Brotherhood of Golarion

[Jacob Kellogg]

Brotherhood of Golarion
Alignment: CN
Headquarters: None
Leader: Varies by cell
Structure: Loose coalition of like-minded activists
Scope: Global
Resources: Varies by cell, ranging from single individuals to large estates.
In the River Kingdoms, rulers and borders change constantly. Amid the tumultuous history of the region, a merchant named Antalac once witnessed a failed alliance between two neighboring territories which resulted in open conflict. Both sides were devastated, but to Antalac's surprise, the peoples of the two territories rose up to form a single, united land – one stronger than either of its predecessors. Although the new nation eventually met an obscure end, an idea had been planted: break down the old order and raise unity from the rubble. Antalac began recruiting cohorts, and the Brotherhood of Golarion was formed.
Structure and Leadership
The Brotherhood is an informal group, its founder long since dead. Some cells are rag-tag groups of a dozen or fewer individuals working together, while others have their own hierarchies ranging from a noble at the top to bottom-rung servants who may not even know to what they contribute. Despite this variety, however, the Brothers see themselves as united in spirit and therefore cooperate whenever possible. They do their best to communicate and coordinate their efforts – larger cells will often financially aid and support smaller groups, and in return those groups will accept missions from the sponsoring cells.
Goals
The ultimate goal of the Brotherhood is global unity. Seeing the nations of Golarion as no different than the fleeting River Kingdoms and believing that traditional political structures are inevitably doomed to failure anyway, they aim to hasten the process. Once that is accomplished, they believe a new, unified government will rise naturally from the ashes. The Brotherhood of Golarion seeks to shake national borders by any means available – sabotaging peace talks, undermining trade associations, and so forth – all in the interest of replacing fallen kingdoms with a single, stronger order.
Public Perception
Impressions of the Brotherhood vary widely. Some folk are entirely unaware of them (instead seeing what they think are unrelated acts of terrorism), some see a tiny group of malcontents with delusions of grandeur, and others see yet another political faction seeking to grab power for itself. Although the Brotherhood is not yet large or influential enough to raise general concern, it is nonetheless viewed negatively due to its disruptive methods.

[Clark Peterson]

Jacob, welcome to Round 2!

What you are getting from me in this critique: This round is all about conflict and story. I think the best organizations create interesting and compelling groups that will come into conflict with the PCs. My comments, and my recommendation, will focus on how well you do that. My comments will also focus on writing and use of your allotted content in achieving your goals. What you won't get from me: I don't have the total Golarion-fu that Neil and Sean do, so I will leave to them whether you got the nitty gritty details of some of the setting stuff to them (though apparently I did have enough Golarion-fu to know its Pharasmin not Pharasmian, you know who you are).

So here we go!

Initial Impression: A bunch of New World Order “United Golarion”-style activists with the most generic name in the round

Concept (name, title, is it an organization?, overall design choices, is the organization and antagonist and does it create direct conflict for the PCs?, playability): C-
Really? People united for world peace and unity? That’s your Superstar antagonist organization? I’m not anti-peace. Heck, I’m all for it. But the rules of the round said to design an organization that, even if not villainous, is at least an antagonist for the PCs. Sabotage peace talks? What, are they going to protest while the PCs broker some border alliance? Pacifists can be antagonists, but there is not really anything in your submission to tell us that. And peace-nicks, in a twisted way, can become terrorists in support of their imagined new world order, but again that isn’t what you’ve give us either. And on top of that, the “Brotherhood of Golarion” is just flat not a good name.

Bottom line is this: you spent too much time on the unity part and not enough (frankly, any) time on the "ashes" part. I think the real point of this submission, if you want an antagonist, is that this group in a deluded goal of getting a new world order, wants to burn the current one to the ground--but you don't ever say that! New world order for misguided peace can be an awesome and twisted antagonist--Watchmen, anyone? But I can't judge you on the submission you should have done, I can only judge you on the one you did--and that's not what you gave us. You gave us "sabotaging peace talks" and "undermining trade associations."

Execution (quality of writing, hook, theme, organization, use of proper format, quality of mandatory content, did you milk your idea for all it was worth? did you use your allotted space well?): C-
There are no real specifics here, no unique NPCs, no cool locations. No real conflict-generating goals and objectives. Its all too vague. And their alignment is CN? Man, I don’t get it. Isn’t “all will crumble to be replaced by a single, strong order” the antitheses of CN? Bad design followed by bad execution of that design. The only saving grace is that, since they are CN, good aligned characters can kill these peace activists without worrying about alignment problems. Hey, maybe I am starting to like this group after all! No, wait, it passed.

Tilt (did it grab me?, is it unique and cool?, do I like it?, flavor, are you showing Superstar mojo?): C-
Listen, I like John Lennon’s Imagine as much as the next guy (in fact, I'd put it on a short list of best songs of all time), but this entry just falls way short.

Overall: C-
At least I finally know where those "Coexist" bumper stickers come from—these guys.

Recommendation: I DO NOT recommend this organization submission for advancement.

Jacob, I liked your cloak a lot more than the comments on the board may have indicated and I was really looking forward to you bringing your interesting and creative mojo to this round. I am not sure what happened here. I imagine (no pun intended) that very soon you will be free from the restriction and will be able to tell us what this was all about. I’m sorry this is such a harsh review. Please remember, I am reviewing your submission, not you as a person. Maybe you really tried to take a risk and do something different, and like one or two others this round, you just got lost trying to go down the “new and different” road. I get it, I’ve done it. Sorry to say so strongly that I think you really missed with this. I certainly wish you the best of luck. And hey, the voters may love it. It is up to them. Good luck!

[Neil Spicer]

Welcome to RPG Superstar, Jacob #1 (going in alphetical order, of course). The contest takes a new spin at this level. As judges we're here to comment on your work both in the hopes of guiding you in honing your game design skills and also to help the voting public assess how you measure up. With that in mind, I'm going to talk a bit about what you did well here, and where I think you still need to demonstrate growth. So, let's see what we've got...

First off, I really like the notion of a cell-based organization where the lower level groups don't necessarily know who's pulling the strings back at the home office. However, when you undo that staple of organizational structure by citing the Brotherhood of Golarion no longer has someone minding things back at the HQ, it becomes a cake that deflates on me. You kind of let down my anticipation. Then, I thought maybe you'd won me back by describing Antalac. But then, you killed him off as the group's founder from long ago. I think that's a misstep. You'd have been wiser to keep him around as it would give your entry something more tangible upon which to focus. Crafting an organization is a lot like crafting a villain and his minions for an adventure. And, since writing an adventure is the ultimate prize to this contest, I think that's part of what makes this round's challenge very applicable to what we want to test you on. A central villain is pretty key to adventures. And, personally, I think most organizations need one, too. Yes, you can occasionally frame an organization in such a way that it becomes the villain on its own. But then, you need enough compelling, and equally intriguing minions, to prop it up. I'm not certain that's what we got here.

Moving on, I actually like your organization's goal (and even the catalyst for how their philosophy came about). The realization that current political structures can be undermined in such a way that once that hierarchy is gone, the people themselves may bond together in the ensuing chaos is kind of understandable. However, that doesn't just happen naturally. If conflict occurs between two nations with different political philosophies, the nationalism of its citizens has a tendency to foster ongoing grudges against the perceived "enemy" nextdoor and that kind of tension doesn't allow such groups to come together. See Geb and Nex from the Inner Sea World Guide.

So, I would've really liked to see you widen the methods by which your organization sought to merge civilizations together. What does that? Is it just sowing chaos by pitting the two groups at each others' throats, cutting out their leadership, and then hoping they come together when the dust settles? No. That way lies chaos and anarchy which makes it more difficult to forge something sustainable out of the ashes. Instead, they'd stand a greater chance of achieving that goal by creating an outside threat...a common enemy...or at least the perception of one...through which the different nations would feel compelled to unite against. You also described your organization as tearing down peace agreements between nations they want to see coming together. But, by their very nature, peace agreements can foster a merger between nations just as easily as war. So, some of the situational things you've set up with your organization's goals vs. its methods seem at odds to me.

Lastly, I can appreciate you wanted to go global with this organization, but it comes across more like SPECTRE from a James Bond movie. I think you would have been better served to localize it a bit more. If you're going to focus on a terrorist organization who wants to build utopia out of anarchy, I'd have preferred to see you start smaller. Base it in the River Kingdoms alone and suggest that this group is trying to merge all those separate city-states in a more unified whole to create something stronger in that region. Maybe even suggest they want to annex fractured Galt and maybe Brevoy at the same time. That alone would have given your organization more focus. More immediacy. Any PCs venturing into those regions could then become more easily embroiled in a plot involving the Brotherhood. And, with just the immediate issues facing those regions, a GM would have more defined ways of weaving your organization into the mix.

So, with all those missed opportunities, I DO NOT RECOMMEND this organization to carry you through to the next round.

I know you expressed some concern that you felt your cloak of energy reversal was misinterpreted and allowed you through when maybe it was undeserved. I really wanted to see you take a big swing for the fence in this round. And, though you did that in some ways, I don't think you connected with this idea. It's possible the other judges and the voters may feel otherwise. Best of luck in the exit polls.

[Sean K Reynolds]

I think this would have been stronger if it were just focused on uniting the River Kingdoms. That's a difficult enough task on its own, given how everyone there is focused on their own freedom to do what they want. Trying to apply their philosophy on a global scale is completely pie-in-the-sky, as much as a child wishing for ponies because they like ponies. A small group of activists in the RK is going to have basically zero influence on Cheliax, Taldor, Absalom, and Osirion--human civilizations that have been around for hundreds or thousands of years.

Sabotaging peace talks and undermining trade relations aren't going to get you much attention from adventurers. And even if it did, once these quasi-anarcho-communist-governmentbuilders explained themselves to the PCs, the party's response is likely to be "you're messing with these stable, peaceful countries in the hopes of collapsing their governments... in the hopes that spontaneously all over the world a united, peaceful government will arrive?" Followed quickly by a citizen's arrest and turning these guys over to the local authorities. If the RK can't do it spontaneously, and Galt's been unable to stabilize for decades, the idea that EVEN MORE CHAOS will somehow create peace and order is crazy.

These guys are crazy, deluded fools. They're hippies that want to make things worse for everyone before things get better. And because they have limited assets, they're not going to be much of a challenge for PCs... or the PCs will ignore them in order to deal with an assassin's guild, roving monsters, or an evil murder cult.

I think as an intellectual exercise these guys have some appeal, but as an antagonist group the PC have to deal with, there's not enough meat here for a GM to work with.

I do not recommend this to advance.

[Ryan Dancey]

I don't get it. They want to tear down the entire political structure of the Inner Sea, then see what arises? So they do the tearing down bit by bit - how do they keep the bits from re-politicizing? Shouldn't they have to have some grand scheme to bring the entire thing down all at once? Like maybe, have the founding god of the bulk of the lands die mysteriously and with no plan? Oh wait - that actually happened already and they didn't get a non-national utopia; they got more, smaller nations.

Their aims are so diffuse and so unrealistic that I don't see how the PCs end up treating them as adversaries. The "loose coalition" can't present much of a threat; otherwise it would become a lot less loose and a lot more formal - like a political entity.

We're out on the fuzzy edge of what's useful for a fantasy setting. There's zero chance the world would collapse leaving no nations, and zero chance that the IP would benefit from even the hint that it might. So in the end, this is a faction with no brand equity.

I recommend that you do not vote for this designer.

EDIT FROM SEAN: Competitors, remember this item from the Round 2 FAQ, which reminds competitors about the rule against commenting about their own submissions. We're pasting this reminder into the last judge comment for every organization just to make sure all competitors see it and remember.

[Paul Brown]

There sure are a lot of organizations that have a good aim and not-so-good methods this year. This is one of the weaker ones.

I would probably not be voting for this submission on its merits. I will probably not be voting for you based on your previous work. That said, I like you from the forums and may find a vote for you anyway if I've got one extra.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

These guys are setup for disappointment. I really have problems seeing them operate on a global stage.

[Lady Ophelia]

You had a good idea. But it wasn't executed as well as we all hope.

To me, it sounds and feels like what Taldor will become when the Prince dies and his daughter takes over and brings Taldor into a modern era of spying and international espionage.

Status: No vote--Good idea, could have done a little better on the cohesiveness.

[TarkXT]

You killed me at the name.

It seems to be localized at the river kingdoms so why not tie it there in some better fashion?

So much potential that falls flat before it ever really takes off.

And in the end they don't really make great antagonists. They make morally grey protagonists.

[Mr. Swagger]

I like the idea, and maybe the word count got you, but maybe focusing on a region or how the unity would take place would have made this group more valid.
I also agree with TarkXT's last sentence.

[Lars Lundberg]

This entry should have been titled Occupy Golarion not Brothers of Golarion. These guys are just like the Occupy Wallstreet goofballs that had no goals besides "tear it down". I do think they would make great antagonists though, I would love taking these guys on...and out.

[Clark Peterson]

Lars Lundberg wrote:

This entry should have been titled Occupy Golarion not Brothers of Golarion. These guys are just like the Occupy Wallstreet goofballs that had no goals besides "tear it down". I do think they would make great antagonists though, I would love taking these guys on...and out.

Lars, clearly you and I are on the same page. Did you notice my comment:

"The only saving grace is that, since they are CN, good aligned characters can kill these peace activists without worrying about alignment problems. Hey, maybe I am starting to like this group after all! No, wait, it passed."

[Ziv Wities]

Hey Jacob,

I see your entry has already been pretty thoroughly panned. I pretty much agree with all the commentary so far; I know that must be frustrating and discouraging... my sympathy to ye.

I wanted to offer some analysis in the arena of writing style and matching content to the challenge. I'm hoping this'll be helpful to you - in future rounds if you get through, or just in general. Though I'm offering criticism here, I hope it's clear this is intended purely constructively...

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

Alignment: CN

Headquarters: None
Leader: Varies by cell
Structure: Loose coalition of like-minded activists
Scope: Global
Resources: Varies by cell, ranging from single individuals to large estates.

You know what leaps out at me when I read this? That out of 6 template details, you've effectively skipped half of them. More than that - you've skipped almost every opportunity these info snippets give you to provide detail about your organization. You don't have a leader, you don't have a headquarters, your scope is "wherever," resources are "something different each place." That has two effects: the first is, you've established your organization as being extremely vague and poorly defined; the second is, you've wasted the opportunity the template gives you.

If a contest challenge gives you an opportunity to fill out a field labled "Headquarters," then by damn you want to make use of that field. So even if you don't have to have one, even if you pictured your organization without one, think of how you can use that field. Maybe you can think up a cool headquarters that would fit. Maybe they used to have a headquarters, but it's been reduced to cinders, so now they're less organized. Maybe there's some leadership which shifts from place to place. Any one of these would have given you a clearer, beter-defined, and hence more playable organization. Skipping one might not be a big deal, but three major elements is just a waste.

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

Amid the tumultuous history of the region, a merchant named Antalac once witnessed a failed alliance between two neighboring territories which resulted in open conflict. Both sides were devastated, but to Antalac's surprise, the peoples of the two territories rose up to form a single, united land – one stronger than either of its predecessors.

Here I've got another alarm going off, and it's this: describing the saga of two territories while focusing on Antalac's point-of-view feels very off-kilter. Re-read the passage and see if you can feel what I'm describing: wouldn't it sound much more sensible to write something on these lines:

Spoiler:

Quote:

"In one of the region's many conflicts, two neighboring territories underwent a harrowing process. Initially allies, the two territories descended to open conflict, devastating both. But to the surprise of many, once the conflict was exhausted, both peoples banded together to form a single, united land – one stronger than either of its predecessors."

Why is this important? Because Antalac clearly wasn't the only witness to these events; focusing on him feels odd and confusing, because he's not the subject (right now). If you'd noticed that, then you might have realized that Antalac's entire presence in this entry is rather odd . When you look at it, you realize that "Antalac" is just a name for "the guy who came up with this organization." Does that sound familiar? Hey, waitasec - that's Auto-Reject #3! Obviously, it's not exactly the same - an organization's history is more relevant the an item's history. But the advice don't focus on irrelevant backstory, such as introducing historical characters with no present-day significance certainly holds. And this passage is where you might have noticed that.

An interesting point is that because history isn't de facto irrelevant, you might take the opposite approach. You don't have to excise Antalac - you could, instead, make him more important. More interesting; more detailed; above all, having a more immediate effect on those detailing with the organization in its current form.

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

Although the new nation eventually met an obscure end, an idea had been planted: break down the old order and raise unity from the rubble.

This is the core of your organization concept, and you've taken a lot of flak for both the concept and the execution. So here's a bit of advice: it's really worthwhile to re-read your own work, slowly and even out loud. Look for lines that sound wrong, or, in this case, that just don't make a whole lot of sense.

"He saw that these two territories' conflict panned out this way, so he decided to do that everywhere." That doesn't make sense. You know that doesn't make sense; that's the core of why you consider this group to be anatagonists. But that's not a good approach, because it portrays your organization as idiots. Which is not, I assume, what you're after.

As with the Antalac issue, you have choices - make it make sense, or else justify why these people are committed to something nonsensical. The former option would mean giving a more concrete process that the organization expects to facilitate. Maybe they've got a better idea how to actively shape civilization once it's reduced to ashes; maybe they've got ways to grab power in small regions every time a local power base is toppled. The latter option would mean acknowledging the inherant foolishness - portraying members as insane, brainwashed, hopelessly naive, or some other justification. Then, use that in the description - a brainwashed organization is very different than a naive one; that can come into play in a dozen different ways, and it's up to you to get that across.

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

Some cells are rag-tag groups of a dozen or fewer individuals working together, while others have their own hierarchies ranging from a noble at the top to bottom-rung servants who may not even know to what they contribute.

This is the same issue I touched in my first comment - when you say that structure is "different every place," what you're really saying is that you don't have any concrete information to provide. It's like the most boring superhero is the one who can do anything - there's nothing specific enough to catch readers' attention, to hint at possibilites and things to look forward to. Going into detail might feel limiting, but it's really just the opposite - details provide a base and a starting point; they make your ideas usable. A GM worth his salt knows he can play around with provided ideas, and make his own variations where appropriate. But you've got to provide him with something basic and solid to start working with. Because "a group of people who do lots of different things and might be organized in lots of different ways" really isn't very helpful.

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

The ultimate goal of the Brotherhood is global unity.

It should be clear that such a bombastic goal requires much more detailed means. And consider what an organization entry is meant to do, and what your entry actually does. Have you provided enough information for a GM to realistically be able to start using this organization in their game? We don't know what they do, or how they operate. We don't see where their paths might cross with that of the PCs. We know they're after "global unity," but that's a tremendous goal - it'd be really hard to work that into a random game. The question "how does this group work if I tried to actualy run a game with it" is a HUGE one; one that should be before your eyes at all times when writing an entry like this. I don't feel like it was - it's more that you had a cool idea for a concept, and you described that concept, and then basically said "you can do whatever you want with this; take it or leave it."

You can do so much better. You can consider how you expect people to respond. You can figure out how you want readers to react to each and every line - and check that your lines fit that desired reaction. It's not easy - it's damnably hard. But if you aren't able to home in on what it is about your work that you find exciting, fun to use, unusual - what it is about your work that you expect others to enjoy and appreciate - and put the spotlight on that, polishing it until it shines... well, if you can't do that, then audience response will be pretty much out of your control.

Whew. That was a lot :) I hope this was clear and helpful. Wishing you all the best!

Bonus link:

BTW, check out Sam Zeitlin's Gentleman Knave from last year - a great antagonist, particularly notable for managing to frame "stir up political trouble" as a feasible antagonist goal. Also it's a really fun read :D

[Ian Eastmond]

All I can say is that this organization isn't clearly antagonistic enough for me to get behind. I can understand why some people would want to fight them, but many revolutionaries and other morally ambiguous chaotic types would have no problem supporting them.

Your item was interesting, albeit tricky. That kind of "trickiness" seems to have also found its way into your organization, but not in a good way - more like it takes some tricks and tweaking and hand-waving by the GM to make this organization into useful and memorable bad guys.

I really wanted to have some better feedback for you. I can only wish you the best of luck... and if you do make it to Round Three I would be happy to see less tricks, and more treats. :-)

[Jacob Kellogg]

Thank you for your support and please vote for my item! If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them once voting for this round is closed.

[Mothman]

Welcome to Round 2 Jacob.

I think you aimed really big on this one, but to me it has kind of missed the mark.

Good luck!

[Jacob Kellogg]

I can finally taaaaalk!

Phew.

Okay.

So!

My biggest lesson from Round 2 is that I should never assume I'm not going to be getting in - assume that, and you get in and find yourself with 5 hours split over 2 evenings to try and pull something out of your arse that you hope will somehow get you to Round 3!

So note to self (and anyone reading): if you enter at all, start working on Round 2 the moment you hit "submit" for Round 1. You need to work ahead!

Since my failtastic R2 entry has no doubt left its readers wondering what was going on in my mind, here's what the frick I was thinking:

Right from the start, I had two goals in mind. One, I didn't a group of one-dimensional ne'er-do-wells with no real motivation. I wanted a group that was morally gray enough that a heroic party wouldn't just fist-pump and charge in; different PCs would react differently (possibly even with one or more PCs sympathizing with the group's goals but needing to intervene against their methods anyway). I wanted this to create dynamic tension both between the party and the group, and between PCs within the party. I didn't want the paladin and the barbarian feeling the same way about the antagonists. I wanted people to have to make decisions.

Two, I wanted a group that could provide more than just a series of combat encounters. I wanted a group that will sometimes produce a violent terrorist cell that you need to smite into the ground, but other times produce subtle political puppeteers whom it's impractical to confront openly, forcing you to be clever and subtle yourself. Sometimes you'd be fighting off a gang of self-proclaimed militia, and sometimes you'd be trying to nonviolently interfere with harmful sociopolitical maneuvers. Again, I wanted people to have to make decisions.

Unfortunately, time/preparation and word count got in the way. Instead of an almost-sympathetic group who can fuel an entire spectrum of quest and encounter types, I ended up describing a really bland, run-of-the-mill anarchist group.

Ah, well, there's always next year.

...But I'm still preparing for Round 3 just in case! (Gotta take my own advice, you know!)

Thanks for all the feedback, and to anyone who voted for me!

[Ask A RPGSupersuccubus]

Jacob Kellogg wrote:

Brotherhood of Golarion

Alignment: CN
Headquarters: None
Leader: Varies by cell
Structure: Loose coalition of like-minded activists
Scope: Global

Disclaimer:

You should know the drill by now, but in case you missed it the first time round, Ask A RPGSupersuccubus is posting from the point of view of a CE aligned succubus:

Spoiler:

Fairness is an adjective applicable to hair coloration, balance is what a couple of mortals rapidly losing it on opposite ends of a plank pivoted on a rocky spire a couple of hundred feet above a slowly rising pool of molten basalt try to do, and logic is one of those things which you could swear is there when you rattle the piggybank but if anyone other than a demon opens it the contents turn out to be a couple of dead wasps and a six week old ‘to do (in)’ list.

;)

Important Note:
There’s a difference between late and fashionably late. The former is what most other beings manage. The latter is what sophisticated, (very advanced) succubi manage.

First impressions always being important, do members of this organization wear nifty robes or uniforms when out on formal business?
No uniform or dress convention is indicated - which is rather disappointing. They could at least have some sort of secret handshake or sign & counter-sign routine...

Does membership of this organisation seem likely to involve regular tea or dinner parties or other appropriate social occasions?
As no indication is given, as this is a group of anarchists, I assume no.

Is the cost of being a member of this organisation likely to be acceptable to a succubus?
No membership fee or requirement is indicated. It seems likely to be that willingness to spread mayhem and destruction and bring down as many governments as possible is the sole qualifying requirement. (It's charming how naive some of the rank and file seem to be in imagining that government will simply arise out of chaos to replace what was there before...)

Other comments?
Ah well, at least they get full marks for ambition, even if they're a bit naive about how it will turn out. And chaos is always fun...

Rating:
Organizations are not being rated except under special circumstances.

Congratulations:
Congratulations on making the top cut in Round 1. Obviously at this point it’s now apparent that you won’t be progressing any further this time around, but that means you can at least now relax, sit back, pick up a voodoo doll of your least favourite arch-devil, and start sticking silver pins in…