Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jancarius 07-12-06, 05:38 PM	Auralia? Neutral Good? I think not! She's planning to restart a war that caused the deaths of millions just for her own personal gain, while Kaius, the LE vampire king is promoting peace in sincerity? NO WAY is Auralia NG. True Neutral or NE as far as I can see.
aelryinth 07-12-06, 05:47 PM	So what you're saying is NG people can't be ambitious? They have to sit on their laurels and react to things that Evil and Neutral people do? NG means there are things that Aurala will do to gain power, and things she won't do. That doesn't mean she has to give up her ambitions and be a saint on the throne. She is not, after all, EXALTED NG. ===Aelryinth
Jancarius 07-12-06, 06:01 PM	Not that they can't be ambitious (my 'main' character is a very ambitious elf wizard whose NG), but that one of their methods to gain power cannot be to cause the death of a large number of innocents for their personal benefit. I see little difference between intentionally restarting a war and sacrificing a cities population to the fiends. Her nation, her people, her family; Aurala uses these assets to lay the foundation to ultimately claim her heart's desire-the throne of Galifar. No matter her words or deeds, to no matter the show she puts on for the public, everything that Aurala does leads her one step closr to the crown and the throne of her ancestors. She has no intentions of letting a lasting peace stand in the way of her ultimate goal One usually considers lasting peace a good thing, and breaking it at least somewhat evil, unless it's the peace of oppression and tyranny (which the Treaty of Thronehold is not)
Bluebrush 07-12-06, 06:23 PM	As you'll note in 5N, Aurala prefers espionage as a tool, compared to her brothers who prefer warfare and magic respectively. I think Aurala would generally prefer to take over Galifar quietly and as cleanly as possible. Another big war would be highly undesirable, so she's trying to find another way to the top.
Psionycx 07-12-06, 08:43 PM	Alignment is more of a guideline in Eberron than a rigid guarantee of behavior. Consider, for example, that Thrane is a nation dominated by a Lawful Good religion, yet they led the charge to break the legal Galifar succession - which provoked the Last War in the first place! Aurala's Neutral Good alignment most probably reflects her behavior towards her own subjects. She is a generally benevolent monarch towards her own people and overall is a good ruler. However, she is personally ambitious and believes firmly that she is the best choice to sit on the throne of Galifar.
pauldanielj 07-12-06, 10:16 PM	I'm not sure that war is necessarily an evil thing, particularly in the context of D&D. Many a lawful good paladin has marched off to war, after all. War is just fighting on a large scale, and every alignment in D&D is open to the possibility of combat. Now if she was decribed as being willing to raze Korvaire to the ground in the pursuit of her goals or something along those lines, then I'd agree with her being not of good alignment.
Jancarius 07-12-06, 10:40 PM	I kind of get thei mpression she IS willing to raze Khorvaire to rule it.
Charles Phipps 07-12-06, 10:41 PM	Well that's because it's an easier story to tell. It's like King Kaius, only now are people wrapping their heads around the idea that he can be the major voice for peace and moderation while simultaneously being an evil tyrant. It's harder to wrap your mind around a benevolent, freedom loving, liberal, and compassionate monarch whom nevertheless believes that the only way to make the world a better place is to rule it.
ChaoticGood 07-13-06, 03:18 AM	It's harder to wrap your mind around a benevolent, freedom loving, liberal, and compassionate monarch whom nevertheless believes that the only way to make the world a better place is to rule it. Not really, Charles, although discussing ex-First Ladies would be a bannable offense on these boards... :rimshot: (I am SO sorry, but I just couldn't NOT take that one... :angelhide )
Jancarius 07-14-06, 12:43 AM	Sorry, I'm a Poli Sci major and I didn't get that joke...
Wizardman 07-14-06, 02:10 AM	I'm thinking it's a crack at Nancy Reagan, maybe Hillary Clinton.
Korhal_IV 07-14-06, 02:22 AM	Sorry, I'm a Poli Sci major and I didn't get that joke... Woo-hoo! Another poli-sci major! :D I see little difference between intentionally restarting a war and sacrificing a cities population to the fiends. That's a bizarre claim. Plenty of people have gone to war with good intentions, including nearly all of the soldiers. Every single character in D&D has the blood of hundreds on his hands by the time he peaks at 20th level (266.66, minimum, assuming each encounter is just one opponent), yet I think you'd argue that by and large these heroes do make their campaign worlds better places. I mean, c'mon. Thrane is ruled by crazy fundamentalists, Karrnath has degenerated into a land of undead monsters, and when Boranel kicks the bucket, there's no one to take his place in Breland! It would take a very weird NG monarch to NOT think that by meddling violently, s/he would make the world a better place for future generations ("Yes, we did lose 50,000 soldiers, but future generations of Karrnath will be free of necromantic influence!" "Sure, we lost 170,000, and had to execute an 11-year-old Keeper of the Flame, but future Thranes will have freedom of religion, speech, and proper rulership!").
Bluebrush 07-14-06, 03:11 AM	"Sure, we lost 170,000, and had to execute an 11-year-old Keeper of the Flame, but future Thranes will have freedom of religion, speech, and proper rulership!").You know, this is pretty much the reason they have that Dreadhold place over in the principalities. To keep uppity eleven year olds from annoying you. Besides, Thrane already has freedom of religion (Though it's much easier to be a Flame worshipper than a Sovver) and Jaela is primarily there to take care of the nation's spirituality. Ruling the nation is pretty much second to that.
Korhal_IV 07-14-06, 03:14 AM	You know, this is pretty much the reason they have that Dreadhold place over in the principalities. To keep uppity eleven year olds from annoying you. Besides, Thrane already has freedom of religion (Though it's much easier to be a Flame worshipper than a Sovver) and Jaela is primarily there to take care of the nation's spirituality. Ruling the nation is pretty much second to that. Dreadhold is for softies. ;) I'm making up reasons to invade Thrane. Thaliost alone will get the entire nation marching in time with Aurala. Some PR reason can probably be added. Freedom, border disputes, missing citizens, improper placement of salad forks at an embassy dinner, whatever gets the blood boiling.
Psionycx 07-14-06, 08:35 PM	Besides, Thrane already has freedom of religion (Though it's much easier to be a Flame worshipper than a Sovver) and Jaela is primarily there to take care of the nation's spirituality. Ruling the nation is pretty much second to that. Mostly because other clerics are actually ruling the nation. But Thrane, at least in theory, is predominantly Lawful Good. Yet Thalin was the first to challenge the Galifar succession, which sparked a century of war. Current day Thrane is far from benevolent to the Aundairan subjects they acquired with the conquest of Thaliost. Indeed, it may make Queen Aurala seethe when she hears of her subjects being tortured and killed by Flamite inquisitors occupying what used to be Audairan territory and holding Aundairan subjects captive. Eberron is meant to be less rigid about alignments than other D&D worlds. It also introduces some of the moral ambiguity of the real world. Aurala didn't start the Great War. It had been going on for decades before she was born. Galifar is just a historical notion for her, but one that speaks of a time when Khorvaire was united under a single stable government. Even after the Treaty of Thronehold, Aundair has lost much of it's lands. One of the Five Nations has been destroyed. The other three are ruled by religious fanatics, undead fetishists and rapacious capitalists respectively. On the fringes new nations of goblinoids, monsters and militant elves have arisen, threatening future conflict in Khorvaire even if the remaining nations don't start fighting each other again. Aundair is small, but well run and the people are happy. Aurala may flatter herself that her people are happier and better off than in any other of the nations. It is not unrealistic to imagine that Aurala sees herself as the most suitable person to reestablish Galifar and address all the corruption and threats she sees. In her eyes the other rulers are either too wicked or too narrow-minded to bring about a new flowering of Galifar. But she's not delusional. She knows that Thronehold is not going to be handed to her willingly by the other nations, so she must plan for war. Besides, she has no doubt the other nations are probably doing likewise.
Thanqol 07-14-06, 09:28 PM	I had the same impression. Everything in the text contradicts a NG alignment. I read all the fluff on Aurala, thought "oh, a good LN villian" and a few weeks later, when I read it again and saw the little alignment bar... "Neutral GOOD?!?" Maybe it's just my justification of alignment - any one anywhere saying "the End justifys the Means" immediately shifts towards evil, no save.
Logos7 07-14-06, 11:06 PM	I think their's a big difference between military action and butchering hoardes of civilians, Geneva is the world's agreement that their is a very big difference a moral difference, who is to say that she would be wiling to cross that line when she starts "putting down rebillions like in star wars and decaring druid's "The enemy of the republic" well then we can talk" Logos
Cutlass 07-15-06, 09:40 AM	It is my humble opinion that the way DnD divides up alignments is not always that helpful, and that within a particular alignment there is room for some variation. To attempt to make my point in a slightly different way, there would be a difference between two people, one of whom was neutral good, and the other who was neutral good. To try to sum it up in words, it depends on which portion of the alignment the person sees as being more relevant or the "tie breaker" when it ocmes to deciding how to act.
ArcTan 07-15-06, 04:45 PM	I see this as saying that even though Aurala is ambitious, cunning and ruthless -- as, well, *any* politician or leader tends to have to be in a realistic setting full of conflict -- she's essentially a decent person at heart. She believes that the best thing for Khorvaire is for her to conquer it and restore a united kingdom under her rule, but she's not *absolutely* ruthless in her pursuit of the throne. She's not going to offhandedly commit atrocities, callously sacrifice innocents to die purely for personal gain, betray those she considers true friends, etc. Kaius might do that -- Kaius *has* done that, what with skulking around behind his people's back to make a deal with the Blood of Vol, killing or imprisoning his own grandson so he could seize the throne back, etc. -- but Aurala wouldn't. In a campaign, if you had evidence that some action she was taking would endanger innocent life for no real benefit, she'd listen.
Siran Dunmorgan 07-15-06, 05:09 PM	Trying to locate the point of contradiction between Her Majesty of Aundair's long-term policies and her stated alignment is something of an exercise in futility. Alignment—of any kind—is irrelevant in the long term, because we can never be certain that the consequences of our otherwise good actions will indeed serve the greater good. Alignment in DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is not a certification of the specific long-term policies of any given creature: it is a guideline indicating how that creature will behave, tactically, over the course of a single encounter. A good-aligned wizard will not cast a Maximized fireball into a crowd of innocents among whom his enemy stands, even knowing that it will kill his enemy: an evil-aligned wizard will do so, though they may afterwards regret the action, possibly paying reparations to the families of those killed. Aurala is willing to go to war to gain the throne of a re-united Galifar. She is not willing to murder innocents in her throne room to do so, however. By contrast, Kaius is devoted to peace, having had enough of war to last many human lifetimes. However, in order to preserve the peace, he is willing to murder innocents in his throne room, regrettable though such action might prove.[1] Kaius's goals are selfless and good, yet he accomplishes them with a succession of evil acts: therefore, his alignment is evil. Aurala's goals may actually be self-serving and evil, yet she accomplishes them with a succession of good acts: therefore, her alignment is good. If one does not confuse tactics with policy, the matter is quite free of contradiction. —Siran Dunmorgan [1] If one of his researchers were to discover a difficult-to-control necromantic superweapon, e.g. a Qalabrin artifact spell, Kaius might well order the unsuspecting researcher killed, and all traces of his research destroyed, even launching an expedition to Xen'drik to destroy the monument upon which the spell was inscribed: a succession of evil acts achieving a good end. This might make an interesting adventure, as the party is hired by agents of the Karrnathi pro-war faction to stop Kaius' expedition from destroying the Qalabin monument and preserve the legacy of a devoted and innocent researcher: a succession of good acts, serving an ultimately evil end.
Psionycx 07-16-06, 01:45 AM	Siran makes an excellent point, especially in bringing Kaius into the discussion. His alignment also seems a bad fit, being Lawful Evil yet also being a proponent of peace. But Kaius, as Siran notes, hasn't really changed his ways, merely his goals. He's keeping the legitimate king of Karrnath (his own descendent!) imprisoned so that he can take on his identity and rule the nation. Kaius continues to run a court loaded with evil and participate in all kinds of brutality in order to see his goals accomplished. And yet, his goal is peace. Why isn't he Good? Because his actions aren't. Aurala may have a long-term goal that seems awful (war), but one has to consider her day-to-day actions as well as her goals. She is, for the most part, a benevolent ruler. She takes care of her people and she seems to genuinely want her rule to be good for the people under her. Now, this certainly won't qualify her for Exalted status by any of stretch of the imagination, but it does provide a guideline for how DM's should expect Aurala to act in a given situation. Neutral means she is slightly ambivalent about law, and therefore is willing to circumvent it when necessary. Good means that she can be expected to act towards a a beneficial goal. However, again, she's not Exalted. That means her Goodness is not perfect, as most people's is not. Innumerable Lawful Good Thranes are more than willing to wage war against the other peoples of Khorvaire in the name of the Church of the Silver Flame and the nation of Thrane. And they would do this believing if the Church ruled Khorvaire then Good would be ascendent for all people. Those who fail to accept the benign rule of the Church are either misguided, or perhaps Evil. Or so these Flamites tell themselves. Being an average member of a Good alignment doesn't mean that the character is Big Picture oriented or a pacificist. Plenty of Good adventurers go around slaughtering "monsters" for coin and experience. If one were to apply the same rigid standards to these adventurers that is being asked of Aurala here, then none of them would be Good. They'd all have to be Neutral at best.
ArcTan 07-16-06, 04:52 AM	I do think it's kind of funny that we have what are probably lots of Americans here talking about how Aurala's philosophy is *completely* inconsonant with anything resembling Good, when what it really is, after all, is a belief that her own nation should maximize its political power, by violent means if necessary, to secure *long-term* peace and prosperity across Khorvaire under her wise rule rather than allow these dangerous rogue nations to pursue their anti-humanitarian policies and possibly create destabilizing weapons of mass destruction. She regards the possible deaths of her loyal countrymen to achieve this goal as a sad but necessary price to pay. I mean, come on. She's at *least* as good, if not more so, as President Bush (or, hell, any of the American presidents for the past half century). Not that I'm accusing anyone here of holding any specific political opinions, but anyone who follows politics should know that "warmonger" and "absolute evil" really don't go hand in hand, at least not according to a mainstream political POV. Same deal with Kaius' LE peacemongering -- for one thing, he wants peace not because he wants families to grow up in contented happiness and wuv but because he *has to* pursue peace because his nation is unstable, he's bloody scared of Erandis d'Vol, and he desperately needs to secure his power base in Karrnath before he expends any more resources. There's nothing at all about him that suggests that, given a century or so to recuperate and put his affairs in order, he wouldn't someday love to crush Khorvaire under his heel. And even if he never does, he's still a bastard who cares about his own power more than he does other people's happiness. Plenty of people sue for peace when it's in their interests, and it doesn't really make them good people.
(Psi)SeveredHead 07-16-06, 11:51 AM	I think assuming the people or political leaders of any country are good-aligned is a stretch. (This isn't a bash at a certain president.) People with good alignments would be rare. Neutral is more common.
Siran Dunmorgan 07-16-06, 01:07 PM	I do think it's kind of funny that we have what are probably lots of Americans here talking about how Aurala's philosophy is *completely* inconsonant with anything resembling Good, when what it really is, after all, is a belief that her own nation should maximize its political power, by violent means if necessary, to secure *long-term* peace and prosperity across Khorvaire under her wise rule rather than allow these dangerous rogue nations to pursue their anti-humanitarian policies and possibly create destabilizing weapons of mass destruction. She regards the possible deaths of her loyal countrymen to achieve this goal as a sad but necessary price to pay. …snip… Same deal with Kaius' LE peacemongering -- for one thing, he wants peace not because he wants families to grow up in contented happiness and wuv but because he *has to* pursue peace because his nation is unstable, he's bloody scared of Erandis d'Vol, and he desperately needs to secure his power base in Karrnath before he expends any more resources. There's nothing at all about him that suggests that, given a century or so to recuperate and put his affairs in order, he wouldn't someday love to crush Khorvaire under his heel. And even if he never does, he's still a bastard who cares about his own power more than he does other people's happiness. Plenty of people sue for peace when it's in their interests, and it doesn't really make them good people. True. What makes people good—under the alignment definition, which is, as has often been noted, not the same as the philosophical definition of 'good'—is their willingness to preserve innocent life:Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.For a working definition of 'innocent' I refer the reader to Sluggy Freelance (http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=060508), wherein 'innocent' is defined as "not in control." From this, and from the assertion that personal alignment applies only within the context of a single encounter, we can see that Aurala falls well within the definition of a good character: her ambitions and long-term goals being irrelevant at the scope where alignment is determined. —Siran Dunmorgan P.S. There is general agreement that there was at least one definitively good-aligned President of the United States of America in the last century: James Earl "Jimmy" Carter. From the perspective of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rules, general surveys of their behavior suggest that William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and the elder George Bush fall under the definition of 'good-aligned' under the same terms as Aurala. The case is less distinct for Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Gerald Ford, who were probably 'good' in the rules sense of the term. Falling within the definitions of Neutral, and possibly Evil, are Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and William Clinton; again, this is under the rules, and not a reflection of any President's policies or effectiveness as President. Also, I don't have enough information ready to hand to assert an alignment for William Taft, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, or Herbert Hoover, completing the list of Presidents of the United States in the twentieth century.
Edymnion 07-16-06, 02:52 PM	Maybe it's just my justification of alignment - any one anywhere saying "the End justifys the Means" immediately shifts towards evil, no save.Now thats a bit harsh. You really have to take into account what "the Means" are before you can make that kind of statement. So what, you're saying that if the ends are to have a democracy, and the means are to hold a public election, then anybody that says "The ends justify the means" is immediantly evil? No no no, you can't make that kind of sweeping statement without knowing what the means are. And franky, I think a lot of people are overlooking one little thing. The Next War is coming, and there's really nothing that anyone can do to stop it. Khovaire is simply too unstable to stop it. So Auralia knows that the war is going to come, no matter what she does, so why not just accept it as innevitable and try to set your own nation up as best you can to win the war when it does come? And I agree, from her point of view, she would be the best choice for ruling a unified kingdom, as she's the only "traditional" monarch in Khovaire. And the continent really would be better off with one unified kingdom than it would be with a dozen smaller nations. It really is in everyone's best interests to have a re-united Galifer. And if there is a war coming, and her winning that war is the only way to create a strong and stable government that benefits everyone, then yeah, I can definately see trying to position herself and her country as being the winner of the next war and her still being Good. Although, the real point here is that Good people can do bad things without changing alignment. Nobody is going to say that Kaius *MUST* become Lawful Good just because he advocates peace, so there is no reason to say that Auralia must be Evil to advocate war.
Korhal_IV 07-16-06, 06:39 PM	And the continent really would be better off with one unified kingdom than it would be with a dozen smaller nations. It really is in everyone's best interests to have a re-united Galifer. Is that Aurala's PoV or your own? I think fragmented Khorvaire will have a much better future than a reunited Galifar. :)
Sythion 07-16-06, 09:08 PM	And I agree, from her point of view, she would be the best choice for ruling a unified kingdom, as she's the only "traditional" monarch in Khovaire. Really? Even with that silly accent? She doesn't shave her armpits, you know. I mean, Aundair has fine cheese to go with their wine, but they are definitely not the best choice!
Psionycx 07-16-06, 11:18 PM	Is that Aurala's PoV or your own? I think fragmented Khorvaire will have a much better future than a reunited Galifar. :) Eberron, like the real world, relies heavily on PoV. The fragmented nations are weaker than the united Kingdom of Galifar. Weaker to the point where even the dragonmarked houses are beginning to question some of the ancient restrictions on their power. Weaker to the point where new nations like Darguun, Droam and Valenar are becoming rising threats. Many services that were once universal like public education are beginning to decay. It is no longer as safe or easy to travel or trade across the continent. Indeed, the very long-term stability of even large nations like Breland are now in question. So it's not hard to see how one might be of the opinion that Khorvaire was better off under Galifar than under a number of smaller nations. Certainly the average citizen has lost some benefits of the once powerful nation. Aurala might see this collapse as a detriment. It is perfectly reasonable for her to believe that the fragmentation of Galifar is bad for the people of Khorvaire and that reunification is necessary. But the ruler of Thrane is little girl, possibly controlled by fanatical theocrats. The ruler of Breland is beloved but hates politics to the extent that he is doing little to reign in his seditious paliament or ensure a stable succession beyond his own reign. The ruler of Karrnath is of questionable motives, and is suspected of having ties to dark undead forces despite the public repudiation of the Blood of Vol. Who else are the rulers of Khoravire? A talking tree, a trio of hags, a hobgoblin warlord and an elf bent on conquest for the glory of his ancestors. It's almost like the punchline to a bad joke. Now, given this state of affairs, is it unreasonable for a Good aligned individual with a high opinion of herself to believe that Khorvaire is headed towards disaster and that somebody needs to do something about it, and that she herself is the most qualified? Hubris perhaps, but looking around it's not as if the rest of Khorvaire's leadership would inspire confidence.
Splendide 07-16-06, 11:50 PM	The above is a Splendide endorsed post. The leaders of the rest of Khorvaire are nuts. Well, except Zilargo, which is like a beacon of good sense and community. Mmmmmm imagine if the mages of the Zil and Aundair teamed up.
Korhal_IV 07-17-06, 03:24 AM	Eberron, like the real world, relies heavily on PoV. That's why I was asking. I've already made some argument that Aurala believes a unified Galifar under her rule is the best result; that argument's been settled IMO. Hence I was asking if Endymnion thought so too. The fragmented nations are weaker than the united Kingdom of Galifar. Weaker to the point where even the dragonmarked houses are beginning to question some of the ancient restrictions on their power. Weaker to the point where new nations like Darguun, Droam and Valenar are becoming rising threats. Who said weaker governments were a bad thing? "The government governs best which governs least" has been the founding maxim of at least one great power in real life. I could easily spin this as the awakening of an industrial age, with corresponding megacorporations, and the rise of racial-rights movements to rectify centuries of oppression. Well, except the Valenar. Them elves is just blanking nuts. Many services that were once universal like public education are beginning to decay. It is no longer as safe or easy to travel or trade across the continent. Indeed, the very long-term stability of even large nations like Breland are now in question. Is the decay of public education (or the perception therof) true continent-wide? I don't believe Aundair or Breland have decaying public educational systems, at least not according to 5 Nations. Thrane might, Karrnath might, and obviously some will see the Eldeen Reaches as wild and backwards so obviously their educational system is not up to snuff. As for the long-term stability of Breland, I'm not sure how public an issue that is. Aurala is clearly in the know, as some seditious elements are being supported by her, but I don't think that's really grounds for saying Breland's going to collapse any day now. The citizenry are fairly united behind the crown, I think, and as the only democratic group in the setting is an organization of terrorists (Swords of Liberty), I doubt seditious sentiment is high in the nation. The power struggles at the top of Thrane and Karrnath are far more hush-hush than the messy events in Breland, at any rate, and Aurala herself may need to watch her back should events take certain turns. So it's not hard to see how one might be of the opinion that Khorvaire was better off under Galifar than under a number of smaller nations. Certainly the average citizen has lost some benefits of the once powerful nation. The average citizen has never lived in Galifar, unless he or she is an elf or a dwarf, the latter having some reason to resent Galifar to begin with. It's been a hundred-year war, you know. Nationalist sentiment has to be at a boiling point - you're never going to want to get back in bed with the guys you've been fighting since your great-grandfather could hold a sword. Aurala might see this collapse as a detriment. She definitely does. I wanted to be sure, however, that Endymnion was talking about Aurala's PoV or his own, as I think it would be a much more interesting conversation to open this thread up to whether we, as players, DMs, or from our characters' perspectives, believe that Khorvaire was better off united or not. I personally believe it would be very difficult to pull off a true believer in old Galifar, barring a Q'Barran background, in which case you remove the battlefield animosity that's inspiring everyone else.
Just another user 07-17-06, 03:48 AM	The above is a Splendide endorsed post. The leaders of the rest of Khorvaire are nuts. Well, except Zilargo, which is like a beacon of good sense and community. Yeah, but exactly because the gnomes have so much good sense they don't want to lead a unified Korvhaine. Being the King's Advisors on othe other hand... ;)
Edymnion 07-17-06, 08:07 AM	That's why I was asking. I've already made some argument that Aurala believes a unified Galifar under her rule is the best result; that argument's been settled IMO. Hence I was asking if Endymnion thought so too.Actually, my PoV is that Kaius would be the best leader right now, since he is aware of the Quori and is immune to their most ready method of attack (through dreams). He might rule with an iron fist, but he really does care for the wellfare of his people and wants what is best for them. If they like it or not ;) Who said weaker governments were a bad thing? "The government governs best which governs least" has been the founding maxim of at least one great power in real life. I could easily spin this as the awakening of an industrial age, with corresponding megacorporations, and the rise of racial-rights movements to rectify centuries of oppression. Well, except the Valenar. Them elves is just blanking nuts.Without getting overly political, weak governments don't work, and the ones that start out with a hands off approach rarely stay that way. The arisal of megacorps mearly creates a substitute government where the rich control the country, not the duly elected or the nobility. In Eberron, this would equate to the Dragonmarked Houses taking over Khovaire. Is the decay of public education (or the perception therof) true continent-wide?Does it have to be? Any decay in any area that the kingdom of Galifer was able to keep up is still a decay of the system. It may or may not be continent wide yet, but the point is that it wasn't there at all beforehand. As for the long-term stability of Breland, I'm not sure how public an issue that is. Aurala is clearly in the know, as some seditious elements are being supported by her, but I don't think that's really grounds for saying Breland's going to collapse any day now.Nobody said it was. We are discussing this from Aurala's point of view. It doesn't matter what the public thinks, what matters is what SHE thinks. She knows that Boreneal doesn't care about governing his country to the extent that he should, she knows what is really going on there, so she knows that he would not be a good choice for heading up a re-united Galifer. The average citizen has never lived in Galifar, unless he or she is an elf or a dwarf, the latter having some reason to resent Galifar to begin with. It's been a hundred-year war, you know. Nationalist sentiment has to be at a boiling point - you're never going to want to get back in bed with the guys you've been fighting since your great-grandfather could hold a sword.I live in the American South. The Confederacy was a weak revolutionary government that hasn't existed for a hundred years that literally did nothing more than fight the North. Do you want me to walk outside and start counting the rebel flags I see? Galifer lasted nearly a thousand years, it wasn't just a kingdom, it was the very definition of the way of life for the entire continent. You don't just forget that in a generation or two. Sure, you may not have seen Galifer, your parents may not have seen it, but your grandparents did. You would have spent your entire lives hearing tales of how peaceful and wonderful Galifer was, as seen through rose tinted glasses. Heck, the real world is still telling tales of, and searching for, Atlantis, because of how great it was supposed to be, and Plato wrote about it over two thousand years ago, and it was supposed to be a thousand years before him that Atlantis was supposed to have sunk. Galifer would be a symbol of peace and greatness that is still in the living memory of the longer lived races, and its only a couple generations removed from everyone else. Symbols die hard, and some never do. She definitely does. I wanted to be sure, however, that Endymnion was talking about Aurala's PoV or his ownHers, of course. That is the point of the thread. My personal PoV is that I don't like Aundair, and I don't like Auralia. Too uppity and pompus, IMO. Breland is the better country, and Kaius is the better leader. But that isn't the point of this thread. The point is justification of Auralia's alignment.
Psionycx 07-17-06, 11:51 PM	The benefits of a strong nation versus a weak nation are largely point of view. As a rule, Chaotics prefer weaker governments while Lawfuls prefer stronger ones. Whether one is better than another is highly subjective. But in the face of an absurdly growing list of threats, is it surprising that someone Good might take it upon themself to act, perhaps aggressively. The Church of the Silver Flame has often done so and will undoubtedly do so again. Being Good does not always mean being right. Aurala's intent may be benevolent even if her actions seem negative. Bear in mind that few people really believe that war will not come again. She's hardly alone in preparing for another round of conflict. Kaius is restocking the crypts even as we speak, just in case his plans for peace don't work out. As in the real world, Good people must sometimes take a course of action that they think is best, without knowing for sure if it really is. They can only move ahead with resolve and hope that what they do will bring the right result.
Edymnion 07-17-06, 11:57 PM	Kaius is restocking the crypts even as we speak, just in case his plans for peace don't work out.Just a nitpick, but Kaius isn't restocking the crypts, his second in command is (I think thats who it was). Kaius genuinely wants the undead out of his kingdom because of his intense hatred of Vol.
ArcTan 07-18-06, 01:28 AM	One could argue that the existence of Q'Barra in the first place is a sign that the desire for peace and unity among Khorvairians, aside from nationalistic goals, has never really died. I would compare it to the EU and the dreams of a reunited Europe, usually expressed by idealistic young liberals who really do want a united European state that never existed in history, one that doesn't involve one national group taking over and dominating another. Whether it could ever happen is a real, open question, but the fact is that there were and are people who desire it. As for the Zil -- I don't know, honestly. I think the Zil really don't care about anyone but the Zil -- that's the way their culture's been for generations ever since they helped take down the Dhakaani. They wouldn't object to a reunified empire where they had a place of great stature, but I think they'd still prefer the quasi-autonomy they have in Breland. As long as they can maintain something like the status quo, I don't think they're worried -- for master manipulators like the Zil, the humans of Breland's chaos and civil war is their stability and prosperity.
Splendide 07-18-06, 01:47 AM	Well really, you could argue that its Zil influence that has led to Breland thinking it could run perfectly well with a council of elected officials from different towns in the first place. It'd take quite a bit for them to disagree with Breland considering Breland's administration is slowly but surely conforming to Zil ideals.
Thanqol 07-18-06, 02:12 AM	Just a nitpick, but Kaius isn't restocking the crypts, his second in command is (I think thats who it was). Kaius genuinely wants the undead out of his kingdom because of his intense hatred of Vol. Wrong, actually. Read your Eberron Campaign setting, and I quote (page 179) "Kaius has not ordered Vedim to stop the program, but has told him to keep a lower profile." He wants the Blood of Vol out, not the undead. Kaius III also doesn't have this fanatical drive towards peace most people think, at least according to the ECS. He is the ruler of a millitary dictatorship. Although he may be "taking steps to end the practice of keeping the warlords in line through harsh measures" he still shows a remarkable ability to "take whatever lengths neccicary to maintain control and keep his plans on track". Just from the entry in the ECS he seems much more like a tyrant - although he's a nice tyrant :)
Bluebrush 07-18-06, 02:52 AM	Wrong, actually. Read your Eberron Campaign setting, and I quote (page 179) "Kaius has not ordered Vedim to stop the program, but has told him to keep a lower profile." He wants the Blood of Vol out, not the undead. Correction Corrected! Specifically, he wants the branch of the Blood of Vol Linked with Erandis d'Vol out, Especially the Order of the Emerald Claw. As has been said the Blood of Vol is a major religion in Karrnath and commonly practiced in it's non-extreme forms.
Korhal_IV 07-18-06, 04:02 AM	The Confederacy was a weak revolutionary government that hasn't existed for a hundred years that literally did nothing more than fight the North. Do you want me to walk outside and start counting the rebel flags I see? Galifer lasted nearly a thousand years, it wasn't just a kingdom, it was the very definition of the way of life for the entire continent. You don't just forget that in a generation or two. Sure, you may not have seen Galifer, your parents may not have seen it, but your grandparents did. You would have spent your entire lives hearing tales of how peaceful and wonderful Galifer was, as seen through rose tinted glasses. Heck, the real world is still telling tales of, and searching for, Atlantis, because of how great it was supposed to be, and Plato wrote about it over two thousand years ago, and it was supposed to be a thousand years before him that Atlantis was supposed to have sunk. The Confederacy is exactly the wrong analogy for Galifar. Breland is the right analogy for the Confederacy, or Thrane, or Karrnath. The Confederacy was a movement of popular rebellion against previously legitimate authority. Restoring Galifar would be like an imaginary "counter-Confederacy", a movement to secede from the secessionists. I imagine that most of the populations of the Five Nations wanted their independence, the exceptions being those that supported Mishann's claim to the throne and those who emigrated to Q'Barra (just as, say, British loyalists in America emigrated to Canada during and after the Revolution, which IMO is closer to the events of the Last War). If they hadn't wanted their independence, their monarchs would probably have been unable to support their various bids for power for so long.
Hellcow 07-18-06, 12:37 PM	Kaius's goals are selfless and good, yet he accomplishes them with a succession of evil acts: therefore, his alignment is evil. Aurala's goals may actually be self-serving and evil, yet she accomplishes them with a succession of good acts: therefore, her alignment is good. I haven't had time to fully read and consider every argument in this thread, but I wanted to say that this is essentially the key in my mind. Yes, Aurala wants to restart the war, because she truly believes that a restored kingdom of Galifar is in the best interests of all of Khorvaire, and that she would be the best ruler. But she will not personally condone torture or the massacre of innocents (even if some of her commanders might do so without her knowledge, and even though the death of innocents is a natural consequence of war). She believes that she can fight a "just" war. Meanwhile, Kaius has abandoned the idea of Galifar and just wants peace. But he is utterly ruthless in his methods. He WILL authorize torture, murder, and massacre, if these serve that greater goal. He's a ruthless pragmatist, while Aurala is a dangerous idealist. Coming all the way back to page 255 of the ECS, Eberron is supposed to raise questions about alignment. The fact that good people can be responsible for evil acts and vice versa is an intentional part of the setting. And Kaius and Aurala are excellent examples of that.
Edymnion 07-18-06, 10:41 PM	The Confederacy is exactly the wrong analogy for Galifar. Breland is the right analogy for the Confederacy, or Thrane, or Karrnath. The Confederacy was a movement of popular rebellion against previously legitimate authority. Restoring Galifar would be like an imaginary "counter-Confederacy", a movement to secede from the secessionists.You missed my point entirely. I was using the Confederacy as an example of a government that was weak and had no real success, and yet a hundred years after it dissolved there are still people that keep a romantised view of it alive. Galifer lasted for a thousand years and was essentially loved by everyone in it. If the Confederacy can keep people thinking about it a hundred years after its death, its just silly to think that Khovairians would just forget about Galifer just because a generation or two has gone by since it fell.
Siran Dunmorgan 07-19-06, 03:28 AM	You missed my point entirely. I was using the Confederacy as an example of a government that was weak and had no real success, and yet a hundred years after it dissolved there are still people that keep a romantised view of it alive. Galifer lasted for a thousand years and was essentially loved by everyone in it. If the Confederacy can keep people thinking about it a hundred years after its death, its just silly to think that Khovairians would just forget about Galifer just because a generation or two has gone by since it fell.Particularly if you happen to be an elf, dwarf, gnome, or other long-lived species; it hasn't even been one generation of elves since the fall of Galifar, and there are certainly elves of all of the Five Nations who remember—clearly—a united Galifar. A middle-aged elf in 998 YK remembers nearly a hundred years of Galifar, and probably even remembers the King of Galifar before Jarot. —Siran Dunmorgan
dang 07-20-06, 02:35 AM	i'm gonna get crucified for posting this, but if y'all want an EXCELLENT example of an evil ruler who exerts a positive influence (like Kaius), watch "The Devil Wears Prada." Think of the magazine as a kingdom, and Meryl Streep as its queen. plus, it's a good movie. :) And i also think it bears pointing out that good people don't have to be *right,* they just have to intend to do the right thing. i think Tom Cruise probably actually thinks he's saving the world from "evil" psychiatry and the aliens that inhabit our brains, but unfortunately he's also probably a little... misled. this is the "dangerous idealist" that keith described. the difference between this and criminal insanity (across the line into evil) is when one ceases to jump on couches and begins jumping on people. (pretend the brooke shields thing didn't happen, or the comparison fails.) ;) sorry for my typical girlie pop-culture references -- just seems safer than comparing to contemporary political figures.
Jancarius 07-20-06, 06:11 PM	Actually, my PoV is that Kaius would be the best leader right now, since he is aware of the Quori and is immune to their most ready method of attack (through dreams). He might rule with an iron fist, but he really does care for the wellfare of his people and wants what is best for them. If they like it or not ;)Not to onctradict, but, whereis this stated? The part about the Quori, that is. I live in the American South. The Confederacy was a weak revolutionary government that hasn't existed for a hundred years that literally did nothing more than fight the North. Do you want me to walk outside and start counting the rebel flags I see? Galifer lasted nearly a thousand years, it wasn't just a kingdom, it was the very definition of the way of life for the entire continent. You don't just forget that in a generation or two. Sure, you may not have seen Galifer, your parents may not have seen it, but your grandparents did. You would have spent your entire lives hearing tales of how peaceful and wonderful Galifer was, as seen through rose tinted glasses. Heck, the real world is still telling tales of, and searching for, Atlantis, because of how great it was supposed to be, and Plato wrote about it over two thousand years ago, and it was supposed to be a thousand years before him that Atlantis was supposed to have sunk.This is very true. Even odder, a lot of people who fly Confederate flags are 'super-patriots', who are all gung-ho America. When you point out that their dedication to modern American clashes with their devotion to the symbol of a rebel (rebellion, let me remind you, is treason) cause. My personal PoV is that I don't like Aundair, and I don't like Auralia. Too uppity and pompus, IMO. Breland is the better country, and Kaius is the better leader. But that isn't the point of this thread. The point is justification of Auralia's alignment.Hear hear. Death to Aundair and Auralia :)
davethebrave371 07-20-06, 06:58 PM	Actually, my PoV is that Kaius would be the best leader right now, since he is aware of the Quori and is immune to their most ready method of attack (through dreams). Where does it say that? Officially, I don't think any of the monarchs are aware. I know in my game, he's aware. But that's due to players, not metaplot.
Korhal_IV 07-20-06, 07:13 PM	You missed my point entirely. I was using the Confederacy as an example of a government that was weak and had no real success, and yet a hundred years after it dissolved there are still people that keep a romantised view of it alive. Oh sure, they have a romanticized view of it. But how many people in the South REALLY want to restore the Confederacy? How many of them are willing to act on it? That's essentially what you're saying here, is that the Galifaran reunion movement is analogous to a more intensive "the South will rise again!" movement. Well, just about anything is more intense than nothing. Galifer lasted for a thousand years and was essentially loved by everyone in it. If everyone loved it, how did 3/5ths of it rebel?? If Galifar was loved, then the people wouldn't have gone along with their monarchs, or the noblemen wouldn't have gone along with their monarchs, and it certainly wouldn't have taken 102 years for hostilities to peter out, and then only after the complete eradication of a country! The Last War speaks of MASSIVE regional hatreds. If the Confederacy can keep people thinking about it a hundred years after its death, its just silly to think that Khovairians would just forget about Galifer just because a generation or two has gone by since it fell. I'm an Italian, and I'll tell you, we think a lot about the Roman Empire, and we're still proud of it, the Roman Empire having lasted a thousand years and being loved by all, but trust me, there ain't nobody going to go conquering Greece for Caesar tomorrow.
ArcTan 07-20-06, 08:26 PM	Not to onctradict, but, whereis this stated? The part about the Quori, that is. It isn't. There was a conversation a while back, though, saying that Kaius is the only member of King Jarot's royal family who was alive when the war started, and can remember *how* it started -- that it was the result of Jarot's weird, paranoid dreams that led him to foster an immense military buildup in the Five Nations, after which a war became almost inevitable. If there's anyone who's most likely to *become* aware of the true nature of the Inspired it's Kaius -- who comes from a naturally xenophobic nation that's least likely to buy into Inspired propaganda (and that doesn't have the degree of penetration that Breland and Q'Barra seem to have), who himself is incapable of dreaming and immune to quori manipulation, and who's paranoid and cynical and hostile enough to be willing to believe anything if he finds evidence for it. By the Setting As Written, though, no one knows about the quori *yet*, not outside of Adar and the kalashtar enclaves. This is very true. Even odder, a lot of people who fly Confederate flags are 'super-patriots', who are all gung-ho America. When you point out that their dedication to modern American clashes with their devotion to the symbol of a rebel (rebellion, let me remind you, is treason) cause. That's because patriotism is a relative thing, and people who talk about the Confederacy likely think the Confederacy symbolizes those *parts* of modern America they admire most -- generally individualism, good-ol'-boy culture, a certain definition of manhood, and, possibly, a certain racist hierarchy (though tons of Confederate-flag-wearers will deny this). They may not seriously believe the Confederacy itself can be resurrected but they'll work their hardest to make modern America look more like the Confederacy in their minds, if they can. It is a bit akin to the various Five Nations paying homage to the *idea* of Galifar, but believing that the only way to truly defend Galifar is for *their* monarch to be crowned at Thronehold and to spread *their* way of life across Khorvaire.
Psionycx 07-20-06, 10:04 PM	Lots of people loudly endorse the idea of "freedom" - so long as it is "freedom" to live within the parameters of their favored ideological code. Many of those who speak the loudest in favor of greater autonomy for state and local governments often just as loudly (and hypocritically) call for supreme federal power to be used to ban things they don't like for example. People often think that way. Breland parliament is filled with politicos that have all kinds of grand ideas about a post-monarchy Breland. And while "democracy" is a popular buzzword, many of them truly want an oligarchy instead. Likewise, the so-called "Swords of Liberty" engage in terrorism in the name of "freedom". But one has to wonder if they would sit idle if the people voluntarily elected another monarch after Boranel, or if they would feel the need to "educate" the people in the error of their ways? Likewise, when three of Jarot's children rebelled against the Galifar succession, it wasn't with a clear view as to a post-Galifar government. They'd merely decided that they didn't want to be vassals anymore. Aurala views the fractured nations as vulnerable to rising threats, so she thinks a reunited Galifar is in everyone's best interests.
Errant 07-20-06, 10:59 PM	If everyone loved it, how did 3/5ths of it rebel?? If Galifar was loved, then the people wouldn't have gone along with their monarchs, or the noblemen wouldn't have gone along with their monarchs, and it certainly wouldn't have taken 102 years for hostilities to peter out, and then only after the complete eradication of a country! The Last War speaks of MASSIVE regional hatreds. My impression was it wasn't a rebellion against Galifar, it was a dispute over succession fueled by ambition, unprecedented military buildup and (probably, IMHO) confusion caused by the nightmare influenced last king. If I recall correctly there've been at least a couple of threads covering how the Galifar system of succession worked. However it worked, for whatever reason it failed, that was what started the Last War. There's certainly plenty of precedence in our own world's medieval history for armed conflict arising from questions of inheritence.
ArcTan 07-20-06, 11:52 PM	Yes, technically everyone who rebelled against Mishann of Cyre taking the throne was "in rebellion", but no one from those nations actually thought of it as such. They thought they were overturning a foolish and dangerously hidebound system of succession that would've put the Empire into the hands of the weakest and least capable of the possible heirs. None of them phrased it as a "revolution against Galifar".
Psionycx 07-22-06, 12:56 AM	Well obviously that's why it became the Last War. If the various scions had been content to merely rule their own kingdoms it would have tapered off fairly quickly. But they all had a position regarding the throne of Galifar. Mishann wanted the throne, as was her hereditary right, and was supported by Wrogar. Thalin wanted to claim the throne in the name of the Silver Flame to become a theocratic monarch. Wroann wanted to spread an idealistic libertarianism. Kaius was flat-out ambitious. None of them planned to fragment the great empire. And the Last War raged on so long because their successors all held the dream of ruling the whole deal, and not just their own piece. Only the Mourning was enough to shock some hesitation into the nations and even then most still harbor the dream of being the ones to reunite (and rule) the continent. Aurala's hardly unique in that regard.
davethebrave371 07-22-06, 01:16 AM	Well obviously that's why it became the Last War. If the various scions had been content to merely rule their own kingdoms it would have tapered off fairly quickly. But they all had a position regarding the throne of Galifar. Mishann wanted the throne, as was her hereditary right, and was supported by Wrogar. Thalin wanted to claim the throne in the name of the Silver Flame to become a theocratic monarch. Wroann wanted to spread an idealistic libertarianism. Kaius was flat-out ambitious. None of them planned to fragment the great empire. And the Last War raged on so long because their successors all held the dream of ruling the whole deal, and not just their own piece. Only the Mourning was enough to shock some hesitation into the nations and even then most still harbor the dream of being the ones to reunite (and rule) the continent. Aurala's hardly unique in that regard. To play Devil's Advocate here a second, I don't think the OP's intent was to question the frequency or acceptability of Aurala's position, I think it was to determine whether said position was good. Uniqueness does not a good position make. I'd call a lot of serial killers in our history...unique. That being said, I think some solid arguments have been made on this particular side of the fence, which I'm grazing about on. Just thought I'd do a technicality potshot.
The Dreaming Duck 07-22-06, 01:32 AM	...who comes from a naturally xenophobic nation that's least likely to buy into Inspired propaganda (and that doesn't have the degree of penetration that Breland and Q'Barra seem to have)... I'd have to disagree. According to the dragonshard (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20050808a), Karrnath has received considerable material aid from Riedra to help offset its famines and other disasters. The Karrns may not buy Inspired propaganda. They may be paranoid. But they need aid, the Inspired are offering it, and my guess is that the Karrns would rather be indebted to Riedra than, say, Aundair. I don't think Kaius is a sucker for Riedra, but as the Dragonshard points out, Riedra really doesn't seem to pose much of a threat compared to the other five nations. You're dealing with a country that has ostensibly been at peace for a thousand years, never taken any offensive action against your continent, and which is helping you recover from your own war. Why worry about them when Thrane is still glaring at you across the border, and you're still patching up the holes they left last time they visited Korth? Also, bear in mind that it wasn't just Jarot who the Quori were manipulating. What's been suggested is that they were manipulating ALL of the heirs. Thalin has dreams of his theocratic Galifar. Young Kaius (human then) dreams of glory. And today, Aurala dreams of Galifar under her rule. To my mind, this is the big argument for Kaius becoming suspicious; it's not simply the strange behavior of his father, but his ability to look back and remember his OWN dreams, and wonder if he was being manipulated.
Identitystolen 07-22-06, 10:32 AM	Also, bear in mind that it wasn't just Jarot who the Quori were manipulating. What's been suggested is that they were manipulating ALL of the heirs. Thalin has dreams of his theocratic Galifar. Young Kaius (human then) dreams of glory. And today, Aurala dreams of Galifar under her rule. To my mind, this is the big argument for Kaius becoming suspicious; it's not simply the strange behavior of his father, but his ability to look back and remember his OWN dreams, and wonder if he was being manipulated. I think there is a mis-interpretation of "dreams" here. I think in this case "dreams" of greater glory is more of ambition than physical dreaming. I mean Caesar probably didn't actualy have a dream during a nap on of uniting the Romans under his rule, but it was something he was aspiring to under his own efforts. Now I fully agree the Jarot was probably under some sort of manipulation (though there are plenty of real world exapmles of paranoid, crazy rulers), most likely in my mind was from the Quori, but his hiers saw an oppurtunity for themselves and took it when he died. Really, if the rebelous hiers had any ambition for power at all (on there own), the situation they found themselves in after Jarots death was perfect for siezing power. Even at the most basic levels, at least one of the hiers must of been suffering from sibling rivalry. My thought on the scenario is that the Quori set up the situation affter Jarots death, and let human ambition and greed take care of the rest. They created a exsplosive situation and the hiers took care of the rest on their own.
davethebrave371 07-22-06, 12:06 PM	I think there is a mis-interpretation of "dreams" here. I think in this case "dreams" of greater glory is more of ambition than physical dreaming. I mean Caesar probably didn't actualy have a dream during a nap on of uniting the Romans under his rule, but it was something he was aspiring to under his own efforts. Now I fully agree the Jarot was probably under some sort of manipulation (though there are plenty of real world exapmles of paranoid, crazy rulers), most likely in my mind was from the Quori, but his hiers saw an oppurtunity for themselves and took it when he died. Really, if the rebelous hiers had any ambition for power at all (on there own), the situation they found themselves in after Jarots death was perfect for siezing power. Even at the most basic levels, at least one of the hiers must of been suffering from sibling rivalry. My thought on the scenario is that the Quori set up the situation affter Jarots death, and let human ambition and greed take care of the rest. They created a exsplosive situation and the hiers took care of the rest on their own. Well now, that's the crux of the matter. Was it just a regular "dream" (aka goal or desire), or was it actually planted there? And of the heirs, which had the dream planted if any? Were some ignored? Did Vol offer Kaius the transformation with ulterior motives? Did she know, perhaps, about what was happening, and wanted to see (in addition to a foothold of power) someone not under their control? Or did Kaius find out that something was wrong, and part of the deal was that he understood he'd be immune to those who wanted to affect his mind, and he wanted it to be his alone. Or was it just Jarot? Or was it none of them? Eberron, gotta love it.
Hellcow 07-22-06, 12:18 PM	I think there is a mis-interpretation of "dreams" here. I think in this case "dreams" of greater glory is more of ambition than physical dreaming. I mean Caesar probably didn't actualy have a dream during a nap on of uniting the Romans under his rule, but it was something he was aspiring to under his own efforts. I'm afraid I disagree. Dream manipulation is the most subtle tool of the Dreaming Dark, but it is an important one. It doesn't FORCE a person to do anything. It's NOT a compulsion. But it plants ideas. If Jarot dreams of disasters lurking around him, that idea is now lurking in his mind. What he does with it is up to him, and based on his personality. A dream wouldn't make Caesar a conqueror if he wasn't already inclined towards such actions. But if he WAS, it could push him that extra step. Thalin's even easier. He's devoutly religious. Perhaps he simply had dreams of what Galifar could be under his rule. But in his case, he could even have a dream in which Tira Miron, the Voice of the Flame, speaks to him and tells him what he must do. While NOT a compulsion, due to his beliefs, this is something that would be almost as powerful as a compulsion. Dream manipulation is subtle, and in most cases wouldn't be this obvious. Let's take Kaius. The DD probably wouldn't just send him dreams of sitting on the throne. Instead, they'd send him dreams reinforcing the seeming madness of his father; highlighting the embarassment he's suffered at the hands of his sister (replaying embarassing events from his life, as dreams often do); possibly replaying events from history, with him reliving the role of Karrn the Conqueror or Galifar I... after all, he's the governor of Karrnath, and in the past, it is Karrnath that has led the world to glory! Again, none of this would MAKE him do anything, and it WOULDN'T be a simple as a single dream telling him what to do. But all these dreams together might inspire him to do something on his own. That would plant seeds; how those seeds grow is up to him. Did this happen? Is the Dreaming Dark to blame for the Last War? That's really up to you. But when I use the word "dreams" in something I write... such as "Aurala dreams of a Galifar united under her rule"... it's no accident. Dreams may not make someone ambitious... but if someone is already ambitious by nature, they can stir them to greater action. Again, it may not have happened... but it's certainly a possibility. Since you brought up Julius Caesar, let me draw on an example from Roman history. Constantine I had a vision* of the chi-rho, with the words "in this sign conquer"; his dream (and, of course, his subsequent victory) played an instrumental role in his embracing Christianity and ending the persecution of Christians in the empire. Again, the vision didn't make him a conqueror: he was already prepared for war. But it inspired him to actions he might not have taken otherwise, and had a tremendous impact on history. ------------------------------------------------- *For the sake of historical accuracy, I'll point out that there are conflicting reports of the event, specifically whether it was just a dream, just a vision in the sky, or a vision in the sky followed by a dream telling him what to do next.
Hellcow 07-22-06, 12:23 PM	Were some ignored? An excellent point. IF you assume that the Dreaming Dark was involved to begin with - as we've said, an if - what happened with Wrogar, who stood by Mishann? Did the DD try to manipulate him and fail? Did they choose to leave him alone? Or something else entirely?
Edymnion 07-22-06, 12:34 PM	Oh sure, they have a romanticized view of it. But how many people in the South REALLY want to restore the Confederacy? How many of them are willing to act on it? That's essentially what you're saying here, is that the Galifaran reunion movement is analogous to a more intensive "the South will rise again!" movement. Well, just about anything is more intense than nothing.Again, my point was missed entirely. Lets try this again. The point I was responding to was "Its been a hundred years since Galifer fell, who's going to remember it?" Then I brought up the Confederacy as a real world example of a rather crappy government that fell, and people still remember it, and some remember it quite fondly. I wasn't trying to draw any parallels beyond that. I was not implying that there was anything about the desire to rebuild the confederacy and rebuilding Galifer. I was not doing any of that, I was mearly pointing out a real life example of how even weak governments that didn't even last 1 generation are remembered many generations later, so it is foolish to say that no one would remember or care about Galifer just because they've been at war for a hundred years. The Romans are another great example. They were comperable to Galifer in terms of size and grandeur, and we remember it a THOUSAND years after it's ignoble fall. Is anybody going to fight to rebuild Rome today? Yes, actually, its one of the things Hitler tried to do. The whole Third Reich thing was a direct referance to him trying to build the third age of the Roman Empire. But thats not the point really. Had the entire Roman Empire collapsed after the death of Ceaser, do you think people would have forgotten it within a hundred years? THAT is my point. Nothing more, nothing less. People would remember Galifer, even after a hundred years of it being gone. Its just silly to think that everybody would just forget about it in so short a time, especially when there are large populations that still remember it as being "only a hundred years ago". For an elf, thats only 1 generation. As far as the setting would be concerned, Galifer isn't gone, its just in a major rough spot, and it *COULD* be gone forever if something isn't done about it right now. Thats why the next War is coming, its the last ditch effort to restore Galifer before it's too late. To go back to the confederacy again, Khovaire just ended it's version of the American Civil War, only instead of a clear winner, it ended in a stalemate, with all sides sore for not winning. America didn't crumble and cease to exist because of the Civil War, it just hit a rough spot where it fractured into smaller nations that fought each other until one side won and pulled everything back together. IMO, thats whats happening in Khovaire, its just a matter of if Galifer can pull itself back together or not, not if it isn't going to try.
Identitystolen 07-22-06, 08:45 PM	Since you brought up Julius Caesar, let me draw on an example from Roman history. Constantine I had a vision* of the chi-rho, with the words "in this sign conquer"; his dream (and, of course, his subsequent victory) played an instrumental role in his embracing Christianity and ending the persecution of Christians in the empire. Again, the vision didn't make him a conqueror: he was already prepared for war. But it inspired him to actions he might not have taken otherwise, and had a tremendous impact on history. ------------------------------------------------- *For the sake of historical accuracy, I'll point out that there are conflicting reports of the event, specifically whether it was just a dream, just a vision in the sky, or a vision in the sky followed by a dream telling him what to do next. *Bows* Point taken. Very nice example.
dang 07-22-06, 11:55 PM	As far as the setting would be concerned, Galifer isn't gone, its just in a major rough spot, and it *COULD* be gone forever if something isn't done about it right now. Thats why the next War is coming, its the last ditch effort to restore Galifer before it's too late. i know what you mean, and what Korhal means, but i think the point has been missed. Galifar IS gone forever -- the capital and the biggest central nation have been wiped out forever. Emnity between all the 5 is high, and *human* cultural divergence can certainly occur in 100 yrs. If a new empire is forged, it could be called Galifar, but it won't *be* Galifar, and everyone knows it. But, a new empire is definitely possible. Rome is a great example to use, the Confederacy is not. The Confederacy was an economic union only (despite people who moan about its "way of life," which was white people who were being used to being rich). The Confederacy as a gov't was not established for generations. Rome was, and you don't have to look to Hitler to see its lasting impact. The Holy Roman Empire (consisting mainly of Germanic nations), the Russian Czars (see etymology), and the Napoleonic dynasty all styled themselves Rome part deux. Galifar, however, won't be remade like Rome, barring another Mourning. Keith balanced the 5 pretty well, and made them all hate each other. If the war restarts, the only winner would be Riedra, which probably wouldn't utilize a lot of Galifaran imagery and rhetoric -- the citizenry would reject it, since all the nations would be trying to use it to legitimize their respective claims. Galifar's throne would mean thinly-veiled propaganda, war, and hardship to the people following a second war, Riedra, the savior, would seem a breath of fresh air... a dream come true ;) Well, until Aerenal catches on and lays the smack down, that is. :D (Remember who the DD were bad-mouthing to Jarot? Think the Court won't figure it out? Isolationism goes only so far...) i know, i'm a fangrrl.
ArcTan 07-23-06, 01:19 AM	Just to reiterate, the Galifar/Rome comparison is good because even though Charlemagne and Napoleon and Hitler and the Czars all used the *language* of Rome to define themselves and tried to claim to be the *successors* to Rome, no one actually thought they *were* Rome. The Third Reich under the Nazis, had it lasted, would not have been Rome, and the actual ancient Romans, if they could have seen it or understood it, probably would have been confused and shocked by it. Galifar as a sort of idea still exists -- it's a *name* you could give to any new empire that takes over all Khorvaire -- but the actual system of the Galifar Empire, the actual original spirit of one empire built out of different nations, the old country that those elves remember -- it's irrevocably gone and nothing will bring it back. If Aurala conquers everything people will think of the new country as "Aundair", and the Karrns and Brels and Thranes and Cyran refugees will think of themselves as having been conquered by a sforeign power, not as renewed subjects of the long-lost empire. That's just how it is. You can't turn back the clock on these things. How many people in the American South really want to secede from the Union, and would actually be pleased if the federal government were driven out of the southern states by crazy men with AK-47s? Probably very few. And not that many would actually identify this new state as the Confederacy. The Confederacy is an *idea*, a romanticized past, and in order to serve the rhetorical uses of a romanticized past it has to stay in the past.
Korhal_IV 07-23-06, 08:09 PM	Again, my point was missed entirely. Lets try this again. The point I was responding to was "Its been a hundred years since Galifer fell, who's going to remember it?" Then I brought up the Confederacy as a real world example of a rather crappy government that fell, and people still remember it, and some remember it quite fondly. Well, they *don't* remember the Confederacy. Nobody was alive when the Confederacy ruled. They have an image of the Confederacy, a belief in the Confederacy, but it's not an image they're going to lie down and die for. And the Confederacy was, unlike Galifar (IMO), much more popular in its heyday.
Psionycx 07-23-06, 10:21 PM	But it's important to remember here that Galifar has not been gone for that long, and the palace and city of Thronehold still stand. Rome was rather different. When Charlemagne was crowned "emperor" in 800, Rome had been officially gone as an empire for nearly four centuries. In addition, it was the pope that was really pushing the idea. Charlemagne was hesitant to take on the imperial title out of concern that it would annoy the Byzantine emperor. He was mostly content to rule the Franks, and indeed never really moved into Rome (the pope's turf). Galifar hasn't been gone long, many longer-lived species lived in it. Thronehold still stands. So the possibility of a real resurrection of Galifar would seem much more tangible for one of the ir' Wynarn monarchs than it would have even for Charlemagne, and so it is likely to lurk in the backs of their minds. Indeed, the Last War only just ended, and a lot of people in Khorvaire feel unfulfilled, as if the fighting and hardship didn't really bring resolution. The Five Nations fought, and one was destroyed, but beyond that not much was settled.
Melvin the Mediocre 07-24-06, 12:07 PM	How many people in the American South really want to secede from the Union, and would actually be pleased if the federal government were driven out of the southern states by crazy men with AK-47s? That would depend on which side ends up with California.
ChaoticGood 07-25-06, 12:47 AM	Forget it, Melvin, I already tried to drop a political joke into this discussion, and they thought I was talking about Nancy Reagan... :rolleyes:
Seth of the First Brigade 07-25-06, 02:52 AM	Who said weaker governments were a bad thing? "The government governs best which governs least" has been the founding maxim of at least one great power in real life. I could easily spin this as the awakening of an industrial age, with corresponding megacorporations, and the rise of racial-rights movements to rectify centuries of oppression. Well, except the Valenar. Them elves is just blanking nuts. In this particular situation, I would have to say weaker governments are a bad thing. This is primarily due to the fact that (unlike the United States, whose primary enemies and aggressors were across the ocean) The "Five Nations" are each bordered by highly potential Hostiles, i.e.: Dargunn, Drooam, The Demon Wastes, Valenar, and lets not forget The Mournland, and the Al' Quai...I mean the LOB and his homeboys. If the "Five Nations" were to truly become destabilized over the long term the repercussions in my opinion would be disastrous, as their enemies would swarm in from all sides. I could be wrong but I don’t think the Zil, or the Talentans have what it takes to stop that onslaught, unless they are currently manufacturing "weapons of mass destruction" :eek: . Even if that onslaught was not a unified front of the nations listed above it would still make the remnants of the "Five Nations" a bloody battlefield for its story to be played out upon. I could easily spin this as the awakening of an industrial age, with corresponding megacorporations, and the rise of racial-rights movements to rectify centuries of oppression. Well, except the Valenar. Them elves is just blanking nuts. This would never have the opportunity to take place. If we are to have a peaceful and civilized society on the continent of Khorvaire, the best shot is a unified Galifar. My pick however would be Prince Oargev, he is in my opinion the rightful heir according to the line of succesion. But thats another discussion. :)
Seth of the First Brigade 07-25-06, 02:57 AM	But it's important to remember here that Galifar has not been gone for that long, and the palace and city of Thronehold still stand. Rome was rather different. When Charlemagne was crowned "emperor" in 800, Rome had been officially gone as an empire for nearly four centuries. In addition, it was the pope that was really pushing the idea. Charlemagne was hesitant to take on the imperial title out of concern that it would annoy the Byzantine emperor. He was mostly content to rule the Franks, and indeed never really moved into Rome (the pope's turf). Galifar hasn't been gone long, many longer-lived species lived in it. Thronehold still stands. So the possibility of a real resurrection of Galifar would seem much more tangible for one of the ir' Wynarn monarchs than it would have even for Charlemagne, and so it is likely to lurk in the backs of their minds. Indeed, the Last War only just ended, and a lot of people in Khorvaire feel unfulfilled, as if the fighting and hardship didn't really bring resolution. The Five Nations fought, and one was destroyed, but beyond that not much was settled. PS: I agree. "LONG LIVE GALIFAR"!!! "LONG LIVE THE KING"!!!!!
Jancarius 07-25-06, 12:01 PM	lets not forget The Mournland, and the Al' Quai...I mean the LOB and his homeboys.[/I] Okay, the who? Al'Quai what? Are these people new or not mentioned in the ECS or what? Earlier, someone mentioned a powerful necromatic superweapon with the Quai name and I had no idea what he was talking about either...
Seth of the First Brigade 07-25-06, 12:44 PM	Okay, the who? Al'Quai what? Are these people new or not mentioned in the ECS or what? Earlier, someone mentioned a powerful necromatic superweapon with the Quai name and I had no idea what he was talking about either... I was making a joke. It probably would have been funnier had I had the correct partial spelling. The joke was Al-Qaeda (you know, Osama and his homies) :( :weep: Oh well... :D
Korhal_IV 07-25-06, 08:10 PM	In this particular situation, I would have to say weaker governments are a bad thing. This is primarily due to the fact that (unlike the United States, whose primary enemies and aggressors were across the ocean) The "Five Nations" are each bordered by highly potential Hostiles, i.e.: Dargunn, Drooam, The Demon Wastes, Valenar, and lets not forget The Mournland, and the Al' Quai...I mean the LOB and his homeboys. If the "Five Nations" were to truly become destabilized over the long term the repercussions in my opinion would be disastrous, as their enemies would swarm in from all sides. I could be wrong but I don’t think the Zil, or the Talentans have what it takes to stop that onslaught, unless they are currently manufacturing "weapons of mass destruction" :eek: . Even if that onslaught was not a unified front of the nations listed above it would still make the remnants of the "Five Nations" a bloody battlefield for its story to be played out upon. This would never have the opportunity to take place. If we are to have a peaceful and civilized society on the continent of Khorvaire, the best shot is a unified Galifar. My pick however would be Prince Oargev, he is in my opinion the rightful heir according to the line of succesion. But thats another discussion. :) Hehe, I was hoping someone would pick up on this. :) I respectfully disagree, and I'll throw another proverb at you: Necessity is the mother of invention. Many times in human history have we seen some of the greatest discoveries come out of terrible conditions. World War II, for example, spawned radar, jet aircraft, computers, space travel - all inventions without which our daily lives would be vastly different. The Five Nations have just come out of a similarly devastating conflict, and the results are similar: eternal wands, warforged, airships. On the political scene, just as WW2 led to unprecedented levels of cooperation among powers (United Nation whatsits?), the Last War has produced a liberation of the corporations, whose profit-driven interests will surely continue to stimulate interest in new discoveries. I also disagree that the Five Nations are weak enough to fall prey to any other power. Karrnath and Valenar are still at war, but Karrnath is not arguably any weaker for it. The Demon Wastes are a passive threat - there's no unified force leading the fiends. The forces of Droaam have never emerged, and they should have during the Last War if they had any territorial ambitions. Even if they do come forth, I don't think they're going to destabilize all of the Five Nations. They might strike Breland hard, or the Eldeen Reaches, but they'd have a dickens of a time getting to Aundair, Thrane, or Karrnath. Finally, the Lhesh Haruuc is uninterested in war at this time, preferring to settle his own succession problems. In addition, he's flanked by the Valenar, historic foes with a long, long memory. It would be child's play for Boranel to stir up Vadallia against Haruuc if Haruuc ever decided to turn on his Brelish ally. I'm liking a divided Galifar because it creates more tension, which in turn stirs up more invention. There will be Aundairian wizards working on arcane Plant Growth spells, because they can no longer rely on the druids. There will be Thranish clerics devising rituals for binding elementals, because Zilargo has thrown in with Breland. Etc., etc. :)
StillbornGodling 07-25-06, 08:20 PM	One of my favorite DM tools is the use of calcuating a person's Nature vs. Demeanor (as taken from DragonLance, I believe). Nature represents a person at their core. while... Demeanor represents what a person wants the world to see. I believe Auralia would have a N Nature, but a NG Demeanor. She means to do good, and wants her followers to see her as such, but firmly believes that the only way to "save" it is to rule it, and is willing to do just about anything to accomplish her goal. Just a little FYI
yrogerg 07-25-06, 10:46 PM	One of my favorite DM tools is the use of calcuating a person's Nature vs. Demeanor (as taken from DragonLance, I believe). Nature represents a person at their core. while... Demeanor represents what a person wants the world to see. I believe Auralia would have a N Nature, but a NG Demeanor. She means to do good, and wants her followers to see her as such, but firmly believes that the only way to "save" it is to rule it, and is willing to do just about anything to accomplish her goal. Just a little FYI I'm most familiar with the nature/demeanor thing from the World of Darkness games.
Jancarius 07-26-06, 02:15 AM	I'm an old time Dragonlance player, and I don't recall seeing Nature and demeanor there ever.
davethebrave371 07-26-06, 03:09 AM	Just a little FYI You mean a little "IMHO"?
dang 07-26-06, 06:40 PM	I'm an old time Dragonlance player, and I don't recall seeing Nature and demeanor there ever. 5th age -- the card game that lasted 5 minutes. and i disagree, i think alignment in this setting refers to one's core nature. i'm surprised by all this hating on AuraLA, though. sure she's not cuddly, but i don't think she's all that wicked or self-serving by wanting to overthrow a fundamentalist theocracy and a militaristic death-cult state. (just trying to see things from an Aundairian point of view.) Perhaps posters don't like her because she's an attractive blonde female? A blend of misogyny and repressed memories of highschool cheerleaders, anyone?
davethebrave371 07-26-06, 07:15 PM	5th age -- the card game that lasted 5 minutes. and i disagree, i think alignment in this setting refers to one's core nature. i'm surprised by all this hating on AuraLA, though. sure she's not cuddly, but i don't think she's all that wicked or self-serving by wanting to overthrow a fundamentalist theocracy and a militaristic death-cult state. (just trying to see things from an Aundairian point of view.) Perhaps posters don't like her because she's an attractive blonde female? A blend of misogyny and repressed memories of highschool cheerleaders, anyone? Definately. I know all the criticisms I've seen in this thread have been leveled at her peppy, cheery nature and physical appearance. Definately a lot of admissions of sexism in this thread. I bet even without those unapologetic and brazen sexist remarks, you would have picked up on the subtle nuances of it, you perceptive, thoughtful man, you.
Siran Dunmorgan 07-26-06, 09:01 PM	Please take a moment to reflect that for all their differences, there is one thing that His Most Puissant Majesty of Karrnath and Her Serene Majesty of Aundair have in common, something altogether too rare for heads of state in any world: they were able to marry for love. —Siran Dunmorgan P. S. Someone needs to start a thread like "Debrett's (http://www.debretts.co.uk/db2005/home.asp) of Galifar," so that we can work out correct and consistent titles and styles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_noble_styles) of the ranks of nobility in the Five Nations.
Psionycx 07-26-06, 10:34 PM	There's no question that Aurala is like the most popular girl in high school that everyone secretly hates. But honestly I don't think that her claim to a Good alignment is any more outrageous than, say, King Boranel's. Rulers play by different rules than common folk. Overall she's a benevolent ruler, just not a saint or anything. I do have to wonder if there is a certain misogyny at work here, and if her actions would be as harshly judged if she were a male.
Seth of the First Brigade 07-27-06, 02:19 AM	P. S. Someone needs to start a thread like "Debrett's (http://www.debretts.co.uk/db2005/home.asp) of Galifar," so that we can work out correct and consistent titles and styles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_and_noble_styles) of the ranks of nobility in the Five Nations. Heres the thread you requested. :D Debrett's of Galifar (Correct & Consistent Titles & Styles of the Ranks of Nobility) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=675191)
ArcTan 07-27-06, 03:02 AM	If it helps, I like Aurala quite a bit better than either of the other two (male) members of the triumvirate. And I certainly like her better than Kaius, the undead bad boy everyone loves. Still not as cool as Boranel, though. Who himself is not as cool as Jaela Daran. Who is not as cool as the Lord of Blades.
davethebrave371 07-27-06, 03:53 AM	If it helps, I like Aurala quite a bit better than either of the other two (male) members of the triumvirate. And I certainly like her better than Kaius, the undead bad boy everyone loves. Still not as cool as Boranel, though. Who himself is not as cool as Jaela Daran. Who is not as cool as the Lord of Blades. I think I like Kaius best. Actually, no, scratch that. I like Diani ir'Wynarn the best. I think there are the best opportunities to do lots and lots of things with Diani as a DM, as well as the most accessible monarch for PCs (even above Oargev, because he is busy). But who would I like best if all of 'em got zapped into a room with me magically, and I had to sit around and stand 'em for a while? Oargev strikes me as the one I'd like best, from what is written of him. Cool factor though? It's Kaius. He beats out the LoBster anyday, excepting some of the really cool ideas people have about who the LoB really is in their games. Some of those are quite awesome. Jaela gets bumped above Aurala for me, but Crozen has the power, and he's just a douche.
Splendide 07-27-06, 07:13 AM	King Sebastes is better than all of them. Those other wusses all have environments suited to them, but Sebastes is basically taking on everyone to forge a new nation.
StillbornGodling 07-27-06, 10:04 AM	5th age -- the card game that lasted 5 minutes. Yup, that's the one. Thanks for reminding me of that monstrocity. I just remember how I always thought the difference between "Alignment" and "Nature vs Demeanor" played out. It led to some very in-depth character design for me, and I've always kinda kept it waiting in the wings to pop out on my players... maybe one day I will. :P
Jancarius 07-27-06, 12:19 PM	Yup, that's the one. Thanks for reminding me of that monstrocity. I just remember how I always thought the difference between "Alignment" and "Nature vs Demeanor" played out. It led to some very in-depth character design for me, and I've always kinda kept it waiting in the wings to pop out on my players... maybe one day I will. :P Oh, yeah, that card game. I just pretend nothing happened in the 30-40 years between the War of Chaos and the War of Souls. It's sad when Weis and Hickman have to come in every so often to revive a campaign world. None of the 5th age (pre-War of Souls) were any good that I read. Post War of Souls, I've just started Amber and Ashes, but I'm not exactly zooming through since I've been pretty busy. Personally, I'd like to hang out with Boranel of the major leaders. It's true that Aurala is the type of girl that I dislike :p. Kaius is pretty cool, but he's not the kind of guy you'd want to really know in real life. The Cyran prince is okay, but he lacks the distinguishing coolness of Kaius and Boranel. Jaena's twelve, but if she was 18... (reference 1001+ things the party isn't allowed to do in Eberron).
ArcTan 07-27-06, 03:12 PM	You know, Mina from the new Dragonlance novels is *much* more the kind of female I love to hate in fantasy than Aurala ever was. Maybe it's because, unlike Mina, Aurala is not actually the center of events for the entire universe and is not the lover of a god and she hasn't killed a death knight with a table leg and her physical appearance and her "vivacious lust for life" are not mentioned every single time she appears in the text and the way she takes over the world does not involve having hot, passionate sex with everyone she meets and we don't have to see her flowing red-gold locks and supple limbs and cleavage in every illustration of her and she doesn't turn out to be a God of Light who's been turned to the Dark Side and angst and sad and pretty. GAH! Aurala, by comparison, is just another monarch who happens to be good-looking and a woman. She shows no indication of being some female author's personal fantasy of herself or some male author's personal fantasy of his girlfriend.
Jancarius 07-28-06, 01:14 AM	You know, Mina from the new Dragonlance novels is *much* more the kind of female I love to hate in fantasy than Aurala ever was. Maybe it's because, unlike Mina, Aurala is not actually the center of events for the entire universe and is not the lover of a god and she hasn't killed a death knight with a table leg and her physical appearance and her "vivacious lust for life" are not mentioned every single time she appears in the text and the way she takes over the world does not involve having hot, passionate sex with everyone she meets and we don't have to see her flowing red-gold locks and supple limbs and cleavage in every illustration of her and she doesn't turn out to be a God of Light who's been turned to the Dark Side and angst and sad and pretty. GAH!. I'm only one like page one hundred, but I know what your talking about :P