u/ImportanceOk3837

So, 5th edition Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is here but, newer editions dont click with me like 2e did, so I wanted the OSR subreddit thinktank to recommend me some Warhammer Fantasy inspired OSR games - d100 and all that jazz. I know some, but I usually ask these things around here because I dont know most or all of them, but maybe someone else does and can help me out.

Hey there folks.

I'm looking for some interesting blank world and hex maps that the GM can fill like the Outdoor Survival one, and the ones in Dyson Logos' site. Really what I am looking for is more sources I can check out for more material, so if you know anything good please share with me.

Hey there.

I'm looking for new, systems-agnostic settings. I'm not necessarily looking for a specific theme so much so as I wanted to see what the community would recommend.

I want new things to check out and explore, stuff out of my confort zone and awareness.

You can even shill your own stuff here, I don't mind.

Okay, so, recently I read the 1e, 2e and 4e edition box sets/setting books and realized how open-ended 1e and 4e were while the 2e was so set in stone and focused on what happened after the books. 2e feels like the most definite version of the setting, but also the most limited for the GM to add new things. It's all there, as it was meant to be, which I find odd. It reminds me of the VtM metaplot, really, in that there is a bigger focus on that then necessarily giving you the most fodder to make adventures out of it.

It's not anything new, I doubt I am the first to comment on that but huh... I guess its 15 Champions of Rajaat, thats all of them, right? No chance of more of them. I guess there is no need for information on how to play on Athas before the events of the books etc.

While the GM can just change whatever as their prerrogative, I find it strange how exacting 2e was, like it was meant to be the last, definitive version of Athas with everything you need and want, so long as you don't need or want things from the Age of Sorcerer Kings.

Kinda weird.

Hey there folks, I just wanted to share an idead that I had while working on my VtR to V5 hack:

I made Revenants to be weak, extra parasitic vampires. A cross between Caitiff and Thinbloods. They get two random (we'll roll) Disciplines + their Predator Type's. Their special brand of the curse uses the Vitae Dependency Thinblood flaw where they need to drink Vitae once a week or lose their powers until they do so. Blood Potency is permanently stuck at 0, so they can barely use what powers they do have.

Revenants thus are desperate vampires, constanly on the lookout for Vitae and under the threat of destruction or becoming just a walking dead corpse. They either risk the Bond, find some other way of getting Vitae or... They perform the Diablerie, finally becoming a full vampire.

I wanted some suggestion for Shadowdark-made or easily adaptable OSR bestiaries I could use to EXPAND THE HORIZONS OF VIOLENCE in my games.

Thanks.

I wanted to know which is these books is the best from the lore and adventure hooks perspective. Which one has more material and better writting etc.

I got Baldur's Gate 3 in the brain and seriously want to go back to the Realms. So I had this in mind:

Manshoon (one of his clones) gets the Crown of Horns from that snake thing beneath Waterdeep. He puts it on and suddenly becomes a puppet of Myrkul, one of his chosen. With his arcane powers and the Crown he defeats Laeral who gets rescued last minute by Azuth, and Elminster has unfortunately turned himself into a axebeak bird and will be out of the picture for now.

At the same time there is a prison break in Helmgate Prison (a place a made up) which lets a bunch of psychos free on the streets of Waterdeep.

The ideas aren't fully formed and articulated by I had this structure in mind.

Act 1

The idea is that the players will take down the creeps, investigate the prison break and trace it back to the Zhents.

Act 2

They'll have to dislodge high level Zhents from power and through this cloak and through this come to the attention of the Harpers and Church of Azuth who have a way of talking to Laeral.

Act 3

Manshoon tries to assault Blackstaff tower and turn Waterdeep into his own little magocracy while being unwittingly puppeted by Myrkul.

Three new species I made for S&W Whitebox. Unlike the Thief, I just wanted to share something I did and don't plan to put it in a nice format. It uses the same language and makes references to S&W Whitebox material.

Gnomes advance as fighters up to lvl 4, and as magic-users to 9. They are good at spotting traps and sensing ambushes in the wilderness. +4 bonus vs. Stone. They also have the Dwarf’s Fighting Giants.

Gnomes are magical, forest-dwelling dwarves with but a hint of their earth spirit origin with their bonus to resist being turned to stone.

Half-Elves advance as fighters/magic-users up to lvl 6, clerics to 4. They can use magic armor even as magic-users, spot hidden/secret doors, and speak the same languages as Elves do.

Half-Elves are as is from Greyhawk.

Half-Orcs advance as fighters/magic users up to lvl 7. Being exceptionally strong, Half-Orcs gain +1 to-hit/dmg., when breaking down doors, and can carry an extra 25lbs. (or a 25% increase in maximum equip load).

Half-Orcs/Uruk-Hai have a penchant for magic and the warrior lifestyle but despite their great strength, giving them an early headstart as fighters, they never truly fulfill their potential.

I finished reading Phaedrus yesterday, and besides the talk about love, love of boys and the types of lovers and beloved and their conduct which Socrates goes into with most detail - and personally I don't care all that much for, but its nice anyways - its a... A trip, really. His whole discourse of the nature of immortality, the experiences of the soul alongside the gods, the breaking and regrowing of the wings of the soul so (which appears to be literal) so that it may experience higher planes where truth resides... Its both too much and beautiful.

Its like all at once he gives this profound information to Phaedrus which yeah, apparently one of his lovers, but also quite a random person to tell all of this to, at least to me.

But I do think Socrates' words are beautiful and inspiring and that particular part, alongside his definition of immortality as "that which never stops moving and moves by itself" as the nature of things is to be moved by others and cease upon the stoppage of what moves is worth re-reading many times.

Phaedrus is also a definite companion to Phaedo in terms of themes though I would recommend reading Phaedo first.

To briefly touch upon the nature of writing speeches and writing:

When it comes to writing speeches, I think I understand his idealistic description of speeches as these forms of imparting qualities upon the people, or perhaps reminding that which their souls know to be true. However, those are just approaches and his cynical observation about how in court people don't care one jot for the truth and only what seems likely is much closer to the reality of the craft, though we would both consider this a sad state of affairs.

However, in Menexenus he expounds on speeches a little more and even recites speech from Aspasia to Menexenus, which illustrates what sort of speeches he appreciated.

I get what Socrates means - books impart some kind of wisdom but it is largely devoid of context, necessitating is author to defend their work if need arises. Where I disagree with him is when Socrates appears concerned with the written word being inferior to discourse due to it lacking lengthy explanations of context and being acessible to anyone, relatively speaking.

Hopefully I myself am not twisting his words here.

Cratylus seems to rely on knowledge of the Greek language to be fully appreciated - which I don't have, so I don't think I fully got it but, near as I can tell the main arguments for what are names and who gives them is:

Cratylus believes that names give things meaning but don't necessarily reflect what they are. Hermogenes is called Hermogenes but he is no son of Hermes, that's just his name and doesn't really say much about him.

Socrates thinks that bad names don't reflect what things are. The trend-setter, law-giver, name-giver should try to name things according to their qualities, function and nature, so he highlights that modern words come from either ancient or foreign words and that the correct way of choosing names is to reflect both in meaning and the processes of speech what you are talking about, in the sense that even the way you pronounce the name it should transmit its qualities.

Who gives names:

Name-givers give names dialecticians rate their work.

However, the common person values the melodic qualities of sounds over the meaning of words and they change letters in order to make speech more pleasant. That ends up obscuring their real meaning and debasing the Greek language.

The Greek language:

Socrates says that the Greek language holds the concept of movement and stasis in high regard. Positive words are always flowing, negative ones indicate some impediment or slowing down.

However

In the end both Socrates, Cratylus and Hermogenes seem to agree to disagree and vow to study the matter some more.

And I guess that's it? Am I missing something in regard to what has been said or some hidden meaning of this dialogue?

Today I finished reading Meno and wanted to talk about it for a moment and try to answer a few questions:

What is virtue?

Socrates doesn't know what virtue is but I believe that he gets close to concluding that virtue is that which all qualities come from but at the end he goes full Ion and says thats its actually something that the gods give to you at one point or another.

Meno, trying to answer like Gorgias would (I suppose), believes that virtue is acquiring beautiful and good things justly - or that virtue is derived from doing good things so in a sense it is one thing that comes from many.

Is it teachable?

Meno just doesn't know.

Socrates thinks that it isn't with the caveat that one should keep searching for it, and that sophists are as close to teachers of virtue as you can get. Its something that the gods give to you, afterall.

And, we know for sure that it isn't teachable because great men failed or refrained from teaching their children their morals, which applies to a certain accusing Athenian politician and his father, and you can see how well the current crop of Athenian gentlemen reflect that.

Okay, so, what is virtue? And is it teachable?

I think that virtue is the source of all qualities, guiding all that which the soul undertakes, so I suppose its an inverse of Meno's opinion.

And I do however think its knowledge and can be thought but no way to ensure that it will be observed by those you teach.

I do, however, see where Socrates comes from. Virtue is such a rarity that it might aswell be a divine gift.

Reading the dialogues out of order actually has its own joys which, to me, appear to be learning in a more natural and entertaining manner.

But that's neither here nor there. What I want is to piece together why Socrates chose death. This is me trying to get a more complete picture of his reasoning in Crito based on what I've read in Apology, Minos and Phaedo.

In Crito Socrates argues that he shouldn't care about what people who don't know what they talk about say, and that it would only harm him (I suppose in matters of the Athenians choosing to execute him) and that showing concern for his children or property would be showing concern for material matters of which he claimed to be uncaring of, and being afraid of death when he said he wasn't because he believed that his souls would go to Hades.

Fleeing would be "destroying" the law of the city that "birthed and nurtured" him, which, if he did so reject why only know that he is about to die and not at any other point in which it wouldn't be so self serving to do so? And ultimately while lawgivers may be unjust, law is good and just, and fleeing from law here would mean that he wouldn't find it even harsher in Hades where he could flee from it no more.

In Apology he makes many of the same arguments but, interestingly, he says that he had a life mission given to him by the god of Delphi - Apollo, and both in Crito and in Phaedo he mentions dream visions which further reinforces the idea that Socrates was a genuine believer and not some mad elderly man.

In Minos he claims that law is this divine truth or aspect of divinity that exists, if given by the gods, to enrich the lives of people through spurring them towards doing good and acting justly, so my guess is that he saw the laws of Athens in the same manner, though warped and twisted by wicked and unjust men.

And in Phaedo he discusses the nature of the soul and his belief in the underworld. Mostly that death was no big deal for a philospher, thay his soul was purified by philosophy and that ultimately he would be judged, he thought, fairly and hopefully be given a place among heroes and gods where he could continue his work.

So, what I've pieced together is that:

Socrates chose death because he was truly pious, truly good and just, and wanting to not fail the gods, his people and himself, and unafraid of death, he chose to die.

But that is just my reading so far. Perhaps another dialogue completely shatters this, and I haven't even touched on piety, though I have finished reading Euthyphro, so I'll leave this for another post.

So, today I've finished reading both Clitophon and Phaedo and wanted to talk about them briefly.

Clitophon is weird, its incomplete and Socrates says nothing much in it, while Clitophon basically calls him out for being a great speaker when talking about virtues but not really coming to practical conclusions.

The text is likely incomplete, I guess, but I like to think that things got akward after that and Socrates just stood there looking at Clitophon.

Now, about Phaedo:

Damn, I don't know what to say except that its both beautiful to imagine and consider the hope for a better existance that Socrates lays out, how he correlates life and death and, when he talks about his theory of what the Earth looks like and the rivers of the underworld is very mystical and gripping.

I don't know if I am just choosing to believe of if he truly persuaded me but I'm starting to have the same hopes - that knowledge, detachment and philosophy will not just lead me to a better life, as I know they will, but a better afterlife as well.

Growing old won't be so painful, dying won't be so agonizing, and in leading a good life you receive a good death, and well see where the rivers of the underworld take us.

I've just finished reading Ion and I am now 10 pages away from finishing Phaedo.

So, after reading Ion, this is what I've gathered:

Ion doesn't know what he is talking about, but that's alright because rhapsodes (and prophets) don't know what they are saying either, as their "skill" is actually divine inspiration and channeling the "divine part" of things, instead of doing so of their own accord.

Though the Gods may also endow people with certain skills?... I think Socrates may be arguing that artistic skills are actually divinely inspired and therefore not exactly skills like the practical ones such as charioteering, as he mentions in the text.

Ion tries to argue having skills similar to other professions, knowing how a slave and a general should talk but Socrates is having none of that and asks why them isn't he a general to which he gives a variety of answers but doesn't go anywhere, with Socrates concluding that Ion is not skilled in anything but can draw from the divine part of Homer pretty well.

So,

Having a skill or expertise includes both knowing what you are talking about and knowing enough to discern if/when others are correct or wrong, giving good or bad opinions when talking about the same or similar things.

Is there anything I could be missing or forgetting?

Okay, so, I've just read Minos and I'm trying to understand what Socrates was trying to get at.

This dialogue is about law and what law is.

I don't plan on going on for too long or repeating Socrates' arguments. So, from what I can gather:

Law is the truth. Law is the true/ideal state of beings that is distributed to the people by a wise, and just, and noble ruler who is in touch with the gods. So it goes beyond mere political considerations, social norms and so on as Socrates talks at length about how being right is knowing what things are, and law is knowing what things are and in applying that knowledge you know the laws of whatever you are doing.

Minos being brought up as the ideal ruler, born of Zeus and instructed by the Great Zeus, and in periodic contact with his divine father, knows what things are and is able to rule justly and wisely and use law to improve the lives and character of his people (Socrates makes note of how the people of Crete don't drink until inibriated).

Anyways, this is more or less what I've gathered and I wanted to make this post mostly so I could present my understanding and see if other people agree or have differing ones.

Okay, so, I've just read Minos and I'm trying to understand what Socrates was trying to get at.

This dialogue is about law and what law is.

I don't plan on going on for too long or repeating Socrates' arguments. So, from what I can gather:

Law is the truth. Law is the true/ideal state of beings that is distributed to the people by a wise, and just, and noble ruler who is in touch with the gods. So it goes beyond mere political considerations, social norms and so on as Socrates talks at length about how being right is knowing what things are, and law is knowing what things are and in applying that knowledge you know the laws of whatever you are doing.

Minos being brought up as the ideal ruler, born of Zeus and instructed by the Great Zeus, and in periodic contact with his divine father, knows what things are and is able to rule justly and wisely and use law to improve the lives and character of his people (Socrates makes note of how the people of Crete don't drink until inibriated).

Anyways, this is more or less what I've gathered and I wanted to make this post mostly so I could present my understanding and see if other people agree or have differing ones.