The Four Freedoms of Culture

Nina Paley has reiterated the four basic freedoms of Culture.   They are basically:

the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it

the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it

the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression

the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works 

Well, doesn't that sound good to your ears? The problem with creating good works for the use of others is that it is automatically put under copyright.  While that is a good thing, the terrible thing about it is that you are forced to police your copyright yourself, or face the danger of selling printer rights or all your rights to a publishing company (like Wizards of the Coast or Disney, to name two).

As liberal as the Wizards of the Coast were, it was a good thing that they made the Open Game License.  However, the flaw was that people weren't able to fully exercise their rights above.  This is important, because imagine what it would be like if you could comment and have the freedom to use the work.  Or to make and redistribute copies, or even to make changes and improvements and to distribute derivative works.

After all, culture is important to us as Gamers.  We as DMs buy a piece of work from Wizards of the Coast or some other Roleplaying production company and use it to provide free entertainment to a couple of others.  Also as DMs, we create our characters and adventures and tell wonderful interactive stories.  And if we aren't free to do that with the games we bought, how can we advance our own culture as gamers?

Everyone needs to know that a Roleplaying Game Setting, once published, is culture.  And Culture should be free.  Oh, by the way, the cartoons were made by Nina Paley.

Religions of Aerthas

First in a return to 2nd Edition, the Religions of Aerthas.

Templum Lux luci

The Church of Light.  Basically a church based on the philosophy of following the Light and being Good to all men.  The Church denies the existence of the Divine Creator, and says all people who believe in a Creator to be following the vain imagination of their fathers.  The Leaders of the Church are extremely narcissistic and believe that they know everything.

 Templum Lux luci is the most popular religion among humans, elves, and dwarves in the Caithness Isles.  It's a unifying religion, that teaches Rebirth after death.  And if a man does good in this life, he will be rewarded with a better life in the next reincarnation.  There is no message of salvation the church teaches, and Man is in a permanent cycle of birth, death, and rebirth.  All that Man may hope for is a better life in his next reincarnation.  The Church, however, is a force for good and strives to help its people attain perfection.  Worship of the Light is important to all and the Church zealously and jealously guards against heretics (those that would profess in a Creator and a Savior and preach a message of Salvation and Resurrection are especially persecuted).  The Church also persecutes Wizards, but have been unsuccessful in doing so.  The Church also considers literacy a threat to it's power and works excessively to suppress reading and writing among most of the masses.

Organization

At the upper level is the Pontiff, then there are Cardinals, archbishops, bishops, archprelates, prelates, and the parish priest.  The church also encourages monasticism and aestheticism.  However, the monks of the church are mendicant and are also literate since they study literacy.  But since they are insular, the monks are allowed to be literate. 

The Paladins represent the militant arm of the Church, and they are a recent organization.  Paladins of Templum Lux luci or the Light, were priests trained in Chivalry, Arms, and Knighthood.  Combining the best of Religion and Force of Arms, the Paladins were created in response to the Orc Invasions of Caithness and other lands.  A paladin is meant to be a paragon of virtue and the defender of the people.  A person who becomes a paladin takes an oath of Celibacy and the Oath of Virtue and Truth.  Something that may cause the Church trouble down the line.

The Parish Priest and the Missionary Priest (Adventurer) represent the faith to the common people.  While the Bishops of various important towns may give arousing sermons to the people on the Light; the parish priest and the missionary priest represents the people in the country.   These men and women of the Light preach sermons to help the faithful stay in the path and represent the wishes of the Light. Missionary Priests work to provide hope and good for the people.  They represent the active arm of the Church.  Acolytes in the Missionary Arm are typically ordained with the priesthood after they proved themselves.

Priest Alignments: LG, NG, LN, LE  (Note that the evil Priests will rise quicker in the Church)

Spheres of Magic: Major All, Creation, Divination, Healing, and Sun; Minor: Elemental, Necromantic, Protection, and Thought.

Armor Allowed: Leather jerkin, Studded Leather Coat, and Chain Mail Shirt only. 

Weapons Allowed: Dagger, mace, quarterstaff, short sword.

Paladins

Paladins of Templum Lux luci often belong to many different orders.  The best known are the Knights of Light. They have their matches among the Saurials and the Massalian Elves.  They are Lawful Good.  Paladins of Templum Lux luci receives their spells once they reach 9th Level and can only cast spells of the Combat, divination, healing, and protection spheres. 

The C-String, EPIC FAIL SISTERS!

Hi Sisters!

The C-String is an epic fail for you.  The panty is so small that it makes your bra look big.  I'm not showing the C-String on my blog, by the way.  It makes me blush in embarrassment.  I'm a nudist, and it makes me blush!

Girls, you don't need that to look attractive and to get hot . . .you know.  But it's far healthier for you to be nude and/or to free bag.  Naturism/nudism is healthy.  And here are a couple of reasons:

1. There are times when clothing is physically uncomfortable. Nudity, on the other hand, is often much more comfortable.
2. For many activities, nudity is often far more practical than clothing. Bernard Rudofsky writes: “The custom of wearing a bathing suit, a desperate attempt to recapture some of our lost innocence, represents a graphic expression of white man’s hypocrisy. For, obviously, the bathing suit is irrelevant to any activity in and under water. It neither keeps us dry or warm, nor is it an aid to swimming. If the purpose of bathing is to get wet, the bathing suit does not make us wetter. At best, it is a social dress, like the dinner jacket.”[1] Yet Americans spend $900,000,000 each year on bathing costumes. [2]
3. Clothing also restricts movement, and encumbers the athlete. Studies done by the West German Olympic swim team showed that even swimsuits slow down a swimmer. [3] 

1. A nudist is not a body lacking something (that is, clothing). Rather, a clothed person is a whole and complete naked body, plus clothes
2. Many psychologists say that clothing is an extension of ourselves. The clothes we wear are an expression of who we are. [4] The Naturist’s comfort with casual nudity, therefore, represents an attitude which is comfortable with the self as it is in its most basic state, without modification or deceit.
3. Clothes-compulsiveness creates insecurity about one’s body. Studies show that nudism, on the other hand, promotes a positive body self-concept[5] These effects are especially significant for women. Studies by Daniel DeGoede in 1984 confirmed research done 16 years earlier [6], which established that “of all the groups measured (nudist males, non-nudist males, nudist females, and non-nudist females), the nudist females scored highest on body concept, and the non-nudist females scored lowest.” [7]
4. Nudism promotes wholeness of body, rather than setting aside parts of the body as unwholesome and shameful. [8]
5. Clothes-compulsiveness locks us into a constant battle between individuality and conformity of dress. Nudity frees us from this anxiety, by fostering a climate of comfortable individuality without pretense
6. The practice of nudism is, for nudists, an immensely freeing experience. In freeing oneself to be nude in the presence of others, including members of the other sex, the nudist also gives up all the social baggage that goes along with the nudity taboo. The North American Guide to Nude Recreation notes that “one reason why a nude lifestyle is so refreshing is that it delivers us temporarily from the game of clothes. It’s hard to imagine how much clothing contributes to the grip of daily tensions until we see what it’s like to socialize without them. Clothing locks us into a collective unreality that prescribes complex responses to social status, roles and expected behaviors. In shedding our daily ‘uniforms,’ we also shed a weighty burden of anxieties. For a while, at least, we don’t have to play the endless charade of projected images we call ‘daily life.’ . . . For once in your life you are part of a situation where age, occupation and social status don’t really count for much. You’ll find yourself relating more on the basis of who you really are instead of who your clothes say you are.” [9] This analysis is borne out by experience.
7. The sense of “freedom” that comes from the nudist experience is consistently rated by nudists as one of the main reasons they stay in it. [10]
8. Nudism, by freeing the body, helps free the mind and spirit. An irrational clothes-compulsiveness may inhibit psychological growth and health. Dr. Robert Henley Woody writes, “fear of revealing one’s body is a defense. To keep clothing on at all times when it is unnecessary for social protocol or physical comfort is to armour oneself in a manner that will block new behaviors that could introduce more healthful and rewarding alternatives; and promote psychological growth.” [11]
9. The nudist, literally, has nothing to hide. He or she therefore has less stress, a fact supported by research. In the words of Paul Ableman: “Removing your clothes symbolizes ‘taking off’ civilization and its cares. The nudist is stripped not only of garments but of the need to ‘dress a part,’ of form and display, of ceremony and all the constraints of a complex etiquette. . . . Further than this, the nudist symbolically takes off a great burden of responsibility. By taking off his clothes, he takes off the pressing issues of his day. For the time being, he is no longer committed to causes, opposed to this or that trend, in short a citizen. He becomes . . . a free being once more.” [12] [13]
10. Clothing hides the natural diversity of human body shapes and sizes. When people are never exposed to nudity, they grow up with misunderstandings and unrealistic expectations about the body based on biased or misinformed sources–for instance, from advertising or mass media. As a result, breast augmentation has long been the leading form of cosmetic surgery in the U.S. In the 1980s, American women had more than 100,000 operations per year to alter their breasts. [14] Helen Gurley Brown, past editor of Cosmopolitan, says, “I don’t think 80 percent of the women in this country have any idea what other women’s bosoms look like. They have this idealized idea of how other people’s bosoms are. . . . My God, isn’t it ridiculous to be an emancipated woman and not really know what a woman’s body looks like except your own?” [15] Paul Fussell notes, by contrast, that “a little time spent on Naturist beaches will persuade most women that their breasts and hips are not, as they may think when alone, appalled by their mirrors, ‘abnormal,’ but quite natural, ‘abnormal’ ones belonging entirely to the nonexistent creatures depicted in ideal painting and sculpture. The same with men: if you think nature has been unfair to you in the sexual anatomy sweepstakes, spend some time among the Naturists. You will learn that every man looks roughly the same–quite small, that is, and that heroic fixtures are not just extremely rare, they are deformities.” [16]
11. Clothing hides and therefore creates mystery and ignorance about natural body processes, such as pregnancy, adolescence, and aging. Children (and even adults) who grow up in a nudist environment have far less anxiety about these natural processes than those who are never exposed to them. Margaret Mead writes, “clothes separate us from our own bodies as well as from the bodies of others. The more society . . . muffles the human body in clothes . . . camouflages pregnancy . . . and hides breastfeeding, the more individual and bizarre will be the child’s attempts to understand, to piece together a very imperfect knowledge of the life-cycle of the two sexes and an understanding of the particular state of maturity of his or her body.” [17]

1. Nudity is not, by itself, erotic, and nudity in mixed groups is not inherently sexual. These are myths propagated by a clothes-obsessed society. Sexuality is a matter of intent rather than state of dress. In our culture, a person who exposes their sexual parts for any reason is considered to be an exhibitionist. It is assumed that they stripped to attract attention and cause a sexual reaction in others. This is seen as a perversion. Hypocritically, if someone dresses specifically to arouse sexual interest, they are considered to have pride in their appearance. Even if they get great sexual gratification out of the attention others give, there is no suggestion of perversion or sexual fixation.
2. Nudists, as a group, are healthier sexually than the general population. Nudists are, as a rule, far more comfortable with their bodies than the general public, and this contributes to a more relaxed and comfortable attitude toward sexuality in general.
3. Sexual satisfaction in married couples shows a correlation to their degree of comfort with nudity. [45]
4. Studies show significantly less incidence of casual premarital and extramarital sex, group sex, incest, and rape among nudists than among non-nudists. [46]
5. Studies have demonstrated that countries with fewer hangups about nudity have lower teen pregnancy and abortion rates. [47]
6. Clothes enhance sexual mystery and the potential for unhealthy sexual fantasies. Photographer Jock Sturges says, “our arbitrary demarcations [between clothing and nudity, sexual and asexual] serve more to confound our collective sexual identity than to further our social progress. America sells everything with sex and then recoils when presented with the realities of natural process.” [48] C. Willet Cunnington writes: “We have to thank the Early Fathers for having, albeit unwillingly, established a mode of thinking from which men and women have developed an art which has supplied . . . so many novel means of exciting the sexual appetite. Prudery, it seems, provides mankind with endless aphrodisiacs, hence, no doubt, the reluctance to abandon it.” [49]
7. Clothing focuses attention on sexuality, not away from it; and in fact often enhances immature forms of sexuality, rather than promoting healthy body acceptance. [50]
8. Complete nudity is antithetic to the elaborate semi-pornography of the fashion industry. Julian Robinson observes, “modesty is so intertwined with sexual desire and the need for sexual display–fighting but at the same time re kindling this desire–that a self-perpetuating process is inevitably set in motion. In fact modesty can never really attain its ultimate end except through its disappearance. Hiding under the cloak of modesty there are to be found many essential components of the sexual urge itself.” [51]
9. Clothing often focuses attention on the genitals and sexual arousal, rather than away from them. [52] At various times in Western history different parts of female anatomy have been eroticized: bellies and thighs in the Renaissance; buttocks, breasts, and thighs by the late 1800s (and relatively diminutive waists and bellies). Underwear design has historically emphasized these erogenous body parts: corsets in the 1800s de-emphasized the midriff and emphasized the breasts–using materials including whalebone and steel; the crinoline in the mid 1800s emphasized the waist; and the bustle, appearing in 1868, emphasized the buttocks.[53] Bathing suit design today focuses attention on the breasts and pubic region. E.B. Hurlock writes: “When primitive peoples are unaccustomed to wearing clothing, putting it on for the first time does not decrease their immorality, as the ladies of missionary societies think it will. It has just the opposite effect. It draws attention to the body, especially for those parts of it which are covered for the first time.”[54] Rob Boyte notes wryly that “textile people, when they do strip in front of others, usually do it for passion, and find the bikini pattern tan-lines attractive. This is reminiscent of the scarification practiced by primitive societies, and shows how clothing patterns become a fetish of the body.”[55] Havelock Ellis writes: “If the conquest of sexual desire were the first and last consideration of life it would be more reasonable to prohibit clothing than to prohibit nakedness.”[56]
10. The fashion industry depends on the sex appeal of clothing. Peter Fryer writes: “The changes in women’s fashions are basically determined by the need to maintain men’s sexual interest, and therefore to transfer the primary zone of erotic display once a given part of the body has been saturated with attractive power to the point of satiation. . . . Each new fashion seeks to arouse interest in a new erogenous zone to replace the zone which, for the time being, is played out.”[57]
11. Differences of clothing between the sexes focus attention on sex differences.[58] Psychologist J.C. Flngel writes: “There seems to be (especially in modern life) no essential factor in the nature, habits, or functions of the two sexes that would necessitate a striking difference of costume–other than the desire to accentuate sex differences themselves; an accentuation that chiefly serves the end of more easily and frequently arousing sexual passion.”[59]
12. Many psychologists believe that clothing may originally have developed, in part, as a means of focusing sexual attention.[60]
13. Partial clothing is more sexually stimulating (in often unhealthy ways) than full nudity. Anne Hollander writes: “The more significant clothing is, the more meaning attaches to its absence and the more awareness is generated about any relation between the two states.”[61] Elizabeth B. Hurlock notes that “it is unquestionably a well-known fact that familiar things arouse no curiosity, while concealment lends enchantment and stimulates curiosity . . . a draped figure with just enough covering to suggest the outline, is far more alluring than a totally naked body.”[62] And Lee Baxandall observes, “the ‘almost’-nude beaches, where bikinis and thongs are paraded, are more sexually titillating than a clothes-optional resort or beach. What is natural is more fulfilling, though it may not fit the tantalize-and-deliver titillation of our consumer culture.”[63]
14. Modesty–especially enforced modesty–only adds to sexual interest and desire.[64] Reena Glazer writes: “Women’s breasts are sexually stimulating to (heterosexual) men, at least in part because they are publicly inaccessible; society further eroticizes the female breast by tagging it shameful to expose. . . . This element of the forbidden merely perpetuates the intense male reaction female exposure allegedly inspires.”[65]
15. Topfree[66] inequality (requiring women, but not men, to wear tops) produces an unhealthy obsession with breasts as sexual objects.
16. The identification of breasts as sexual objects in our culture has led to the discouragement of breast-feeding, the encouragement of unnecessary cosmetic surgery for breast augmentation, and avoidance of necessary breast examinations by women. Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer write: “When a woman learns to treat her breasts as objects that enhance appearance, they belong not to the woman, but to her viewers. Thus, a woman becomes alienated from her own body.”[67]
17. Naturism is the antithesis of pornography.[68] Nudity is often confused with pornography in our society because the pornography industry has so successfully exploited it. In other words, nudity is often damned as exploitative precisely because its repression causes many to exploit it.
18. Pornography has been defined as an attempt to exert power over nature. In most cases in our culture, it manifests itself as an expression of sexual power by men over women.[69] Naturism, by contrast, seeks to coexist with nature and with each other, and to accept each other and the natural world in our most natural states.
19. Non-acceptance and repression of nudity fuels pornography by teaching that any form and degree of nudity is inherently sexual and pornographic. In the words of activist Melissa Farley, “pornography is the antithesis of freedom for women. . . . to treat the human body as anything less than normal and beautiful is to promote puritanism and pornography. If the human body is accepted by society as normal, the pornographers won’t be able to market it.”[70]
20. Naturism is innocent, casual, non-exploitative, and non commercial (and yet is often suppressed); as opposed to pornography, which is commercialized and sensationalized (and generally tolerated). In some American communities it is illegal for a woman to publicly bare her breasts in order to feed an infant, but it is legal to display Penthouse on drug-store magazine racks.
21. Many psychologists believe that repression of a healthy sexuality leads to a greater capacity for, and tendency toward, violence. Paul Ableman writes: “We have divorced ourselves from our instincts so conclusively that we are now menaced by their perverted expression. The blocked erotic instinct turns into destructiveness and, in our age, many thinkers have perceived that some of the most ghastly manifestations of human culture are fueled by recycled eroticism. Channelled into pure cerebration, the sexual instinct may generate nightmares impossible in the animal world. Animals are casually cruel and are usually, not always, indifferent to the pain of other animals. Animals kills for food or, rarely, for sport but they do not torture, gloat over pain or exterminate. We do. What’s more, we can tolerate our own ferocity. What we cannot tolerate is our own sexuality.”[71] Thus extreme violence is tolerated even on television, while the merest glimpse of sexual anatomy, however innocent, is enough to cause movie ratings to jump

1. Clothing limits or defeats many of the natural purposes of skin: for example, repelling moisture, drying quickly, breathing, protecting without impeding performance, and especially sensing one’s environment. C. W. Saleeby writes: “This admirable organ, the natural clothing of the body, which grows continually throughout life, which has at least four absolutely distinct sets of sensory nerves distributed to it, which is essential in the regulation of the temperature, which is waterproof from without inwards, but allows the excretory sweat to escape freely, which, when unbroken, is microbe-proof, and which can readily absorb sunlight- this most beautiful, versatile, and wonderful organ is, for the most part, smothered, blanched, and blinded in clothes and can only gradually be restored to the air and light which are its natural surroundings. Then, and only then, we learn what it is capable of.”[72]
2. Exposure to the sun, without going overboard, promotes general health. Research suggests that solar exposure triggers the body’s synthesis of Vitamin D, vital for (among other things) calcium absorption and a strong immune system.[73] Exposure to the sun is especially essential for the growth of strong bones in young children.
3. Recent research has suggested an inverse relationship between solar exposure and osteoporosis, colon cancer, breast cancer, and even the most deadly form of skin cancer, malignant melanoma.[74]
4. An obsessive sense of modesty about the body often correlates with a reluctance to share healthy forms of touch with others. Research has increasingly linked touch-deprivation, especially during childhood and adolescence, to depression, violence, sexual inhibition, and other antisocial behaviors. Research has also shown that people who are physically cold toward adolescents produce hostile, aggressive, and often violent offspring. On the other hand, children brought up in families where the members touch each other are healthier, better able to withstand pain and infection, more sociable, and generally happier than families that don’t share touch.[75]
5. Tight clothing may cause health problems by restricting the natural flow of blood and lymphatic fluid. Recent research by Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer demonstrated that women who wear bras more than twelve hours per day, but not to bed, are 21 times more likely to get breast cancer than those who wear bras less than twelve hours per day. Those who wear bras even to bed are 125 times more likely to get breast cancer than those who don’t wear bras at all. Testicular cancer, similarly, has been linked to tight briefs. The theory is that tight clothing impedes the lymph system, which removes cancer-causing toxins from the body.[76]
6. Clothing can harbor disease-causing bacteria and yeast (especially underclothing and athletic clothing).
7. Medical research has linked clothing to an increased susceptibility to bites and stings by animals such as ticks and sea lice, which hide in or get trapped in clothing.[77]
8. Clothing fashions throughout history, especially for women, have often been damaging to physical and psychological health.[78] For instance, the wearing of corsets led to numerous physical ailments in women in the late 19th century. Men and women both suffered through many ages of history under hot, burdensome layers of clothing in the name of fashion. Footwear has been especially notorious for resisting reason and comfort in the name of fashion.
9. The idea that clothing is necessary for support of the genitals or breasts is often unwarranted. For example, research shows that the choice of wearing a bra or not has no bearing on the tendency of a woman’s breasts to “droop” as she ages. Deborah Franklin writes: “Still, the myth that daily, lifelong bra wearing is crucial to preserving curves persists, along with other misguided notions about that fetching bit of binding left over from the days when a wasp waist defined the contours of a woman’s power.” Christine Haycock, of the New Jersey Medical School, says that while exercising without a bra may be uncomfortable for large-breasted women, “it’s not doing any lasting damage to chest muscles or breast tissue.” In fact, given the tendency of sports bras to squash breasts against the rib cage, her research concluded that “those who wore an A cup were frequently most comfortable with no bra at all.”[79] Complete nudity presents no difficulties for conditioned male athletes, either; and thus the athletes of ancient Athens had no trouble performing entirely in the nude.[80]
10. Clothing hides the natural beauty of the human body, as created by God. In the words of Michelangelo: “What spirit is so empty and blind, that it cannot grasp the fact that the human foot is more noble than the shoe and human skin more beautiful than the garment with which it is clothed?”
11. Clothing makes people look older, and emphasizes rather than hides unflattering body characteristics. Paul Fussell writes: “Nude, older people look younger, especially when very tan, and younger people look even younger. . . . In addition fat people look far less offensive naked than clothed. Clothes, you realize, have the effect of sausage casings, severely defining and advertising the shape of what they contain, pulling it all into an unnatural form which couldn’t fool anyone. . . . The beginning Naturist doesn’t take long to master the paradox that it is stockings that make varicose veins noticeable, belts that call attention to forty-eight-inch waists, brassieres that emphasize sagging breasts.”[81]
12. Clothing harbors and encourages the growth of odor-causing bacteria.

Well, there you have it, Sisters.  Several reasons why you should go nude instead of being a clothie.  :) I'm pretty sure you don't want to deal with odor-causing bacteria.  In other words, the last reason to go nude -- CLOTHING MAKES YOU SMELL BAD!


Thank you.

World Building (AD&D Second Edition)

What was simple is that building a world starts with the solar system in this case.  I figured four worlds in the cozy life zone, each opposite of each other.  The approach or hook I'm using is that the surface of the main campaign world: Aerthas; is where the action is taking place.

The Solar System

The Solar System is heliocentric, and flies about a central, G2 type star that is much like our own Sun.  This makes the Solar System Heliocentric.  There are four planets that support life and are on the opposite sides of their respective orbits.  So lets get the planets done and overwith.

Number of Planets in the Solar System: 9 (1d12, result 7, 7+2)

Mercury Orbit = (Earth World), a rocky mass that can only be called Hellania.  Moon sized.

Venus Orbit = Asteroid Field (the remains of a planet that blew up anciently).

Earth Orbit = Aerthas, twinned with Arborea.  Both are Terrestial worlds.  Aerthas and Arborea have a circumference of 25,000 Imperial Miles around the Equators.  They are also hollow.

Mars Orbit = Oceania twinned with Archeron.  Also Terrestial Worlds.  Oceania is a world covered with oceans, and Archeron is a world that is suffering from Defiling and Preserving.

Asteroid Belt orbit = Causiana -> a Magma World for the most part.

Jupiter orbit = Thea.  A huge Jovian planet.

Saturn Orbit = Chronia.  Chronia is a yellow-brown Dwarf star.  It used to occupy the space above the North Polar region of Aerthas.  Chronia is currently ringed like Saturn (okay, it's a Saturn rip-off.)

Uranus Orbit = Thalastos.  Another Air world.

Neptune Orbit = Halandia.  The final air world.

Pluto Orbit = (note that Pluto is down graded to a Kupier Object.  Bleh!).  Kieastos, an ice world.


Aerthas.  Aerthas is the home of Humans and Dragons.  When the Creators gathered together to create the Solar System.  The Elven Gods and the Halfling Gods created Arborea, the Orc Gods and the Saurial Gods created Archeron, the Dwarf and Gnomish Gods created Oceania, and the Ilithid God and the Scalykind Gods created the planet that blew up.

As a result, the Illithids spread across the Universe bent on conquering other worlds, along with the Scalykind.  Hellania and Causiana have no life to speak off.  Hellania is too close to the sun to support life, and Causiana is a world of magma and slag.

Aerthas' Surface was divided up among the other Gods for future colonization.  The Elves got green forests, the Dwarves got the riches of the mountains, the Gnomish gods got the sunlit, Rocky hills, and the Halflings the rolling meadows.  The Creator God of the humans got the lot that allowed humans to dwell where they pleased.  The Orc God was left the Badlands.

Humans came from inside Aerthas, the First Man and his Mates had to travel up through a cavern system to the surface.  The Elves (Eladrin, Grey Elves, High Elves, and Sylvan (Wood) Elves) and Halflings had migrated to Aerthas on Spelljammer Ships from Arborea.  The Orcs and Saurials, with their world's surface being ravaged by Defilers, were forced to flee Archeron in Spelljamming Ships -- bringing with them Warlock and Shaman magic.

The Dwarves and the Gnomes also came in Spelljaming Ships from the world of Oceania.  Thus the races colonized the surface of Aerthas and on Aerthas is where the campaign's action is. 

Going Back to 2nd Edition

Some of you may ask: Why are you going back to AD&D, 2nd Edition?  The answer is simple: I really don't think 4e is cutting it.  Fourth Edition isn't written for the Roleplayer, it's written for someone else.  Although people argue the point, and I do understand why they do; but they don't understand the changes or what the game represents for me.

While I can write for Pathfinder, and I have, I'm feeling pretty nostalgic for the old AD&D game.  I miss the days when the game was supported more by FLUFF than by CRUNCH.  Although AD&D has some rules systems that don't make any sense (THAC0 or "to hit Armor Class 0", for instance), AD&D's set up allowed for roleplaying in a variety of campaigns based on a variety of themes.  And all the Dragon Articles written in the 90's had a roleplaying basis (I still have the Dragon Archive).

So, what if you enjoy Pathfinder, or 4e?  There's nothing to stop me for putting up some conversion guidelines.  I really like Pathfinder, and I really don't mind writing conversion guidelines for 4e.  But really, making a campaign 2nd Edition shouldn't really make a whole lot of difference except for these players, the back dragon issues have a lot of relevance.  Most people have ignored these issues when playing the next two editions, which is sad because they can be used for inspiration for roleplaying.

I'll have something new for you to look at sooner or later. :)

End of Summer series -- Caitlin

Celebrate the End of the Summer with Caitlin -- the morph for Celtic Elegance by Phoenix1966.  Caitlin is unusual in that she actually came with DAZ Studio mats.  The mats worked very well in presenting her like she looks in Poser. I didn't do much with the eyes, but the Stephanie morph kind of wrecked havoc with her head, bringing it a little out of proportion (a little.  It bothers me a little).

Here is a head portrait.

Portrait of a Girl

Portrait of a Beautiful Girl by ~Atlantean6 on deviantART

I have not done a straight Portrait render in a while.  This is Silver's and Rebelmommy's Syrin, with the surfaces adjusted for DAZ Studio.  The surfaces aren't at all perfect, but I hope I made up for it by creating a soft light layer in postwork.  The hair is Aprilish's Pony-tail 2.

The spotlight I used had to be adjusted so I won't wash out the background. :)  I'm getting very good at this.  :)

Important GM Resources

Studying the epics of the world is important for a Game Master to do to improve his games.  The Ramayana is one epic, and so are the Vedas.  The Ramayana is written, or attributed to, Valmiki.  The stories of Rama and Sita make good watching, and reading.

This series is from 1986.  It's subtitled in English.

And goes on from there.  Also, there is a personal interpretation of the Ramayana by Valmiki done by Nina Paley.  This is, of course, "Sita Sings the Blues."   The Fundamentalists got all in a huff and a puff that it was written and Stated that the Ramayana was owned by them.  Valmiki probably thought it should be owned by the World because the Ramayana is Hinduism's greatest and best known epic.





Enjoy both films. Get inspired.

Here is the beginning of the Anime RG Veda from CLAMP.


Watch Rg Veda OVA_1 [En Sub] 1of2 in Animation  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

Here is the not so good, but great in the Day, Hercules! Which is a movie that is based on the Argonautic Expedition.



It's actually a good movie. Steve Reaves is playing Hercules, which is the Danite Judge Samson. Speaking of Samson:



There is Cecil B. Demille's Samson and Deliah! :)

These should be a well rounded start to the World's Mythology. View at your pleasure and get inspired for your games.

Steal this Location!!

Appleby-in-Westmorland

Introduction: Every gamemaster needs a location or two to start an adventure rolling.  Especially a location with a set of adventure sites that will inspire the PCs and the GM to make their own adventures and write their own stories.  The stats are written for Rolemaster but can be quickly adapted to any Roleplaying Game.

The county of Appleby-in-Westmorland is based on the city of Appleby-in-Westmorland; strangely enough; in England.  The county is set in West Cumbria but it can be used as a locale in just about any game setting.  Castle Appleby is the home of the Count of Appleby: Lord Janus de Vipont.  Over the years, the castle was upgraded from a Motte and Bailey castle by the family of Vipont to a Gothic structure.  Castle Appleby protects the town of Westmorland.  The town itself is a bustling medieval small city, with buildings that hang over the streets.  Many of the homes are jettied, and there are a few townhouses for sale.

Adventurers hardly pass through the town, making the ancient sites worth investigating.  The ancient sites include:
* A chalk etching of a horse in the countryside.
* At least three ancient forts.
* A cave called Kinsmouth Grotto
* An ancient stone circle.

More later . . .  including hints that the Count is actually a vampire. :)

Adapting ERB

Because of complaints, I'm adapting Edgar Rice Burroughs' At the Earth's Core to the Silver Screen while I work out another story of Atlantis.  ERB produced some of the best fiction of his day.  Although my brother continually claims that Greek myths and Homeric poetry are superior to anything we can storycraft.  I don't know whats with him.

At the Earth's Core presents the idea that the Earth is hollow.  Hollow Earth theories compete with present accepted theories that the Earth is a solid sphere.  However, legend and a few others say this isn't at all so.  The hidden Lemurian kingdom of Agartha is the hollow world.  Also, a hidden kingdom of our brethren -- the Ten Tribes of Israel, is also in the Hollow World.  The Ten Tribes of Israel is ruled by a High Priest; while Agartha is ruled by the Luminari.

But I digress.  At the Earth's Core isn't about Agartha or the kingdom of the Ten Tribes.  It's about Pellucidar.  And its an awesome story to adapt.  Not to mention it's one of ERB's stories that was published before 1923. :)

When Copyright Goes Bad

Here's a new video that should scare you.



Copyright Law has been expanding.

Atlantis: Script progress

I signed up on Scripped.com and started writing the movie: Atlantis.  No Sea Devils yet, but you can be sure that they will show up.

Some notes:
Wizards and Druids = the Wise.  I don't want to call them wizards or sorcerers, I want to downplay it as much as possible.  The Wise are capable of casting magic.  There are different traditions that the wise follows.

There are scientists in the script, and it seems to be focused on science.

Priests = They are also part of the Wise.


I've got three pages done already.  I'll be adding more later.  The script has the feeling of "Star Wars under water."  In other words, the storyforming process demanded a story focused around an event rather than a character, an idea, or a world.  The movie should be science fiction rather than fantasy.  Oh, and meet the antagonists of this movie: