Blood Skull Barony

[kgauck]

Stone has a longer shelf life than wood.

[Thelandrin]

I say go with the trolls. After all, we don't need the entire monster menu in every region.

[Cargaroth]

I'd definatly go with trolls or ogres instead of minotaurs. Keep minotaurs reserved for the Maze or somewhere where their distinctiveness is harnessed (see Krynn). As for the great oak wall, I prefer the idea that it might be something that Erik might have grown, rather than constructed by the rjurik. A huge wall of thorns is good, or perhaps a densly backed grove of oak trees, semi setinent and resistant to fire (think of the Huorns of Tolkien). of course the orogs can tunnel underneath ...

[Lee]

In a message dated 6/17/2008 10:06:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET writes:

Anyone dedicated to minotaurs willing to pitch for their inclusion?



Ghuralli might want to.

Lee.

[Rey]

Stone has a longer shelf life than wood.

That's why wood in the great oak wall is mixed with whole bunch of stuff and maintained, upgraded and fixed for centuries, where in dire need.
I'm thinking, why didn't they burn the darn thing whole this time. It would've been a nice bonfire.

As for the great oak wall, I prefer the idea that it might be something that Erik might have grown

Erik the High Druid or Erik the god?
If he did it as a High Druid, he must've lived for more than 500 years. As for the god, he became one about 450 years later.

"The regents have staffed, maintained, and upgraded the Great Oak Wall since its completion in -438 H.C."
Tough feat, in any case.

[ShadowMoon]

trolls and ogres please...

minotaurs doesn't really fit, imho...

[Rey]

And Ghuralli has a moose head.

[kgauck]

I'm actually sorry I asked.

[Rey]

Just relax and take it easy, kgauck. I'm having a laugh, we all should.

And don't dismiss something if it seems impossible and screwed up at a first glance. We can work it out if we want to. Things that aren't mentioned can be interjected.
I'm having hard time with accepting the Shadow world. Perhaps I'm just misinformed.

Nevermind, what about that blood skull barony? What strange creatures, in the end, dwell there and aid Thrakkazz in raiding other domains? Trolls, goblins? I've read that kobolds were the slaves to the elves long time ago and all the time I didn't see or hear of a single kobold around. Have they died out? Did I miss something?

[kgauck]

Cerilia and the Birthright world establishes certain rules. Thing that happen within the game should obey those rules. That is all. Things don't need to be true, or constant with the real world. But, if they're not consistent with the rules established by the setting, the game becomes unplayable outside of any psychedelic sense.

The game establishes that there are these beings called elves. Fine. The existence of elves is thereby a given, and now we can begin to question the nature of these beings. One ought not try and make reference of the elves to the real world, for there are no elves here. One should draw first on the Birthright world as a primary source, and then to fill in gaps one might look to the broader D&D understanding, to the various mythologies of the real world which do include elves (Birthright seems to draw heavily on Celtic mythology, so that's a good place to look), to literature (Tolkien is a favorite of many, I prefer to look in an Arthurian direction).

Something like the Shadow World is established by the setting. Its a given. Further, in line with the thoroughly Celtic feel of the setting, might look at Annwn, an idyllic otherworld, or the Land of Shadows. The Celts very keen on otherwords. Some are sparkling heavens while other are brooding hells. The veil between these worlds is easy transgressed and so seers and bards pass between them frequently. Some heroes, like Finn MacCool, Culchulainn, or Oisin, do as well. By drawing on the setting and mythology, one an construct a perfectly consistent Shadow World that makes sense in the context of the setting.

The Oak Wall contradicts fundamental setting materials and the whole tone of the setting, at least as its described. Sure one can undergo great contortions of logic and setting to create some barely plausible explanation that won't raise obvious questions as long as no one looks too hard. But its unnecessary. Stjordvik is separated from the Blood Skull Barony by a range of mountains. Surely these are a better barrier. While the orogs and goblins might have a much easier time crossing the mountains to get into Stjordvik, as Andrew pointed out, the question is often much more about preventing them from leaving with loot, and here the mountains are sufficient to prevent that. There are three places on the map where there appear to be gaps in the mountains. Wouldn't it be far more sensible to construct fortresses at these passes, or just beyond them, rather than imagine a vast wall around an entire kingdom? Why does Stjordvik, with a mountain barrier, have a wall, and Rjuvik, protected only by a babbling brook not need one? Both share all three northern provinces with the Blood Skull Barony. We know that the mountains are a barrier because we have movement rules that apply to orogs, goblins, and men (including rangers and druids) and can see that while orogs and goblins have a relative advantage with a light load, the mountains still slow them down. One needs speed to escape with loot. Rjuvik looks the much better target, yet they have no wall.

When one struggles to explain contradictions and goes to extraordinary means to do so, one needs a good reason, or else you're just straining the credibility of the setting for nothing. If one accomplishes nothing, one should not expend this extra effort and risk the damage to the setting. The technology of the wood fortifications doesn't have to be thrown out entirely. As a redoubt before the passes supported by a proper fort behind it, they can be used to achieve whatever cool effects one imagined. Likewise the druidically enhanced versions.