Re: Terror in war

From: Jeff Richard <richaje_at_pX8FmoGwaFPAMVP9HO0kWy44EQzUt0CPQUGTGuZpaNjpj5U9GD2Hwl6C5f3QHnFDQC4J>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:09:57 -0000


> Yes, exactly. Although I note that you haven't actually answered any
> of the *questions* in my last post...

What, who is the "bad" Orlanthi instead of Kallyr? In most campaigns, Gyffur is set up to be the most bloodthirsty and reckless of the leaders of the Sartarite rebellion.

> > In
> > Pendragon, Arthur orders the judicial execution of his own wife,
> > sleeps with his sister, "mercilessly" sacks his own city of Guinnon,
> > pillages large parts of Tuscany, and wages a destructive war against
> > his own champion. Just to pick a few "bad" deeds of Arthur from the
> GPC.
> >
> > Now does this make King Arthur an evil man?
>
> I haven't read the GPC to get the full context... but it certainly
> doesn't sound like it makes him a *good* man. Fatally flawed, perhaps.

Lancelot betrays his lord by sleeping with his lord's wife, is responsible for the suicide of a woman who loved him dearly, and killed an innocent who refused to take arms up against him. And Modred is, of course, far far worse.

These are classic literary heroes. Heracles killed his own wife and his brother's children. Odysseus' title in the Aeneid is Cruel Odysseus. Gilgamesh is a cruel tyrant who sleeps with the women in his city before their husbands are allowed to. And so on.

> Well, I'm guessing you wouldn't want to play in my game, either, so
> that's not necessarily a criticism, just a statement. You give the
> impression that I'd be constantly going up against the other PCs
> (because I'd be fighting against Kallyr to the bitter end, and they
> apparently weren't), which would be tedious for me, them, and probably
> you, too. Not much fun for any of us in that!

But Kallyr offers your characters the best chance to throw the Lunars out of Sartar, at first through irregular warfare and later by "allying" with a True Dragon (which is a pretty horrific idea to most Heortlings given what the True Dragons did to their ancestors).

> > Does the idea that the Lunar army destroys tribe and
> > clan, crucifies men, women and children by the hundreds and thousands,
> > or sells them into slavery bother you?
> It would if I were playing Lunars that were expected to tolerate that
> sort of thing, rather than trying to bring down those responsible,
> absolutely!

Such deeds are tolerated (and in some circumstances demanded) by the Red Emperor.

> > Does the idea that Sartarites
> > sell out their own tribesmen when the Lunar army employs the Crimson
> > Bat bother you?
> Yes, for the same reason as above.

That's why the Lunars use an awesome Chaos demon with an endless need to consume human souls (and flesh, but the souls bit is much more disturbing). But the fact that local communities (including in Sartar) sell out their own rather than be devoured by the Bat is pretty well-established.

And the Crimson Bat is definitely blessed by the Emperor.

> > Does the idea that the ducks of the Upland Marsh may
> > have cut a deal with an undead lich bother you?
>
> Depends what the deal is.

No idea. But it can't be good for anyone who isn't a duck.

> > Really? So what does that make Achilles, Odysseus, Olaf Trygvasson,
> > Harald Hardrada, Judas Macabbeas, Romulus, or Sigurd Dragonkiller?
> > All of these heroes do some pretty downright nasty deeds - and all of
> > them embrace that sort of thinking.
> Then they're not the kind of heroes I'd want in an RPG. (Using
> 'heroes' here in the literary sense, not the heroquesting/cultural
> exemplars sense, since presumably the Kingdom of War, and the Broo,
> and so on, have Heroes in that sense). And why *should* I play a game
> that I don't enjoy, regardless of how many literary antecedents it may
> have?

OK. That's why I say this is an aesthetic disagreement. But keep in mind, these are all heroes that have influenced Gloranthan writing.

Jeff            

Powered by hypermail