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?

[Jaleela]

A note on imperial taxes. Although Anuire does not of course equal England, it is to a degree based on it, a common belief is that medieval monarchs in England levied taxes on income.

Hmmm...

Just a side note, but according to Rich Baker, Anuire is based loosely on France, and given the powerful and semi-independant duchies, both before and after the end of the Empire, that is what we based as a model of how things generally function and customs, etc.

At this point in our game, it is sort of like the HRE, neither Holy, Roman, nor an Empire, as one of my Prof's used to joke, but with an emperor who is in a position similar to the Holy Roman Emperors, largely dependant on the goodwill of a number of greater and smaller electors, some of who can blow him off if he irritates them enough.

We also base the GB and regency points available to the emperor on a basis of 1 or 2 GB per province due in taxation from the various landed regents, and say a regency point per province recognizing and giving fealty to the emperor. Our taxation system follows the ruleset, but is theorectically in detail in our campaign based on duties on certain goods, tolls, and sales taxes on specific items - say salt, or wine, or a hearth tax.

Typically, medieval rents were due, regardless of country at the harvest time, so if a GM is to base money raised by the government on this system, GB's would only be collected once a year. By basing it on duties on imported or exported goods, and sales taxes, that is both a historical solution for governments before strong, centeralized monarchies, and provides GB's seasonally instead of once a year. Some regents who personally control manors and lordships have a 'privy-purse' that they can draw on, based on yearly rents for the manors. This is a lot smaller than what taxation brings in, but it is a good emergency fund for regents.

The emperor in our game uses the imperial monies to maintain a core imperial legion, which is supplemented by the feudal hosts due from each duchy - this is usually a much smaller number of men than each duchy can raise on its own. Basically, the emperor maintains imperial legion war card units as a small core, and things like knights and most cavalry are provided by the duchies.

[Jaleela]

As an aside, the landmark event that caused moderns to consider this issue in a serious way was the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, on All Saints Day while everyone was in church. To see a country's capital slain in church no less, to see the earthquake tumble the city, fires consume the city, and then a tsunami overwhelm the city, is a grave crisis. The old world view attributed this to the wrath of God, but moderns argued other causes, from the congestion of cities (Rousseau) to the arbitrary fragility of life and death (Voltaire), to more naturalistic explanations that volcanos and earthquakes are controlled by as yet undiscovered natural processes (techtonics and vulcanology are still way off).

.

Ah, but a medieval person would have argued that the earthquake clearly occured as a divine punishment based on some sin of the royal family, or the people themselves. Just as a strong, efficient and good monarch was seen as a sign of God's favour, or a bad, inept one as a sign of God's ill-pleasure manifest.

Interesting point though.

[ryancaveney]

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."

Exactly. A good ruler does bad things to those who try to do bad things to the people under his protection. IMO, saying "Oh, but that would be lowering myself to their level" is an admission of being unworthy to rule.

The way I like to think of it is in the words of the Witch from Sondheim's _Into the Woods_: "You're not good, you're not bad, you're just nice. I'm not good, I'm not nice, I'm just right." The job of the ruler is to be right, part of which is punishing anyone whose excessive desire for niceness interferes with doing what's right. The fun part is that no one ever agrees on what right really is, so there's always plenty of gray area.

We even tried one game where Alignment wasn`t used

I never use alignment in any of my games. Never have, never will. Kenneth Gauck is the only person who has ever said anything in favor of the alignment system that didn't make me recoil in disgust, but even he has been unable to convince me that D&D has ever made of it what he sees as possible, instead relying on it only as a poorly-implemented role-playing crutch for the weak-minded.

Indeed, given that the prototypical D&D campaign is dungeon crawling, which is properly defined as breaking into other sentient beings' homes, killing them, and stealing their possessions, all on the flimsy excuse that they are inherently "evil", is the best example ever invented of Chaotic Evil behavior. =) I'm perfectly serious -- I just think the irony is hilarious, too.


Ryan

[Autarkis]

and in the next message
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.

I would agree that there are two "settings" or "feels" for the game. There is the overarching theme of the battle between good and evil in the shadow of a once glorious empire. And the second of being at the micro level, having to deal with the day to day issues. They are not exclusive.

[Beruin]

The books do state what Boeruine's motives are. The Chamberlain (the father, not the son), the General, and Prince Fhilereane (to name a few, I don't want to go through the entire novel and footnote everyone) are very clear that he is a man who wishes power. Take into account that he allied with the Gorgon (not known to his allies) and he is a fiend lead by blind ambition.

I disagree. It's been a while since I read the novel, but judging from the prologue and the epilogue I've always regarded IT as in essence being the memories and recollections of Aedan Dosiere. The other characters are described from his point of view and this does not really make for a complete or objective description.
Boeruine certainly is ambitious, but this is the only side of his character that we see, besides at least according to the senior chamberlain, he is ambitious, but not evil (p.50).

I must say I always found Aedan thoughts about Boeruine being behind the goblins kidnapping Michael hard to credit and his logic faulty. In my view, Boeruine tried to take advantage of the situation after Michael was gone and presumably dead, but did not initiate this situation. The Gorgon perhaps seems more likely.
Besides, after Michael suddenly returned after a year of generally being held for dead, Boeruine had already acted on his ambition and was now in a situation were he could not back down without risking a serious loss of face and probably even his position as duke.

[kgauck]

As Sorontar suggested, I pulled out the thread about temples demonstrating divine power, paladins, and alignment and put it in another thread called Temples, Alignment, and Paladins. Here we can continue to discuss why Avanil's arms so resemble the Empire, if Avanil was a kind of Imperial demense, and why the Emperor might need such a base of his own, being as he is, he Emperor.

[Dcolby]

What no Tangents?!?!

[Thelandrin]

Well, the whole religion thing had already turned itself into a two-page thread, in a completely different thread!

[ShadowMoon]

Yes but what has become first post of the newly thread (my post), was not about religion and stuff, but about Imperial power... bleh...

Quote:

And keep in mind, that back then there was only one Haelyn temple, the Imperial Temple, and within the Empire it was the superior of faiths, and recognised as a governing religious institution of the Empire (like a State Religion in present realms). So I am pretty sure that Imperial Temple sticked with Roeles. Roeles were like earthly manifestation of their overlord, and their protectors from the day one.

And I don't believe Emperors controled Temple holdings directly at anytime, though they had much influence within the Temple, and probably many of Roele's house were High Priests (like younger brothers, etc.). But I am sure that Temple swore their allegiance and signed a writ of vassalage to the Emperor.

Probably similar scenario went for Guilds, ie. Imperial Guild managed the economy of the Empire, and again there were probably some of Roele's blood that were Guild Masters, but Emperors never had any Guild holdings. Again they were most probably vassals of the Imperial seat.

And all landed rulers within the Empire were vassals of the Iron Throne.

All "court" Wizards swore their allegiance to the Royal (Imperial) College of Sorcery, the sole center of the legal arcane society. College of Sorcery was under direct sponsorship of the Iron Throne and swore the oath of vassalage to the Emperor.

What I am saying is that the Emperor is a single govermental body, and he never had Temple and Guild holdings let alone Sources, only Law holdings, colonial assets and lands before Godswar with Imperial City and some surrounding territory (Anuire province) remaining. But Imperial Temple, and Imperial Guild were vassals to the Iron Throne, as well as remaining landed rulers.

Emperors commanded Imperial Legion that was elite (praetorian-like) army, with a full support of the Knights of Haelyn. So no matter that main bulk of Anuirean military was commanded and mustered by various nobles, Imperial seat was never defenseless, nor easy to conquer either by mundane or magical means or through the diplomacy.

Besides not many nobles would turn against their liege openly, because they would go directly against their own right to rule their realm, as well as against their patron Haelyn. So plots and schemes were always present, but Imperial position of Roeles was never seriously endangered.

Till Boeruine started the coup with the help of Michael Roele's older sister. But Michael dealt with that properly, though his sister made a pact with the Gorgon later, thus leading Michael Roele to his doom on the fields of Gorgon's Crown, and leaving the Empire without a heir, which lead to fall of the Imperial line, and the Empire.


Slightly-Off Topic:

I never understood how Boeruine got away with this, I mean its a terribile stain on their name, especially now when the "myth" of the great Empire is something that makes Anuirean hearts swell with pride.