|
Huh? I have gone through the Bestiary, CRB, LO, and I cannot find NPC values (I find some guidelines for adjusting to represent weaker/stronger but those don't work either). Can you give me the page number for the NPC values or should I assume that they are just random number done for fluff purposes?I think those NPCs use the NPC HP values instead of Class based HP.I am a little confused as to how they built the sample NPCs.
What am I missing?For example, the Charming Scoundrel (p 118) is level 4.
Listed: 54 HP
Calc: 48 HP [Gnome(8) + Class(8)*4 + Con(2)*4] (Diff 6)Privateer Captain is level 11
Listed: 175 HP
Calc: 129 [Human(8) + Class(8)*11 + Con(3)*11] (Diff 46)
Hey Laran! They are made using the monster and NPC creation guidelines. These were just released as a free pdf, and they'll be published early next year as a part of the Gamemastery Guide.
|
I'm still confused. Is "organizing for systemic change, whether by reform or revolution" supposed to be a bad thing? Because I agree that's not happening. That's the point.Wait. By "the latter," were you referring to something other than my item 2)?... how is bad things not happening a problem?And theres no evidence of the latter occurring in the slightest.Which is the problem.No it was.
There’s been no evidence of the negative things you claim are happening because of the Firebrands are in fact happening.
No, you said "and divert effort and popular attention away from organizing for systemic change, whether by reform or revolution." which is not occurring.
And no they wouldn't start the second edition of the game with every country currently undergoing revolutions. Not all of them are in need of them.
Sooo we have one person that says they're not Good enough because they aren't not-Evangelicals and one person that says they're not Good enough because they haven't yet impaled any not-Evangelicals at stake.
I guess it means their portrayal is balanced :)
I mean, letting individual groups push the Firebrands in whichever of those directions they prefer is definitely the right call.
|
I mean, letting individual groups push the Firebrands in whichever of those directions they prefer is definitely the right call.Sooo we have one person that says they're not Good enough because they aren't not-Evangelicals and one person that says they're not Good enough because they haven't yet impaled any not-Evangelicals at stake.
I guess it means their portrayal is balanced :)
Poppycock. Their portrayal is definite and grounded, and any other would require such significant rewriting that there might as well not be a preexisting setting element at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never seen a setting element or detail that could not be extremely easily subverted, uprooted, turned on its head, or put in a wholly different light by a GM who was interested in doing so.
The whole point of providing setting details is to give groups stuff to riff off of, after all.
Like it's very easy to see the extremely public, ostentatious, and loud firebrands as simply providing cover for the competent and clandestine part of the organization who finds this useful.
|
|
Poppycock. Their portrayal is definite and grounded, and any other would require such significant rewriting that there might as well not be a preexisting setting element at all.I mean, letting individual groups push the Firebrands in whichever of those directions they prefer is definitely the right call.Sooo we have one person that says they're not Good enough because they aren't not-Evangelicals and one person that says they're not Good enough because they haven't yet impaled any not-Evangelicals at stake.
I guess it means their portrayal is balanced :)
The Firebrands don't have a hivemind, so no.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The point is, that doesn't mean anything. And more than that, it is very easy to rationalize that advancing the foreign policy interests of a self-proclaimed revolutionary state is the same thing as combating oppression.
It certainly means something. And yes, it's easily used as a shield for other ambitions...but frankly that doesn't mean everyone will do so.
For an in-setting example, that is exactly what the Andorens do, subordinating the local movement on Thuryan to their foreign policy desire for a military base west of the Arch of Aroden, and engaging in blatant colonialism in Arcadia and Azlant, all in the name of liberty. It is such an easy rationalization I'd call it inevitable.
That someone will use it? Yes, I'd agree that's inevitable. That everyone will use such a rationalization rather than sticking to the original principles? That's not inevitable at all, and it's what you were claiming.
Nor are local movements proof against being won over to uncritical support of foreign patrons. There is an avowed "Galtan" faction in Pezzack, for instance.
Absolutely true and I never said otherwise. I said there was no evidence of the Firebrands being this at the moment.
That organization would consist entirely of and be limited to the Ravounel and Vidric governments. All the rest are bad-faith play-actors.
No, they aren't. Specifically and canonically many are acting in good faith.
These vignettes are prototypical example of the disreputable Firebrands, who don't do anything other than draw attention to themselves, get themselves in trouble performing ineffectual, apolitical acts of derring-do, and have to spend most of their time getting out of trouble. They are the problem.
Saving people's lives is not ineffectual. You may personally care more about specific forms of societal change than the Firebrands do and less about saving the lives of innocent people, but that makes it an organization whose goals and priorities you disagree with, not an ineffectual one.
Their orientation is not towards toppling governments, or even towards building popular power in revolutionized countries (Ravounel in particular is needful of reform). Their orientation is to individual preening.
Their orientation is to individual acts of heroism rather than violent revolution no matter the cost. That may not be an organization you like or would join, but that doesn't make it ineffectual or corrupt.
The book's mechanical options are all geared toward the peacocking type of Firebrand. That indicates something.
Per one of the writers, it indicates they only had room for one Archetype. They said there'll likely be another Firebrand Archetype for the more serious revolutionaries in another book.
And even notwithstanding reality, reputations are a fickle thing. Enough propaganda and provocateurs can sour them in a very short time. History is full of examples.
Sure. And that's an issue for the future, but you act like it's inevitable and already ongoing. Which is canonically false. Like many things you've claimed here.
As for the examples of providing resources, these are examples of subordination and not to be counted.
Given that they seem to have been given without strings, no they aren't.
Like it's very easy to see the extremely public, ostentatious, and loud firebrands as simply providing cover for the competent and clandestine part of the organization who finds this useful.
This is pretty much canonical by the text, honestly.
