|
Anyone read "The Golden Compass" by Philip Pullman? It's the first book in the "His Dark Materials" Trilogy and will be coming out as a movie in December - trailer.
In the world of the book, everyone's soul lives outside their body in the form of an animal called a 'daemon.' For children, the animal changes depending on their needs and emotions, but during puberty it takes a permanent shape that will last the rest of the person's life. The final form of the daemon reflects the personality of the person. Some people have dogs, others birds, others mice or even tigers. And if their daemon is killed, they pretty much become zombies.
Seemed kinda cool to me so I was trying to figure out what this would look like in D&D. Would it be as simple as giving EVERYONE in the world a familiar? Some of the familiar abilities don't quite fit with the Golden Compass world (everyone, even 1st-level commoners, can talk to their daemons), but that wouldn't be too hard to change. Also, I've seen Charisma referred to as the strength of someones soul; maybe some familiar abilities could be linked to Charisma instead of level.
Anyway, I'd like to hear what other folks think. And if you haven't read the book, I highly recommend it.
Maybe try creating a three-tiered system of daemons, based on filtering the existing rules for familiars. The base tier would be a typical adult's daemon, which could follow most of the existing rules for sorcerer's familiars, except that every character gets one. Daemons of any level could have the ability to speak telepathically with their person/master and have only non-verbal, instinctual communication with other daemons. Not sure how you'd handle... (Golden Compass spoiler)
Spell-related abilities could be restricted only to spellcasters of a certain minimum level (or even only to certain dedicated spellcasting classes or druid-type casters, if you chose). There usually aren't pre-adolescent children in a campaign, but for children's daemons, you could apply the rules for Druid's wild shape ability to the familiar, based off of its master's character level and/or race-relative age.
The main things are that the base Intelligence of a daemon would have to be close to that of its master, regardless of the animal's form. That said, perhaps daemons could obtain the ability to speak (out loud, to others) at higher character levels, regardless of the usual rules about animal intelligence.
Sounds like a cool idea, and it should be pretty workable.
This sounds like a discussion my group had last time we played. They spent about an hour discussing what everyone's daemons would be and then the spent probably another half hour discussing how the mechanics for daemons would work (they didnt come up with anything useful, as I remember). It was extremly frustrating.
I never read the books (listened to part ofthe first one) but aren't they incorporeal?
Also, a clever power gamer could find a lot of ways to exploit this. For example, could they flank opponents?
Another problem with this is that most people forget famiiars when they have them. This would just be giving players anotehr thing to remember, something that would probably be forgotten.
What would you do if someone didn't want one?
Could they be destroyed or damaged by magical or mundane means?
Very cool idea. From the books, the Daemons impacted social interactions as well. For example, when two people meet, they can shake hands with each other and their Daemons could do the same, but if you touch another person's daemon that was a major no-no.
There were scenes in the book where one Daemon would restrain another Daemon and therefore restrain the person, but other than some specific scenarios it did not seem that daemons could be injured. Overall, I think that Daemon's should not be combatants, but rather personification of the individual that provide insight into their personality and state-of-mind.
I am reminded of the nature and demeanor qualities from White Wolf's games. It was the contrast between those two elements that helped to illustrate the character's personality. In The Golden Compass, often the Daemon's were contrasted to illustrate a character better. For example, the villainess was this beautiful woman (played by Nicole Kidman in the movie), but her Daemon is this nasty Monkey.
There is a ton of potential here to better illustrate the non-physical attributes of a character and layer another dimension to the role play. Good idea!
Yeah, I think you'll go crazy trying to come up with daemon abilties/stats, especially if your character is pre-pubescent, so that the daemon changes form at a whim.
The daemon is good flavor, however, and as it has been suggested, the form should be a reflection of the character's personality.
For myself, I'm more geeked about the armored polar bears. THAT's the character I want to play.
For myself, I'm more geeked about the armored polar bears. THAT's the character I want to play.
Somehow, I suspect that you're not alone (or won't be, shortly). If GC is a hit, you'll see some folks trying to stat out armored bears, those incorporeal soul-suckers from Bk. 2 (can't recall the name), and yet more suggestions for how to do daemons in D&D. It'll be fun to think about, at least.
As for whether characters will forget about them, it's a question of group dynamic. If only one or two people are clamoring for a daemon-populated world, you might be able to let the other players off-the-hook by introducing them as planar visitors of some kind. Or just say no to daemons. *grin*
So sorcerers and wizards could get a familiar and a daemon? If you make it so that daemons ahave combat abilities or really any useful abilities at all than it becomes another thing to keep track of. Many players would probably be affected by the 'Blackwing Syndrome'; they'd forget about their daemons except for when they'd be useful. Say you give them some kind of use in combat; then that gives players something else to keep track of during combat, which would slow it down. If you give them no abilities at all most people would probably be like "Okay, I get this incorporeal creature that has to stay close to me and gives me no real benefits. Yipee."
Also, what would you do if someone didn't want a daemon? I personally would refuse one (I don't care for the books or the idea, but whatever floats your boat). Would you force the player to have this thing even if they didn't want one? That would probably get ugly. I would probably end up spending most of my time trying to get rid of the damn thing.
Sorry if I'm being overcritical of the idea, I just think that, if done properly, it'll be something a lot of people enjoy but if done clumsily it'll be one big pain in the ass.
Now, incorporeal soul-suckers sound promising. Those I'd take real joy in statting up.
Didn't they have armored bears in Frostburn? I'll have to dig that out and check.
Didn't they have armored bears in Frostburn? I'll have to dig that out and check.
Yes, Frostburn does have some dire polar bears. But these armored bears are walking talking characters. So cool.
Growl.