Avanil

[AndrewTall]

I see Boeruine's actions as primarily a power-grab, perhaps he was a Roele scion married off into the Boeruine family (if they only had a daughters, a junior Roele son would be welcomed into the family via marriage).

If he'd killed Michael (which would not have been publicly known about if he'd succeeded, then he would have retrieved his 'rightful place' as emperor without any major bloodshed - unless some dukes 'rebelled against him'. Of course when Michael lived a real war was inevitable unless Michael crept off into the sunset / pulled off an assassination / personal challenge.


On the influence of the church, I would expect that the priesthood was every bit as political as the rest of the nobility - and if one 'Roele' challenged another (for example when Boeruine challenged Michael) and the challenger was clearly stronger and more likely to support the church, then the majority of the priesthood would probably support the challenger and justify it later.

To avoid the problems of an absolutely dominant church (b/c it can prove faith) of priests utterly devoted to the creed (because o/w they lose spells etc clearly indicating which is in the right and which is the heretic) I put a similar restriction on priests as I did on mages in the campaigns I designed - so only a rare few priests can 'invoke miracles' - and they are not bestowed lightly, while the god is much more distant s less likely to give direction. (More accurately I removed them completely except as a guiding philosophy for the church, apart from anything else I feel uncomfortable role-playing a god as DM)

Given how strong some religions are in rail-roading thought in the real world, to keep a D&D game interesting you need something to undermine them, political intrigue within the priesthood is a good candidate - any organisation with that much wealth and power will attract a lot of parasites and ambitious types.

btw, I am not sure where your comment on summoning angels comes from - as far as I am aware there are no deva's / demons etc in BR, only Shadow World creatures (who can admittedly stand in for either) so the church shouldn't have otherwordly minions, not that it really needs them with spell casting priests, paladins, etc.

[Autarkis]

You refute claims of Boeruine's motives, but then continue by describing his actions, not his motives.

What then were Boeruine's motives?

Keep in mind that Birthright is a political setting. If characters don't have politics, if they just have egos, their actions aren't terribly interesting.

Boeruine's motives are simple and very transparent: He wants the throne. For the longest time, Michael's father had daughter after daughter, without a male heir. Michael was not born until his father was late in his life and Boeruine assumed that he would be the designated heir until Michael was born. His actions were driven by his ego, and though he as a character in the novel was one dimensional and not terribly interesting, the war that he caused was.

I assume (and it is not written in the text) that the Court Mage of Boeruine had always been in league with the Gorgon and upon the birth of Michael began laying the ground work for Boeruine to become the thrall of the Gorgon (though Boeruine would not see it that way.) His motive, in the Fantasy Setting, is just pure greed and jealousy that he was losing the throne to a recognized heir. (Though not intentional by the author of the Iron Throne, it acts out in miniature the fall of the Gorgon during the Shadow War.)

The reason I describe his actions is because they reflect what his motive was. If he had a grievance against the Emperor, his approach would have been different and the message he told his compatriots would be different.

The novel the Iron Throne is like a greek tragedy, where the Boeruine sought the throne because of his ego and Michael died at the hand of the Gorgon for revenge. There were politics involved, but that does not take away from the key drivers of the main characters. They were epic representatives of their arch-type. The real world is not black and white, but the D&D universe is.

[geeman]

At 11:12 AM 5/12/2007, you wrote:

>Keep in mind that Birthright is a political setting. If characters
>don`t have politics, if they just have egos, their actions aren`t
>terribly interesting.

Politics and egos are much more interchangeable than I think you`re
suggesting here.

Gary

[kgauck]

Greek tragic figures act out of noble motives and come to a bad end because of a fatal flaw. They are rich and complex and you identify with them and feel bad (pathos) when they fall. Boeruine is not being described this way.

The really great thing about a good tragedy is that you identify with and feel all of the characters have good motives, even if they are flawed. I prefer to see all the sides in a conflict as real people with real motives, rich and complex. The Birthright setting gives us Awnsheghlien as unambiguous evil. The humans don't need to be.

The real world is not black and white, but the D&D universe is.

Where is this written? Certainly stark good and evil, law and chaos are tangible forces which empower great actions, but they don't require all characters to cling to the most extreme edges of the spectrum.

What we have here is a kind of Richard III problem. Of all the kings Shakespere portrays, only Richard III is an unambiguous villain. Shakespere even gives him deformities to make it clear to any audience that he is corrupt. He's a monster, who kills for greed and ambition, unlike the heroic characters who kill for a higher purpose. Given that the Gorgon is the monster of the piece, having Boeruine as a monster, unredeemable, pure greed and ambition put the two characters into the same spot, and in that contest, the Gorgon will win. He's more monsterous, more evil.

Boeruine as Faustus strikes me as much more interesting than Boeruine as Richard III. The main Awnshegh I use for my campaign as the dark menacing power is the White Witch, and no one knows they serve her until its way too late to back out and change allegence. Well, NPC's from her domain might serve here earlier, but her recruits in other realms think they are affiliating with normal people with normal motives and only when they are in deep, if then, do they ever know who they really serve.

[kgauck]

Politics and egos are much more interchangeable than I think you`re suggesting here.

By ego I mean "I want it because I want it." By politics I mean there is something slightly more complex. I want it so I can aid my friends, I want it to help my followers, I want it to help my people, I want it to serve this principle (justice, honor, peace, &c). Can one person be both ego and political, sure, see Hume above. But they are not interchangable. I can want both, but my desire to save my home town from a dragon is not the same thing as just wanting to get to the next level.

[Dcolby]

The real world is not black and white, but the D&D universe is.

I think that rests very heavily on the type of D&D the gamemaster presents. Certainly Greyhawk & the Forgotten Realms are very clearly "Black and White". The appeal to me and to my players that the Birthright setting holds is the grey that a Birthright setting brings.

Certainly the alignments are still there and part of the game, however the Birthright setting itself does not tend to overly reward the Extremes of Good nor does it punish the Extremes of Evil as in some published Greyhawk and F.R. adventures.

The "If the player that drinks of the fountain is Lawful and Good they are healed...or...Cured...or granted..." things do not tend to have a Birthright flavor. The players having influence over kingdoms and their own destiny also tend to move the game in more complicated paths.

Indeed being one of the Extremes in Birthright can make your path a very difficult one to tread.

[Autarkis]

Greek tragic figures act out of noble motives and come to a bad end because of a fatal flaw. They are rich and complex and you identify with them and feel bad (pathos) when they fall. Boeruine is not being described this way.

The really great thing about a good tragedy is that you identify with and feel all of the characters have good motives, even if they are flawed. I prefer to see all the sides in a conflict as real people with real motives, rich and complex. The Birthright setting gives us Awnsheghlien as unambiguous evil. The humans don't need to be.

Where is this written? Certainly stark good and evil, law and chaos are tangible forces which empower great actions, but they don't require all characters to cling to the most extreme edges of the spectrum.

What we have here is a kind of Richard III problem. Of all the kings Shakespere portrays, only Richard III is an unambiguous villain. Shakespere even gives him deformities to make it clear to any audience that he is corrupt. He's a monster, who kills for greed and ambition, unlike the heroic characters who kill for a higher purpose. Given that the Gorgon is the monster of the piece, having Boeruine as a monster, unredeemable, pure greed and ambition put the two characters into the same spot, and in that contest, the Gorgon will win. He's more monsterous, more evil.

Boeruine as Faustus strikes me as much more interesting than Boeruine as Richard III. The main Awnshegh I use for my campaign as the dark menacing power is the White Witch, and no one knows they serve her until its way too late to back out and change allegence. Well, NPC's from her domain might serve here earlier, but her recruits in other realms think they are affiliating with normal people with normal motives and only when they are in deep, if then, do they ever know who they really serve.

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?

Arwyn simply wanted the throne because, well, he wanted the throne. Thats it. You can throw in real world examples, compare him to Richard and Longshanks or other monarchs, but it doesn't change what his motives were. He was an example of how insidious the Gorgon is in manipulating regents, similar to Ghoere in The Falcon and the Wolf. Ghoere wants the throne because he wants the throne. Not to better the world, but because he wants the power it represents.

Evil is very black and white in the BR setting. Azrai rewards those who embrace evil (check out pages 24 to 26 of the Book of Regency.) There is no overarching reward for Good, because acting good should be its own reward and the magic level of the world is low. There are no Holy Avengers raining from the sky, nor fountains specifically aligned to an alignment that gives a reward. Good is the underdog, and I think the BR takes a lot of its cues from Tolkein. But even though Good is the underdog, it doesn't take into account that the setting is a battle between good and evil, right and wrong.

There is a difference in how you alter the setting to meet your personal play style and what the default setting is.

[Autarkis]

I think that rests very heavily on the type of D&D the gamemaster presents. Certainly Greyhawk & the Forgotten Realms are very clearly "Black and White". The appeal to me and to my players that the Birthright setting holds is the grey that a Birthright setting brings.

Certainly the alignments are still there and part of the game, however the Birthright setting itself does not tend to overly reward the Extremes of Good nor does it punish the Extremes of Evil as in some published Greyhawk and F.R. adventures.

The "If the player that drinks of the fountain is Lawful and Good they are healed...or...Cured...or granted..." things do not tend to have a Birthright flavor. The players having influence over kingdoms and their own destiny also tend to move the game in more complicated paths.

Indeed being one of the Extremes in Birthright can make your path a very difficult one to tread.

There is no fountain that bestows power because of the low magic and divine interference flavor of the game. BR is full of examples of Good versus Evil.

Off the top of my head:
Moergan vs. Raenech
Mhor vs. Markazor
Baruk-Azhik vs. the Orogs

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...

[dalor]

I agree.

A certain Italian once said something to the effect that: "A ruler should always strive to do good, but have the capacity to do evil when needed."

Something to that end.

I have always liked Birthright because even a Lawful and Good ruler must at times deal harshly with his own people or do things that call into question the entire alignment issue itself.

We even tried one game where Alignment wasn`t used (fortunately we had no Paladins in that game).

[kgauck]

There is a difference in how you alter the setting to meet your personal play style and what the default setting is.

and in the next message

BR is full of examples of Good versus Evil. [...]
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...

That's on way to read the setting, and clearly its there. The game can be read that way. I don't alter the default setting to meet my personal style of play, I don't focus on the Awnsheghlien, I focus on the interactions within realms. Here is, what I see as the difference in approach.

If you look at the campaign wide materials, the Atlas of Cerilia, for example, there is a strong emphasis on Awnsheghlien, Azrai, and the consequences of the War of the Shadow.

If you look at the individual PS's they focus on local politics between neighboring realms and within individual realms. The individual PS's focus on regular problems of governance, Bellamie the problem noble, balancing the books at the end of the day, fending off the aggression of Ghoere, your key temple (IHH) wants to reclaim holdings held by RCS, but RCS is intimatly connected with Moedore, and this splits your friends and makes them rivals.

In the first case I can see a Manichaeism reading of Birthright, in which there is a grand struggle, dark times, the players are supposed to confront the great evil, "to be the Fellowship that brings the ring to Mount D...er..." and the rest of that.

But wouldn't you agree that if we focus our attention on a much smaller scale, of ruling a little realm like Roesone (especially if we play in the style where one PC is king and the other PC's are his lieutenants, vassals, and advisors) then we get a result much more like the one I am describing. Since you responded to Dcolby's post, I think its evident that some portion of us like a less stark enviroment in which to play. Finally, that we are not altering the setting to satisfy our own style, but drawing our inspiration and finding our attraction from different parts of the setting.