Birthright Adventures

[Lord Eldred]

Can anyone tell me where I can find a complete list of published Birthright Adventures? Or just give me a list here.

[Warlord Nabron]

Here are the five official adventures:

3102 Sword and Crown 1995
3110 Warlock of the Stonecrowns 1995
3118 The Sword of Roele 1996
3125 Legends of the Hero-Kings 1996
3142 King of the Giantdowns 1997

[Dienekes]

hmmm, I dont have Warlock of the stonecrowns.. lame.

But I have the rest, my favorite is definatly "Sword and Crown"

[Raesene Andu]

There is also an adventure in Dungeon (issue 59 or 60 I think it was) called Seeking Bloodsilver which is worth a look. Better than the published ones I think.

Of the published adventures, the only one's I've ever considered using as published are Sword & Crown, Legends of the Hero-Kings and King of the Giantdowns. The other two are total out of whack with my view of the Birthright world, although they can be used with some modification.

I was considering posting an updated version of The Sword of Roele a while back, but decided to drop that idea and work on my College of Sorcery adventure.

[Lord Eldred]

Thanks for the list guys. I have the Dungeon Magazine adventure already. Can anyone tell me where I can find the others?

[Lord Eldred]

I thought so too but one of our group members took his books and went home so now I am short hte Giants one.

[Lord Shaene]

Lord Eldred you can find all the modules at the avalon book store near your work, its on vandyke and 22 mile in the Mr B's Parking lot

[Lord Eldred]

I see that some of you have played these products. This site could use some product reviews posted in the writers guild. I ask and challenge you to post your reviews in the writers guild. However, please make them a worthy read. Simply saying I liked it won't help any of us very much ;)

[Magian]

I know the unpopularity of the Gorgon's Alliance Cd-rom game but it does have a few adventures in it, I know the maps would take a lot of work to make up but the descriptions are not so hard to extract. Some good ideas for item hunting in Anuire, however many of the key items are powerful.

[Lawgiver]

With the lack of new publications and limitations in availability I have found one of the best sources for WoTC BR material is eBay. you can generally get stuf pretty cheap, even with the shipping its well under market. I bought the box set for $11.00 + 5.00 shipping!!!

[MarcIDMT]

Are there any new BR computer games? Gorgon's Alliance was good. It seems all the new computer games have bugs and patches to find to fix. Wish they would let me playtest a few then the bugs would all be known and fixed before marketing.

One can only wait and do

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by MarcIDMT
Are there any new BR computer games? Gorgon's Alliance was good.

There are currently no plans for further Birthright PC games. The first was actually a bit of a flop. Many people who were not familiar with Birthright gave it negative or average reviews.

[Ulairi]

It came out in a time when PC RPG were dead, and it was buggy.

I think if Birthright got a graphics upgraded, unbuggied, and updated for the year 2002...it would be a huge hit.

[Sellenus]

I've never played Gorgon's Alliance. Not worth it?

[Lawgiver]

Orginally posted by Sellenus
I've never played Gorgon's Alliance. Not worth it?
I was rather impressed with it (for the time period it was released, the graphics in games have developed significantly since). You can easily secure a copy of it on ebay for $5-10 plus shipping. I think it brings a whole new dimension of understanding of the game to players and DMs alike. The patches available online fixed the majority of the problems (though I have foung a few that still exist).

[Ulairi]

It's a great TBS. The Dungeon Crawls aren't very good, but it's there for a change of pace.

[Arjan]

Although it was easy to become emperor al all levels it was a very good way to learn domain turns. and also the geography of anuire with its rulers

[Chaos Lord Arioch]

Has anyone used the character stats and equipment from the CD game for their own game?
I enjoyed the CD game. Yes it was buggy and its graphics and sound were poor but it was the only way I could play BR for a time.
I prefered the Sidhelien realms, of course.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 5:32 AM





> Changing a core class that was a shared core class (that is a

> core class of the core rules and a core class of the BR setting

> (from 2nd ed)) is outside of the scope of this project.



Had the original creators of BR used this guiding principle we would not

have the Magician clas, would not have changed a core race, elimintated

gnomes, eliminated the use of priests for elves, altered the core equipment

list, or made other kinds of changes.



If the consensus of the BR community is to make a change to the core rules,

well, isn`t that *exactly* what setting material does. Otherwise why even

bother with a CS and get right on to the atlas, listing everything according

to the core rules? I fully understand that one may not regard twelve voters

as representative of anything, but that`s a different issue.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck@Apr 2 2004, 08:00 AM
----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 5:32 AM





> Changing a core class that was a shared core class (that is a

> core class of the core rules and a core class of the BR setting

> (from 2nd ed)) is outside of the scope of this project.



Had the original creators of BR used this guiding principle we would not

have the Magician clas, would not have changed a core race, elimintated

gnomes, eliminated the use of priests for elves, altered the core equipment

list, or made other kinds of changes.



If the consensus of the BR community is to make a change to the core rules,

well, isn`t that *exactly* what setting material does. Otherwise why even

bother with a CS and get right on to the atlas, listing everything according

to the core rules? I fully understand that one may not regard twelve voters

as representative of anything, but that`s a different issue.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com


This looks like you are comparing apples to oranges.

The magician class wasn&#39;t a change to a core class it was a new class. A concept that is more fully embraced via the 3/3.5 mechanics (that is creating new classes).

Having elves not being priests was likewise not a change to the core classes.

The point I was making was that the paladin was a &#39;core&#39; 2nd ed class and was a &#39;core&#39; BR 2nd class.

Paladin is a &#39;core&#39; 3rd/3.5 ed class and there is no reason not to take a stance that it shouldn&#39;t be a &#39;core&#39; 3.5 BR class.

Again - my resistance to including the option of a paladin as a prestige class is based on the context in which people have posted their reasons for using prestige classes for paladins. They (generally) did not have anything to do with the BR campaign specifically, they had to do with people who didn&#39;t like the concept of a paladin - most common stance was the use of a Holy Warrior type of class instead.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 7:34 AM





> The magician class wasn`t a change to a core class it was a new

> class. A concept that is more fully embraced via the 3/3.5

> mechanics (that is creating new classes).



That` a distinction without a difference, clearly the magician is a modified

wizard. Its not like they invented a journalist class with no analog to the

bard or any other class. He was a specialist with some additional

restrictions, a kind of kit built in.



> Having elves not being priests was likewise not a change to the

> core classes.



Which clearly misses the notion that what is core, be it a race or class is

not neccesarily preserved in setting materials. The point, which may be so

obvious as to be overlooked, is that settings change core materials.



> Again - my resistance to including the option of a paladin as a

> prestige class is based on the context in which people have

> posted their reasons for using prestige classes for paladins.



So, why stick with an unpopular mechanic, and without doing the poll you

have no evidence that its not unpopular (assuming you could get a

representative sample), just because its core, when the very nature of a

setting is to change the core? A setting is nothing more than house rules

in which the house in question is a publishing house.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 03:34 PM 4/2/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



> The magician class wasn`t a change to a core class it was a new

> class. A concept that is more fully embraced via the 3/3.5 mechanics

> (that is creating new classes).



Technically, I think it was a change to a core class. "Wizards who are

restricted to lesser magic are known as _magicians_ or _seers_ in Cerilia"

(RB 12.) That sounds like it`s pretty much a tweak to an existing class

rather than something cut from a whole new cloth. Not that it really

matters in the long run... after all, in a 3e update the distinction

doesn`t make much of a difference unless one is going to have a single

class with two alternate paths available. They do that with a couple of

prestige classes, for instance. They have what amounts to an extensive set

of "special ability trees" a la D20 Modern that are a bit more open

ended. In this case, however, I don`t think that`s really warranted. A

separate class write up makes more sense.



> Having elves not being priests was likewise not a change to the core

> classes.



No, but it was a change to the core races. One that seems to give people a

lot of trouble, for that matter. Not allowing elves to be druids, for

instance, is probably one of the more contentious issues among BR

newbies--and a few veterans. I think the idea here is that the same spirit

of differentiating things from the core materials in a campaign text should

apply. Of course, it didn`t in the 2e rules set, but that was really a

much more restrictive system on the whole without the same options for

customization.



>The point I was making was that the paladin was a `core` 2nd ed class and

>was a `core` BR 2nd class.

>

> Paladin is a `core` 3rd/3.5 ed class and there is no reason not to take

> a stance that it shouldn`t be a `core` 3.5 BR class.

>

> Again - my resistance to including the option of a paladin as a prestige

> class is based on the context in which people have posted their reasons

> for using prestige classes for paladins. They (generally) did not have

> anything to do with the BR campaign specifically, they had to do with

> people who didn`t like the concept of a paladin - most common stance was

> the use of a Holy Warrior type of class instead.



That`s a legitimate argument. At it`s core, I do think the argument has

more to do with a critique of the 3e/3.5 system than BR in

particular--though IMO that`s sufficient reason to change things in

campaign material.



There are a few BR specific reasons to go with a prestige class for

paladins, however. Probably the most obvious is the function of RP

collection in BR`s domain level that gives paladins the ability to collect

points from levels of both law and temple holdings. That`s a very nice

benefit at the domain level, and one that kind of leans towards a prestige

class function IMO. (A similar argument could be used for rangers.) I

don`t think the issue really makes much difference unless it is associated

with an ability to cast realm spells, but that`s a bit more tweaking than I

think most folks want to make, so I can understand people not wanting to go

so far as to give paladins access to realm magic.



I`d suggest that some of the issues with BR paladins` multi-classing,

however, are an indication of the prestige class problem too. That is, it

indicates what might be in another D20 product the kind of thing that would

be a prestige class requirement for a prestige class; the ability to cast

divine magics for a prestige class that is otherwise a fighter, for instance.



The way BR paladins are individualized for the particular gods also seems

to lend itself to the prestige class function rather than the core class

system. One could argue that it fits in better with the 3e definition of

the function of prestige classes as opposed to the core classes. This is

illustrated by the number of prestige classes that are, for all intents and

purposes, paladins of various alignments in so many D&D products.



At the heart of the matter, however, is that I think the issue of making

paladins a prestige class might represent a level of complexity that isn`t

necessarily the kind of thing everybody wants in their campaign materials,

so I can see the argument for not going with that kind of system in the

core BR update. It`d be cool to have that kind of thing (and dozens of

others) in a BR equivalent of UA.... I`m sure that`s not going to happen,

but it`s a nice thought that it might.



Gary

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 4:53 AM





? ... and include dwarves/Moradin since it fits in so well with the

> 3.5 ruleset and they can have paladins now (whereas dwarves

> were forbidden in 2nd ed).



They were forbidden the class, not the function. They are well known for

the fighter/priest combination, and the CPH specifically noted Dwarves in

their demi-paladin section. See the pic on p. 70. The Champion kit from

the CDH is also very paladin-like. This kit is sanctioned in approved kits

on p. 14 of the BR rulebook. The step to actually allow the class as

modified for a Moradin faith is actually the final step in a natural

progression already nearly complete in 2e.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 11:53 AM 4/5/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>IMO, we should stick to the the 4 paladins from 2nd ed and include

>dwarves/Moradin since it fits in so well with the 3.5 ruleset and they can

>have paladins now (whereas dwarves were forbidden in 2nd ed).



I`ve never understood the rationale for dwarven paladins in BR, especially

in relation to this suggestion about keeping the 2e use of paladins in the

setting. BR made several changes to the core rules when it came out

regarding paladins. The class was restricted not just to humans, but to

specific human races. Alignment was changed for the class in certain cases

(a 2e sacred cow from what I could tell) and the class abilities were

altered. If dwarves had been meant to have access to the paladin class in

the original materials then they would have been. Personally, I don`t see

the paladins of Moradin fitting in any better with the 3.5 rules set in any

particular way. Other than the class being available to 3e dwarves is

there some other rationale?



Gary

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Apr 5 2004, 06:50 AM
At 11:53 AM 4/5/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>IMO, we should stick to the the 4 paladins from 2nd ed and include

>dwarves/Moradin since it fits in so well with the 3.5 ruleset and they can

>have paladins now (whereas dwarves were forbidden in 2nd ed).



I`ve never understood the rationale for dwarven paladins in BR, especially

in relation to this suggestion about keeping the 2e use of paladins in the

setting. BR made several changes to the core rules when it came out

regarding paladins. The class was restricted not just to humans, but to

specific human races. Alignment was changed for the class in certain cases

(a 2e sacred cow from what I could tell) and the class abilities were

altered. If dwarves had been meant to have access to the paladin class in

the original materials then they would have been. Personally, I don`t see

the paladins of Moradin fitting in any better with the 3.5 rules set in any

particular way. Other than the class being available to 3e dwarves is

there some other rationale?



Gary


Using this logic then barbarians and sorcerers shouldn&#39;t be allowed in the BRCS either since neither were classes in 2nd ed. Nor should any race other than humans or half-elves be allowed to be bards (OK elves too since BR specifically extended the class to them).

As Kenneth pointed out there were many examples of dwarven fighter/cleric type of kits acceptable in 2nd ed BR. Since kits have gone away and these examples paralleled the paladin class so much it only makes sense to allow it.

IMO the reason that being a paladin wasn&#39;t extended to dwarves wa that TSR wanted to maintain the exclusivity of the class to humans. This had more to do with the way they (TSR) saw races as being balanced as far as multiclasses went than it did with actually themeatic adherence.

Also the &#39;restriction&#39; of only certain human subraces having paladins was immediately broken in Ruins of Empire - remember that Vos paladin of Haelyn predominantly listed as an NPC.

I fall back into the restriction for no dwarven paladins wasn&#39;t a BR specific issue since they weren&#39;t allowed in the core rules, the same as dwarven or halfling arcane casters. 3rd ed opened up the door for them to have wizards/sorcerers and even bards. While wizards of those races could easily be seen as rare, IMO bards are a common theme in any society especially in dwarven ones. The old mining and drinking songs come to mind.

Kenneth, I wonder why the last couple of times you have posted replies to the Poll thread they have ended up on the Royal Library thread? Since I can&#39;t move a reply from one thread to another I&#39;m stuck here (the same as Gary). It only makes things confusing when trying to keep similar themed topics together since this discussion has somehow ended up under the BR adventures thread in the Royal Library.

[geeman]

At 03:37 PM 4/5/2004 +0200, irdeggman wrote:



>
I`ve never understood the rationale for dwarven paladins in BR,

>especially<>

> in relation to this suggestion about keeping the 2e use of paladins in

> the<>

> setting. BR made several changes to the core rules when it came out<>

> regarding paladins. The class was restricted not just to humans, but

> to<>

> specific human races. Alignment was changed for the class in certain

> cases<>

> (a 2e sacred cow from what I could tell) and the class abilities were<>

> altered. If dwarves had been meant to have access to the paladin class

> in<>

> the original materials then they would have been. Personally, I don`t

> see<>

> the paladins of Moradin fitting in any better with the 3.5 rules set in

> any<>

> particular way. Other than the class being available to 3e dwarves is<>

> there some other rationale?<>

>

> Using this logic then barbarians and sorcerers shouldn`t be allowed in

> the BRCS either since neither were classes in 2nd ed.



I don`t think that follows.... Since sorcerers and barbarians didn`t exist

(though barbarians did have earlier incarnations than in 2e) they couldn`t

have been used in developing the BR materials. Since paladins DID exist in

2e they could have been allowed to dwarves in BR`s 2e rules should that

have been something deemed necessary or thematically warranted in the same

way that the campaign materials changed the paladin class to restrict it to

only a few human races (a change from the 2e standard) and changed the

class itself to make it different from the core class. There could have

been dwarven paladins in the original BR materials but they

weren`t. Therefore, they shouldn`t be in a 3e update.



>Nor should any race other than humans or half-elves be allowed to be bards

>(OK elves too since BR specifically extended the class to them).



Well, since you mentioned it... races other than humans, half-elves and

bards should not be allowed to be bards. Do we have a crying need for

dwarven bards in BR, really? Is access to illusion, divination and charm

magics really that compelling a thing for dwarves? Do we really need lute

strumming, diminutive, hirsute, little people? There`s nothing compelling

or even very appropriate about allowing the free access of the character

classes to all races in BR.



This is another one of those cases when it`s the function of the campaign

materials is to set these types of restrictions. That the core materials

don`t set them has nothing to do with the themes of the setting.



> As Kenneth pointed out there were many examples of dwarven

> fighter/cleric type of kits acceptable in 2nd ed BR. Since kits have gone

> away and these examples paralleled the paladin class so much it only

> makes sense to allow it.



Fighter/cleric type 2e kits only indicates that the specialty feat/special

ability functions of those classes should be utilized in 3e to reflect the

particulars of those abilities, not that an entirely different character

class (which, I reiterate, could have been done in the first place) should

be used.



> IMO the reason that being a paladin wasn`t extended to dwarves wa that

> TSR wanted to maintain the exclusivity of the class to humans. This had

> more to do with the way they (TSR) saw races as being balanced as far as

> multiclasses went than it did with actually themeatic adherence.



OK. I don`t know if that`s the case or not. I think they did it because

the character class doesn`t really fit the racial themes... and it still

doesn`t in the 3e update. Cerilian dwarven paladins are kind of goofy,

especially since several of the class abilities seem more apt for

humans. I don`t get a real big "lay on hands" vibe off of Cerilian

dwarves, for instance, and several other aspects of the character class

don`t seem very appropriate to express dwarf theology. Aside from the

goofiness of the 3.5 special mount power of paladin`s



> Also the `restriction` of only certain human subraces having paladins

> was immediately broken in Ruins of Empire - remember that Vos paladin of

> Haelyn predominantly listed as an NPC.



Sure, it was broken once... for a human. Opening up the racial

restrictions of the setting doesn`t exactly flow from that one

exception. There are lots of such things in the BR materials, and it`s

just as easy (and probably more sensible) to attribute them to some shoddy

editing rather than try to use that as a justification for losing chunks of

the system of racial class restrictions.



> I fall back into the restriction for no dwarven paladins wasn`t a BR

> specific issue since they weren`t allowed in the core rules, the same as

> dwarven or halfling arcane casters. 3rd ed opened up the door for them

> to have wizards/sorcerers and even bards. While wizards of those races

> could easily be seen as rare, IMO bards are a common theme in any society

> especially in dwarven ones. The old mining and drinking songs come to mind.



For the most part, the racial class restrictions should remain the same in

an update as they were in the original materials. While some of those were

core restrictions, they also influenced the overall theme of the

setting. Now that there are barbarians should we have Anuirean and Khinasi

barbarians running around? It`s thematically sensible to restrict that

class to the Rjurik, Vos, orogs and gnolls. When it boils right down to

it... BR dwarven paladins are IMO just odd. They`re odd in 3e in general,

but in BR they are downright peculiar.



> Kenneth, I wonder why the last couple of times you have posted replies

> to the Poll thread they have ended up on the Royal Library thread? Since

> I can`t move a reply from one thread to another I`m stuck here (the same

> as Gary). It only makes things confusing when trying to keep similar

> themed topics together since this discussion has somehow ended up under

> the BR adventures thread in the Royal Library.



The tag that routes the posts from the message list to the message boards

is a little numerical code in brackets at the end of the subject

line. When the subject lines are too long the end of it gets cut off and

the message board has no info on what the lister`s response is _supposed_

to go, so it defaults to the Royal Library.



Gary

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

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

Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 8:37 AM





> Kenneth, I wonder why the last couple of times you have posted replies to

the Poll thread they have ended up on the Royal Library



I can`t win. I specifically moved Shadow World and the Faiths because I

wasn`t really staying on topic of the Shadow World thread and what I had to

say didn`t have anything to do with the BRCS.



I specifically moved Priestly Magic in Battle because I wasn`t staying on

topic of How Have the Humans Won, taking the conversation in a new direction

which, frankly, was influenced as much by the recent Polytheism and the war

threads Knights, Ginetes, and other musings, (which I had moved out of

Paladins and Multiclassing thread for the same reasons) as it was sparked by

the explanation of human victory, pre-Deismaar.



I don`t know how my comments on paladin rules ended up in this Adventures

thread, though. I do have two theories. Either I clicked on the wrong

message and wrote a reply under a nearby thread, or its another case of the

missing message SW effect menacing our humble activites.



You have made the point several times that we have gotten off thread in

earlier messages, so take this to mean that someone is listening.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[kgauck]

Gary have you have completly 180`d on holy warriors? Where is the GeeMan

who wrote the Hellion of Maglubiyet in April of `00? What would Tim Nutting

say? Or, are you just comming over to my approach to paladins, that

represent them best not by a class, but by access to "paladin" feats?



Going back and reading the archives, I observed then that the purpose of the

paladin, and its restriction to humans, was that humans were forbidden to

multi-class. So the paladin satisfied the knights-in-search-of-the-grail

motif of dedicated warriors, without breaking the multi-classing

prohibition.



Today, I still contend that the class is obsolete with the free human

multi-classing, and best represented by allowing the purchase of certain

feats by faith for character who abide by the conduct requirements of

clerics. Such a system eliminates a core class and the need for variations

of ultimatly similar classes.



As for devoted warriors of Moradin, they certainly do make sense. The

Forge-lighter described in the CPH is especially appropriate to Baruk-Azhik

and anywhere else the struggle against the Orogs is a primary theme.



Back in my Barik-Azhik days (pre-Diesmaar it almost seems now), I had a

dwarven chanter as a member of the court, a dwarven bard. He drummed,

chanted, and knew the geneologies of all the dwarves of name. He was an

expert on Baruk-Azhik history and come to think of it, I don`t remember him

ever casting spells.



All hail the triumph of 3e.



You can check out these old archives at

http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A1=ind0004b&L=birthright-l#26

just be careful not to handle these old scrolls too roughly, the papyrus

will crack and chip.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 01:58 PM 4/5/2004 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>Gary have you have completly 180`d on holy warriors? Where is the GeeMan

>who wrote the Hellion of Maglubiyet in April of `00? What would Tim

>Nutting say? Or, are you just comming over to my approach to paladins,

>that represent them best not by a class, but by access to "paladin" feats?



Heh. No, I haven`t 180`d on the holy warrior thing. I`ve refined. I

have, however, 180`d on the whole prestige class thing. Perviously, my

thinking was that with a good system of feats one could do away with

prestige classes. While that`s still basically true, prestige classes are

a nice short hand way of doing the same thing without having to articulate

a colossal system of tree-like feats and special abilities. I still like

the idea of holy warriors as 1st level core classes, but I prefer to keep

the paladin function a prestige class. A while back we were talking about

having "specialty fighters" of the type that would be "holy warriors" for

each of the gods who have paladins. IMO such holy warriors are really just

specialist fighters with a few tweaks to the class. That way the

"knightly" functions of the holy warriors can kick in at the point at which

they take levels in a prestige class.



The Hellion should in that context be a prestige class available to goblins

after they take a few levels as a fighter and/or cleric.



Gary