So my players had an absolute blast with this debate and it was a lot of fun to have Baats'Ulan throw out the best anti-capitalist rhetoric he could at the party but the artwork of the character shows him wearing this solid gold necklace, which just made for the easiest target. If was a fun way to give the PCs a very easy way to poke out at hypocracy, but it really doesn't mention anywhere in the text that Baats'Ulan was a money grubbing hypocrite, or if so I missed it. At first I was planning on running Baats'Ulan as being authentically looking to teach his disciples to abandon the concept of wealth and return to means of protecting and providing for their communities with the skills of survival that humans have been cultivating for years, but as soon as I showed the party the artwork, I was pretty much forced to play him over as a con artist.
I am interested if there was an intention to play Baats'Ulan as a Con from the beginning or if it was just a strange occurrence of the art work telling a different story than the text?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the internet is to play him as a racist given the Anti-Human nature the party has to be. Also his philosophy seems to me minimalist not full Buddhist non-matarielist.
Although he maybe has a bit of US Televangelists give to me and I will bring you enlightenment bs.