Another question. How far before game start do we want the cataclysm to have taken place?
Let's say anywhere from 3 to 5 years. It's enough Oasis has begun to sprawl and population boom, but everyone remembers the old world still.
edit:
Should I be a human or a dwarven rogue/doctor (missile based)? I don't really know enough to decide.
Ah, whoops, I missed that. That works perfectly with my backstory, then. ^_^
Hm, I was under the impression it was at least a few years since the cataclysm-- not so long that it's faded in mind/memory, but long enough for some sort of society to be cobbled together out of the ruins. At least a decade or two would be nice though-- that's enough time to get some sort of culture/civilization really going.
I'm not too sure about the arcane storms idea-- maybe normal weather charged with magic, like a sandstorm where the sand occasionally phases through solid objects and gets stuck inside them or rain that pocks metal like swiss cheese but leaves anything else untouched or blizzards with hollow hail containing tiny water elementals or a mist that makes every plant bear balls of raw copper ore instead of fruit-- but not just raw magical energy destroying everything. That always seems to me like a waste of potential, when a setting does that.
I like the cultural ideas regarding the totems, especially the idea of relying on something that you don't understanding for protection, but then there's not really any reason for the totems to be maintaining their own little biomes like Dwarm wanted-- not unless the environments are a side effect of their magic instead of an intended effect, I suppose.
of course, ultimately everything is up to the GMs, but it's nice to brainstorm.
It could easily be a side-effect of the totems interaction with whatever magic destroyed the world, or whatever magic went into the spells in the first place. For instance, historical Celts were tribal in organization, and the Incans were also an Empire formed only by a single tribe (Cusco) conquering every other tribe around them literally not even a century before the Spanish arrived; each totem could represent the totemic power of the tribe that channeled that particular aspect, and the place that became Oasis would have been a meeting point and place for the joining of the tribes. In such a light, the original totems that formed the anchors of the magical shield were created as a part of that aspect of unity being brought from their own divisiveness, a single shield to protect their most sacred meeting place made from all of their strengths. In a central location as well, it would have been well-suited to become the market city and major urban center under the invader's rule. The fact that they're now manifesting separate biomes surrounding each anchor is actually secretly a sign of the weakness of the shield after getting so badly hammered by the Cataclysm, with its separate components beginning to reassert themselves over what was supposed to be a single interwoven whole. Even if the city administration figures it out, they may want to keep it secret to avoid panic, while trying to find how to restore it through its own agents and some trusted adventurers.
Ah, my thought was that they don't "simply" destroy everything. Rather, they simply do magical effects that ravage what's inside of them. Like, for instance, a mass Enervation spell (slowly draining the life out of its area of effect and converting creatures to wights/undead), or a wild Polymorph (the results of which would templates/transform on anything caught in its reach). That way, it's not just a death sentence for PCs that do get caught in them, but rather a field effect that the players have to contend with as well as any other hazards. Though, you probably don't want the Polymorph spell hitting the players; it's just an excuse to have mutated monsters like, say, two-headed cows or invisible ogres to deal with (*cough*).
wIt's always the Empire that is evil and invaded Shake things up, have the noble empire invaded by the evil Republic of Satan or somesuch.
Note: It probably shouldn't be called the Republic of Satan.
Most empires are expansionist, that's what makes them empires in the first place. Republics don't have the same requirement. Besides, who said the Empire was evil? Expansionist doesn't equal evil, it equals expansionist. That's the same sort of thinking that leads to that cliche.
In any case, it'd be pretty easy to make the situation a lot more complex than it appears on the surface-- cultural misunderstandings, individuals giving distorted accounts for their own personal gain, etc. etc. Even if we just base it on historical Empires and the people they conquer, there's the evidence of Aztecs practicing human sacrifice and to some extent cannibalism, as well as the Celtic "Cult of the Head" idea.
Well, to be fair, the biggest bursts of Roman expansion came under the Republic (Gaul, the Punic Wars). The path to empire was a way to consolidate all of their conquests and administer them, not to manifest them.
I agree that the Empire (if it even is an Empire) shouldn't be simply evil, too. Think of it like the Romans, who brought sewers and public transportation, or even the Spanish, who ruthlessly suppressed sacrifice cults, flower wars, and ended the semi-regular cycle of civilizational collapses that marred the Mayans. They should have taken over and put their strongmen at the top in the place of the local strongmen, but generally made things better for the common people.