at that moment at least) they're playing characters that wanted this to happen, and if they fail then the world is saved.

I'm not saying any of this is a bad thing - it sounds like you've created some great stuff together, and there's nothing wrong with tragic settings. But I think you might need to make the choice to either change the doomed nature of the setting or follow it to its conclusion.