the iomedans in kintargo are against the GR b/c they are scared it isn't going to win.
by the time book 6 rolls around of hell's vengeance, the GR IS winning.
it might be interesting to stick the fall of Westcrown (chronologically) in the beginning of book 4 of HR. that's the spark the leads to the open revolt against barzillai. might add some chaos to the bit where the PCs have to win over the nobility. if Westcrown is still in GR hands through the negotiations in book 6 (which i think fits the tenor of the negotiations), all the better.
The fourth book actually says this.
Unfortunately, Queen Abrogail II has her hands full with the Glorious Reclamation, which recently seized control of the city of Westcrown. Help is unlikely to come for Barzillai, and he knows it.
My own approach to the Glorious Reclamation's presence in Hell's Rebels... is to remove it completely.
"There has been a spate of unrest across Cheliax in recent months, and as such they're proactively clamping down on historically 'troublesome' cities, such as Kintago."
My reasons are threefold:
1) The Glorious Reclamation is fundamentally an enemy of Thrune and one that is gaining ground at an incredible rate. If it is brought up in the game, it will draw the player's attention, and will almost certainly spark an attempt at negotiation/contact that is not only outside the scope of Hell's Rebels, but draws the focus away from the PCs and Kintargo: The GR is bigger, stronger, more successful and with greater popular support than anything the PCs can accomplish in Hell's Rebels, and as such cannot help but overshadow the campaign at best, or sideline it at worst.
2) The Glorious Reclamation is not, in fact, necessary for the events of the campaign to play out. It is easy to suggest that Barzillai simply doesn't request reinforcements before the pass is closed, due to a) hubris and b) a desire not to have his intentions/plots/madness scheme revealed to his family, who would almost certainly try to stop him.
3) Because I have ran Council of Thieves with my players, gotten incredible investment from them into Westcrown.... and for the most part we have all come to a gentleman's agreement to ignore the existence of Hell's Vengeance as a thing.
|
they can have a jerk for a contact in Kintargo, or they might be so focused on the war Cheliax that they don't care about the SR.
Or they could have incompatible politics, assuming the Hell's Rebels PCs bother to have a politics. We make jokes about "splitters" refusing to get together for no reason, but they are based in reality, deep deep down.
on the first point, it's possible to keep the PCs from trying to connect with the GR pretty easily - the GR isn't interested. they can have a jerk for a contact in Kintargo, or they might be so focused on the war Cheliax that they don't care about the SR.
While that does stop a potential alliance between the Glorious Reclamation (though why the GR would be uninterested in either joining forces or at least working with another county that wishes to rebel against Thrune is another matter), it doesn't fundamentally address my chief point.
The Glorious Reclamation is a Cheliax-wide revolution against Thrune that is gaining significant ground in (potentially) liberating millions of souls from the rule of Thrune and Asmodeus.
The Silver Ravens are a few dozen agents supported by a few thousand citizens (at most) trying to kick a single dictator out of the smallest city in the Empire.
Don't get me wrong: Hell's Rebels is an awesome campaign and story with incredible scope, and I am sincerely impressed by it. But in my opinion it is much improved by the Glorious Revolution not existing concurrently, because otherwise a lot of players (well, mine at least) will feel like it is trying to win a primary school soccer competition while the world cup is on.
What I try to do with games is to put the PCs in the spotlight and as the agents of change - it's an approach I had been mostly employing unconsciously, but after a face-to-face with Keith Baker while he was in Aus, is something I've been doing very deliberately since. As a general guideline: If something dramatic is to occur, it is should either be due to the PC actions (e.g. liberation of Kintargo) or be the focus of their actions in the campaign (e.g. stopping Karzoug's return). The GR can be a historical thing to create backstory, or a future thing for a later story, but in my opinion it shouldn't be a concurrent thing.
|
|
The Silver Ravens are a few dozen agents supported by a few thousand citizens (at most) trying to kick a single dictator out of the smallest city in the Empire.
And then they win.
I'll bring up 1905 again; that was a big, militant social movement all over the country that shook the government to its core, and when it was all over one of the few tangible changes was reinforcing the autonomy of Finland. That autonomy would provide revolutionaries a sanctuary and entrepot in 1917.
In any case, I don't think it's appropriate for this campaign to "put the PCs in the spotlight as the agents of change." Though it takes pains to excise almost every mention of class struggle and make the Cheliax-Ravounel conflict about incompatible national characters, you can tell Hell's Rebels wants to be about something more than the actions of three guys and their dog. And it's completely right to do so; revolutions are not made by three guys and their dog, as all the jokes about such groups can attest.
The Silver Ravens are a few dozen agents supported by a few thousand citizens (at most) trying to kick a single dictator out of the smallest city in the Empire.And then they win.
Yes. That is because Hell's Rebels is by definition an epic, with the PCs responsible for enacting massive and sweeping change within the region. If the PCs were predestined to lose in the end, it would generally make for a sucky story.
I'll bring up 1905 again; that was a big, militant social movement all over the country that shook the government to its core, and when it was all over one of the few tangible changes was reinforcing the autonomy of Finland. That autonomy would provide revolutionaries a sanctuary and entrepot in 1917.
I must admit I'm a little curious as to why you bring up 1905 again, as I am not personally seeing much relevance to the analogy; You are referring to a sequence of events, with one leading to another. The Hell's Rebels adventure path is focused on the rebellion and independence of Ravounel concurrently with a larger and more militant revolution occurring in the rest of Cheliax, upon which the Ravounel rebellion is not in fact dependent.
The primary involvement (that I can see) of the Glorious Reclamation in the plot is as thus:
A) As justification as to why Barzillai Thrune comes to Kintargo and institutes martial law. But there are other (and some are easier) explanations for why this would come to pass.
B) As justification as to why Thrune do not send armies of troops to crush the rebellion before the events of Book 4 and 5 (after which the PCs have a massive bargaining chip). But there are other (and some are easier) explanations for why this would come not to pass.
C) As advertising and to build interest in the next adventure path, Hell's Vengeance, which my players and I presently have no interest in.
In any case, I don't think it's appropriate for this campaign to "put the PCs in the spotlight as the agents of change."
I don't think you and I are actually talking about the same thing, because I am finding this statement to be rather odd. The Hell's Rebels game does exactly that, an more so than any other Adventure Path I have seen. The PCs are the agents of change, whereby their actions are the driving force that brings about the independence of Ravounel and humbles the empire of Cheliax.
... If you are assuming that by "Agent of change" I meant "Overthrowing Thrune"... No. That is A change that could (but won't) occur, but by no means the only one. I am simply referring to a lasting positive change. Independence of Ravounel (Hell's Rebels), autonomy of Westcrown (Council of Thieves), forming a new kingdom (Kingmaker) are all good examples.
Though it takes pains to excise almost every mention of class struggle and make the Cheliax-Ravounel conflict about incompatible national characters, you can tell Hell's Rebels wants to be about something more than the actions of three guys and their dog. And it's completely right to do so; revolutions are not made by three guys and their dog, as all the jokes about such groups can attest.
Well, no. I never said the revolution was three guys and their dog :P
I suggested it was a few dozen operatives (up to 8 recruited teams of 4-6, plus 6 bonus teams of 4-6), and a few thousand supporters (with a maximum of Kintargo's population of a 12,000 ish). But at the head of this movement are the PCs, who are the handful of powerful individuals responsible for both forming and leading the rebellion to success.
And that is cool :)
I don't think that the presence of PCs should significantly impact any analysis. If anything, trying to organize Hell's Rebels around the actions of the PCs is the source of most of its weaknesses.
If you were writing a fantasy historical textbook, then you might have a point. But most of us are telling a story and playing a game, both of which are focused on character, conflict and transformation.
I would argue that the focus on the PCs actions is its greatest strength
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the GR fighting the power of Thrune is what brings Egorian to the negotiating table in Book 6.
It's the fact that Thrune is so imperiled that they agree to let Ravounel go its own way.
It's easy enough to emphasize the uniqueness of Ravounel and Kintargo - how it's fundamentally a different place than the rest of Cheliax. Have the locals moan about the bad accents from Egorian.
The SR are fighting for Kintargo, not for Egorian. Not for the freedom of the halflings, not for Iomedae, etc. For Ravounel.
So yeah, there's this big civil war going on over there, and yeah, for Egorian, the unrest in Kintargo takes a backseat. But for the PCs, it's front and center. Their families are at risk from Barzillai. Their homes are endangered. They are fighting for their city and their people.
And that's why they come to the table in book 6. why they don't go wandering out of Ravounel in book 5. why the AP doesn't end with the PCs coming back from their victory only to see a hundred thousand Cheliaxan soldiers marching on Kintargo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Kintargo Contract is what brings Thrune to the table, without it the Silver Ravens are on borrowed time.
The Kintargo Contract is what brings Thrune to the table, without it the Silver Ravens are on borrowed time.
/Salutes the Captain.
Beat me to it.
A significant portion of Book 3 is dedicated to making it inconvenient for Thrune to come in and squash Kintargo, forcing them to send their armies either through Nidal (politically problematic), along the coast (slow and problematic) or by sea (slow and problematic). But 'inconvenience' isn't a permanent impediment and Kintargo is in no position to actually pose a threat to Thrune; If the Glorious Reclamation is the only concern, they could simply ignore Ravounel for the time being and reclaim it at their leisure once the GR is defeated.
What forces them to the negotiating table is that the Kintargo Contract has been revealed and its clauses enacted to establish a new Lord Mayor*, making an armed response by Cheliax and/or Hell at any point against Thrune's interests. Put simply, trying to hold on to Kintargo is more costly to Thrune than granting it independence... and trying to control it with trade and political contracts.
I still might, just with the clause that the Lord Mayor is an executive authority, and while other systems might come into play - such as establishing the Silver Council as an official government body - such systems share power with the Lord Mayor's office.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. That is because Hell's Rebels is by definition an epic, with the PCs responsible for enacting massive and sweeping change within the region. If the PCs were predestined to lose in the end, it would generally make for a sucky story.
What massive and sweeping change are you talking about? Most of what the AP assumes will happen amounts to restoring the status quo ante. Most of the same people will be in charge. Jilia gets to be mayor again, the Court of Coin is undisturbed, the Board of Governors (an even more aristocratic institution, since it's limited to a few bloodlines) must be restored in order for the Kintargo Contract to work, the tieflings and tengus remain ghettoized, the rich remain rich, the poor remain poor. We can assume that slavery's abolished, but that doesn't matter since the institution barely existed in Kintargo to begin with (Vyre's another matter, but they're hardly going to follow along). The biggest lasting change is the disestablishment of the Church of Asmodeus. The second biggest is obtaining some limited autonomy for the region.
The PCs are predestined to lose in the end, if victory means actually making social revolution. That much is driven home by the final book, which has this all be part of Mephistopheles's plan. All that futile struggle makes for great tragedy, but I don't think that's what you mean when you say "epic."
I must admit I'm a little curious as to why you bring up 1905 again, as I am not personally seeing much relevance to the analogy; You are referring to a sequence of events, with one leading to another. The Hell's Rebels adventure path is focused on the rebellion and independence of Ravounel concurrently with a larger and more militant revolution occurring in the rest of Cheliax, upon which the Ravounel rebellion is not in fact dependent.
I bring up 1905 because like those events, HR is not a triumphant conclusion and HV isn't a definitive end of history. Both form a prologue for the true world-shaking events to come, which will never be explored in an AP because Paizo can't bring themselves to mangle their setting that much.
I also bring up 1905 because like that revolution, the one that sweeps Cheliax can't be neatly segregated into little boxes, no matter how much contemporary nationalists or Paizo would like to market it that way. Nightblade of all things makes the point clearest: Cheliax is a nation at war with itself. That war comes out into the open, taking somewhat-but-not-terribly-different forms in HR and HV, and is then put back in the box by their end. It is not, however, resolved.
The primary involvement (that I can see) of the Glorious Reclamation in the plot is as thus:
A) As justification as to why Barzillai Thrune comes to Kintargo and institutes martial law. But there are other (and some are easier) explanations for why this would come to pass.
B) As justification as to why Thrune do not send armies of troops to crush the rebellion before the events of Book 4 and 5 (after which the PCs have a massive bargaining chip). But there are other (and some are easier) explanations for why this would come not to pass.
C) As advertising and to build interest in the next adventure path, Hell's Vengeance, which my players and I presently have no interest in.
Whereas I see the GR as emerging quite naturally from the social and political tensions of Cheliax. It is a sign of the spirit of the times, a spirit that says current conditions are intolerable, the same spirit which animates Kintargo's eventual rising. Without it, the justifications for Kintargo's rising are all boil down, again, to some essential national character. It's a place for free spirits! It has a traditional independent streak!* But apart from the AP saying so, there's no reason why Kintargo should be unique. The GR is proof that it is not.
* Which is not to say that Ravounel and the heartlands don't have some different given circumstances. Ravounel is a net exporter to the rest of Cheliax, which itself is not terribly reliant on those goods. Kintargo's government was based on an alliance of liberal traders, tastemakers, and nobles, while Thrune relies on the new aristocracy, various gangs of paid flunkies, the Church of Asmodeus, and the powers of Hell. But these given circumstances don't influence the likelihood of revolution so much as its form.
The GR takes the form it does because Iomedae is tied to Chelish nationalism, and because the government in the heartlands has repressed all sorts of political organizing. The SR takes the form it does because Kintargo's more liberal government has, despite mandatory redactions, allowed a revolutionary tradition to persist (for instance, the only explanation for the Player's Guide mentioning a massacre of Silver Ravens as part of Barzillai's seizure of power, that doesn't involve an editing screw-up, is that "Silver Raven" has become a generic government pejorative and/or folk term for "dissident"). And then you have to consider Kintargo's close contact with Chelish and Chelish-descended towns and cities up and down the coast. Pezzack's revolutionary tradition is storied. Magnimar was founded as a utopian experiment, with business, labor, and citizens given a voice in the government. Even Korvosa plays host to a militant, albeit underground, labor movement (not that the staff would ever want to put such a thing to use when revamping Curse of the Crimson Throne, no). A co-op (the AP uses the term) like Vespam Artisans takes its cues from that tradition.
I don't think you and I are actually talking about the same thing, because I am finding this statement to be rather odd. The Hell's Rebels game does exactly that, an more so than any other Adventure Path I have seen. The PCs are the agents of change, whereby their actions are the driving force that brings about the independence of Ravounel and humbles the empire of Cheliax.
... If you are assuming that by "Agent of change" I meant "Overthrowing Thrune"... No. That is A change that could (but won't) occur, but by no means the only one. I am simply referring to a lasting positive change. Independence of Ravounel (Hell's Rebels), autonomy of Westcrown (Council of Thieves), forming a new kingdom (Kingmaker) are all good examples.
By "agent of change," I meant "motive force causing a change to happen," same as you. No person should be cast in that role, because that's simply not how historical change works. Cheliax is brought to the brink by its own internal contradictions, and the clash of great parties that embody those contradictions drives the resolution of events. In that world-historical drama, the PCs are simply the characters that players happen to be playing. That they have the spotlight is mere happenstance, not because they're intrinsically important. You made a good point in your Council of Thieves thesis that it should be very clear whether the heroes are the PCs or the Children of Westcrown - or the Silver Ravens if we're talking about HR. I'm stating definitively that it should be the Silver Ravens, conceived of in the broadest possible terms.
As for "lasting positive change," I've already given my feelings on that. The changes actually wrought by the resolution of Hell's Rebels are minuscule, and are only worthwhile if you conceive of them as steppingstones to something else in the future. Ravounel's autonomy means nothing in and of itself, but if the SR can use that autonomy to shelter GR refugees and escaped slaves, supply Pezzack and Thuryan, leverage the Kitkasitacka connection to ally with the strix of Devil's Perch, rebuild the Children of Westcrown, and otherwise prepare Cheliax for another revolution a dozen or so years down the line, that might make it worthwhile. I utterly reject Yakman's nationalist outlook.
Well, no. I never said the revolution was three guys and their dog :P
I suggested it was a few dozen operatives (up to 8 recruited teams of 4-6, plus 6 bonus teams of 4-6), and a few thousand supporters (with a maximum of Kintargo's population of a 12,000 ish). But at the head of this movement are the PCs, who are the handful of powerful individuals responsible for both forming and leading the rebellion to success.
And that is cool :)
It's frighteningly substitutionist, is what it is. Who are the PCs to presume they speak for a great mass party? Who is the Silver Council? At a certain point in the transition from little circle to mass party, even if you have great personal power, you lose your mandate from your will to power and have to reclaim a mandate from your members. The PCs are well-placed to do so; by that point their services to the party will be numerous and their loyalty to the cause unquestionable. But I wouldn't go so far as to presume they will. They should have to fight for their officer positions (in fact I'm pretty sure member discontent is represented on the event table; if it isn't, it should be).
If you were writing a fantasy historical textbook, then you might have a point. But most of us are telling a story and playing a game, both of which are focused on character, conflict and transformation.
I would argue that the focus on the PCs actions is its greatest strength
And you would be wrong, because it leads to some of the silliest possible writing and adventure choices for portraying a revolution. Consider A Song of Silver. The little missions the PCs go on are presumed to contribute to the SR's overall takeover of Kintargo's neighborhoods. And for some of them, it even makes sense. Storming the Hall of Records, for instance, deprives Barzillai of one of his top agents, and presents the nobility with a choice: fall into line, or the obligations of your tenants and thus the foundation of your wealth go up in smoke. And liberating the prisoners in Castle Kintargo breaks the back of Barzillai's strongest goon squad. But how in the heck is excavating the Silver Star (again!) supposed to help to claim Jarvis End? It's a two-bit music shop, not part of the economy's commanding heights or a center of civic power. It can't be because Natsiel or Hetamon are important in themselves; both are associated with Redroof! Ultimately, it's considered important because the PCs are doing it, and that's a bad reason. Or consider the Five Steps of Revolution, which tell the PCs straight-out not to bother about why or for whom, and thus ultimately how, they will be making a revolution. Just do it, and it'll all work out because you're the ones doing it. Finally, focusing on the PCs renders the rest of the named cast - never mind the masses of people - entirely passive. The only hint of mass action the book provides are the responses to the tax hikes on Bleakbridge (pickets, ferries, etc.), and even those don't end up playing a part in the adventure. They're background noise. There are some hints in the rebellion subsystem that the PCs can organize mass actions (and that's a good thing! More of that please!), but for the most part they're locked away in the event table.
In any case, you can have a conflict-filled, character-driven story without presuming the PCs are The Indispensable People.
* * *
That was a lot of abstract talk, so let me reiterate my practical position.
1. I am for the inclusion of the GR as a component to the campaign backstory, because it gives the sense that the events in Kintargo are part of a larger movement sweeping the country. The players should have a sense that their characters are part of something greater than themselves, should be awed and inspired by that. I am against having there be contact between the GR and SR leaderships in Books 1 through 3. The GR doesn't have much to add to this phase of Hell's Rebels's story, which is about building local support in Kintargo and throughout Ravounel. Even if the GR seems more glamorous, it should not be hard to keep the PCs from haring off to join them. The GR leadership's on the other side of the country at this point, the PCs' travel options are (or should be) limited, and the immediate opportunity to make revolution in Kintargo should keep revolution-minded PCs where they are. If the PCs want to consider their group a local affiliate or ally of the GR (with or without adopting - or for that matter knowing - its organizational forms), that's their prerogative.
2. I am for the inclusion of GR characters beginning in Book 4, in the form of refugees from Kantaria braving the Menador Mountains or allowed to pass by the destruction of Menador Keep. The players should get the sense that while their actions are confined to Ravounel, the effects of those actions are not. Free Kintargo is a light unto the nations, a shining city on a hill, and they should feel responsible for keeping it lit. Because of the pace of Book 4, the PCs' attention should be easily kept on local events.
3. I am, beginning in Book 5, for allowing the SR leaders in Kintargo and GR leaders in Westcrown to contact each other with sending spells and the like. Use the refugees to establish the requisite familiarity. I would let the players coordinate strategy with the GR leadership even as local concerns demand both leaderships' constant attention. Or they could have a political falling-out, because that's about as likely as solidarity between two proud and seemingly-ascendant revolutionary leaderships. Maybe they start out aligned and drift apart. Both the GR and SR should be for investigating the Kintargo Contract, but the GR would push for the SR to use it to split Thrune and Hell, while the SR should have some affection for Kintargo at this point and be more cautious.
4. Finally, I am for allowing House Thrune to divide and conquer over the course of Book 6 by tempting the SR with a separate peace (which they need to deal with Barzillai's ongoing manifestations), while crushing the organized GR and forcing the remnants to go into hiding or flee across the frontier. And I would present this as an overall defeat for the players, because that's what it is. They could have played for the big prize, but instead betrayed their natural allies to preserve themselves. That might even have been the right strategic and moral choice, but it should be a hard one, and should inspire even greater heights of hatred for the enemy that played them. Continuing the campaign, they should want to work to redeem themselves by overthrowing Thrune and revolutionizing the country, but have to work to overcome the shattered state of the groups they abandoned, and their justified distrust of these putative patrons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What massive and sweeping change are you talking about?
Let's go through these in sequence, shall we?
Most of what the AP assumes will happen amounts to restoring the status quo
Except Kintargo is free of Chelish rule, Chelish laws, Chelish taxation and able to become self-governing.
Jilia gets to be mayor again
This is the baseline assumption (but not necessarily mandatory), however it does not constitute the status quo before the adventure path started. Before the events of Hell's Rebels the church of Asmodeus wielded incredible legal authority, while the religions more aligned with Kintargo's beliefs and culture (Cayden Cailean, Calistria, Milani etc) are all outlawed.
Placing Jilia back in the saddle, without the yoke of Thune on her neck, is going to see heavy changes to the newly founded nation of Ravounel. For starters, she is unlikely to have her own religion continue to be outlawed.
the Court of Coin is undisturbed
Court of Coin: Noble families orchestrate most of Kintargo’s mercantile and entertainment venues. These nobles gather in a group known as the Court of Coin. This order—many of whom are exiled families from the civil war—generally have Kintargo’s best interests at heart, but have long struggled against internal strife and corruption. See page 63 for a list of Kintargo’s noble families and the individual leaders who represent each family in the Court of Coin.
The Court of Coin are basically Kintargo's nobility, most of whom are still standing at the end of the AP, however "undisturbed" is hardly a fair judgement.
Furthermore, what you appear to be implying is that without total revolution and the destruction of power of the aristocracy and adoption of more modern forms of society, that 'sweeping change' has not occurred. This is both somewhat unfair to the authors of HR, and somewhat impractical. As Cromwell could tell you, social changes of that order of magnitude are hard and take time to gain momentum.
the Board of Governors (an even more aristocratic institution, since it's limited to a few bloodlines) must be restored in order for the Kintargo Contract to work
This is one of the wrinkles in the AP; In order to present a challenge to the PCs it requires that for their own survival they must conform to a very specific set of conditions, as per the contract.
the tieflings and tengus remain ghettoized, the rich remain rich, the poor remain poor.
Do they?
The ramification of the end of Thrune's rule over Kintargo is not something that is fully explained in print, because (at least in part) it is expected to be something that is explored by the individual groups.
Again. I would argue that a socialist revolution is not the minimum bar for "significant change", but as always, opinions will vary.
We can assume that slavery's abolished, but that doesn't matter since the institution barely existed in Kintargo to begin with (Vyre's another matter, but they're hardly going to follow along).
That, along with many of Thrune's laws, are likely to be abolished, yes. I don't think it worth singling out, exclusively because it was one that didn't see heavy use in Kintargo specifically.
The biggest lasting change is the disestablishment of the Church of Asmodeus.
And the lifting of restrictions on worship, establishing a freedom of religion not currently known anywhere in Cheliax. Religion plays a large part in the culture of nation (as Cheliax shows), so the return to the open worship of deities such as Cayden Cailean, Calistria and Milani (and arguably Desna) is a massive change to Kintargan society, and very much a step back towards pre-Thrune times.
The second biggest is obtaining some limited autonomy for the region.
Limited autonomy is what was offered to Westcrown in Council of Thieves. What Ravounel gains is actual sovereignty, albeit with a strong push by Thrune to establish trade and military treaties with Cheliax, both to give Cheliax some hooks in the new nation, and to prevent their enemies from doing the same.
Considering several of the "Continuing the Campaign" options go into this further, I think "some limited autonomy" is perhaps something of an understatement. For the individual citizen of Ravounel, the threat is finally over of Inquisitors of Asmodeus breaking into your home, taking your possessions and impaling your entire family on tines so send your tormented souls to hell because you refuse to turn from your traditional worship of an outlawed god. Not having Thrune in charge is a big deal.
The PCs are predestined to lose in the end, if victory means actually making social revolution. That much is driven home by the final book, which has this all be part of Mephistopheles's plan. All that futile struggle makes for great tragedy, but I don't think that's what you mean when you say "epic."
Your reading of the AP is far, far more pessimistic than mine. But again, I am not setting the bar of success at "complete abandonment of the feudal system".
I liked the scene with Mephistopheles. It was a nice touch and a reminder at the dangers of dealing with Hell. That you took it as a Pyrrhic victory is... well, odd, and not what I think the authors were going for either.
Especially since one suggested option to continue the campaign is turning the game mythic and destroying him.
I bring up 1905 because like those events, HR is not a triumphant conclusion and HV isn't a definitive end of history. Both form a prologue for the true world-shaking events to come, which will never be explored in an AP because Paizo can't bring themselves to mangle their setting that much.
On the scale of empires, planes of hell and fate of the world... no, Hell's Rebels isn't a glorious conclusion. But that's because such events are exceedingly hard to resolve around a group of characters who are typically all in the same place at the same time; It has to be a good story, one that can be told from a single perspective (the PCs) and one that is fun to play.
Hell's Rebels is the story of a handful of heroes shaping the fate of a nation (Ravounel), and placing the destiny of its people back in their own hands - noting that when I say this, I mean that Kintargans are determining the fate of Kintargo, not Thrunes or Asmodeus. For the medium with which Paizo are working, it is both ambitious and an incredible feat pull it off as well as they have.
By "agent of change," I meant "motive force causing a change to happen," same as you. No person should be cast in that role, because that's simply not how historical change works.
Historical change? No
Story? Absolutely.
I appear to have different goals to you - I couldn't actually care less about historical accuracy in my games (if I did, I wouldn't be playing a D&D style rpg), but instead my focus is on drama, narrative and the emotional payoff of my players. What constitutes a good simulation and what constitutes an enjoyable story are very different, and the latter is my first (and only) concern.
That was a lot of abstract talk, so let me reiterate my practical position. <snip>
I understand more where you're coming from, but continue to disagree.
I am against including GR as a contemporary event in the setting, because in my experience players gain greater enjoyment and satisfaction from breaking new ground and pioneering change, rather than undertaking a minor imitation of greater deeds elsewhere (and many of my players do/will see the GR like that).
I am against involving GR characters in the story as a whole, because it distracts from the focus of the story, which is the fate of Ravounel and the city of Kintargo.
I am against Thrune crushing the GR in the background, because many or most of my players will feel like they won a battle, only to lose the war, and their victory will feel bittersweet at best. I am not a fan of bitter endings.
And lastly I am against using the Glorious Reclamation at all because by virtue of its nature as an Iomedae centric movement, it must involve Westcrown, and after running an extensive Council of Thieves campaign (of which I had a few things to say) where the outcome as an autonomous city-state and deeply satisfied players, the very mention of Hell's Vengeance causes them to grind their teeth in frustration, which isn't fun for anyone at the table. Again though, this is something specific to my group, and likely doesn't apply to anyone who hasn't played CoT, or didn't have that great an investment in the campaign.
So my overwhelming preference is to completely detach Hell's Rebels from Hell's Vengeance, which is not all that difficult to do. But this is about what I'd like to do with my campaign, and some concerns with the GR that I wanted to share :)
^Just read through the 1st post of your Council of Thieves review, and although I don't have time to read the other posts right now, you have convinced me that we need a Council of Thieves Anniversary Edition . . . .
With respect to the Glorious Reclamation in Hell's Rebels, I must digress momentarily:
Separately, I have thought it might be fun to have Hell's Vengeance be an AP that characters that are not totally Evil could get on board with, by having the Glorious Reclamation, in their hubris and well-intentioned but badly conceived attempt to liberate Cheliax, unwittingly unleash Demonic forces that dispersed but did not disappear after the closing of the Worldwound, that are looking for a new way to establish themselves on Golarion, and that find one in the disruption caused by the Glorious Reclamation. So the Hell's Vengeance PCs have to choose between two Evils: the Devil(s) they know, or the Demons they have (unless they came from the Mendevian Crusades themselves) probably only heard of, but heard REALLY AWFUL things about. And the Demonic forces start sowing real terror in Cheliax and Isger. Just in case you need a hammer to drive the point home, have the Demonic incursion even take the name Demonic State in Cheliax and Isger. The Glorious Reclamation people are horrified, of course, but in their zeal and hubris, manage to convince themselves that they can keep this down, yet every time they succeed against Thrune, the Demons and their cultists inevitably manage to use it to their own advantage.
And that brings me back to Hell's Rebels: Drop clear clues to the Hell's Rebels PCs that the above is happening. Theoretically, since they are less invested in the Glorious Reclamation -- since it isn't their thing unless they decide to join up -- they may be able to see what the Glorious Reclamation's people are blind to in their hubris. If they unite with the Glorious Reclamation and succeed in overthrowing Thrune, they may ultimately succeed only in bringing the Demons to Kintargo . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So my overwhelming preference is to completely detach Hell's Rebels from Hell's Vengeance, which is not all that difficult to do. But this is about what I'd like to do with my campaign, and some concerns with the GR that I wanted to share :)
I understand your reasons for omitting the GR, especially since your group played CoT and naturally wouldn't want to miss a massive uprising against the Thrunies.
I'm going to give the GR a much larger role than Hell's Rebels does, because in my view this doomed organization provides a great opportunity for a change of pace from the old and tired Good vs Evil dichotomy. Hell's Rebels has been touted as a Lawful vs Chaotic conflict, but unfortunately that's not really reflected in the AP itself. So here's a great chance to pit Lawful Good against Chaotic Good, for a fun contrast to the Lawful Evil baddies.
I have already introduced a low-key Iomedean chapel in the Temple district. The chaplain will be a source of exposition about the larger Chelaxian going-ons to my players (we've only played RotRL so they are hardly Golarion experts) and also the one telling the PCs that from an Iomedean point of view, the GR are misguided, or at least badly timed.
In the start of book four I will introduce a task force sent to Kintargo by the GR to "lead the rebels". At first I'm sure especially the tactician among my players will be overjoyed to have some paladins on their side, but soon enough I expect this will turn sour after they start bossing the PCs about, and this is where we will get to have fun with the Law vs Chaos conflict. Yes, it will entail a degree of Lawful Stupid, or edging on Lawful Neutral fanaticism, but this is a story told from my PCs point of view, and they are all CG (with one NG). They are the heroes, not the GR. I'm sure any real-life paladins will forgive us ;-)
Quotes I have prepped for the GR leader:
"My dear boy, whatever your name was. We are the Glorious Reclamation. This is what we do. Please leave this to the experts, be quiet and watch, and you might very well learn something."
"I have to give one thing to Barzillai, and that's this curfew. I think we will keep it after we win. There's no reason for good folks to run around on the streets after dark. They should be home in bed."
"I have never seen the point of this 'art' tomfoolery myself. It is in truth a waste of time and not honest work. But I'm sure the theaters will prove to become great shrines to the Inheritor, after some rigorous cleansing, of course. Only the devils know what dark deeds have been committed in those sinful shelters of sybaritism."
"There seems to be an awful lot of establishments handing out alcohol here in Kintargo. That's something we have to promptly regulate after we crush the devils."
"Gambling? That's a sure-fire road to damnation. It will soon be banned, don't worry."
(One PC's informants is the leader of a group of street urchins)
"Are you saying you are utilizing child labor? Reprehensible. I don't care about your attempts to explain this. This stop now. Won't somebody please think of the children!"
|
|
Separately, I have thought it might be fun to have Hell's Vengeance be an AP that characters that are not totally Evil could get on board with, by having the Glorious Reclamation, in their hubris and well-intentioned but badly conceived attempt to liberate Cheliax, unwittingly unleash Demonic forces that dispersed but did not disappear after the closing of the Worldwound, that are looking for a new way to establish themselves on Golarion, and that find one in the disruption caused by the Glorious Reclamation. So the Hell's Vengeance PCs have to choose between two Evils: the Devil(s) they know, or the Demons they have (unless they came from the Mendevian Crusades themselves) probably only heard of, but heard REALLY AWFUL things about. And the Demonic forces start sowing real terror in Cheliax and Isger. Just in case you need a hammer to drive the point home, have the Demonic incursion even take the name Demonic State in Cheliax and Isger. The Glorious Reclamation people are horrified, of course, but in their zeal and hubris, manage to convince themselves that they can keep this down, yet every time they succeed against Thrune, the Demons and their cultists inevitably manage to use it to their own advantage.
to continue with your thought - the problem is that the PCs have to be evil to do the things that they end up doing in Hell's Vengeance. Particularly some of the nastier stuff in Book 5.
They start out as low-level thugs to an obviously evil master, and do evil stuff from A-Z. They might start out as LN, but they go right to the BIG E right quick.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except Kintargo is free of Chelish rule, Chelish laws, Chelish taxation and able to become self-governing.
None of these things is actually true, at least, not according to the terms of the treaty in Book 6. The best terms Ravounel can look forward to in that treaty are:
1. At least 30% of Ravounel's exports must be directed to the rest of Cheliax, with prices determined by yearly state-to-state negotiations. This actually represents a step backwards. The way the term is presented gives the impression that Ravounel's traders happen to do quite a lot of business with the rest of Cheliax (which makes sense, since it's a big internal market), and that prices are determined by the market. Even in the best outcome, Cheliax manages to secure for itself a guarantee that that trade will continue, on favorable terms, while Ravounel gets substantially nothing.
2. Menador Keep is denied to Ravounel. On the regional map, Menador Keep is as surely within Ravounel as Citadel Enferac is within Hellcoast. But all sets of terms say that it reverts to Cheliax's control and at most Ravounel is able to station soldiers there.
3. The term about restricting access to private collections is bizarre. For one thing, these collections represent something of a public good and it baffles me that Ravounel's government would want to reinforce their owners' control over them. The "best" option requires various kinds of permission for Chelaxians to visit, which only makes sense as an anti-theft/anti-sabotage measure. But that is accomplished better simply by making visitors subject to the laws of Ravounel, which presumably would prohibit theft or sabotage, while in Ravounel; it's telling that this is not on the table.
4. Ravounel retains the obligation to fight for Cheliax, with some discretion on when to engage and with their commitment limited to a definite time.
5. Ravounel can freely engage in the arms trade and make military alliances.
In sum, we have a guaranteed economic relationship, extraterritoriality for Chelish subjects, border adjustments in Cheliax's favor, and a military commitment. That screams "colonial subject" to me, and gives the impression that Ravounel under the agreement is no more free than Isger. Chelish law is undisturbed, because as we see, that's the law that continues to apply to Chelish subjects. Chelish tax-collection is impeded by their not being able to send officials in to collect taxes, but they can make up the revenue in trade. Ravounel's form of government (and even its composition to an extent) is not self-determined, but rather determined by the Kintargo Contract, which itself is part of the same pact with Hell that binds the rest of Cheliax.
Furthermore, what you appear to be implying is that without total revolution and the destruction of power of the aristocracy and adoption of more modern forms of society, that 'sweeping change' has not occurred. This is both somewhat unfair to the authors of HR, and somewhat impractical. As Cromwell could tell you, social changes of that order of magnitude are hard and take time to gain momentum.
Social changes precede and precipitate revolutions, and then compound over the course of revolutions as their animating forces battle for dominance. Cromwell and his ilk were not philosopher kings engineering society so much as products of the past hundred years of religious, political, and social strife. Let's be clear here: returning Kintargo's society back to the status quo ante was a deliberate, conservative choice on the part of the AP writers. Not because the alternative would be difficult to write (they've included more thoroughgoing social revolutions than this in the setting material), but because it wouldn't fit their marketing strategy and probably their personal politics.
Actually, speaking of setting material, I have to question how much Cheliax can be considered to even have a feudal system. It certainly has some of the trappings: nested layers of authority and obligation, noble titles, etc. But its economy is massively varied. We see freeholding of land about as often as we see tenancy on big estates, in settings as far removed as Devil's Perch and Longacre. Slavery exists, but seems mostly confined to domestic service unless there are slave-fields and slave-works out there in the setting material that I'm forgetting. Wage labor is common in the cities, including Kintargo (Sallix Salt Works would pay a wage, as would the fishing captains; and these are apparently the dominant industries). People are able to conceive of cooperative, self-managed labor, as can be seen from Vespam Artisans and the hiring hall that what's-his-name sets up in Kantaria. Arcadian and (should they ever be reclaimed, Garundi) colonies exist to enable primitive accumulation via the exploitation of resources. This looks like an early-modern, that is to say proto-capitalist, system to me. That kind of social system would fit right in with Cheliax's neighbors, none of which seems terribly feudal.
The ramification of the end of Thrune's rule over Kintargo is not something that is fully explained in print, because (at least in part) it is expected to be something that is explored by the individual groups.
This is a cop-out and you know it. The writers's heavy political hand is palpable throughout Books 5 and 6. They know if Barzillai goes, the social revolution is inevitable. But they don't want it. They hate it like sin.
And the lifting of restrictions on worship, establishing a freedom of religion not currently known anywhere in Cheliax.
This, and the disestablishment of the Asmodeans, are one and the same. To mention the one is to mention the other. But since you keep bringing it up, I have to wonder how much their liberation will transform the churches of Cayden, Milani, Sarenrae, etc. from the revolution's allies to its enemies. We saw the same process at work with the Iomedeans with respect to the GR, or from the Abadarans and Shelynites in Kintargo; as permitted faiths, they could afford to cautiously withhold their support. And going forward, the Abadarans, for example, will surely try to tighten their hold on the banking system, to exist as an independent power, a state within a state, inevitably breeding conflict.
What constitutes a good simulation and what constitutes an enjoyable story are very different
I don't think so. A story has to be grounded in a reality that makes some kind of sense, and should proceed more or less naturally from the given circumstances. A story should also have some kind of utility - should exist for a reason beyond itself. It should say something about the world, should inspire reflection about it and action in it.
I think the story loses by being confined to a single city. It raises the question of why here and why now, and answers them by saying PCs are involved. That rings hollow to me. There is always a grander story, and only a small part is played in great deeds by any hero. If that role is to carry a torch in memory of your fallen comrades, hoping for an opportunity in the future, so be it.
As for keeping your group happy, maybe eschew Hell's Rebels completely in favor of letting them continue with their Council of Thieves PCs? There's story fodder in trying to keep their movement alive through the events of Hell's Vengeance, and it probably makes a better story than Hell's Rebels.
to continue with your thought - the problem is that the PCs have to be evil to do the things that they end up doing in Hell's Vengeance. Particularly some of the nastier stuff in Book 5.
They start out as low-level thugs to an obviously evil master, and do evil stuff from A-Z. They might start out as LN, but they go right to the BIG E right quick.
Well, that's the thing. I was thinking of altering this so that the evil master and/or an equally evil but far more insidious agent purposely give the PCs opportunities to solve the problems without immediately falling to Evil, so that the PCs are gradually dragged into more Evil slowly, with each step seeming to be a small but necessary evil to be paid for preventing something even worse.
|
|
to continue with your thought - the problem is that the PCs have to be evil to do the things that they end up doing in Hell's Vengeance. Particularly some of the nastier stuff in Book 5.
They start out as low-level thugs to an obviously evil master, and do evil stuff from A-Z. They might start out as LN, but they go right to the BIG E right quick.
Well, that's the thing. I was thinking of altering this so that the evil master and/or an equally evil but far more insidious agent purposely give the PCs opportunities to solve the problems without immediately falling to Evil, so that the PCs are gradually dragged into more Evil slowly, with each step seeming to be a small but necessary evil to be paid for preventing something even worse.
yeah, but they start doing irrevocably evil things almost from the start.
and they would need to uncover stuff that leads them to find out that the GR is destabilizing the planes (or whatever). keeping with book 1, they'll still have to go and kill all those nice rebel people.
so they've already gone evil by the time they would find out that the GR's actions are causing a far worse fate than INFERNAL TYRANNY
Of course the biggest thing is if you have indeed played CoT and ended up with the best results. Unless the GR get into Westcrown, there is effectively no sixth book. If the PCs resist, then the GR is going to have to remove them by hook or crook which may very well be fatal, and even if the PCs played nice with Thrune, Thrune could very well roll in anyways and it is CoT Mrk2 sans Shadowcurse.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
to continue with your thought - the problem is that the PCs have to be evil to do the things that they end up doing in Hell's Vengeance. Particularly some of the nastier stuff in Book 5.
They start out as low-level thugs to an obviously evil master, and do evil stuff from A-Z. They might start out as LN, but they go right to the BIG E right quick.
Well, that's the thing. I was thinking of altering this so that the evil master and/or an equally evil but far more insidious agent purposely give the PCs opportunities to solve the problems without immediately falling to Evil, so that the PCs are gradually dragged into more Evil slowly, with each step seeming to be a small but necessary evil to be paid for preventing something even worse.
was thinking about this (again) last night.
and... well... it's THE EVIL CAMPAIGN.
You play evil people doing evil stuff.
Putting a "greater good" hook in there is nice and all... but this is the campaign where that's not needed. the PCs are there to make sure that an infernally sponsored, slave-driving, soul-crushing tyranny stays in charge.
Putting the supposedly higher purpose in there is counter-productive to laying that theme. You show up evil, to do evil, you do evil, you win for evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, focusing on the PCs renders the rest of the named cast - never mind the masses of people - entirely passive. The only hint of mass action the book provides are the responses to the tax hikes on Bleakbridge (pickets, ferries, etc.), and even those don't end up playing a part in the adventure. They're background noise. There are some hints in the rebellion subsystem that the PCs can organize mass actions (and that's a good thing! More of that please!), but for the most part they're locked away in the event table.
I agree. There's a solution for that problem, which is having the players periodically RP the other members of the Silver Ravens. I had a DM do that for Age of Worms, actually, to drive home a tragic loss of a castle. Worked like a charm as a single-session experience. Doing this a handful of times strategically can keep the immersion with a single party while still making the point that it's a mass movement that the players are actually RPing.
1. I am for the inclusion of the GR as a component to the campaign backstory, because it gives the sense that the events in Kintargo are part of a larger movement sweeping the country. The players should have a sense that their characters are part of something greater than themselves, should be awed and inspired by that. I am against having there be contact between the GR and SR leaderships in Books 1 through 3. The GR doesn't have much to add to this phase of Hell's Rebels's story, which is about building local support in Kintargo and throughout Ravounel. Even if the GR seems more glamorous, it should not be hard to keep the PCs from haring off to join them. The GR leadership's on the other side of the country at this point, the PCs' travel options are (or should be) limited, and the immediate opportunity to make revolution in Kintargo should keep revolution-minded PCs where they are. If the PCs want to consider their group a local affiliate or ally of the GR (with or without adopting - or for that matter knowing - its organizational forms), that's their prerogative.
I pretty much agree with this, especially given the power of the narrative framing and the geographical isolation.
2. I am for the inclusion of GR characters beginning in Book 4, in the form of refugees from Kantaria braving the Menador Mountains or allowed to pass by the destruction of Menador Keep. The players should get the sense that while their actions are confined to Ravounel, the effects of those actions are not. Free Kintargo is a light unto the nations, a shining city on a hill, and they should feel responsible for keeping it lit. Because of the pace of Book 4, the PCs' attention should be easily kept on local events.
Yes, that works as a background flavor here. Sort of feels like Rick's in Casablanca on a regional scale.
3. I am, beginning in Book 5, for allowing the SR leaders in Kintargo and GR leaders in Westcrown to contact each other with sending spells and the like. Use the refugees to establish the requisite familiarity. I would let the players coordinate strategy with the GR leadership even as local concerns demand both leaderships' constant attention. Or they could have a political falling-out, because that's about as likely as solidarity between two proud and seemingly-ascendant revolutionary leaderships. Maybe they start out aligned and drift apart. Both the GR and SR should be for investigating the Kintargo Contract, but the GR would push for the SR to use it to split Thrune and Hell, while the SR should have some affection for Kintargo at this point and be more cautious.
Since I plan on cutting a lot of books five and six because I find the Return of Jack the Ripper and Hell's Dungeon Crawl uninspiring filler, this will work nicely and sets up my response to this below.
4. Finally, I am for allowing House Thrune to divide and conquer over the course of Book 6 by tempting the SR with a separate peace (which they need to deal with Barzillai's ongoing manifestations), while crushing the organized GR and forcing the remnants to go into hiding or flee across the frontier. And I would present this as an overall defeat for the players, because that's what it is. They could have played for the big prize, but instead betrayed their natural allies to preserve themselves. That might even have been the right strategic and moral choice, but it should be a hard one, and should inspire even greater heights of hatred for the enemy that played them. Continuing the campaign, they should want to work to redeem themselves by overthrowing Thrune and revolutionizing the country, but have to work to overcome the shattered state of the groups they abandoned, and their justified distrust of these putative patrons.
I get what you're saying and that should be the threat of negotiations, but, frankly, this adventure will take 5-6 years and my players will need more narrative pay off than this provides. I get enough of grim reality in my working life and from my perception of this past election. Narratives teach us about reality, yes, but they also provide comfort and resolve to face exactly that through diversions into fiction or just structure in nonfiction. I just can't DM that story; more power to you if your table would support it though.
If the PCs have set up a role as consultants on GR strategy, then it makes sense that they could intervene in the events of HV Book 6 as things start to get desperate. Your alternate narrative provides perfect justification for a cross-over event of HV vs. HR. I like that A LOT better than beating a villain you already beat, which is the narrative of Book 6 and an out of nowhere "All According to My Plan" player agency wipe by deus ex devilus, or whatever. This cross over would need some narrative foreshadowing, but that can happen during the negotiations set piece of Ravounel vs. Cheliax
to continue with your thought - the problem is that the PCs have to be evil to do the things that they end up doing in Hell's Vengeance. Particularly some of the nastier stuff in Book 5.
They start out as low-level thugs to an obviously evil master, and do evil stuff from A-Z. They might start out as LN, but they go right to the BIG E right quick.
Well, that's the thing. I was thinking of altering this so that the evil master and/or an equally evil but far more insidious agent purposely give the PCs opportunities to solve the problems without immediately falling to Evil, so that the PCs are gradually dragged into more Evil slowly, with each step seeming to be a small but necessary evil to be paid for preventing something even worse.
was thinking about this (again) last night.
and... well... it's THE EVIL CAMPAIGN.
You play evil people doing evil stuff.
Putting a "greater good" hook in there is nice and all... but this is the campaign where that's not needed. the PCs are there to make sure that an infernally sponsored, slave-driving, soul-crushing tyranny stays in charge.
Putting the supposedly higher purpose in there is counter-productive to laying that theme. You show up evil, to do evil, you do evil, you win for evil.
Yes, but who says that's the only way to do an Evil Campaign? After all, on Earth, plenty of times evil regimes have worked hard to convince people that they were working for some "greater good". If the infernally sponsored, slave-driving, soul-crushing tyranny manages to corrupt some good people in the course of defending itself, that's an example of soiling 2 stones with 1 bird, even if it takes a while.
|
|
to continue with your thought - the problem is that the PCs have to be evil to do the things that they end up doing in Hell's Vengeance. Particularly some of the nastier stuff in Book 5.
They start out as low-level thugs to an obviously evil master, and do evil stuff from A-Z. They might start out as LN, but they go right to the BIG E right quick.
Well, that's the thing. I was thinking of altering this so that the evil master and/or an equally evil but far more insidious agent purposely give the PCs opportunities to solve the problems without immediately falling to Evil, so that the PCs are gradually dragged into more Evil slowly, with each step seeming to be a small but necessary evil to be paid for preventing something even worse.
was thinking about this (again) last night.
and... well... it's THE EVIL CAMPAIGN.
You play evil people doing evil stuff.
Putting a "greater good" hook in there is nice and all... but this is the campaign where that's not needed. the PCs are there to make sure that an infernally sponsored, slave-driving, soul-crushing tyranny stays in charge.
Putting the supposedly higher purpose in there is counter-productive to laying that theme. You show up evil, to do evil, you do evil, you win for evil.
Yes, but who says that's the only way to do an Evil Campaign? After all, on Earth, plenty of times evil regimes have worked hard to convince people that they were working for some "greater good". If the infernally sponsored, slave-driving, soul-crushing tyranny manages to corrupt some good people in the course of defending itself, that's an example of soiling 2 stones with 1 bird, even if it takes a while.
oh, it's not the only way to do AN evil campaign.
but THIS evil campaign is just evil. there's not a whit of greater purpose.
and I have come to a point in my life where I can accept that for what it is.
What if the paladins of the Glorious Reclamation are FROM Kintargo? What if a schism develops between the Church and its paladins? Or what if the response to the Silver Ravens after a while is for a spontaneous cell of the Glorious Reclamation? After all, this is an Iomedaen Church led by a man who did undercover marriages in Nidal.
Competing groups of revolutionaries are not exactly uncommon.
|
|
What if the paladins of the Glorious Reclamation are FROM Kintargo? What if a schism develops between the Church and its paladins? Or what if the response to the Silver Ravens after a while is for a spontaneous cell of the Glorious Reclamation? After all, this is an Iomedaen Church led by a man who did undercover marriages in Nidal.
Competing groups of revolutionaries are not exactly uncommon.
Kintargo is historically a cosmopolitan port. It's not the kind of place where religious fanatics arise from.
Oh? Like Boston and the Tea Party?
More seriously, this is a town with a history of rebellion. This could be a good complication for books 3, 4, or 5. .
|
|
Oh? Like Boston and the Tea Party?
More seriously, this is a town with a history of rebellion. This could be a good complication for books 3, 4, or 5. .
Yes, like Boston and the Tea Party.
Fanatics come from the countryside, generally. The religious movement of most fame which emerged from Boston are the nerdy Christian Scientists of book store and newspaper fame. hardly wild eyed "WORD OF GOD" types.
The rebellion in Kintargo is to return to the pre-Thrune cosmopolitan nature of Ravounel. Not to subject it to fanatics from the countryside.
I've always thought that a fun twist to book 6 would be to replace the assassin who is like a Norgorber cultist or something with a Glorious Reclamation fanatic.