A suit of dragon scale armor created from and psychically linked to a still-living dragon.
Galafox was not given the moniker 'Old Fox' for nothing, and this suit of dragon scale armor is but one example of the dragon's guile. Â Common sense would dictate that any genuine dragon scale armor would be made from the hide of a deceased dragon. Â In this case, it's simply not true. Â The dragon that this suit of armor originated from is still very much alive. Â It is the whim of these creatures to gather a treasure over the years, every adventurer worth his salt knows that. Â But they are also given to dabble in human affairs, and this is a particular favorite activity for Galafox. Â
It takes the mind of a dragon to comprehend carving off a section of your own hide and painstakingly crafting the bits into a magical artifact. Â It takes the soul essence and fortitude of a dragon with a swirl of magic to actually carry through with it.
This armor (could be suitable for any style or type) is clearly made from the hide and scales of a large beast and exhibits a level of craftsmanship perhaps previously unseen by the characters. Â Its scales are of a rusty metallic coloring and are warm to the touch. Â This is because they are still alive, and this suit of armor is psychically and/or magically linked to its craftsman. Â Magical runes seared into the living flesh and bind these spells to the armor - and to the wearer.
This armor is treated as a rune item, which normally are identified by binding a living being's soul. Â While this item does not hold Galafox's intellect inside it, he is still linked with it and is able to exert some control over the wearer by psychic and magic means. Â It is up to the pleasure of the dragon himself who may wear this suit. Â For those he deems unworthy it may simply not fit them. Â On the other hand, if a creature Galafox finds repulsive for deeds committed or other reasons of his own, they may find their mind entrapped or their hand singed as they attempt to handle this item.
Powers Imbued:
Sight - The character wearing the armor may see as an eagle sees. Â Galafox may also see what the wearer sees, but he must concentrate, and the wearer will know that something is making use of their eyes.
Nullify - As a counterspell. Â This armor has a chance to remove a harmful or debilitating spell affecting the wearer.
Protection from Fire - The armor and the wearer are immune to normal fire. Â Magical fire will only be half as effective.
Fox's Control:
Psychic Link & Telepathy - The armor is linked to Galafox and he may choose to communicate to the wearer telepathically. Â Once this link is established with the wearer this magical item is considered bonded to that person and no other may wear it while they live. Â They are then able to communicate back and forth with the dragon. Â Whether he chooses to converse, of course, is up to him. Â
Direction Sense - Galafox can always sense his way to a particular suit of his armor by concentrating. Â He is also able to peform scrying on them, if he wants to spend the time and energies.
Puppet - Galafox may assume control over the wearer of the armor, but movements are not precise and fine manipulation of objects is very difficult. Â The power that this link requires is taxing even for a dragon, so bouts of this control do not last very long. Â In this way he could will the wearer to walk in a certain direction for a few moments, or sit / lie down when they wish to stand.
The Twist:
Old Fox has created more than one of these suits of armor for a grand purpose. Â Generally, an adventurer who finds one of these suits will have found it for a reason, and only because the dragon has a use for them for one of his agendas. Â Of course, sometimes the urge to circulate a few of these for entertainment value simply cannot be resisted by the old wyrm.
Scrolls
Twists, chapters, and details meant to stream with the submission — not general discussion.
No scrolls yet — leave one if you have a twist worth keeping.
Sign in to plant an idea scroll.
Award XP
Enjoyed this? Sign in to thank Rune with blade clashes — 5 XP each, up to 25.
5 10 15 20 25Sign in to award XP.
Discussion
Reader talk, questions, and feedback — not scrolls.
No comments yet — be the first voice in the hall.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Other takes
No other takes yet — the best compliment on the Citadel is a Retelling.
Bonds
Curated bonds across the Citadel. Kindred Favors are another thread in the same weave.
No bonds yet.
Interesting. I wonder what uses a dragon would have a mortal man, but the ways of dragons are often inscrutable. I'm sure Galafox has his reasons.
It takes the mind of a dragon to comprehend carving off a section of your own hide and painstakingly crafting the bits into a magical artifact.
I really like that line, because dragons *should be* inscrutable as Dozus says.
So what is Old Fox's grand purpose? I want to know. Also, how many suits would you say exist? I ask because each time the dragon skins himself a bit more?
And that begs the question, does dragon hide (scales) grow back?
Something about this idea stimulates me.
Welcome to the Citadel! Unless you're not new, in which case, just 'hi' :)
I am new, so thanks AND hi!
I hadn't really thought about Galafox's grand purpose, nor whether he was good or evil. I could see him as either, and as this was an item submission (and I'm not quite sure of the protocols yet), I thought such things should be left generic so that they could be fleshed out by an interested GM.
The evil tones suggest a rotting plotter, tearing off chunks of himself and grinning as he goes about his work. Clearly, the runes would emanate necromancy.
This has a lot of possibilities, used a plot delivery device or interesting opponent, if I were to take this armor into a game I would have the Dragon be able to animate without a living host. Thus if the owner dies in the suit of armor, the armor and the corpse would fight on.
I like the writing style in the first four paragraphs but the perspective and intend audience is not clear.
' perhaps previously unseen by the characters' This suggests that this is a metagame discussion of the item. Yet if it is a metagame discussion the best part of the write up, the enigmatic nature of the dragon's motivation and will, becomes moot. Lines like 'treated as rune item' also suggest a metagame discussion and do not fit into the narrative which presents us with a narrator who both respects and is in awe of the dragon character.
Nice item though, I enjoyed reading it.
This has a lot of possibilities, used a plot delivery device or interesting opponent, if I were to take this armor into a game I would have the Dragon be able to animate without a living host. Thus if the owner dies in the suit of armor, the armor and the corpse would fight on.
I like the writing style in the first four paragraphs but the perspective and intended audience is not clear.
' perhaps previously unseen by the characters' This suggests that this is a metagame discussion of the item. Yet if it is a metagame discussion the best part of the write up, the enigmatic nature of the dragon's motivation and will, becomes moot. Lines like 'treated as rune item' also suggest a metagame discussion and do not fit into the narrative which presents us with a narrator who both respects and is in awe of the dragon character.
Nice item though, I enjoyed reading it.
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
My audience was intended to be a GM. I think any item should have some fluff to generate ideas, and some crunch to give ideas on how it would fit into a system.
Moving on from your intended audience being a GM, (I am just really curious about how people like you perceive the stuff you write.)
'Galafox was not given the moniker 'Old Fox' for nothing, and this suit of dragon scale armor is but one example of the dragon's guile.'
When you wrote this line do you intended it to be percieved as one GM talking to another, or was it intended to viewed as an observation or conclusion made by some character or personality within the narrative of the game world?
Moving on from your intended audience being a GM, (I am just really curious about how people like you perceive the stuff you write.)
'Galafox was not given the moniker 'Old Fox' for nothing, and this suit of dragon scale armor is but one example of the dragon's guile.'
When you wrote this line do you intended it to be percieved as one GM talking to another, or was it intended to be viewed as an observation or conclusion made by some character or personality within the narrative of the game world?
'People like me?'
That line, and really the top three paragraphs, was intended to be a flavorful description and background. It could be an observation of someone in in the game world, but it doesn't have to be.
Is the manner in which I have written this submission wrong, or at least not fitting to the standard here? Should the entire submission be written in the same style, ie: from an in-world perspective?
Perhaps I should have read more before I posted a sub.
Thanks for the comments and criticism.
People like us, RPG enthusiasts and I am not one to speak to standards here. If there are any standards they are the result of group think (Example: Did you see Firefly, we should really write more stuff that embraces genres but breathes new life into it by mixing genres) , dogmatic bullying (Example: You can't post in game stats, and drow are stupid!) or people just raising the bar by writing better and more involved posts (Example: I may like a 100 word item description about a shield of wind but it just doesn't have as much detail as flamesilk, so I won't give it as high a score).
Please do not feel attacked, I just want to understand what your thought process was when you wrote this. I, personally, have recently embarked be on a quest, to understand the voice of gaming fiction. When you describe the dragon or the armor you are describing something you made up, yet you are describing not the thought process involved in the generation of the dragon or the place he holds on a meta level in a narrative you are describing him. What is interesting about the opening line is that you are describing him, not directly, but based on how other people or things have viewed him. He was bestowed a monkier, he is said to have many examples of boldness, but they are not shown. Now, I like this story telling technique, it is often more effective to suggest detail than to actually give it. But you have created another character, in the opening paragraph, the voice describing the dragon is another character. (Am I being obvious here, I hope I am not preaching to the choir? )
Who is this person describing the dragon, why is he making conclusions, 'the dragon has guile'? I am excited about discussing this further and I want to understand better how you and others like us envision this stuff when we create it.
Attacked? Not at all. I was just curious what you meant by it. I welcome the input and the discussion from a peer, it will help me better my writing and create a better submission the next time. And that helps everyone who might read it. I like raising the bar and fair judging, too.
Honestly, I did not give thought to who was describing the dragon and making those specific conclusions. I was doing it from my omniscient view. I could have done that and specifically attributed the words to a character name (ie: Beltor, the Bard), but you are correct, that would have created another character (which I didn't want to do). When I wrote this, I was keenly aware of not including too much detail. In some aspects, I think that a lack of detail is helpful in ideas such as these. It serves two functions:
1. Hopefully, by not having *everything* laid out it will spark some creative juices in the reader who say to themselves 'Hey, I could work with that.', and they could twist it to their uses.
2. If it is too precise in some details, it limits the usability of the content and the less likely a person will be able to fit it into their game-world. If I detailed who gave him the moniker, then I have made it even less useful because it adds another puzzle piece that has to fit.
Here's where I'd like some discussion. Is that wrong? Should it be as fleshed out as possible? Of course, readers can take what they can use and discard what they can't, but it is my thinking that more generic is more helpful.
On the other hand, if I was writing an adventure/plot, then that might not be the case, and specifics would be needed for completeness and ease of use by the game master.
I'm rather new here and this was my first submission, so this is very helpful. Thanks :)
My name is not Lunarstalker, I will not tell you what is write or wrong (get it?....write as in written?....painful?....bah). Is generic more helpful? Perhaps. Then why add the name at all? I would say anything that drives the narrative or pushes the plot along is not fluff.
The only I would change is the metafluffist (patent pending, thanks muro) stuff in the forth paragraph
Attacked? Not at all. I was just curious what you meant by it. I welcome the input and the discussion from a peer, it will help me better my writing and create a better submission the next time. And that helps everyone who might read it. I like raising the bar and fair judging, too.
Honestly, I did not give thought to who was describing the dragon and making those specific conclusions. I was doing it from my omniscient view. I could have done that and specifically attributed the words to a character name (ie: Beltor, the Bard), but you are correct, that would have created another character (which I didn't want to do). When I wrote this, I was keenly aware of not including too much detail. In some aspects, I think that a lack of detail is helpful in ideas such as these. It serves two functions:
1. Hopefully, by not having *everything* laid out it will spark some creative juices in the reader who say to themselves 'Hey, I could work with that.', and they could twist it to their uses.
2. If it is too precise in some details, it limits the usability of the content and the less likely a person will be able to fit it into their game-world. If I detailed who gave him the moniker, then I have made it even less useful because it adds another puzzle piece that has to fit.
Here's where I'd like some discussion. Is that wrong? Should it be as fleshed out as possible? Of course, readers can take what they can use and discard what they can't, but it is my thinking that more generic is more helpful.
On the other hand, if I was writing an adventure/plot, then that might not be the case, and specifics would be needed for completeness and ease of use by the game master.
I'm rather new here and this was my first submission, so this is very helpful. Thanks :)
Nice and orginal.
This is good stuff right here. It feels fresh to me, a cool new idea with great possibilities. But it also feels like it has some mileage in it, something comfortable and familiar. The writing is smooth for the most part as well as informative without using too many words. My thoughts on this may be skewed by my recent absence from The Citadel, but I think it's quite nice.
This is a neat, unusual idea and certainly something that would stand out and make one go 'woah'. Good Stuff!