Avanil

[AndrewTall]

The main proponents of the setting, those with the bloodline of Azrai, are irredeemable, evil. The setting, at least for the Anuirean Empire, is that of a divided realm looking for that small group of heroes to be the light in these dark times (or more precisely the players.) To be the Fellowship that brings the ring to Mount D...er...

Black and White:
What about the Siren, the Banshegh or the wolf? What about the large number of non-awnsheghlien scions of Azrai? The Ghonallison family in Tuornen for example, many of the elves, Tara from the Tuarheviel PS?

Some awnsheghlien are clearly meant to be extra-ordinarily evil, nice and black 'n' white with no troublesome grey to stay a paladin's vengeance.

but the setting also directly counters that sort of play however with its treatment of goblins - clearly described numerous times as more than just blade-fodder contrary to most AD&D stereotypes of the day and a similar movement of elves away from the 'nice fairy' types - both shifts were designed to make people think in tones of grey not black and white.

Yes your character can be the one to overthrow the local big bad (Anuire: Gorgon, Rjurik Highlands: White Witch, Vosgaard: Raven, Brechtur: Swordhawk/hag, Khinasi: Magian/Serpent) and play an epic fantasy-opera campaign, but the setting is also clearly geared up to permit a campaign based on political intrigue where the 'not my side' = evil = blade fodder - huzzah! mode of thought is non-functional.

The setting is designed imho to meet both the epic/opera style of play and also a more subtle political game of shifting greys - read any of the write-ups on regent tactics in the book of priesthood, magecraft etc and you will see conflict without necessarily that conflict being good vs evil. That's a key part of the design to enable a broad audience over a period of time.

In general I would say that the greys are more prevalent at the lower level gameplay and the boundaries become more clearcut as you progress, but given the game-play styles of various role-players that's hardly surprising.

Where in the setting material are you getting this for Boeruine? Where is this grievance listed? In Iron Throne and the follow up novel War, there is no indication of this. It is very clear that Arwyn of Boeruine wanted the throne just because he did. It may not make for an interesting character, but that is how he is portrayed. There is no indication that the Emperor slighted him throughout the book, on the contrary, the Emperor goes out of his way to please Arwyn. Back to what started this discussion, where do you find a grievance that Arwyn had against the Emperor to spur on his actions based on canon material?

Boeruine:
The books are silent on the matter of why Boeruine rebelled - as you would expect from books that are heroic fantasy not political thrillers - as such they makes no statement for or against there being reasons for the rebellion or whether or not those reasons were justified. You could equally well argue over whether tailors made clothes, cobbler made boots, etc - they were not relevant to the story and so were not mentioned, but that does not mean that there were no cobblers, tailors, etc. I would note also that the descriptions of Arwyn and his character argue against him simply being a power junky - he is a firm, blunt, but mostly fair figure from recollection not some monomaniac monster (his son on the other hand...)

The only way you can argue that Boeruine had no motive for the crown beyond pure greed is to choose not to consider what would have caused him and a number of allies to try and take the throne - Boeruine hardly fights alone and the other nobles do not immediately flock to the throne to oppose him, indicating that the empire was very fragmented before the rebellion - Boeruine could easily have thought the child-Michael (or whoever stood as regent for him) incapable of reforging the empire and seen himself as the only person strong enough the take the role forcing him to claim the throne in order to protect the empire. If you want to play a political game, where the actions of Boeruine will echo down the generations and impact the current setting, you need to consider the why's in order to properly assess the current position - is Michael seen as a hero or as a fool? Was Boeruine the fiend whose blind ambition led to the destruction of the empire or the tragic hero who so nearly saved it from annihilation?