Azrai`s 2000 parts

[DanMcSorley]

ame tonight. Whoopee! First time I`ve been able to

run a face-to-face game in years, and I cleverly engineered it to be set

in Birthright. The players weren`t really interested in ruling kingdoms

so much as adventuring, but I`ll work on them.



They started out in Dhoesone, a barbarian, a barbarian/ranger, and a druid

(they all picked rjurik, I have no clue why). Got hired to guard the

prizes for a tournament the Baroness was throwing. Briefly debated

stealing them themselves. Fought off the re-animating undead that were

brought as a distraction, and then dispatched the rogue trying to steal

the prize with a single critical hit. My poor NPCs.



So the prize for the joust was this sword, golden or gold-plated, they

don`t know. I figured the bad guys were stealing it because it`s darn

valuable, and even evil cultists bent on world domination need money. But

my players think it must be some kind of ancient magical thingamabob, and

never let it be said I don`t aim to please.



So my new plan is that the sword is Azrai`s sword. The way I figure it,

when azrai died, he split into parts, plus lost some bits into the minor

awnsheghlien that were created.



These are fuzzy, but the general separation:

Pride- I`d like his sword to have gained the pride aspect.

Greed- The Cold Rider- wants to posess the entire shadow world.

Envy- the Gorgon- he always envied his brothers.

Wrath- Belenik- obviously.

Sloth- the Apocalypse- it floats around slowly and eats things. This one

is week.



Which leaves:

Lust

Gluttony



Kriesha doesn`t seem to fit any of these really, she`s described in the

BoP as plotting and cruel. Maybe Lust? And that would still leave one

open, which is fine, this doesn`t have to fit perfect right away, since

all the players know is there`s a sword some dead guy wanted.



I don`t know where this is going eventually, maybe if the Gorgon is

tricked into using the sword to kill the Apocalypse, well, that`s 3 parts,

something bad will happen. Who knows.



By the way, skeletons in 3.5 have DR 5/blunt, meaning blunt weapons

penetrate the DR. If some evil guy takes the time to fit them with iron

banding on their major bones, you can just give them DR 5/- and freak your

players out.



--

Daniel McSorley

[Bervinig]

Some thoughts:

Lust: This could be The Siren or the White Witch. I'd recommend the Siren, since she got her bloodline from another known to be dashing and ravishing.

Gluttony: The Raven. The Kraken. The Leviathan. The Seadrake. Heck, make The Seadrake Greed and The Cold Rider Gluttony.

Have you had a chance to see the video game Grandia II? It's got a plot line of gathering the pieces of a dead god to resurrect him. Might be helpful.

[Michael Romes]

Has noone thought of Garak the Glutton as Gluttony? He already got the name in Blood Enemies p. 117...

[UncleHyena]

To really make this work, all of the awnsheghlien involved should have been present at Azrai's disintegration, or be able to trace a path back to that.

Actually, the sword would be a good choice for Gluttony. Otherwise, probably the Leviathan.

Lust is traditionally SEXUAL lust, and, given that the source was Azrai, the recipient really should be male (that is, it should be about rape rather than seduction). Actually, an embodiment of lust is a pretty questionable idea unless you are running a VERY "R" rated campaign.

Sloth... Hard to make much of a villian out of Sloth. ("What can you tell me about the monster?" "Well, it just sort of sits there, and is ugly..."). Remember, the Seven Deadly Sins were not seen as properties of a wicked person, they were things which could trip up a righteous person. It makes a difference.

Uncle Hyena

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by UncleHyena@Jul 27 2003, 01:44 PM

Lust is traditionally SEXUAL lust, and, given that the source was Azrai, the recipient really should be male (that is, it should be about rape rather than seduction). Actually, an embodiment of lust is a pretty questionable idea unless you are running a VERY "R" rated campaign.

Uncle Hyena
Rape is not sexual. It is about power and is pure violence that has nothing do do with sex.

By giving it the "sexual" label, people are detracting from the sheer violation that the act is about and the violence associated with it.

Sorry for getting up on a soapbox but my moral code forces me to point out the distinction.

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 2:53 PM





> Rape is not sexual. It is about power and is pure violence that has

> nothing do do with sex.

>

> By giving it the "sexual" label, people are detracting

> from the sheer violation that the act is about and the violence associated

> with it.

>

> Sorry for getting up on a soapbox but my moral code forces me to

> point out the distinction.



An interuption of the 20th, or 21st century on a discussion of ancient or

medieval theology is most unwelcome. This is where we distinguish between

what the player knows and how the campaign works. Uncle Hyena is much more

in tune with his medieval reading of the inherent dangers in sex as a

corrupting influence (hence the chastity &c, its all there in Augustine)

than this bit of modernism.



Playing BR in which all of the ideas are none-the-less modern is more like

playing dress-up with old clothes we found in the attic. Getting into the

spirit of a different world suggests we adopt different ideas about things

criminal, social, political, and scientific. Just to name a few.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

3 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>


>Lust is traditionally SEXUAL lust, and, given that the source was Azrai,

>the recipient really should be male (that is, it should be about rape

>rather than seduction). Actually, an embodiment of lust is a pretty

>questionable idea unless you are running a VERY "R" rated campaign.

>

> Rape is not sexual. It is about power and is pure violence that has

> nothing do do with sex.

>

> By giving it the "sexual" label, people are detracting from

> the sheer violation that the act is about and the violence associated with it.



I understand and sympathize with the effort to define the word as violence

that has nothing to do with sex. In doing so the term is put into a purely

legalistic and political sense which gives the subject more dispassionate

attention by the authorities and the culture at large.



Real life political expedience aside, however, we`re talking about

characters that embrace a deadly sin, so portraying them as participating

in an immoral or destructive act that is closely associated with that sin

makes pretty good sense. Divorcing rape from lust would be like divorcing

murder from wrath or theft from greed. By extension if one refuses to

describe a character who embodied gluttony as fat because of the

ramifications of that word it would IMO definitely detract from the

symbolic nature of the character. One could, I suppose, have a character

who embraced lust but only with responsible partners who gave their

consent... but s/he`d be a pretty gutless character, wouldn`t it?



Gary

[irdeggman]

Then if we are using a "historical" reference for rape we shouldn&#39;t really be looking at it as a sin at all. Nobility had the right to use their servants (and fiefs) as they wished for that purpose. Husbands couldn&#39;t rape their wives since it was their divine right for relations, etc.

[geeman]

3 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



> Then if we are using a "historical" reference for rape we

> shouldn`t really be looking at it as a sin at all. Nobility had the

> right to use their servants (and fiefs) as they wished for that

> purpose. Husbands couldn`t rape their wives since it was their divine

> right for relations, etc.



Well, first off, neither of those things are quite true. Both subservient

peoples and wives had certain rights to their own bodies. There absolutely

were seraglios and such things where sexual rights were absent, and we can

also recognize a certain a de facto lack of enforcement on many occasions

for violating those rights (I would make a comparison, however, to the

marked but still unfavorable rate of enforcement and punishment in modern

times for like crimes) especially when abusers occupy positions of

authority or prominence (which draws pretty nearly the same comparison to

the modern day) but that`s a bit different from saying that what would be

termed rape today was the standard of behavior. If one goes through legal

records of medieval and later times there are plenty of cases of sexually

abusive behavior being prosecuted. (There was a tendency to prosecute

promiscuity too, but that`s another issue....) Penalties in such cases

could be wildly disparate, ranging from a simple monetary fine to capital

punishment, but I`d suggest that such things aren`t particularly different

from many other types of criminal proceedings of the time and warranted a

comparable amount of attention.



Secondly, even if we assumed that one couldn`t sexually abuse a wife or a

serf that still doesn`t mean the legalistic definition of the crime doesn`t

exist for other circumstances, so the conclusion that we shouldn`t look at

it as a sin at all doesn`t follow.



Gary

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: "irdeggman" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 11:02 AM





> Then if we are using a "historical" reference for rape

> we shouldn`t really be looking at it as a sin at all. Nobility had the

> right to use their servants (and fiefs) as they wished for that purpose.

> Husbands couldn`t rape their wives since it was their divine right for

> relations, etc.



All religions breed some amount of schism between theology and social

practice. Notions of sin are theological, stemming from the teaching of the

church. The abuses you mention were acceptable practice, but condemned by

the church. Sex was inherently evil, a product of the fall of man. Even

sex for procreation was a neccesary evil. The only elevated state was

chastity. Historical references to social practice among lay people does

not properly substitute for the thinking of eminent theologians.



Theological disputes, BTW, make a very nice inclusion when designing temple

factions as well as cleavages between temples.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Osprey]

Lust is traditionally SEXUAL lust, and, given that the source was Azrai,
>the recipient really should be male (that is, it should be about rape
>rather than seduction). Actually, an embodiment of lust is a pretty
>questionable idea unless you are running a VERY "R" rated campaign.

Why male? What about Kreisha? Azrai&#39;s a GOD, not a man, so his sex should be a minor issue, especially given his role as Deciever. One can only imagine he played female roles plenty of times.



Then if we are using a "historical" reference for rape we
> shouldn`t really be looking at it as a sin at all. Nobility had the
> right to use their servants (and fiefs) as they wished for that
> purpose. Husbands couldn`t rape their wives since it was their divine
> right for relations, etc.

How far back in history are we talking, and in what cultures? Azrai is a VERY old god. Are we thinking of what is considered a sin in present-day Anuire? If so, then we should be asking what Haelyn would think, as the patron deity of Anuire.

That aside, rape is nearly always a bad experience for the victim. That we should all be able to agree on (Erik the Red aside). Is an act evil if the actor doesn&#39;t believe it to be so? Or is it judged by its consequences? There&#39;s the philosophical heart of the matter, as I see it.
On the other hand, rape was viewed as a rightful "spoil of war" for most of history by most cultures (even into the present, though thankfully less so). Violent, yes. But all about domination? Maybe. Methinks that would be Belinik&#39;s arena anyways.

But Lust - hmmm. If Lust is a sin by Haelyn&#39;s standards, then it must be in the form of going outside acceptable boundaries. Lusting after another man&#39;s wife, for example. Or compromising one&#39;s morals (falling into sin) in order to get with that sexy woman (the classic role of the succubus).

I use Haelyn not only because he&#39;s the patron of Anuire, but also because he seems to be the moral opposite of Azrai; certainly the moral opposition.

I actually like the idea of the Siren representing lust. Sounds good to me. Far too many male villains already.

Osprey

[destowe]

I could easily see Siren being the embodiment of Lust. Just the way I infer Dashid the Astronomer, makes this seem logical.

Here we have a regent, giving up much to be by her side. That is the man that succembed in Lust.