Results 1 to 3 of 3
Thread: Chapter 1: race descriptions
02-09-2003, 02:01 AM #1
If we`re going to include elves and dwarves as PC races, we should
definitely include goblins as well, and probably orogs -- though it wasn`t
done that way in the original rules, in terms of Cerilian geopolitics
goblins are much more playable in mixed-race campaigns than elves are.
If we`re going to include RW parallels in the human culture descriptions
at all, we should include more than are present. France is a better
parallel for Anuire than England, at least in the days when all the King
ruled was the Ile`-de-France. Italian city-states and the Hanseatic
League should definitely be mentioned with the Brecht, Moorish Spain with
the Khinasi, etc. The more parallels included, the wider the range of
suggested source material to plunder, and the clearer the idea that these
parallels are not equalities, but only rough and partial similarities.
For the Khinasi, the renaming story is incorrect. The glossary at the end
of the book does a much better job: "The phrase Khinasi is a corruption of
khir-aften el-Arrasi, or `lands under the protection of el Arrasi.` It
became the common name for the Basarji nations in other lands. Today the
Khinasi don`t even bother to correct visitors anymore." Why not just copy
that into chapter one?
The Rjurik economy should definitely include pastoralism -- that is,
herding domesticated animals, as well as hunting wild ones.
"The Anuireans as a whole are now no more and no less powerful as the
other peoples" -- should be "just as powerful as" or "no more and no less
powerful than", not a mixture of the two.
"There is written version to the Vos language and only those that speak
another language are literate" has a serious omission: it meant to say
there is NO Vos writing. The sentence should instead read, "There is no
written version of the Vos language; only those who speak another language
"orogs (orc-like beings)" is too glib a gloss. They deserve their own
section here just as much as the dwarves do.
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
02-12-2003, 01:09 PM #2
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
I agree with the idea of a Goblinoids being included as playble races, on a further pro-goblin(g) note Goblin units are all Mercenerys while i think this generaly suits the idea of the goblin army, the rules do mention that goblins nations can have disciplined and relible troops. I think there should be provision in the training rules to train away the Merc trait. So that a goblin kingdom can have a small core of well disciplined troops who the ruler can be sure propably wont defect to the first usurper or break and run to quickly on campaign. But in a major conflict will have to rely on a quickly raised combative but undisciplend hord.
02-12-2003, 05:49 PM #3
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
I think that the write up of goblins (and orogs, if really desired) as playable races would best be included in the d20 Atlas section on their races. Besides this will probably not be done until after the 3.5 version comes out which is supposed to "clarify" using monsters as characters. It would be best to table this discussion until then, IMO, since we would have more "core" info to base things on.Duane Eggert
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)