How have the Humans won against the elves?

[kgauck]

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

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

Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 5:09 PM





> Perhaps the reason why the elves lost was because

> the source levels were lowered due to human expansion



Certainly this is a key factor in the ultimate defeat, what

remains up in the air is how soon the elves took to sense

the disturbance in the force and go after the source. Its

very possible that the elves took a while to notice the

decline, and that when they did, they didn`t attribute it to

human settlement, since this relationship was unknown.

Of course we can reject this theory by supposing that the

elves knew it instinctivly or intuitively. But if we do accept

the theory, we can further speculate, ironically, that the

elves held off against the humans until they could reverse

the decline of the mebhaighl, and only realized that it was

the humans all along.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Osprey]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Celahir"
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 5:09 PM


> Perhaps the reason why the elves lost was because
> the source levels were lowered due to human expansion

Certainly this is a key factor in the ultimate defeat, what
remains up in the air is how soon the elves took to sense
the disturbance in the force and go after the source. Its
very possible that the elves took a while to notice the
decline, and that when they did, they didn`t attribute it to
human settlement, since this relationship was unknown.
Of course we can reject this theory by supposing that the
elves knew it instinctivly or intuitively. But if we do accept
the theory, we can further speculate, ironically, that the
elves held off against the humans until they could reverse
the decline of the mebhaighl, and only realized that it was
the humans all along.

Kenneth Gauck

All of which brings up an interesting question: Could elves cast realm spells before they had divine bloodlines? Or did Desimaar open up this possibility for them, and perhaps stabilize the balance of power between races at that point? The Andu had probably stopped their aggression against the eleves for some time once the threat of Azrai became apparent...and given the implied scale of the battle of Deismaar, it seems they would have built up their forces for some time to be able to muster so many...plus Azrai was probably keeping them off-balance by throwing humanoid attackers against their settlements to hamper their war effort and hone the humanoid forces in preparation for the Big One.

One theory I have going is that after Deismaar, the elves made peace with most of the human tribes. A period of cooperation may even have ensued. It seems a necessity that either the elves or the dragons taught the blooded humans true magic...I have a hard time believing the full array of wizard and sorcerer powers is purely the result of independent experimentation and research by generations of ambitious scions.

The point made earlier that the elven population would have taken a serious blow from Deismaar is a good one...whether they ever really recovered, or will recover, certainly remains up for debate (and will forever, as the setting material will never definitively tell us, and each DM will have their own take on it). But it&#39;s a good debate...interesting to consider the possibilities.

Personally, on the general issue of humans vs. elves, I&#39;m solidly in the camp of human population and aggression being the single greatest factor in humans winning a multi-generational war. Immigrating veteran reinforcements don&#39;t hurt, either, and having clerics and gods on your side is also a big supporting factor.

One of the things about human clerics vs. elven mages is that human clerics probably require a lot less training and devoted pursuit to gain their powers than true mages would. Combine with human reproduction rates, and you have the elves killing off enemy spellcasters only to see them "rapidly" replaced (in elven time), while every elven mage dead is one less to worry about for a few centuries.

So long as the humans had the drive and tenacity to keep fighting, despite likely early losses and setbacks (the elves would have kicked the humans&#39; butts in most of the early battles), they would have inevitably won the long war...given enough time. It&#39;s unclear, though, just how much time passed between the first settlers arriving in Cerilia and Deismaar, but it must have been a few centuries at least.

As for the gods appearing in person...I&#39;m gonna have to chalk that one up to romantic notions. The reason is that the one solid piece of evidence we have about their behavior is Deismaar. And at Deismaar, the tribal gods didn&#39;t manifest over the field until they realized that Azrai was already there...

Now, if it was &#39;normal&#39; for the gods to manifest when their followers had great need, why wouldn&#39;t they have been down there fighting at Deismaar right from the beginning? Why have champions at all, when you could just represent yourself (and given the actual death of the gods, it seems the Cerilian ones didn&#39;t use avatars)?

I think the gods may have more directly aided their patron people against the elves, but I doubt they ever manifested personally and threw in with the humans...what I could imagine is them intervening to save beloved heroes/champions, changing the weather to hide their followers from an elven ambush, granting foreknowledge through dreams of the consequences of certain choices, etc. The kinds of things gods do for their heroes in most mythologies. At best, I could imagine the gods "manifesting" in the sense of possessing or empowering their tribal champions, imbuing them with superhuman qualities for the duration of a battle (Anduiras would be a great candidate for this tactic) - imagine your best fighter suddenly empowered with (in D&D terms) Divine Favor, Divine Power, and Righteous Might? He grows huge, powerfully strong, and is a terror on the battlefield...AND resistant to most of the elven magic&#33; Now THAT might be enough to empower a human victory all by itself&#33; If the human tribes were anything like most human tribes of Iron Age Earth, their heroes and champions were the heart and soul of any fighting force...a strong champion meant a strong army, and vice versa. If the champion proved indomitable, his troops would feel that they were invincible too...and fight hard, harder and better than the elves would give them credit for, in all likelihood.

[geeman]

At 02:12 PM 4/8/2004 +0200, Osprey wrote:



>Could elves cast realm spells before they had divine bloodlines? Or did

>Desimaar open up this possibility for them, and perhaps stabilize the

>balance of power between races at that point?



I`d say that they could not cast realm spells, at least not standard, BR

realm spells. RP are required to cast realm spells and the need for a

bloodline to collect RP, the Sidhe (or anyone) did not have had access to

either of those things before Deismaar, so they couldn`t have cast those

spells.



However, I think they probably did have some sort of comparable scale of

magic. "Realm spells" without RP might take a domain turn rather than a

month, and may require the participation of more than a single character

(regent) who channels the regency that powers the spell, but there could be

some sort of domain level equivalent that lacks the speed and effect of the

standard realm spell. At the very least, there`s the effect of casting

certain spells repetitively over a period of time which would have some

sort of domain level effect in certain cases.



Gary

[geeman]

At 07:18 PM 4/7/2004 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> > Very few characters in the BR universe are going to

> > be very concerned by the fact that the original Zeus

> > is now Haelyn, but it does make for a rather extensive

> > effect that some folks might balk at.

>

>Even this replacement is mirrored is Saturn`s replacement

>of Uranus, and Saturn`s replacement by Jupiter.

>(or Uranos, Kronos, and Zeus)



That`s true, though it seems to me those examples (and most of the rest of

them that I can come up with off the top of my head) are things that take

place in the "background" of the respective pantheons/religions rather than

being things that occur in their living history. If one wanted to stretch

the analogy one could find a few parallels in some modern religions that

feature some living embodiment of a god/enlightenment or otherwise elevated

human being, but in those cases the human who manifests the divine doesn`t

actually supplant that divinity.



I suppose one could use the transition from one to the other to illustrate

the significance of the change, however. I mean, only Cerilians and likely

some Adurians know about the transition. Imagine telling a Greek that Zeus

was dead but had been replaced by one of his mortal followers who now

embodies most of that god`s aspect and role in the pantheon. That`s pretty

heretical by any standard.



Gary

[kgauck]

Depends on one`s notions of divinity. That`s part of DM cosmology. It also

depends on one`s notions of who is human. Semantic questions don`t

illuminate unless the catagories are significant to some argument or

another. Since we are talking about a succession of dieties, who qualifies

and who doesn`t isn`t really the point. I think you should return to your

earlier formulation that where there are a lot of commonalities, some

analogy can be drawn. That fact that no analogy is perfect is obvious.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 04:30 PM 4/8/2004 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>Depends on one`s notions of divinity. That`s part of DM cosmology. It also

>depends on one`s notions of who is human. Semantic questions don`t

>illuminate unless the catagories are significant to some argument or

>another.



I`m sure some folks would have ideas about divinity that would accommodate

their gods dying and being replaced by their most faithful followers, but

in general that`s not the kind of thing most people would embrace as part

of their cosmology. Sure, a DM might decide that for the purpose of a

campaign world, but to maintain some semblance of realism he`d likely want

to recognize the idea as being controversial at best.



>Since we are talking about a succession of dieties, who qualifies

>and who doesn`t isn`t really the point.



It wasn`t really my point.



>I think you should return to your earlier formulation that where there are

>a lot of commonalities, some

>analogy can be drawn. That fact that no analogy is perfect is obvious.



I`m still using that concept. All I was pointing out was that the

commonalities between the deities of different pantheons is why some folks

might have a problem with the suggestion that the BR gods parallel those of

other pantheons. That is, the BR gods have died and been replaced, which

means their equivalents in other pantheons did as well. If Anduiras = Zeus

then when Anduiras was replaced by Haelyn then Zeus was too. That is a

pretty broad ramification for the BR background, and some folks might balk

at it. That`s not to say it couldn`t be done, I`m just suggesting that the

reaction itself would probably be the same as the reaction of people on

Aebrynis (or those Cerilians who weren`t at Deismaar) when they were told

the gods were dead and mortals had replaced them.



Gary

[kgauck]

Attempting to guess at the psychology, cultural assumptions, and cosmologies

of people in game worlds not my own sounds like a dubious endeavor at best.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 06:28 PM 4/8/2004 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>Attempting to guess at the psychology, cultural assumptions, and cosmologies

>of people in game worlds not my own sounds like a dubious endeavor at best.



Well, that`s what we do here. Besides, in this case it`s not a

particularly dramatic leap.



Gary

[kgauck]

My mistake, I though we discussing something else.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by geeman@Apr 8 2004, 06:20 PM
I`m sure some folks would have ideas about divinity that would accommodate

their gods dying and being replaced by their most faithful followers, but

in general that`s not the kind of thing most people would embrace as part

of their cosmology. Sure, a DM might decide that for the purpose of a

campaign world, but to maintain some semblance of realism he`d likely want

to recognize the idea as being controversial at best.
Gary

I think this is too broad of an assumption in determining other people&#39;s opinion of a comology.

IMO more people (who play Birthright, since that is the setting we are talking about and not real world {fantasy versus real world, sometimes its hard to tell where the lines are drawn }) can accept and embrace the concept of the old human gods dying and passing on their charges to their most dedicated followers than any other concept presented.

The other takes on this serve as a good point of discussion, but one shouldn&#39;t make the assumption that most people (even my opinion is subject to this wide application, but is based on 2nd ed BR material instead of something else) would agree with a concept that is contrary to the cosmology presented in the 2nd ed BR setting material.

Deities and Demigods (3.0 version) has a small (far too small for my take) section mentioning gods dying - so WotC had obviously thought that the concept could fit into enough people&#39;s cosmology to mention.