| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
 Posted - 03 Jul 2018 : 23:58:59
|
I've always felt that Indo-Aryan mythology and cultures was an under represented wellspring of flavour in most fantasy settings. And the A/D&D Rakshasa is a really cool monster that makes for a superb rival, antagonist or villain.
The different editions of D&D have varied considerably when it comes to the nature, culture and other lore on these beings, however. Which means that on featuring them, I have to make decisions on which portrayal to use. I want to go with what feels the most Realmsian, as well as what I think is most logical, entertaining and awesome. This means I have to fit my conception of them into the history and metaphysics of the setting.
Are Realmsian rakshasa native to Acheron, Carceri, the Nine Hells or the Prime Material Plane? Do they die for good when slain on Toril or are they banished to the Nine Hells where they reform in great pain over decades, before making their way back to Toril to hunt down their slayer and wreak a terrible vengeance?
Do the bulk of Realmsian rakshasa live on the Outer Planes or are they living on Toril?
If rakshasa live on Toril, is there somewhere a society of significant numbers of rakshasa, where a reference culture and language for rakshasa could have developed?
Are there rakshasa Rajahs and Maharajahs on Toril? If there are, where might such be found?
Are rakshasa perhaps culturally part of human societies where they settle, living most of their lives disguised as humans, speaking the languages of humans and being influenced by their culture?
Is rakshasa society still caste-based and patriarchal, as described in the Monstrous Compendium for AD&D 2e, with one to three female consorts to each high caste male, and females valued only for their consortium and the prowess of their sons?
Might there exist rakshasa magical traditions or rakshasa martial arts in the Realms, or would these creatures be more likely to be solitary predators living under assumed identities and therefore study human magic and fighting methods in the cultures where they lived?
I imagine rakshasa might most commonly hail from Ulgarth, the Utter East, Malatra, the Yehimals and neighbouring mountain chains and highlands and the Shining South. Geographic proximity, as well as canon history of trade, warfare or other contact, indicates that wandering rakshasa might easily have found their way to various places in Kara-Tur, Zakhara, the Hordelands, Semphar and perhaps Murghom.
There is a canonical mention of at least one rakshasa in Mulhorand and of two Ak'Chazar rakshasa (white tiger subspecies, necromantic masters) in Unthalass. These last two have schemes afoot in various Chessentan cities and while there is no specific mention of it in canon, might well have subordinate rakshasa of lesser power acting as their agents abroad.
Where else might rakshasa be found? Where do they seem well suited? Where might they have been influential in Torilian history?
Are there canonical mentions of rakshasa in the Realms in novels or sourcebooks anywhere?
|
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 04 Jul 2018 01:22:25
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2018 : 01:10:42
|
| Rakshasa are in numerous realms books. Usually as 1-off villians - not as part of a collective culture. |
 |
|
|
Bragi
Seeker
USA
88 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2018 : 02:28:37
|
There are Rakshasa communities in the Beastlands, the city of Tirumala is mostly populated by Rakshasa. There is a tribe that lives in the Dustwall Mountains, and there is a great tribe of Rakshasa described as living "east of the Raurin desert." I would say the area around the Raurin desert would be your best location. They are listed as being uncommon in the Hordelands. One could speculate that there are larger Rakshaska populations in the Utter East but I don't think there is an cannon mention of them there. I agree with your assessment of the area where they are most likely to be found.
|
In Pursuit of Better Worlds,
Bragi of Erin |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2018 : 02:55:01
|
regarding this
There is a canonical mention of at least one rakshasa in Mulhorand and of two Ak'Chazar rakshasa (white tiger subspecies, necromantic masters) in Unthalass. These last two have schemes afoot in various Chessentan cities and while there is no specific mention of it in canon, might well have subordinate rakshasa of lesser power acting as their agents abroad.
Actually there are some noted subordinate rakshasa listed for these two in the Monster Manual 3 for 3.5 edition.
NAZTHARUNE RAKSHASAS IN FAERŰN
Most naztharune rakshasas serve the ak’chazar rakshasas as spies and assassins. A pair of ak’chazar rakshasas operating in Unther has sent naztharune agents to stir up unrest in neighboring Chessenta, most notably in the cities of Cimbar, Luthcheq, and Soorenar. These naztharune rakshasas have already compromised several local guilds and eliminated key politicians and merchants in an attempt to turn the Chessentan cities’ hatred of one another into open war. Naztharune rakshasas have also been encountered in cities as far west as Waterdeep and Calimport, in some cases pursuing their own agendas.
The Rakshasa are still considered evil outsiders, and in the 3.5 races of faerun, its noted that they may have tiefling offspring with cat eyes or fur.
I agree with the areas you were mentioning for Rakshasa. That appears the "best fit".
I'm also listing for homebrew purposes that I have a city where the Rakshasa openly rule in Katashaka. Its on the northeastern portion of Katashaka, near the red wizard run "Tharch of New Eltabbar". The Rakshasa of this city rule over other cat folk of a more magical variety than beings like Tabaxi. Also, I have other cat folk civilizations nearby who become non-plussed if one confuses them with a Rakshasa ("isn't it obvious, look at my paws?"). Also, this Rakshasa ruled city (which is very Patriarchal) and surrounding territories is in conflict with a nearby community led by Lamia, and in addition another culture of Yak Folk leading minotaurs and ibixians (goat folk) (I'd also be intrigued to throw in summoned demons in their society in the form of Bulezau and Armanites... and some of the other nearby races may be a result of breeding with these demons, such as the "bariaur-like" tauric goat folk and the ibixians). Just in case any of this is of interest to you, I'll post what I have.
These red wizards however also face much more determined and dangerous foes, many of whom possess powerful magics themselves. Latoombe, City of Tricksters, is a city ruled by a council of rakshasa which also possesses many shapeshifting cat folk including many lyncanthropes (such as weretigers, werepanthers, werejaguars, and wereleopards) whose humanoid form is often that of a gnoll or tabaxi. The common folk of this city are the Paka, an anthropomorphic cat folk of all colors normally found amongst cats great and small, many of whom are warlocks or priests beholden to powers of the nine hells. The Paka are shapechangers which can take on human form, but which also have the ability to see and hear through the eyes of nearby cats and other feline creatures, as well as the ability to dominate such creatures to their will. There is also a type of catfolk that the red wizards call the Ghirrash, a black-furred, sometimes tiger striped (both white and orange), and sometimes leopard spotted breed of humanoid cat folk who some believe to be related to the displacer beasts due to their four arms and natural displacement ability. Whether these cat folk are truly related to the shadowbeasts known as the Ghirrash is debatable, as these Ghirrash lack many of the traits common to creatures of the shadowfell, and they actually call themselves the Pumaji. There is also a race of catfolk similar to the Pumaji in coloration, but rather than 4 arms, they have two arms and 4 snake-headed tentacles that grow from their shoulders, and their tails sometimes end in rattles. This race is known as the Kamadji, and many notice an obvious similarity between them and the kamatlan cat. Also, unlike the Pumaji, they lack the displacement effect. The numbers of humans being sacrificed upon the altars of this city has risen markedly since they began to leave the safety of the Katashakan Priador, and this city's owlcat mounted cavalry has even been known to raid the Katashakan Priador in the middle of the night.
Grrawlins, referred to as “the City of the Cowardly Lenastans” by the people of New Eltabbar, is where the former Lenastan nobility and their remaining servants were able to flee. They plot their revenge against these treacherous humans who have invaded their homeland, meanwhile struggling simply to survive. It is rumored that the leadership of this community has been secretly subsumed by rakshasa from Latoombe.
Shimmani, City of the Cat Queens, is a city ruled by lamia but filled with numerous tauric creatures, such as lion-like wemics, numerous other cat-like Taurics which collectively refer to themselves as the Kitaari, antelope-like Nyaalaku, zebra-like centaurs, a goat-like creature that red wizards believe to be related to bariaur, warthog like swinotaurs, and huge Rhinaurs. Most of these tauric creatures are males, as the decadence of the lamia of this city is both well known and well deserved. Despite being called the city of the Cat Queens, the lamia of this city are known to have varied different body types (boar, goat, antelope, deer, lion, leopard, panther, zebra, donkey, and even snakes of all markings). There are no reports of any living male lamia, though the reason for this is a topic of numerous conjecture. This city is a sprawling city filled with majestic buildings separated by hideous and foul slums, many of these slums being filled with dens of those who abuse the poppy flowers which fill the city. The slave trade is common throughout this city, and the capture of humans of New Eltabbar are considered a rare prize. The “Cat Queens” find human flesh delectable, but mainly seek out children of all humanoid races. They are known to breastfeed these children even as they sup on the childs own blood. After years of care, many of these children find themselves sacrificed upon the altars of Lamashtu, former consort of Pazuzu and Demon Queen of Monstrous Births and Deformity. The worship of other Demon Lords, in particular Graz'zt, is not unheard of, but worship of Pazuzu in particular is frowned upon, and the sacrifice of flying creatures is a common site throughout the city.
The centuries old enmity between the devil worshipping cat folk of Latoombe and the demon worshipping lamia is perhaps one of the main reasons that the red wizards of New Eltabbar have managed to survive, for more than one black furred pumaji warlock or priest has had its body flayed alive on an altar to Lamashtu, and its coat turned into a prized blanket or cloak. The Pumaji and Paka of Latoombe have also taken to breeding and training mounstrous owlcats to serve as mounts, giving their city an aerial cavalry that is a hated sight as they fly over Shimmani down to the Black Hills of the Cave Lizards to capture slaves, or simply to feed their owlcats which are not disturbed by the smell of troglodyte. Occasionally, this flying cavalry has dropped hundreds of wild troglodytes into unguarded sections of their enemy city just to cause chaos.
Despite the dangers of the cities of Shimmani and Latoombe, it is actually Yithakar, land of the Earth Emperor, which has proven to be the most dangerous threat, as well as being the most closed off region. This mountainous region is ruled by the elusive yak folk which inhabit it, but there are numerous minotaurs and ibixians, a type of humanoid goatmen, which are the primary population. While worship of the “Faceless One” is the primary religion of the region, it is also common for them to worship Ogremoch, the Prince of Elemental evil earth. In addition, demon worship, particularly that of Eltab, Yeenoghu, Orcus and Baphomet, is very common throughout the countryside. It is not unknown to find summoned Marrashi, bulezau, succubi, and even occasionally more powerful demons such as goristro working with the beast men of this region. Large groupings of yak folk can also typically call upon earth elementals and even genies for aid. However, it is their secrecy and ability to infiltrate other societies which makes them a danger, though proving that they've had involvement afterwards has been hard, especially since they work to lay blame for their actions on other parties. In fact, the war between the cities of Latoombe and Shimmani is believed by the red wizards to be fueled by the actions of Yak folk spies possessing the bodies of individuals in the cities. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1477 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2018 : 03:14:18
|
I don't think rakshasa should worship anyone other than Ravana and/or Vedic Trinity. The rakhshasa have, at numerous times, forced the Vedic pantheon - bar the trinity - on the defensive; capitulating to fiends they might view as their inferiors is a bit difficult to swallow. They might respect ascended deities, if only for their ambition. Surprisingly enough, Corellon Larethian might have be respected by the rakshasa for his blend of swordplay and magic, and his demonstrated combat prowess.
The mythological rakshasa were skilled sorcerers and warriors, ranging from brutal fighters like Kumbhakarna to prodgies like Indrajit, who overthrow and humiliated Indra with spell and sword. I would heavily suggest that the rakshasa have their own magical and martial traditions, instead of piggybacking off mortals.
As far as human-rakshasa relations go, mythological rakshasa did marry humans and found them attractive (Ravana tried to marry Sita, Bhima had Ghatotkacha by Himdibi), so truly powerful mortals, whether of great virtue or great evil, could have rakshasi lovers or wives/husbands. |
Edited by - LordofBones on 04 Jul 2018 03:15:58 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2018 : 08:25:06
|
| 2E Planescape (Planes of Law) describes Rakshasas being native to Acheron, usually semi-isolated enclaves led by Rajahs and Maharajahs. The other inhabitants (armies and soldiers, monsters, dragons, and fiends) native to Acheron generally avoid the Rakshasa. The Raks have an insatiable hunger for souls. And their attitudes towards the Realms is probably the same as the general attitude shared by all planars towards primers - specifically, they probably think of Realmsfolk being ignorant parochial bumpkins. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2018 : 12:52:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bragi
There are Rakshasa communities in the Beastlands, the city of Tirumala is mostly populated by Rakshasa. There is a tribe that lives in the Dustwall Mountains, and there is a great tribe of Rakshasa described as living "east of the Raurin desert." I would say the area around the Raurin desert would be your best location. They are listed as being uncommon in the Hordelands. One could speculate that there are larger Rakshaska populations in the Utter East but I don't think there is an cannon mention of them there. I agree with your assessment of the area where they are most likely to be found.
Of course, Tirumala exists in 4e, which puts it a century out of time from my campaign. It doesn't appear to have existed in the Veldorn of the 1300s, which is natural enough, as presumably the 'Beast-Chieftains' of Veldorn fight constantly for domination and cities rise and fall in consequence. Googling suggests that Tirumala was 'rebuilt' in the 1470s, which means that it may have been an ancient city that had fallen into ruins during the period in which I play.
By the lifespans of rakshasa, a century is not so very much, so it's very possible, indeed, most probable, that the ruler of Tirumala, the eponymous Tirumala, was alive and well in my time.
Is there any more information about Tirumala in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Guide than in this short Forgotten Realms Wiki blurb? |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2018 : 14:22:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
regarding this
There is a canonical mention of at least one rakshasa in Mulhorand and of two Ak'Chazar rakshasa (white tiger subspecies, necromantic masters) in Unthalass. These last two have schemes afoot in various Chessentan cities and while there is no specific mention of it in canon, might well have subordinate rakshasa of lesser power acting as their agents abroad.
Actually there are some noted subordinate rakshasa listed for these two in the Monster Manual 3 for 3.5 edition.
NAZTHARUNE RAKSHASAS IN FAERŰN
Most naztharune rakshasas serve the ak’chazar rakshasas as spies and assassins. A pair of ak’chazar rakshasas operating in Unther has sent naztharune agents to stir up unrest in neighboring Chessenta, most notably in the cities of Cimbar, Luthcheq, and Soorenar. These naztharune rakshasas have already compromised several local guilds and eliminated key politicians and merchants in an attempt to turn the Chessentan cities’ hatred of one another into open war. Naztharune rakshasas have also been encountered in cities as far west as Waterdeep and Calimport, in some cases pursuing their own agendas.
Most excellent!
Thank you, I must have forgotten about that. I was going to give the two Ak'Chazar some rakshasa henchmen, to have the potential for a larger than life martial art scene between the epic PCs (particularly Rasul, the bard/martial artist) and some more-than-human rakshasa with elegance and skill learned over centuries of life.
In raksahsa society, I'm sure the Ak'Chazar rank as nobles and I'm considering making these two outcasts from one of the kingdoms of the rakshasa, where they had tried and failed to seize the throne as rajah. I guess they could come from those who live in the Dustwall or maybe the ones who in the future, 4e Realms, would rebuild Tirumala in the foothills of the Curna Mountains.
Or they might come from the great tribe east of the Raurin, which I'd place in the Scarlet Jungle. I'm inclined to place a Maharajah of the rakshasa there. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2018 : 15:04:43
|
| Hmmm, interesting info on Tirumala. So, based on the lore, the city was previously a city of Durpar prior to the spellplague. It was assaulted by giants. Then the Rakshasa moved in. It might be interesting if the aforementioned Ak'Chazar Rakshasa beneath Unthalass were the source of this Rakshasa "realm" being founded after the spellplague. After all, after the spellplague, they really have no reason to hang around Unthalass much anymore, since the city is in ruins and filled with lamia. Perhaps they took over a tribe of hill giants, with possibly orc servants, and then acquired kenku spies from the beastlands, and then setup shop in a now "distressed" Durpar and started gathering slaves. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2018 : 15:42:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Hmmm, interesting info on Tirumala. So, based on the lore, the city was previously a city of Durpar prior to the spellplague. It was assaulted by giants. Then the Rakshasa moved in. It might be interesting if the aforementioned Ak'Chazar Rakshasa beneath Unthalass were the source of this Rakshasa "realm" being founded after the spellplague. After all, after the spellplague, they really have no reason to hang around Unthalass much anymore, since the city is in ruins and filled with lamia. Perhaps they took over a tribe of hill giants, with possibly orc servants, and then acquired kenku spies from the beastlands, and then setup shop in a now "distressed" Durpar and started gathering slaves.
Of course 'long ago' might mean that it was a city of Durpar long, long before the Spellplague, some centuries or millennia, even. In any case, I can't find any settlement of Durpar in the area in pre-4e materials, though, of course, there is no reason there might not have been one (it's not as if the maps are detailed and comprehensive).
In my campaign, I think I'll assume that the city that will become Tirumala is old ruins, but that rakshasa live in the area of the Seven Holy Hills in the foothills of the Curna Mountains and that the area has some historical and mythological associations with the race.
There is evidence that the Giant's Belt and the Dustwall has been home to rakshasa for a long time. I suppose that would fit well enough if the center of their power was in the Scarlet Jungle, as in ancient times, that jungle included the Ajmer Forest and therefore stretched over the northeast parts of Durpar and maybe even further.
As the ruler of Tirumala is the rakshasa rajah Tirumala and rakshasa are noted as having a strict caste-based system, I would not link him to the two Ak'Chazar rakshasa in Unthalass. For one thing, Tirumala is not noted for its use of undead soldiers or laborers, but instead for hill giants, orcs and kenku, as well as hafling and human slaves. For another, Ak'Chazar are not rakshasa Rajahs and, therefore, by the caste-based system of rakshasa, can never become Rajahs. Rulership is inborn, not acquired, in a caste-based system. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2018 : 21:04:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
2E Planescape (Planes of Law) describes Rakshasas being native to Acheron, usually semi-isolated enclaves led by Rajahs and Maharajahs. The other inhabitants (armies and soldiers, monsters, dragons, and fiends) native to Acheron generally avoid the Rakshasa. The Raks have an insatiable hunger for souls. And their attitudes towards the Realms is probably the same as the general attitude shared by all planars towards primers - specifically, they probably think of Realmsfolk being ignorant parochial bumpkins.
I like the idea of the rakshasa as reincarnations of mortals too bound up with earthly pleasures, riches, hubris and lusts to accept an afterlife on the Outer Planes.
At the same time, I also like them being, to a degree, mortal, in that they are born and die. I suppose that one way to reconcile the various portrayals of rakshasa in different D&D sources, as well as their mythological origin, would be for rakshasa to give birth to live young, but that these were the reincarnations of past rakshasa. This is an excellent reason for their low birth rate (once every century) and the note that this is done to replace rakshasa who have died.
I'd have rakshasa who were successful in life, upheld dharma and gained renown, reincarnated into higher castes. Rakshasa who fell in battle with lesser foes might be reincarnated into a low warrior caste, to Acheron. Those who failed to uphold dharma, who gave into their feral instincts, would be reincarnated to the Crimson Jungle of Cathrys, on Carceri. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 04 Jul 2018 : 21:45:11
|
The "current" 5e idea behind Rakshasa is that they are devils who performed a ritual that freed them from the hierarchy of Hell. When they die, they reform in Hell, unless they are killed IN Hell. As a result, I'd say they stay anywhere BUT Hell. I'm not against this idea, but I also won't say its the greatest either. What I can say is that if it were true, I would expect that Asmodeus and the other lords of Hell would be on the lookout for rakshasa that are "reforming". They may seek to entrap them somehow. Also, while most rakshasa were created long ago, I'd bet that the ritual still exists and can be found by devils that search for the secret. Thus, "rogue" devils (or devils desperate to escape the displeasure of the lords of Hell) may seek to escape Hell's hierarchy by hunting down this secret.
Along these lines, when a rakshasa dies, it may reform in hell in its OLD body (you know, like as a spined devil) and have to wait for its cat body to form. This could make for an interesting storyline, especially if the formation of the body required them to acquire materials (such as fresh demon blood or body parts, requiring them to rejoin the blood war temporarily.... or maybe requiring larvae and trading with hags, etc..). Also, during this time, they may be willing to share the secret ritual to become a rakshasa in return for aid, and thus new rakshasa become formed. This would give the lords of hell an even bigger reason to have a bounty out for the death of any reforming rakshasa.
From the 5e monster manual
Evil Spirits in Mortal Flesh. Rakshasas originated long ago in the Nine Hells, when powerful devils created a dark ritual to free their essence from their fiendish bodies in order to escape the Lower Planes. A
rakshasa enters the Material Plane to feed its appetite for humanoid flesh and evil schemes. It selects its prey with care, taking pains to keep its presence in the world a secret.
Evil Reborn. For a rakshasa, death on the Material Plane means an agonizing and torturous return to the Nine Hells, where its essence remains trapped until its body reforms- a process that cart take months or years. When the rakshasa is reborn, it has all the memories and knowledge of its former life, and it seeks retribution against the one who slew it. If the target has somehow slipped through its grasp, the rakshasa might punish its killer's family, friends, or descendants. Like devils, rakshasas killed in the Nine Hells are forever destroyed. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
Edited by - sleyvas on 04 Jul 2018 21:48:40 |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1477 Posts |
Posted - 05 Jul 2018 : 03:19:20
|
| I see 5e has given up on anything that isn't a retread of "demons or devils did x". |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2018 : 15:56:08
|
Does anyone have suggestions as to how one would go about fixing the nomenclature of the rakshasa castes?
Rakshasa rulers are called 'Rajah', a familiar Hindi title ultimately derived from Sanskrit and widespread in South Asian languages, as well as existing as a loanword in many languages with contact with the Indian subcontinent, including English. The accepted translation is 'King', but a case might be made that in line with the original etymology, 'Ruler' would be a more accurate translation.
Judging from AD&D 2e sources, each Raja appears to rule about fifty rakshasa. This means that the common translation of 'King' for 'Rajah' should be understood to be closer to the medieval Irish or indeed medieval Indian conception of a 'King' than our modern view, i.e. that every warlord with pretensions to nobility claimed the title or king and was accorded royal if he could afford to keep a few full-time warriors.
Rakshasa great kings are called Maharajas, which is a perfectly valid Hindi title, with Sanskrit roots and means 'Great Ruler' or 'Great King'. According to AD&D 2e materials, there is approximately one Rakshasa Maharaja for every thousand rakshasa, though it is not specified whether he rules over them all, through twenty rajas subordinate to him, or if some common rakshasa belong to independent princely states ruled by sovereign rajas.
These two ranks do not seem to me problematic in themselves, but require some extrapolation before being used in a game. We are lacking materials that would allow us to determine to what extent Rajah and Maharaja are individual inborn castes and to what extent political titles that may be inherited by any appropriate scion born to a ruling family of a hypothetical 'royal' caste.
By which I mean, what is the caste and station of the brother of a Rakshasa Maharaja? Is he also a Maharaja? Is he a Raja? Or is he neither, unless he is also a ruler of rakshasa in his own name? Does he belong to a hypothetical caste of royals, probably dubbed rajanya?
Several Forgotten Realms sources mentions rakshasa 'nobles'. It is left unclear if this refers to all castes above commoners and how many such castes there might be.
There are several 1e and 2e references to 'ruhk' [sic] as rakshasa knights, men-at-arms for higher ranking rakshasa. In 3.5, I believe Rakshasa knights were presented as blackguard-ish unholy servitors of Ravanna, a martial order of rakshasa. This seems at odds with the idea that this is merely the lowest title of nobility among rakshasa.
Of course, as the two highest titles of rakshasa are drawn from Hindi and Sanskrit, it seems odd that 'ruhk' is not in any sense a Sanskrit or Hindi term for knight. It is true that 'rukh' means 'Chariot' in Persian, which was spoken widely in the court of the Mughal Emperors (and gave us 'rook' in Chess), among other Indian principalities, and that many rakshasa in Indian legends were legendary charioteers or chariot-warriors, but not only is the AD&D 'ruhk' a misspelling of the Persian word for chariot, but perfectly servicable Hindi and Sanskrit terms for 'charioteer' or 'chariot-warrior' exist. The most well known would be 'rathi' or 'chariot-warrior' (as opposed to the driver).
Even in the context of rakshasa, some of them are given the appellation Maharathi ('Great Chariot-warrior') in Indian legends. So 'Rathi' as a title for rakshasha knights would have fit. Ruhk does not, at all, as calling a heroic warrior a 'chariot', whether in a foreign language or not, would be like referring to medieval knights as 'horses' instead of 'knight'/'ritter'/'caballero'/etc.
This is also overlooking the fact that there is an Indo-Aryan term for a caste of noble warriors, the kshatriya, which includes all rulers and aristocratic rulers.
I would feel that it fit D&D rakshasa to be composed exclusively of self-identifying aristocrats, i.e. ones that in the classic Vedic caste system would be brahmins (priests, sages and philosophers) or kshatriya (warriors, warlords, rulers). The lower classes would be composed of other species, ruled by the rakshasa.
Personally, I would like the Maharaja and Rajah rakshasa to be a super-caste, unifying brahmim and kshatriya. Their function would be as much religious as wordly. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2018 : 02:06:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Have realms rakshasa and non realms rakshasa. Then you can call realms rakshasa what you like and make up any title you like.
In my version realms rakshasa are descended from the honour guard of myrkul bey al kursi who were cursed for assisting him in his evils. Names like ak chazar and an shasa are the names of different clans descended from these cursed individuals.
Al hanar is the name of another of the honour guard of myrkul but they escaped the curse and fled to the shaar where they established a castle and a military order.
Core rakshasa also exist but are physically similar to realms rakshasa (although I can mess with the powers of realms rakshasa to mess with the players).
But that's only for those who follow the pan spermia, multi formal, co existant, convergent evolution theory (And since I made it up only i follow it).
Fair enough.
Out of interest, does anyone know where whoever wrote Monster Manual III got the names Ak'Chazar and Naztharune? |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2018 : 01:08:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Have realms rakshasa and non realms rakshasa. Then you can call realms rakshasa what you like and make up any title you like.
In my version realms rakshasa are descended from the honour guard of myrkul bey al kursi who were cursed for assisting him in his evils. Names like ak chazar and an shasa are the names of different clans descended from these cursed individuals.
Al hanar is the name of another of the honour guard of myrkul but they escaped the curse and fled to the shaar where they established a castle and a military order.
Core rakshasa also exist but are physically similar to realms rakshasa (although I can mess with the powers of realms rakshasa to mess with the players).
But that's only for those who follow the pan spermia, multi formal, co existant, convergent evolution theory (And since I made it up only i follow it).
Fair enough.
Out of interest, does anyone know where whoever wrote Monster Manual III got the names Ak'Chazar and Naztharune?
The Ak'Chazar are a cross-breed of Tchazzar and a Rakshasa :-) J/K |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Thraskir Skimper
Learned Scribe
204 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2018 : 01:57:28
|
| There could be some in Thay, might have to ask around. |
Thay Red |
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1477 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2018 : 02:45:47
|
They seem to be random names, given that rakshasa in the myths didn't actually have species. Even the animal-head thing is kind of 'eh', given that the most distinct rakshasa look humanoid (Kumbhakarna, Ravana, Ghatotkacha, Vibhishana, Indrajit, etc).
I'd wager they're all pretty respectful of the Vedic Trinity, since Ravana, God-King of the their people, is a Shiva devotee. |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2018 : 02:54:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
They seem to be random names, given that rakshasa in the myths didn't actually have species. Even the animal-head thing is kind of 'eh', given that the most distinct rakshasa look humanoid (Kumbhakarna, Ravana, Ghatotkacha, Vibhishana, Indrajit, etc).
I'd wager they're all pretty respectful of the Vedic Trinity, since Ravana, God-King of the their people, is a Shiva devotee.
Well, rakshasa should absolutely look human, because they are creatures of maya, or the 'Veil of Illusion'. But their true forms being different from their seeming forms is mythologically accurate, as they are not truly Enlightened, despite their great power, skill and intelligence. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2018 : 11:56:26
|
In my games Rakshasas are always main villains. You do not randomly run into a Rakshasa. They are always part of a major plot and there are a finite number of them. In my lore they have always existed but once killed their numbers go down - new rakshasas do not appear.
There are two Lion-headed Rakshasa, one in Anauroch who is worshipped as a god by the Lamia there, and another in the Shaar who claims to be a Herald of Nobanion. The latter one is trying to manipulate the Wemics there. |
“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1621 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jul 2018 : 13:47:31
|
| In 4e Rakshasa's we're fallen 4e Devas (player race). |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2018 : 16:53:45
|
Incidentally, does anyone know why 3e/3.5 rakshasa are written up without the Scent ability?
At least in their natural form, are they not meant to have the senses of a predatory animal?
Even if not all rakshasa may have the olfactory sense of a tiger or leopard, I feel like at least the Naztharune rakshasa would.
Is there a lore reason the senses of rakshasa are more like improved versions of human ones than they are like the senses of the animals whose heads they share? |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
LordofBones
Master of Realmslore
1477 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2018 : 18:32:35
|
| Because rakshasa are evil spirits who just happen to have animal heads, not actually animal spirits. The animal heads are symbolic, otherwise mantis-headed rakshasa would have severe hearing issues. |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jul 2018 : 20:19:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by LordofBones
Because rakshasa are evil spirits who just happen to have animal heads, not actually animal spirits. The animal heads are symbolic, otherwise mantis-headed rakshasa would have severe hearing issues.
That's a good point and is an excellent reason why generic rakshasa shouldn't have Scent.
One might consider, however, what the animal heads symbolise? What tigerish traits are tiger-headed rakshasa supposed to have? Just arrogance, vanity and ferocity? Or might their sensual nature sometimes manifest in an animal-like obsession with taste and smell, texture and feel, appearances and beauty?
Rakshasa are considered fundamentally 'evil' in the mythology because of their overly strong preoccupation with material things, the Veil of Illusion of the physical world, and their refusal to recognise the inherent lack of importance of wordly trappings. Instead of concerning themselves with spiritual advancement and enlightenment, as Hindu thought would dictate, rakshasa covet material things, wordly power and sensual experiences.
To me, it makes sense that one of the paths by which rakshasa might pursue their wicked destinies is through closer identification with their beastly symbols or totems. Rakshasa who glory in battle or the hunt are reborn ever more savage and materialistic, with some of them eventually ending up Chaotic Evil on Carceri (it's canon ever since 1e AD&D that CE rakshasa exist on the more chaotic Outer Planes). I'd think that rakshasa at risk of such a life path were very much like Kipling's Shere Khan in personality and manners, complete with sniffing for prey, with Scent.
It also seems to suit Naztharune rakshasa very well, as they are almost pure hunters and predators, with no spellcasting or more civilised arts. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2018 : 13:48:17
|
One consequence of the immunity of rakshasa to spells and spell-like abilities of 8th level or lower is that rakshasa will almost never be able to affect each other with their magic. In fact, anyone lower than 17th level as a pure caster can be simply ignored as a threat by rakshasa. No magic they can do will harm the rakshasa. That certainly goes a long way toward explaining their extraordinary arrogance. Basically, only archmages and people of comparable power can threaten rakshasa with their spells.
As for physical attacks, it depends on how I interpret the various editions, but it is, at any rate, fairly difficult to harm them with physical attacks. I plan on having rakshasa be all-but invulnerable to non-magical weapons and difficult to harm seriously with anything but the more powerful magics (i.e. analogous to the '+1/+2 weapons to hit, half damage from anything less than +3/+4' of earlier editions).
No special weakness is noted for the Ak'Chazar and Naztharune rakshasa, but I find it thematically appropriate for all kinds of rakshasa to share a supernatural weakness. I am considering having blessed arrows, as well as blessed crossbow bolts, work as 'silver bullets' to overcome all their protections and kill them as if they were mere normal men. That's mostly because I find it really odd to find crossbow bolts be important in mythology from an Indian-esque culture, where archery is the sport of kings and the most important martial art.
I can see a divine curse where rakshasa are doomed to die from 'arrows blessed by the servants of the Gods' or something to that effect, with bolts counting as arrows as well, but I'm having a really hard time imagining any kind of metaphysical effect affecting all rakshasa which is linked to a weapon which was mostly known as a hunting tool or trap for barbaric peoples.
At the time Indian myths about rakshasa developed, crossbows were either unknown in that cultural sphere, or, assuming we credit that crossbows were invented in Southeast Asia and might have been known in the Indian world through Assam, Burma and the Cham and Khmer peoples of Indochina, crossbows were at least not developed into a weapon considered useful in warfare by any Indian peoples.
The Indian climate is hostile to the kind of lamination needed to produce good composite crossbows and as for the heavy draw steel ones, by the time these could have been produced by Indian smiths, they already had firearms, which are much cheaper and more effective. Not to mention that the bows beloved by Indian-esque warriors really are much more efficient and effective than crossbows, assuming you've spent many years learning to shoot them with accuracy and power.
The advantages of crossbows mostly lie in the much greater ease of learning to use one and consequent logistical benefits, as well as the highest draw weight and most advanced versions of crossbows shooting heavy ammunition that only the strongest and most skilled archers could ever shoot from bows. That kind of high draw weight crossbow, though, would not have been known in historical India, except after contact with Europeans and then only as a historical curiosity.
People often make the mistake of thinking that you can compare Late Medieval steel crossbows or High Medieval composite ones to the wooden hunting crossbows known in many cultures and then wonder why crossbows weren't used more in warfare in those cultures. The truth is that a hand-spanned crossbow with limbs of unlaminated wood, i.e. the only kind likely to have been known in historical India, is mostly useful for killing birds and small prey animals.
One curiosity of the 'common' rakshasa being so very nearly immune to all magic is that the Naztharune rakshasa, in lacking any spell immunity and having 'only' SR 21, will be the only kind of rakshasa who really need to fear the spells of other rakshasa. This neatly explains why they are usually content to follow and don't demand to lead every enterprise they are involved in.
It's somewhat odder that the Ak'Chazar rakshasa, as written, actually lacks the magical immunity of the 'common' rakshasa. As they are in all other respects their physical, intellectual and magical superiors, this is puzzling. Granted, the SR 31 is functionally about the same thing as perfect immunity to magic from lower level casters, but still, a common rakshasa is actually better protected from casters of 11th to 16th level than an Ak'Chazar rakshasa. I suppose that can be rationalised by saying that Ak'Chazar rakshasa must give up some of their magic immunity to be able to cultivate their closer connection to their sorcerous gifts.
I would be inclined to interpret Trap the Soul as bypassing the Immunity to 8th level or lower spells when a creature's name is spoken, just like it bypasses Spell Resistance. That means that Ak'Chazar rakshasa actually can affect other rakshasa with one of their most powerful spell-like abilities, if they know their true names. This, in turn, explains why many other rakshasa obey them, as one assumes that Ak'Chazar rakshasa place a great importance on tracking down the true names of other rakshasa.
Of course, physically, Ak'Chazar rakshasa are probably more powerful than any 'common' rakshasa. Rakshasa rathi ('Knights', who are sometimes incorrectly referred to as 'rukh'), rajahs ('Lords' or 'Kings') and maharajahs ('Great Lords' or 'Great Kings') may be able to defeat them hand to hand, however, though even rakshasa maharajahs are not often more powerful magically than the Ak'Chazar are, and almost never magically powerful enough to pose much of a threat to their SR 31.
Considering that different versions of (A)D&D make rakshasa immune to 'any spell less powerful than the 8th level spell', 'any spell 8th level or lower' or 'any spell 6th level or lower', I think I'll allow some variation among rakshasa in my games. Some, the lowest rung of society, will 'just' be immune to anything available to 12th level and lower characters, i.e. 6th level spells and lower. Others will be immune to 7th level spells and lower and the most powerful ones, both among the 'common' rakshasa and certainly rathi, rajahs and maharajahs, will be immune to 8th level spells and lower, i.e. anything but 9th level spells are useless.
This is especially important as the highest level spells available to my PCs are the equivalent of 7th level spells, meaning they can affect the lowliest rakshasa with their most powerful magics, but not the more powerful ones. Technically, the two Ak'Chazar rakshasa will not be immune to any of their magic, but with the extreme magic resistance they have, they might as well be. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 27 Jul 2018 13:55:22 |
|
|
|
Demzer
Senior Scribe
873 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2018 : 19:30:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Icelander
It's somewhat odder that the Ak'Chazar rakshasa, as written, actually lacks the magical immunity of the 'common' rakshasa. As they are in all other respects their physical, intellectual and magical superiors, this is puzzling. Granted, the SR 31 is functionally about the same thing as perfect immunity to magic from lower level casters, but still, a common rakshasa is actually better protected from casters of 11th to 16th level than an Ak'Chazar rakshasa. I suppose that can be rationalised by saying that Ak'Chazar rakshasa must give up some of their magic immunity to be able to cultivate their closer connection to their sorcerous gifts.
A very minor nitpick here but in 3.5 Edition (the only one I'm aware of with the Ak'Chazar Rakshasas) they have higher spell resistance then the MM I rakshasa (31 VS 27) which means that they are more resistant to magic than other "breeds" of rakshasa, not less.
Also in 3/3.5 Ed, sadly SR was very inconsistent between different sources and different (but with shared similarities, like different breeds of rakshasas or different types of demons/devils) monsters followed different progressions (5+HD, 10+HD, 11+HD, 15+HD, 27+Class levels for common rakshasas, fixed for others, ...) and most of these completely fell apart on the higher end with monsters with >20 HD and SR in the low/mid 20s or epic monsters with 50-60 HD and SR 35 ... (but the Epic Levels Handbook was peculiar in many ways). |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2018 : 20:04:10
|
I've come up with faux-linguistics for the names of rakshasa sub-races in my campaign.
I'm deciding that some of the names are ancient xenonyms (i.e. names applied to a group by those outside that group), used for rakshasa in the post-Imaskari era, when there were many now-lost Imaskari and Mulan 'survivor-state' kingdoms and polities in the area that now forms Murghom, Semphar, the Raurin, eastern Shaar, Durpar, Veldorn, the western Hordelands, Ulgarth, and the mountain ranges of Katakoro and the Yehimals. Indeed, some of these terms may date back to the lost pre-history of Zakhara and the Utter East.
As the sub-race names sound vaguely Urdu, Persian, Arabic, Turkic or other Central Asian, I figured that this would best explain a mixture of inguistic elements that in the real world belong to different language families (but in the real world, have also mutually influenced each other in the equivalent geographic area to this on Earth, swapping loanwords and other surface influences).
Ak'Chazar: 'Great Wanderers' or 'Distant Sojourners'. From a hypothetical Turkic root 'qaz', 'to ramble, roam', which as a loanword in several post-Imaskari Raurin languages became 'Qasar', 'Khazar' or 'Chazar', all meaning something 'wanderer, vagrant, stranger'. For the ancient people of Solon, modified as an adjective in the elative with quasi-Arabic grammar (as 'kabir' becomes 'akbar', 'chazar' became ak'chazar), Ak'Chazar became their word for these ineffable and powerful shapeshifting spirits with immense necromantic powers. A literal translation might be a superlative of 'Strangers', thus meaning not only 'the unknown people', but 'the Unknowable Ones'.
Nakya: 'Not Agreeable to the Lord of Creation'. From Sanskrit 'na' = 'not' and 'kya' = 'agreeable to the Lord of Creation'. What rakshasa call all other races.
Naityan: 'Those Who are Led'. From Sanskrit root 'nay' = 'lead' and the Sanskrit suffix '-tya' which forms the indeclinable participle, so 'Naytya' = 'The Led'. A specialised warrior subcaste of the Zakya caste of rakshasa, the Naityan can take several forms which give them abilities in combat, but are neither spellcasters nor particularly intelligent.
Naztharune: 'Vain Youths'. From the Urdu 'naz', meaning 'proud or arrogant', but a specific kind of pride and arrogance, not hubris, but rather 'the confidence from being the object of desire', and the Urdu 'tharun' or 'tarun', 'youth'. Higher caste rakshasa consider the Naztharune a vain, prideful variety of the Zakya rakshasa caste, equally unable to cast spells, but generally proud of their status and indulged by their masters, for their usefulness... and their beauty, charm, seductiveness and erotic abilities. Naztharune rakshasi (female rakshasa) are highly desired by many higher caste rakshasa as concubines and rakshasa poetry often features a temptress in the form of a Naztharune dancer whose legendary flexibility and grace promises endless delights in her embraces. Such temptresses are generally contrasted against more suitable lovers, of higher caste and better family, who'll be more faithful and give birth to more successful offspring.
Rathi: 'Knight'. Literally means 'Chariot Warrior', from Sanskrit (and most related languages) 'ratha' = 'chariot' and 'rathi' = 'chariot warrior, hero, champion'. The proper rakshasa term for their warrior aristocracy.
Ruhk: 'Rakshasa Knight'. A term for chariot-warrior of unknown origin, used by several post-Imaskari cultures in the neighbourhood of Raurin, eastern Shaar and the Shining Lands. For some reason, used for rakshasa knights by many Mulan, Thayvian and Faerunian sages, in preference to the actual rakshasa term, 'rathi'.
Zakya rakshasa: 'Rakshasa Who May Be Compelled to Work'. From Sanskrit 'zakya' (adj.), meaning 'workable, possible' or even 'liable to be compelled'. This is what higher caste rakshasa call all lesser castes, who are unable to cast spells, not as well protected from mortal magic and occupy the lowest rung of rakshasa society. The fact that 'Zakya' also sounds exactly like the Semitic/Arabic/Midani/Untheric 'Zakiya' or 'Zakya', meaning 'pure, untainted', has resulted in proud members of the rakshasa warrior caste reclaiming the term by claiming that they are referring to themselves as 'Unsullied', by the magical studies that they maintain weaken more cerebral rakshasa. It is such Zakya warriors who belong to the actual sub-race termed 'Rakshasa, Zakya'. As a term meaning 'pure, untainted', 'zakya' exist in Unther and as an import from Midani in the languages of Murghom, Semphar and Solon, as well a loanword in many Raurin languages that came into contact with the Zakharan interlopers, among them Durpari and Ulgarthian. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2018 : 20:18:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
A very minor nitpick here but in 3.5 Edition (the only one I'm aware of with the Ak'Chazar Rakshasas) they have higher spell resistance then the MM I rakshasa (31 VS 27) which means that they are more resistant to magic than other "breeds" of rakshasa, not less.
Ak'Chazar rakshasa do indeed have SR 31 to the SR 27 of the common rakshasa, but this is deceptive. By the 3e/3.5 stats, 'common' rakshasa are completely immune to all spells of less than 9th level, which means that the numerical SR is irrelevant unless they are facing a spellcaster who can cast 9th level spells.
Against any characters of levels anywhere near the Challenge Ratings of these monsters, the 'common' rakshasa will be immune to all spells and spell-like abilities accessible by the 8th to 16th level characters who might face CR 10-15 monsters.
Only 17th+ level characters (and only if they are pure casters) have any chance of affecting the CR 10 'common' rakshasa with any kind of spell or spell-like ability, because 8th level or lower spells simply fail against them, as if they had not penetrated SR, without any kind of roll.
This means that effectively, 'common' rakshasa are better protected from the spells of nearly everyone in a campaign world than the Ak'Chazar rakshasa. Granted, when facing archmages and high prophets who can cast 9th level spells, the Ak'Chazar rakshasa enjoys somewhat better protection against these awesomely powerful spells, but, then again, that's mostly irrelevant, because CR 10 monsters are hardly expected to have any defences against parties of characters with at least seven levels more than their CR.
If the 'common' rakshasa is slightly advanced to be equal in CR to the Ak'Chazar rakshasa, say by five levels of sorcerer (for the same CL 12th as the Ak'Chazar has for their spellcasting), the advanced 'common' rakshasa has SR 32 to the Ak'Chazar's SR 31... and remains immune to all spells of 8th level and lower.
quote:
Originally posted by Demzer
Also in 3/3.5 Ed, sadly SR was very inconsistent between different sources and different (but with shared similarities, like different breeds of rakshasas or different types of demons/devils) monsters followed different progressions (5+HD, 10+HD, 11+HD, 15+HD, 27+Class levels for common rakshasas, fixed for others, ...) and most of these completely fell apart on the higher end with monsters with >20 HD and SR in the low/mid 20s or epic monsters with 50-60 HD and SR 35 ... (but the Epic Levels Handbook was peculiar in many ways).
Granted.
Note that the 'common' rakshasa have 7 HD, so their SR might just be 20 + HD, regardless of whether those HD come from being a rakshasa or any class levels.
For my purposes, of course, what matters are not the precise numbers that D&D used in different editons, but what these numbers are meant to reflect. That is, I'll use GURPS mechanics for resistance or immunity to magic, but I need to benchmark the abilities that the different types of rakshasa have against each other and against other Realmslore.
So, for my purposes, it's relevant that 'common' rakshasa are all but immune to spells cast by anyone other than the very few archmages or high priests who are 17th+ level in D&D terms, but that Ak'Chazar, Naityan, Naztharune and Zakya rakshasa do not share this ability.
It's also relevant that the Naityan rakshasa has the worst resistance to magic of the rakshasa types, followed by the Naztharune and Zakya.
This leads me to propose that these three types are regarded as footsoldiers and commoners by the 'common' or 'regular' rakshasa, who are much more powerful and, unlike these three, have very little to fear from most mortals, and, vitally, from other rakshasa.
The Ak'Chazar are clearly powerful enough to rank as some kind of nobility among rakshasa, but also have a special status, in that they are not protected by the blanket spell immunity of other high caste rakshasa. This means that they never reach the levels of security from magical attack that rakshasa rajahs and maharajahs take for granted. In fact, even 'common' rakshasa are better protected against most spellcasting mortals, although most of them lack the spellcasting power of the Ak'Chazar rakshasa. Thus, in spell duels against mortal wizards, the Ak'Chazar cannot simply ignore them as 'common' rakshasa can, but rather must rely on a suite of powers and abilities to defeat them. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
Edited by - Icelander on 27 Jul 2018 20:31:11 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11691 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2018 : 20:39:58
|
| under 3.5e rakshasa don't have any special ability to resist all spells less than 9th level. I'm looking at the 3.5 monster manual and it doesn't state anything like that. Its the 3.0 monster manual that states that, and since the ak'chazar came out in 3.5, you should compare apples to apples. The 3.0 version was broken and they fixed it. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Icelander
Master of Realmslore
1864 Posts |
Posted - 27 Jul 2018 : 20:48:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
under 3.5e rakshasa don't have any special ability to resist all spells less than 9th level. I'm looking at the 3.5 monster manual and it doesn't state anything like that. Its the 3.0 monster manual that states that, and since the ak'chazar came out in 3.5, you should compare apples to apples. The 3.0 version was broken and they fixed it.
Ah, ok.
I hadn't noticed that they published new stats for the rakshasa in 3.5.
That does put it in a different light and suggests that Ak'Chazar rakshasa are not at all meant to have less protection from magic than the common versions.
The ability of ignore spells below a certain level has been a feature of the rakshasa since AD&D 1e, but I'll grant that it's a pretty huge deal for a game like D&D 3.0/3.5, where the tactical boardgame origin of D&D is strongly visible and both classes and monsters were supposed to be easily balanced against each other. If the rakshasa was in 4e, even more purely a tactical boardgame, I don't expect it had anything like that ability.
In 5e, though, the rakshasa has the ability to ignore any spell 6th level and lower, so it was clearly regarded as being an iconic feature of the monster. |
Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!
Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Rakshasa in the Realms
