Results 1 to 10 of 12
Thread: Azrai`s 2000 parts
-
07-15-2003, 06:52 AM #1
- Join Date
- Feb 2003
- Posts
- 388
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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
-
07-16-2003, 04:56 PM #2
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Posts
- 2
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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.
-
07-17-2003, 08:01 PM #3
Has noone thought of Garak the Glutton as Gluttony? He already got the name in Blood Enemies p. 117...
Michael Romes
-
07-27-2003, 06:44 PM #4
- Join Date
- Jul 2003
- Posts
- 7
- Downloads
- 2
- Uploads
- 0
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
-
07-27-2003, 07:53 PM #5
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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
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.Duane Eggert
-
07-27-2003, 09:02 PM #6
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
-
07-28-2003, 09:58 AM #7
3 +0200, irdeggman wrote:
>Originally Posted by UncleHyena,Jul 27 2003, 01:44 PM
> 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
-
07-28-2003, 04:02 PM #8
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
- Posts
- 3,945
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
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.
Duane Eggert
-
07-28-2003, 11:02 PM #9
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
-
07-28-2003, 11:02 PM #10
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
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks