Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MarkB 11-14-05, 03:36 AM	Druids of Khorvaire, Part 4 (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20051114a) Another excellent article. I now want to play a Valenar druid with Leadership and an awakened Valenar Warhorse cohort.
Joni-san 11-14-05, 05:54 AM	Very informative and usefull from a DM perspective :) But as a player it didn't make me want to play a Valenar Druid :whatsthis. Then again I'm not a horse person or an elf fan. *shrug* *PSST... Link... ;)*
NathanD 11-14-05, 07:46 AM	The download link points to the wrong file this week.
Dansan 11-14-05, 08:06 AM	To be honest, I didn't like this part. It should've been called "Valenar Horses" instead of Druids of Khorvaire part 4. The articlie is more suited for rangers than druids. The only mention of the druids is that they take care of the horses, and the whole lot resemble a bunch of Horse Whisperers. I liked the first three installations, but this last one is a disappointment.
davethebrave371 11-14-05, 09:00 AM	To be honest, I didn't like this part. It should've been called "Valenar Horses" instead of Druids of Khorvaire part 4. The articlie is more suited for rangers than druids. The only mention of the druids is that they take care of the horses, and the whole lot resemble a bunch of Horse Whisperers. I liked the first three installations, but this last one is a disappointment. I heartily disagree. Maybe because in my own game, I had already made the assumption that the caretakers of the horses were druids in Valenar and Aernal. Of course, in my notes they had a different name, but they haven't even encountered a Valenar or Aereni yet, so I can always change it. Plus, stats for warhorses?!?!?11?!!?1/1??!?!?1!/1/11??!?!11?!!one!?1?!!!11!?!?!1//!eleven YES AND A HALF All in all, I'd say this was one of the better Dragonshards. Easily top 5.
MarkB 11-14-05, 09:39 AM	I also liked the part addressing House Vadalis and Valenar horses, because it's a question that comes up quite often. Now, if someone asks "can I have a magebred Valenar riding horse?", we can point to this article and say "no, and here's why not."
davethebrave371 11-14-05, 09:50 AM	I also liked the part addressing House Vadalis and Valenar horses, because it's a question that comes up quite often. Now, if someone asks "can I have a magebred Valenar riding horse?", we can point to this article and say "no, and here's why not." And it makes an excellent adventure seed. House Vadalis wants you to find an Irian manifest zone. House Vadalis wants you to find out if they have a secret group of breeding horses, and if so, to capture some. House Vadalis wants you to bring back, alive, a Siyal Marrain Blood Guardian for them. Fun times.
gaerfindel 11-14-05, 09:51 AM	A number of the druids joined the battle in animal form, and the greatest Tairnadal rangers rode into battle astride druids who used wild shape to assume the forms of mighty stallions. In one of the most fearsome battles of the uprising, a giant wizard of the Sul'at League laid a terrible curse on the opposing druids, forever binding them in animal form. The Tairnadal believe that the spirits of these champions of nature live on in their descendants, Hmmm...Valenar warhorse=Elf Quest "wolf-friend". Ain't that a kick?
Siran Dunmorgan 11-14-05, 10:00 AM	Hey! Aelryinth! It looks like both your concept (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7311766&postcount=300) and mine (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7311520&postcount=296) made it in—I guess Hellcow's as good as his word (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7311668&postcount=298). Good Dragonshard, Hellcow! —Siran Dunmorgan
Hellcow 11-14-05, 12:50 PM	It looks like both your concept (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7311766&postcount=300) and mine (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7311520&postcount=296) made it in—I guess Hellcow's as good as his word (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7311668&postcount=298). Indeed! Although the idea of wild-shaped druids forming the basis of the line is a legend of the past, as opposed to a practice of the present. One thing I suppose could have been addressed in more detail is the potential military role of druidic magic; after all, it's described as having been used in the war against the giants. So there certainly is a place for the adventuring druid who calls down the lightning on his enemies!
Sucros 11-14-05, 01:36 PM	Glee! I was hoping that this topic would eventually be breached! One of my all time favorite characters to play was a valenar druid, and if I end up getting out from behind the DM screen, I'm definitely bringing him back.
aelryinth 11-15-05, 01:59 AM	I can see them as caretakers of the herds...but using them in the military effectively takes ALL of the nature out of them, and turns them into cleric wanna-bes. If they are Druids they should stay druids, above little racial squabbles and concerned about the natural world. Elven 'druids' riding to battle are probably clerics with the Animal and Weather domains...and so outsiders probably can't tell the difference. Another point of fact...the Alternate Druid from UA would be a FINE caretaker of the herds, effectively a wild-shaping warrior. Them spell users are simply elven priests with more then a normal devotion to horses...but the real caretakers of the herds are the alternate druids. This also nicely severs them from all the Khorvairan druidic orders, as they don't have druidic spells, and ties them tighter to their warrior past. And yes, I take full credit for forcing Hellcow to come up with yet another complicated backstory and schema for thwarting my money-making attempts! :P Heh! ==Aelryinth
Hellcow 11-15-05, 03:30 AM	I can see them as caretakers of the herds...but using them in the military effectively takes ALL of the nature out of them, and turns them into cleric wanna-bes. If they are Druids they should stay druids, above little racial squabbles and concerned about the natural world. Elven 'druids' riding to battle are probably clerics with the Animal and Weather domains...and so outsiders probably can't tell the difference. Personally, I disagree. As the first paragraph of the Siyal Marrain description says, natural magic has always been a part of the Tairnadal tradition, and I personally see a difference between the ranger and druid and the cleric, even when they cast the same spells. The ranger can call on the earth to bind his foes (entangle), ask the spirit of the horse to lend him its speed (longstrider), speak with animals and calm them with his words. The existence of the Eldeen Reaches is based on druids and rangers getting involved in wars, so it wouldn't be the only time it happened in the Eberron setting. I do think the martial druid would be rare, which is why there's not a vast amount of detail on them. But given the strong ranger tradition among the Tairnadal military, I think there's certainly a basis for full druids joining in battle. With *that* said, the motivation and demeanor of such a druid would be very different from his more martial companions. Glory wouldn't be his goal. But bear in mind that glory alone isn't the goal of any Valenar: they seek to honor and emulate their heroic ancestors. So the druid adventurer is most likely striving to emulate one of the great druids of the past. For most, this would lend itself to a supporting role. But there were druids whose calling led them to the forefront of the battle against the giants - and a Valenar druid could be driven to follow in the footsteps of such a mystic. So you can go with clerics of the animal domain if you want: I'm still content to say that there are a few druids who join their ranger brethren on the battlefield, albeit for different reasons. I think the key element here is your contention that "using them in the military effectively takes ALL of the nature out of them". I disagree. Just as the wolf can protect his pack, the druid can call on the powers of nature to protect his people. Yes, the druid shouldn't just get involved in trivial political squabbles, or hire out his services like a common mercenary. But druids can certainly serve as defenders, or bring the wrath of nature to their foes... and either of these paths (or others) could lead a druid to the battlefield. The Cold Sun tribes certainly employed druids against the human invaders in Q'barra, but again, this wasn't a matter of a general saying "Yo! Druids! Move out!" - it was a matter of the druids telling the general how the battle would unfold. This also ties to the sects themselves: Each sect has a different view of its duty to the world and reasons to interact with others, and it would take a very different set of circumstances to bring a Child of Winter or Warden of the Woods to the battlefield.
dang 11-15-05, 03:51 AM	sorry, y'all, but i'm confused. the article suggests that the horses are raised in Irian zones of Aerenal. Still? or just their forbears? And do a significant number of Tairnadal still live on Aerenal? "This series on druids concludes with a look at another tradition of the east: the Horse Watchers of the Tairnadal elves, which are found in Valenar and Aerenal." I thought Valenar was made of the former standing army of Aerenal (or at least a religious sect of it), and comprised ALL the Tairnadal (like 99.9%). I figured that Aerenal druids would be more Arcane Hierophant types... sortof reverse engineering necromancy by studying life.
Isran_Imrador 11-15-05, 06:59 AM	I am only guessing here but if all the Tairnadal left for Valanar there wouldnt be any left their would there? It is possible even that the Valenar elfs are outnumbererd by the Aerenal Tairnadal by two to one or three to one... And Hellcow when will the Lizardfolk of Q`barra be covered? ;) Isran
DarkWarriorKarg 11-15-05, 07:23 AM	sorry, y'all, but i'm confused. the article suggests that the horses are raised in Irian zones of Aerenal. Still? or just their forbears? And do a significant number of Tairnadal still live on Aerenal? "This series on druids concludes with a look at another tradition of the east: the Horse Watchers of the Tairnadal elves, which are found in Valenar and Aerenal." I thought Valenar was made of the former standing army of Aerenal (or at least a religious sect of it), and comprised ALL the Tairnadal (like 99.9%). I figured that Aerenal druids would be more Arcane Hierophant types... sortof reverse engineering necromancy by studying life. Yes, a significant number still live on Aerenal. It';s in the sourcebooks.
Bluebrush 11-15-05, 07:32 AM	sorry, y'all, but i'm confused. the article suggests that the horses are raised in Irian zones of Aerenal. Still? or just their forbears? It's only been a hundred or so years since the war started, and the elves turned up halfway through and snagged Valenar even later. That's not too much time for an Elf or his magic horse. Also I think the movement which spawned the Valenar still exists in Aerenal. Check the Areneal section in "Life in Eberron."
dang 11-15-05, 04:46 PM	[QUOTE=Bluebrush]It's only been a hundred or so years since the war started, and the elves turned up halfway through and snagged Valenar even later. That's not too much time for an Elf or his magic horse. QUOTE] wouldn't that mean that the druids can't breed the magic horses in valenar at all (if it IS the irian zones that make the difference)? so, basically the only cool way to be this type is to hail from aerenal. although, i think mr. baker seems to favor the, erm, elf-horse hybrid idea. ew. :embarrass druid: "hey there, ranger... got your horse ready. just don't ride her too hard -- she's your granny." just think about the family reunions. ?? d'you think one of the sacred duties of these druids is to wildshape in order to, uh, strengthen the bloodline?!? maybe this class isn't so cool after all...
Hellcow 11-15-05, 06:26 PM	And do a significant number of Tairnadal still live on Aerenal? I thought Valenar was made of the former standing army of Aerenal (or at least a religious sect of it), and comprised ALL the Tairnadal (like 99.9%). Nope. The Tairnadal are a separate culture from the Aereni. Valenar is effectively the military beachhead of the Tairnadal, but among other things, most of the civic infrastructure of the Tairnadal culture is still on Aerenal. So the breeding grounds of their horses, the training grounds of young warriors, and so on. That's one reason the "average" Valenar warrior is so skilled: because they don't come to Valenar until they've undergone decades of intensive training on Aerenal. The Valenar dragonshard actually discusses this, giving possible explanations for why a 1st-level Tairnadal character might be found on Khorvaire. It may be that the Valenar have established breeding grounds in their new lands, and if so - and if they breed true Valenar horses - that might hold the answer Vadalis seeks. Have the elves found an Irian zone in Valenar? Or is this proof that it's either the result of druidic ritual or diet? A majority of the skilled warriors of the Tairnadal can be found in Valenar but by no means 99% of them; some remain in Aerenal to train the young or to monitor and protect their ancestral lands. And the bulk of the non-combatant population of the Tairnadal remains in Aerenal, though I'm sure some of their skilled smiths and the like have come to Valenar to be able to directly assist the warriors. And Hellcow when will the Lizardfolk of Q`barra be covered? ;) I was originally hoping to do them in this series, but I thought four druid articles was enough. So you'll just have to wait, II.
aelryinth 11-15-05, 10:47 PM	I'm opposed to the Druids In Military view because that seems to indicate they go riding around with the Valenar casting spells for whoever will hire them...NOT as roles as defenders of the Herd and of their people. The role of the Valenar in Khorvaire is decidedly NOT defensive. Furthermore, ain't no Giant armies around for a hero-worshipping Druid to test his spells against. Could I see him as defender of the horse herds? Sure, that's easy. But as a member of some Valenar raiding party out to stir up some activity out of boredom and because your ancestor could thwop on ogres? That leads to right into selling spells for cash as much as anything else in the setting, and really represents a 'selling' of druidic magic for profit, however you want to dress it up in hero worship. So, riding with Valenar warriors in the heart of the land, watching over the precious horses, fine and dandy. Anywhere else...selling out Nature's magic as if it were just another sword to ply against an enemy. :P ==Aelryinth
davethebrave371 11-15-05, 11:38 PM	I'm opposed to the Druids In Military view because that seems to indicate they go riding around with the Valenar casting spells for whoever will hire them...NOT as roles as defenders of the Herd and of their people. The role of the Valenar in Khorvaire is decidedly NOT defensive. Furthermore, ain't no Giant armies around for a hero-worshipping Druid to test his spells against. Could I see him as defender of the horse herds? Sure, that's easy. But as a member of some Valenar raiding party out to stir up some activity out of boredom and because your ancestor could thwop on ogres? That leads to right into selling spells for cash as much as anything else in the setting, and really represents a 'selling' of druidic magic for profit, however you want to dress it up in hero worship. So, riding with Valenar warriors in the heart of the land, watching over the precious horses, fine and dandy. Anywhere else...selling out Nature's magic as if it were just another sword to ply against an enemy. :P ==Aelryinth First point: I didn't see anywhere "Druids are mercenaries for hire." I could see where you inferred that (the Valenar were mercs before carving a nation out of Cyre's flank, thus Valenar druids must be mercs), however the druids obviously came later, or to tend to horses to make sure they weren't mistreated by the disrespectful Khorvarians. Second point: The role of Valenar in general is not defensive. Druids in particular, as you suggest, would not be. This does not conflict. Placing a specific into a generalization isn't impossible. Third point: While your generalization may not be a valid PC in your campaign, it never explicitly states anything of that kind in the article. It's up to PCs and DMs to come up with valid reasons for wandering Valenar druids, just as it is to come up with reasons for any Valenar druid. Fourth and fifth points: See first point. They aren't mercs.
aelryinth 11-16-05, 02:26 AM	The Valenar most certainly are mercenary. The average citizen of Khorvaire doesn't see a Valenar as anything BUT a mercenary, and the carving out of their nation was nothing but mercenary opportunism at its finest, in most people's opinion. Therefore, if they can be found with potentially any band of Valenar, which the article does NOT say they cannot, and the article DOES refer to their role in the military, which pretty much all Valenar are a part of, it's quite logical to infer that any group of Valenar Mercenaries could have one of those equinocentric Druids riding with them. Which rubs me pretty wrong. Eh! Me and Hellcow got into the whole spells for cash thing pretty much, and this would be an extension of that argument...on my side, not his, which doesn't sit right. ==Aelryinth
MarkB 11-16-05, 03:41 AM	If the Druids are defenders of the Valenar herds, why wouldn't they be found amongst the front lines? That's where a large percentage of the herds are, just beneath the elves who are riding them. Does a Valenar steed suddenly no longer qualify for Druidic attention just because it's no longer in a paddock on Aerenal? And remember that all of the Tairnadal culture is based upon the concept of emulating the military deeds of their ancestors in order to honour the spirits of those ancestors - becoming mercenary soldiers was just a means to that end. As described in this Dragonshard, ancient Druids rode into battle against the Giants, so modern Druids have an obligation to honour them by riding into battle themselves. Whether they are being mercenary or not is irrelevant to the Valenar mindset - the cause is important, yes, but it's secondary. What really matters is the battle.
davethebrave371 11-16-05, 09:44 AM	The Valenar most certainly are mercenary. The average citizen of Khorvaire doesn't see a Valenar as anything BUT a mercenary, and the carving out of their nation was nothing but mercenary opportunism at its finest, in most people's opinion. Therefore, if they can be found with potentially any band of Valenar, which the article does NOT say they cannot, and the article DOES refer to their role in the military, which pretty much all Valenar are a part of, it's quite logical to infer that any group of Valenar Mercenaries could have one of those equinocentric Druids riding with them. Which rubs me pretty wrong. Eh! Me and Hellcow got into the whole spells for cash thing pretty much, and this would be an extension of that argument...on my side, not his, which doesn't sit right. ==Aelryinth Point the first: The average citizen of Khorvaire sees, in most people's opinion. These are not the truth. As MarkB points out, the cause is secondary. Are they mercs now? I'm sure individuals may contract out, but the nation as a whole, the people as a whole? No longer mercs. Point the second: Even with your assumption/the ignorant assumption of most Khorvarians being true, which it isn't, your "therefore" still doesn't answer my point that it doesn't say anything about Druids being mercenaries. They can be part of a band, yes. The people in charge of costs may charge extra to Cyre for a unit with Druids in it, for sure. But the Druid isn't involved in that. The Druid doesn't care. He's just trying to make sure the horses are taken care of, and trying to emulate his or her ancestor. Whether that ancestor was just a champion horse breeder, or an actual lightning and earthquake giant fighter trying to purify the land of the vile oppressors, this is their religion. They will emulate that ancestor, or abandon their religion, and then likely not be there in the first place, unless they were there only to care for the horses, which is still a reason for them to be on the front lines. Sure the article refers to their place in the military: in Xen'drik. And then they honour it by "rid[ing] with a warband, turning the power of nature against their enemies." Point the third: Personally, I don't see this as any different than hiring an adept or magewright hireling in terms of spells for cash. You could go through an entire adventure and only have that hireling cast one or two spells, or he could cast a lot of spells. But there's a flat rate to hire that individual, and likely the majority of spells will be cast in battle, to save their own hide. Again, MarkB's point is likely the best one to make here: the cause is secondary. They don't care that it's for money. Even the warriors and fighters who negotiate the price are more itching for battle than anything (or maybe their ancestors were famous diplomats or economists, in which case the money is still secondary, because the big thing would be to negotiate as good or better a deal than their ancestor could have). And, to my eye, Eberron has less of a "spells for money" element than either Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms, in terms of divine. The Adepts and Clerics of Eberron are very faith-dependant. If you aren't of the faith, why should we res you? Even if you are, what are you going to do for us? Same for Druids. What are you going to do for the grove? Is there something you can do to aid me? Arcane magic is much more commercial simply because modern technology is built off of it.
Hellcow 11-16-05, 01:10 PM	And remember that all of the Tairnadal culture is based upon the concept of emulating the military deeds of their ancestors in order to honour the spirits of those ancestors - becoming mercenary soldiers was just a means to that end. Exactly. Check the Valenar dragonshard. The Valenar aren't driven by a desire for gold: they are driven by the desire for battle. The gold they were paid as mercenaries helps to support their military effort: but they wanted the war, not the gold. A "war druid" would have no interest in the economics of the situation: his interest would be emulating the deeds of his ancestor, and finding mighty foes who he could topple with the terrible wrath of the natural world. ...the carving out of their nation was nothing but mercenary opportunism at its finest, in most people's opinion. And as others have noted, "most people's opinion" means nothing to the Valenar. In their opinion, it was reclaiming their land, which they bought with blood thousands of years before humanity ever came to Khorvaire. Me and Hellcow got into the whole spells for cash thing pretty much, and this would be an extension of that argument...on my side, not his, which doesn't sit right. The druid doesn't exchange his spells for gold. If he chooses to ride with a warband - which is his choice, as the Tairnadal military is not based on conscription - he may choose to use his spells on behalf of the warband. He may unleash them in battle, as his ancestors did. That doesn't mean that if you stop him on the street and offer him 50 gp for a cure that he'll do it and give you a receipt: he'll likely be insulted and ignore you. But he will cure his comrades in arms and their steeds, and he will call lightning on his enemies. The fact that his warband leader may have taken money for the battle means nothing to him: he's only interested in teaching his foes to fear the force of nature, as his ancestors taught the giants. Another factor on druids, and their participation in racial squabbles: again, in Eberron, druidic beliefs cover a wide range. The Ashbound and the Gatekeepers are extremely different, and will fight for very different reasons. Predators are part of nature: and the Valenar druid who rides with a warband may see himself as a predator, bringing nature's wrath on his foes. To me, it all comes back to the strong, previously established ranger tradition of the Valenar. Rangers possess limited levels of druidic magic. As such, druidic magic clearly IS part of the Tairnadal military tradition: it follows that full druids would be found in battle as well. Though with that said, as the article says, that's NOT the primary focus of the Siyal Marrain. Anyhow, I'm off to Gen Con SoCal, so I'm afraid that'll have to be my last word on the subject (much as I'd like to get into another 10-page argument about the Valenar... who knows what Dragonshards might come out of that one?).
aelryinth 11-16-05, 11:05 PM	That's a semantics argument, Hellcow. "I don't accept gold to cast spells for you (especially in combat!), but pay my boss and I will cast them in a fight for your benefit." Eh! IF I used it as a walk-around for clerical casting of spells you'd likely hop all over me too. "Hey, I won't cast spells for gold for you. But since you donated the money to the Church to better the community, I sure will as a faithful priest of Boldrei." It's the same exact argument...and one we spent 20 posts going around and around on. The View is EXACTLY the same, just couched in different terms. And using that argument, I can easily justify ANY divine caster casting spells for coin. Just give the money to his superior/the Church and make sure your cause/purpose is aligned with his portfolio, and I can work around your restrictions pretty easily, and on a wide basis. It's the 'slippery slope' argument, and you are starting down it! ==Aelryinth
davethebrave371 11-16-05, 11:17 PM	That's a semantics argument, Hellcow. "I don't accept gold to cast spells for you (especially in combat!), but pay my boss and I will cast them in a fight for your benefit." Eh! IF I used it as a walk-around for clerical casting of spells you'd likely hop all over me too. "Hey, I won't cast spells for gold for you. But since you donated the money to the Church to better the community, I sure will as a faithful priest of Boldrei." It's the same exact argument...and one we spent 20 posts going around and around on. The View is EXACTLY the same, just couched in different terms. And using that argument, I can easily justify ANY divine caster casting spells for coin. Just give the money to his superior/the Church and make sure your cause/purpose is aligned with his portfolio, and I can work around your restrictions pretty easily, and on a wide basis. It's the 'slippery slope' argument, and you are starting down it! ==Aelryinth Ok, here's the thing: Dol Arrah, Dol Dorn and the Silver Flame had more clerics on the battlefields of the Last War than anyone else. Were they getting paid? Sure. Was money the object? No. Not at all. It's part of their spiritual beliefs. They believed they were fighting for the right cause, and, surprise surprise, they need to upkeep their weapons and armour while they were doing it. Elves of Northern Aernal are even easier to justify than that, because a) they don't need a just cause, they just want to fight and b) there are those who are emulating, as I previously stated, diplomats and economists, or money minters/appraisers, or whatever, of the past. Again, the points you raise I feel are already answered. Arcane magics, as I've said, are commercial in the Eberron setting because it's what civilization is built upon. Divine magics still require some money, because the priests have to get by somehow, but they will refuse no matter the cost (unless they're corrupt) if their faith would disagree with it. Druids, on the other hand, likely received no direct monetary bonus from participating. They wanted to be there, and, like monks, rangers and barbarians, can survive on peanuts not only if they have to, but because they often want to. Especially druids and monks. Their "payment" was likely just more money spent on getting more horses sent over for them to tend to, more money for equipment and materials to construct stables, etc. I doubt any of them were paid cash money, or with magic items, etc. And if they were, I also doubt they'd refuse it. Their religion doesn't say anything about taking money to do what they love, and neither do most religions. To foster productive worshippers, it is often encouraged that you do something you like to do, and to deterr them by saying "But no money." is very rare, and certainly not found in the doctrines of the Keepers of the Past. Of course, again, I doubt any of them were given any monetary reward, their friends were getting paid. Kind of like a PC druid or monk giving up his portion of the reward to a good friend through player interactions, or whatnot.
The Dreaming Duck 11-16-05, 11:40 PM	"Hey, I won't cast spells for gold for you. But since you donated the money to the Church to better the community, I sure will as a faithful priest of Boldrei." It's the same exact argument...and one we spent 20 posts going around and around on. Not really. Hellcow said that clerics WOULD use their magic to help their community: that a cleric of Boldrei WOULD heal the sick people of her community, and that the whole reason she wouldn't take gold to heal adventurers is because she was saving the miracles of her faith to care for her own people. The issue is that neither that cleric or the druid Hellcow has described work on a cash and carry basis. They cast their spells when they feel it is in the interests of their faith to do so, and they don't run a tab ("Well, sir, I cast call lightning four times today, so that's another 1,200 gp you owe us."). When the cleric of Boldrei feels that her community is in need, she'll heal them. Using the "wolf" example Hellcow's given, the druid will use his magic to protect his pack and to bring down his prey. As a bunch of people have already said, the Valenar aren't fighting for the gold, so to the druid the fact that his boss has taken money is utterly irrelevant to whether he uses his magic or not. The druid has a REASON for being with the warband and entering battle that has absolutely nothing to do with gold, and that's why he's casting his magic. And don't forget, Aelryinth, that many of the warbands in the present day AREN'T mercenaries. They're independent raiders, seeking challenges in the Mournland, Karrnath, the Talenta Plains, and Q'barra. No one's paying them and they aren't acting in the service of the crown: they're just looking for battle. That reflects the underlying principles of the things: the mercenaries are just getting paid for something they'd do anyway. When you boil it down: From what Hellcow has said, the druid doesn't ask for money to cast his spells. He'll be offended if you try to buy his magical services directly. He uses his spells when he chooses to, to protect his warband and fight his enemies when he gets into battle - and battle is part of his druidic tradition. Whether or not he gets paid for it is irrelevant to him: he seeks conflict. Of course, all of this assumes that he is venerating an ancestor that was a "war druid" - because if he doesn't, he won't be traveling with a warband in the first place. Furthermore, I see a considerable difference between druids and clerics. The priest of Boldrei has a clear creed. She believes her deity has granted her the power to work magic in order to support her creed - in Boldrei's case, the protection of the community. But druids don't worship gods. And the whole point of these last four articles - and something Hellcow's said twice now just in this thread - is that different sects have very different traditions: they aren't all generic treehuggers. You're saying it's unnatural for the druid to use his magic in battle. Hellcow's saying that the Valenar see themselves as predators... The predatory nature of the Valenar is reflected in all aspects of life. Whether a Valenar elf is engaged in a philosophical debate, bargaining with a merchant, or searching for an ancient treasure, the elf always views the situation from the standpoint of hunter and prey. ...and that the power of nature is one of the weapons their civilization has always used in battle.
dang 11-16-05, 11:49 PM	aelryinth: i agree with davetb371, as a law student, i definitely know a slippery slope argument when i see one, and hellcow hasn't even gotten off the chairlift. he's saying money doesn't matter to the druids, that they don't fight BECAUSE of any monetary transaction. you're saying they're fighting because it's going to someone else. you're disagreeing on a point of fact, not the definition of mercenary. according to hellcow, wardruids want war to: a) emulate their ancestors b) topple mighty *foes* with powers of nature c) prey on their *foes* it only gets complex when you argue about the definition of "foes," but this can be cleared up. why are they enemies? cuz they're enemies of the warband. why are they enemies of the warband? because they're worthy foes and/or cuz they know the warband was paid to kill them. but why are they enemies of the druid? cuz they want to kill or capture a) her friends, by extension the avatars of her ancestors, so b) her gods, c) her HORSES. [which may be a and b too, depending on your theory] they wouldn't be her enemies if they surrendered. to pervert a famous saying, the enemy of my friend is my enemy. regardless of my friend's motives. also, you're assuming that a druid can't refuse to battle on moral grounds. i'm sure they do. could be that the druids only fought against national enemies, and not as mercs. after all, cyre was an ally because they invited the valenar back, then became an enemy for an *unknown reason.* (perhaps because they were using forbidden giant magic, bought with the blood of elven slaves? serves them right that it backfired!) perhaps i've misunderstood the argument, but that's my 2 cents.
MarkB 11-17-05, 03:57 AM	That's a semantics argument, Hellcow. "I don't accept gold to cast spells for you (especially in combat!), but pay my boss and I will cast them in a fight for your benefit." Eh! IF I used it as a walk-around for clerical casting of spells you'd likely hop all over me too. No. Hellcow isn't arguing semantics, you're taking an argument to extremes. By your stance the general "clerics and druids don't cast spells for money" position translates to "clerics and druids MUST immediately down tools and refuse to use magic the moment the slightest whiff of a financial transaction appears, whether or not they are directly involved." This clearly isn't the case. For one thing, if it were, then clerics and druids would be obliged to refuse to join practically any adventuring group, save those dedicated purely to charitable works. Do you really believe that if there's a cleric or druid in the party when a group plays The Forgotten Forge, they must cease spellcasting the moment the group accepts Lady Elaydren's offer of employment, or else be considered corrupt? With druids accompanying a Valenar warband, it's a similar situation - they are using their abilities in aid of their companions.
aelryinth 11-17-05, 11:26 PM	No, no, no and no. What I'm pointing out is that by doing an end run around direct financial actions with the spellcaster, you can get him to leap through hoops for you. Valenar are mercenary, and the reason they are raiders now is because they are bored and have no one to fight. Give them someone to fight and now they raid for YOU. And then you get around all the lovely cost per spells thing, because now their 'service' is at your disposal, as opposed to their 'per spell' charge. It's probably cheaper to pay off the boss of the Valenar raiders and have his druid escort/scout for you and help you in the battle then it is to pay for the healing spells!@ Which makes no sense, and definitely constitutes a slippery slope to me! And SURE, clerics and priests served in the military, they volunteered their services to help their country (or got drafted). But notice the distinct lack of financial incentive, even tangentially. They got paid squat or less...no one paid off their boss, or church, or elder, or whatever, to make them come. And that IS what is happening here. If, as I noted above, you restrict them to a purely defensive role as watching over the herds (and which the Eldeen Sects basically do, defending their land, not hiring out as part of merc bands or independently...except, of course, for PC's, strangely enough!), then this is fine and fits into the 'atmosphere' as noted. Druidic magic used to defend the elven people in antiquity is fine...druidic magic used to make war on the giants for the sake of conquest and/or the challenge? Definitely not the same spirit, predator or not. But, that's just how I see it. You want to be more liberal with the mindset, you go right ahead, but if I were in your campaign, I'd be leveraging the opening you just made wider and wider. Spells for cash, no? Spellcasting services for cash as long as I can contrive a suitable go around? Hellcow jumped all over me for doing this exact same thing...and now he's doing it! Of course I'm going to call him on it. I won't pay the priest of Boldrei...I'll donate the money to the community in the care of his Expert Superior in the name of the monsters/brigands/detective work/message bearing I/we did to keep the community safe, and do an end run right around his no cash for spells restriction. It is VERY easy to come up with justifications of this sort, and it IS a slippery slope. ===Aelryinth
maollelujah 11-18-05, 12:31 AM	And then you get around all the lovely cost per spells thing, because now their 'service' is at your disposal, as opposed to their 'per spell' charge. It's probably cheaper to pay off the boss of the Valenar raiders and have his druid escort/scout for you and help you in the battle then it is to pay for the healing spells!@ But in this case you aren't paying him to cast healing spells, you are paying him to be an escort/scout. He might never think it is necessary to cast any spell during the battle or his mission. If there is a need for healing, he might his healing spells on himself or his brethren instead. And SURE, clerics and priests served in the military, they volunteered their services to help their country (or got drafted). But notice the distinct lack of financial incentive, even tangentially. They got paid squat or less...no one paid off their boss, or church, or elder, or whatever, to make them come... If, as I noted above, you restrict them to a purely defensive role as watching over the herds (and which the Eldeen Sects basically do, defending their land, not hiring out as part of merc bands or independently...except, of course, for PC's, strangely enough!), then this is fine and fits into the 'atmosphere' as noted. Druidic magic used to defend the elven people in antiquity is fine...druidic magic used to make war on the giants for the sake of conquest and/or the challenge? Definitely not the same spirit, predator or not. Why do druids have to be a non-martial entity? There is no reason that they can't do their part for their nation (culture). If they use magic in a way that doesn't conflict with their cultural/personal beliefs then why shouldn't they use their gift to fulfill the interests of their culture? Of course I'm going to call him on it. I won't pay the priest of Boldrei...I'll donate the money to the community in the care of his Expert Superior in the name of the monsters/brigands/detective work/message bearing I/we did to keep the community safe, and do an end run right around his no cash for spells restriction. It is VERY easy to come up with justifications of this sort, and it IS a slippery slope. I don't think it is a slippery slope. It is up to the priest of Boldrei to decide in which way he can best serve the community with his gift. Even if you donate thousands of gold to the church or do services to the community, you might not get anything out of it (and neither should you expect any if you are trying to do these things for the best interests of the community.) The priest might think there are others in more need of his gift than you. It is the same thing when you hire a druid as scout. You might hire him for months and he might never cast a spell that you have any direct benefit of...
The Dreaming Duck 11-18-05, 12:53 AM	Of course I'm going to call him on it. I won't pay the priest of Boldrei...I'll donate the money to the community in the care of his Expert Superior in the name of the monsters/brigands/detective work/message bearing I/we did to keep the community safe, and do an end run right around his no cash for spells restriction. You're completely missing the point, Aelryinth. If you donate money to the community, and the cleric of Boldrei feels that you have saved her community, perhaps she'll help you. If you fight bandits to protect the community, she'll probably help you for free. Hellcow's point is that this remains her choice. It is not an expectation that you can go to her and say "Here's 100 gold pieces. Heal me." Nor can you say "I donated money to build a library. Heal me." You can build a library or fight bandits and hope that she'll choose to heal you. But the decision ultimately comes down to her and will be driven by her spiritual concerns. The same's true of the Valenar druid. Your stating things doesn't make them true, and by the dragonshards the Valenar are warriors first and mercenaries second. A druid with a warband isn't there for the gold. And as maollelujah says, you can't hire him to cast spells: you can hire his warband and hope that he'll cast spells, just as you can serve a community and hope that the priestess of Boldrei will heal you. which the Eldeen Sects basically do, defending their land, not hiring out as part of merc bands or independently... The Wardens of the Wood engaged in an aggressive action against Aundair to support the secession of the western lands - a "racial squabble" by your estimations. This wasn't THEIR land: it was land belonging to a neighboring country, which they effectively annexed... not unlike, say, the Valenar. Meanwhile, the Ashbound are an extremely aggressive sect who venture out of their lands to raid those who transgress against their beliefs, and the Children of Winter are engaged in hostile actions at least as far away as Sharn. Sure, there's no financial element to these aggressive actions. But it's been clearly established that the Valenar druids don't care about the gold, and will do the same thing whether or not they're paid! This isn't an end-run around no gold for services: it's saying that if the cleric of Boldrei would heal you anyway, she won't turn down gold if you offer it to her. But the gold is not the incentive for her action, and it won't motivate her on its own. Druidic magic used to defend the elven people in antiquity is fine...druidic magic used to make war on the giants for the sake of conquest and/or the challenge? It's not being used for conquest or for the challenge. It's being used to recreate the actions of the druidic heroes of the past, because it is through that recreation that their spirits can live on in the present. You're attempting to apply blanket rules to druids: "Druids can't engage in offensive actions." Comparing the Wardens of the Wood to the Ashbound shows that to be a fallacy: the Ashbound regularly engage in acts of aggression. And as has been said multiple times, natural magic is one of the Valenar's standard weapons of war, clearly implying that their druids see this as an acceptable part of their tradition.
The Dreaming Duck 11-18-05, 01:07 AM	Exactly. Check the Valenar dragonshard. The Valenar aren't driven by a desire for gold: they are driven by the desire for battle. The gold they were paid as mercenaries helps to support their military effort: but they wanted the war, not the gold. A "war druid" would have no interest in the economics of the situation: his interest would be emulating the deeds of his ancestor, and finding mighty foes who he could topple with the terrible wrath of the natural world. Just thought it was worth requoting this on the new page. Take note of "emulating the deeds of his ancestors": if his ancestor engaged in purely defensive actions, then a druid wouldn't be emulating his actions by engaging in aggressive actions, and therefore wouldn't ride with a warband: he'd protect the herds. If a druid is riding with a warband, it's because that's what he feels he needs to do to honor his ancestor: fight. And, of course, the point was that the vast majority of Valenar druids ARE protectors of the herd (which is why the article is about protectors of the herds, and not Valenar war druids) so this is more or less making a mountain of a molehill. We don't even know if any druids ride with warbands that get paid - because many warbands don't seek mercenary service, but just seek battle for its own sake. If the druid is insulted by the idea of his companions taking gold for battle, he won't ride with them.
davethebrave371 11-18-05, 01:23 AM	Valenar are mercenary, and the reason they are raiders now is because they are bored and have no one to fight. Give them someone to fight and now they raid for YOU. Ahhh, I see! You misunderstand the basics, and thus make false inferrences that build upon each other to make the tangled mess you perceive to be right. Let me give you an example: Does a devoutly religious person in real life practice the tenets of his religion because he is bored or because of faith? Now, on the heels of that, do you go for a dimenovel pop-fantasy game, or one slanted to a more serious bent? If it is the former, I totally understand, because you probably treat the religions like this thing that's just there, and the priests seem to do only for personal gain. Then I can understand where you're coming from. However, the setting as a whole, and my game in particular, are of a more serious bent, where people who have faith, have faith. Again, to each DM their own, but I was assuming setting defaults in my argument, not dimestore young adult fantasy.
a_psh 11-18-05, 02:48 AM	But, that's just how I see it. You want to be more liberal with the mindset, you go right ahead, but if I were in your campaign, I'd be leveraging the opening you just made wider and wider. Spells for cash, no? Spellcasting services for cash as long as I can contrive a suitable go around? Hellcow jumped all over me for doing this exact same thing...and now he's doing it! Of course I'm going to call him on it. I won't pay the priest of Boldrei...I'll donate the money to the community in the care of his Expert Superior in the name of the monsters/brigands/detective work/message bearing I/we did to keep the community safe, and do an end run right around his no cash for spells restriction. It is VERY easy to come up with justifications of this sort, and it IS a slippery slope. Err, I've seen this debate before, and there are still some points I don't understand: 1. Where does one, y'know, actually profit? If all of these services are available expediently from House Jorasco, what is the great incentive in being able to weasel them out of a temple priest? It certainly will take longer and cost at least as much, ne? In other words, even if you do manage to make an end run around whatever it is that you're trying to make an end run around, what actual benefit is there in accomplishing this, either for the player or the character? Given the reasonably-priced and neutral service of Jorasco, how is being able to give a priest a circuitous kickback and get a spell or two out of it actually useful in any way? 2. Is the point of this all just to say "temple = hospital," then? Adepts and clerics and druids are capable of healing. All also must inherently possess great faith in their own religion. Given that Jorasco healers are often adepts (or, rarely, clerics) in addition to the Heal skill and their Dragonmark, there's firm precedent for the fact that one can use divine magic to heal people for money. Divine casters are people, too. Their faith plays an important role in their lives, but it doesn't consume them utterly. They still have real lives and material concerns. That they can cast magic for money and keep the faith is kind of trivially provable (Jorasco, above). Clearly, individuals can cast healing magic for money, and some will turn it into a profession... Let's say that you need to do your taxes, and that accountants and only accountants play golf (untrue, but bear with me). If you go to a golf club, find an accountant, and convince him to do your taxes in exchange for money, is the golf club itself suddenly a provider of accounting services? (Or, for a more realistic example: one can walk into a large high school and find someone selling drugs... does this make the high school something other than a school, substantively?) Similarly, I see this basically applying to temples as well: if you go to a house of worship and beg one of the priests to use magic for you, rewarding him lavishly in return, is the entire temple nothing more than a magic store now? How are the scenarios you describe substantively different from a halfing adept getting up in the morning, going to a shrine of Boldrei or Olladra or what have you to light some incense and pray for two hours, leading a mid-day ceremony, and then going to the Jorasco House of Healing to make her wage with skill and spell before returning home to say the twilight prayer and have dinner with her family? Why is it that the presence of a few people who can weild divine magic and are willing to sell a spell or two necessary makes the entire edifice of their faith nothing more than a cheap place to buy spells? Edit: To clarify the second bit. Using the cleric of Dol Dorn example made before. Okay, so he's a warrior and a mercenary. Now, his religion encourages him to go to battle, certainly, but, when he's out there fighting and sleeping and marching, is he functioning as a mercenary warrior or a holy man? Similarly, if he heals someone on the battlefield, is he being a "priest" or a "medic"? The point is that the actual act of worship is divorced from spellcasting for money, which I don't see as implying anything about devoted individuals with divine spellcasting power not using their abilities in other contexts.
The Dreaming Duck 11-18-05, 12:47 PM	Is the point of this all just to say "temple = hospital," then? Given that Jorasco healers are often adepts (or, rarely, clerics) in addition to the Heal skill and their Dragonmark, there's firm precedent for the fact that one can use divine magic to heal people for money. True. As I recall, Jorasco healers are often adepts of Olladra, who is after all the goddess whose portfolio (or at least domains) includes healing (so one can make the case that healing is one of their duties). But I think the issue is precisely that it's done at the Jorasco House of Healing, which is a business. Matthew 21:13 - "My house shall be called a house of prayer..." I think the whole point is that the temple *isn't* a spell shopping mall. Want healing? Go to the hospital, which exists and is right down the street. If you're going to the temple, it should be to venerate the gods, not to buy services from their representatives. But you're absolutely right: Jorasco shows that there are divine casters who sell their services, and who don't even do it under the table... but they also don't do it in church.
Altaris13 11-18-05, 01:24 PM	Divine casters are people, too. Sigged! :D
a_psh 11-18-05, 05:39 PM	But I think the issue is precisely that it's done at the Jorasco House of Healing, which is a business. Matthew 21:13 - "My house shall be called a house of prayer..." I think the whole point is that the temple *isn't* a spell shopping mall. Want healing? Go to the hospital, which exists and is right down the street. If you're going to the temple, it should be to venerate the gods, not to buy services from their representatives. Yes! Exactly my point, more or less... Priests have access to healing magic and often will use it for money... just not at a temple. Yes, you can find people who cast magic for money at a temple. But you probably won't find people who cast magic for money at a temple at a temple. In other words, that Jorasco adept will lead prayer at a shrine, then wander down to the House of Healing to cast her curative spells. If you approach her for spells-for-cash at the shrine, though, she's likely to just tell you to come find her during her hours at the House of Healing (or to take offense, depending on her mood and your choice of words). Sound reasonable?
a_psh 11-18-05, 05:46 PM	Sigged! :D Given how much people tend to treat clerics as having completely deterministic behavior (whether it's heal-o-matic or my-god-tells-me-how-to-live-every-second-of-my-life syndrome), people on these boards seem to forget it a lot. ;)
Altaris13 11-18-05, 06:08 PM	Given how much people tend to treat clerics as having completely deterministic behavior (whether it's heal-o-matic or my-god-tells-me-how-to-live-every-second-of-my-life syndrome), people on these boards seem to forget it a lot. ;) I hear that! I have yet to see a cleric played that way though, in all my years of gaming. Of course, I have seen far too many "Sunday baptists"-style clerics.
aelryinth 11-19-05, 02:21 PM	Yes, the Valenar are bored and going raiding because they've nothing better to do with their time. Their culture says to go fight, and there's no handy war going on to give them an excuse to kill things...so they go looking for one. Where did I say druids couldn't be martial? Quote me. I'm having a problem with them being 'mercenary'. That's two very different things. As in, 'military for cash'. NOT military for belief. NOT martial by culture. Being able to spend cash and buy yourself a spellcaster as long as you can frame 'buying him' in the context of his beliefs...or his superior. I just KNEW someone was going to say hiring the druid for the scouting job was going to whimper and say that he wouldn't cast spells for you...which is why the rest of the sentence is 'help you fight', which does imply using all your gifts, and not just being a passive observer. As for the druids not hiring out for gold, then they probably wouldn't be riding with a mercenary warband, aye? Which doesn't address the problems of those that are doing so. And my example of Boldrei is pretty much contingent on him having a superior who orders him to cast spells on our behalf...and I pay him. O wait, it's a 'donation', riiiiight, to the community. And all the adventuring I do is for the community, nod nod, wink wink. Sure the cleric can refuse...the direct order of his superior. Yep. How many Valenar druids are you going to find competing with House Jorasco? Or even in the same area? I don't expect House Jorasco to pack up its hospital and follow me around everywhere I might run into a druid. Strangely, they just aren't as available as all that. Jorasco healers basically require civilization. Oh, and I like the argument of them Jorasco selling spells for cash, just not in the temple. Which means that druids, not having a temple, are allowed to sell their services pretty much anywhere...? As for Davethebrave and his insults, keep the personal attacks off the board. I didn't misunderstand anything, I'm looking at it with a much broader perspective then you obviously are...and unlike a lot of people, I don't mind disagreeing with Hellcow...life is more fun that way. So keep your little narrowminded commentary to yourself and argue the points. And for the 'clerics are people, too'...this is more a justification of them willing to sell spellcasting for cash then not, because it means individuality...which means more susceptibility for non-orthodox behavior. ==Aelryinth
dang 11-19-05, 02:48 PM	everyone's getting bent outta shape. :( let's all pick up our toys and go home.
Just another user 11-19-05, 04:28 PM	And my example of Boldrei is pretty much contingent on him having a superior who orders him to cast spells on our behalf...and I pay him. O wait, it's a 'donation', riiiiight, to the community. And all the adventuring I do is for the community, nod nod, wink wink. Sure the cleric can refuse...the direct order of his superior. Yep. what superior? You are thinking to the Silver Flame, the host don't have such a rigid gerarchic structure, also I think you are forgetting the peculiar role of clerics, and in lesser part adepts, in the world of Eberron and its religions. The cleric can refuse the order of their superior? You can bet your D20 that they can. Because 99 times out of 100 the cleric can cast spells and the superior can't. The cleric are holy warriors, the cleric are the chosen of the gods, with the power to heal mortal wound with a simple touch of their hands and some word and to call the wrath of the gods upon their enemies. And if this holy man goes before the people and denunce the superior as corrupt and greedy to whom the people would listen? To whom they would believe? If I was that superior I wouldn't want to risk to know the answer.
a_psh 11-19-05, 08:17 PM	And for the 'clerics are people, too'...this is more a justification of them willing to sell spellcasting for cash then not, because it means individuality...which means more susceptibility for non-orthodox behavior. So, as I asked previously, what is your actual point with this ongoing "finding 101 ways to trade money for priestly healing" thing? 90% of the people here, myself included, have not followed every single post where you've brought this up on multiple threads and AKBs, and are, therefore, kind of in the dark about where this argument actually goes. Not the druids thing here, just that old argument about buying spells from temples that you're referencing now. If divine casters, particularly adepts, have nice average lives and can probably be persuaded to cast healing magic for money outside the context of their religious service: 1.) why are they likely to do so in their house of worship as well? 2.) why is it important that someone be able to persuade them to do this?
aelryinth 11-19-05, 10:18 PM	Because of the vociferous defense to the contrary saying that divine casters in Eberron simply do not do such things...and then trotting out a divine caster you can reliably hire for cash (other things aside, the Valenar do have good reps as mercs for hire) is showing mixed messages. Hey, I like consistency in thwarting my money making schemes, you know? ==Aelryinth
a_psh 11-19-05, 10:41 PM	Hey, I like consistency in thwarting my money making schemes, you know? But, umm, I still don't get it... how does this turn into a "money making scheme" in the first place?
Just another user 11-20-05, 09:00 AM	Anyway aelryinth, I think you are reading this "mercenary druid" thing wrong, here twe don't have a druid casting spells for money. the druid is with the band to a: protect the horses b: fight c: help his friends not necessarily in this order if the band is paid to fight for someone, that is irrilevant, and he would cast spells only if help him consegue those three objectives, if the person that paid the warband go to him and ask him to cast plant growth on the crops of his farms, he would tell him to bug off ("i'm a druid, not an agronomist") if a soldier (non-valenar) fighting for his side ask him to heal his wounds, well, if that soldier fought on his side (and I mean phisically) proved himself a worthy and brave combattant and helped (directly or indirectly) to protect the warband the druid could help him, but not for the money but because that soldier gained his respect, else is more probable that his answer would be something like "why? do you like an halfling to you?"
aelryinth 11-20-05, 03:00 PM	Money making schemes = a justification of me selling spells for cash. Yay! As for the plant growth example, we are not playing farmers, we are playing adventurers. I want that druid to cast cures and flamestrikes and barkskins for what I'm paying him, not enrich someone's fields. "I go to do battle with the ragweed today! But I hired them mercenary Valenar to help me, so I think I'll win this round!" ==Aelryinth
a_psh 11-20-05, 04:44 PM	Money making schemes = a justification of me selling spells for cash. But all you do, at best, is bring it back down to the level of a generic vanilla game, ne? How is this any different from an FR priest or a Greyhawk priest selling spells? Given the fact that the PHB gives prices for divine spellcasting and divine potions and scrolls, a simple claim of "In other games, gods limit PCs' behavior" is pretty unjustified. But I'm not sure what else that leaves, in terms of differences... If anything, in Eberron, magic is more commodetized, though, so you've got more competition (Jorasco, Cannith potion-makers, &c.); I don't really see more potential for profit, unless we're talking about selling ridiculously-high-level spells.
The Dreaming Duck 11-20-05, 07:16 PM	Where did I say druids couldn't be martial? Quote me. Sure, if you insist. ...using them in the military effectively takes ALL of the nature out of them, and turns them into cleric wanna-bes. You say nothing here about them being mercenary, simply that use in the military is "unnatural" for druids, and that they should be clerics with the Animal domain. I'm having a problem with them being 'mercenary'. That's two very different things. As in, 'military for cash'. NOT military for belief. Then let's solve that problem. Exactly. Check the Valenar dragonshard. The Valenar aren't driven by a desire for gold: they are driven by the desire for battle. The gold they were paid as mercenaries helps to support their military effort: but they wanted the war, not the gold. A "war druid" would have no interest in the economics of the situation: his interest would be emulating the deeds of his ancestor, and finding mighty foes who he could topple with the terrible wrath of the natural world. See? Not military for cash: Military for belief. How many times and in how many different ways does this need to be said? Even if the druid was traveling with a band being paid, he's doing it because of HIS beliefs, not because of a desire for gold. I just KNEW someone was going to say hiring the druid for the scouting job was going to whimper and say that he wouldn't cast spells for you... What Hellcow specifically said is that the druid would protect his warband and fight his enemies. Check "Death at Whitehearth" for an example of Valenar actually in battle: they are acting as an independent unit, working for Breland against Cyre and striking against a Cyran target, but with no involvement with Brelish forces. This is exactly how I see this working. The Brelish say "We want you to eliminate the threat posed by this fortress." Assuming the Valenar commander accepts the assignment, his warband moves out and acts under their own direction... basically, doing exactly what they're doing now in Karrnath and Q'barra. The druid with the band protects his group and fights his enemies - just as he would if they were operating in Q'barra with no employer. Given that the reason the Valenar fight is to perform glorious deeds in battle, a job like "Take out that fortress" is an obvious sell for them. But if you go to the Valenar commander and say "I'd like to hire your warband for the express purpose of having your druid hang around with my rank and file and heal them if they get hurt," he's going to sneer and ride off in search of someone who will give him a REAL job. If Brelish and Valenar forces DO end up serving side by side, would the druid heal an injured soldier? Probably, if he saw him as an ally - just as the priest of Dol Dorn serving in the army of his country would. But the priest of Dol Dorn would do so because he's serving his country and because it furthers the ethos of Dol Dorn - the soldier fought bravely and deserves to fight on. The druid will use his magic because it follows his ethos: perform glorious deeds on the battlefield. He'll behave in exactly the same manner whether his warband is getting paid or not: the issue is battle, not war. And if you ask him to cast spells when it doesn't further his faith, he'll probably turn you down.
aelryinth 11-21-05, 01:11 AM	The serving in the military for belief argument Does Not Fly if you can hire them for gold. Every spellcaster serves in the military for belief or gold, and doesn't charge for the spellcasting. This is NOT the Same. These guys, you can hire. That means that, regardless of his 'beliefs', he is, in the end, selling his casting services for whoever pays the coin. Ergo, mercenary. (wags finger) Get them out of the mercenary warbands or there's a problem here...because I can use this same 'justification of belief and service' to justify ALL SORTS of divine casting for coin...and actually, it's going to be very hard to avoid it. Am I trying to dumb this down to Greyhawk/FR levels? No...but there's a logical problem here with the justification of why the rule exists if you can so easily make end runs around it. Certainly Valenar Druids can't be the only divine casters you can hire for a bit of indirect gold...after all, most 5N folks don't even LIKE Valenar. ==Aelryinth
a_psh 11-21-05, 04:12 AM	Get them out of the mercenary warbands or there's a problem here...because I can use this same 'justification of belief and service' to justify ALL SORTS of divine casting for coin...and actually, it's going to be very hard to avoid it. Am I trying to dumb this down to Greyhawk/FR levels? No...but there's a logical problem here with the justification of why the rule exists if you can so easily make end runs around it. Umm, where is the rule, exactly?
MarkB 11-21-05, 04:37 AM	aelryinth, the general rule is simply "you won't find divine spellcasting for sale from reputable clerics at the temple gate", not "all divine spellcasters run shrieking at the sight of gold." As I said before, if that were the case then no good-aligned adventuring party which ever took on tasks for gold could include a cleric or druid, and that is clearly not the intent of the game. There are a number of ways to buy divine spellcasting for cash, but each has its extra costs. Buying from House Jorasco, the cost is a limited range of spells available. Buying from a corrupt cleric, the cost is the difficulty and insecurity of dealing with a black-market source. Buying from an artificer is more expensive than direct spellcasting, may involve a delay if he doesn't have the spell handy, and you can't be quite sure what the source of the divine power is when an artificer emulates it. And finally, buying the services of a Valenar druid involves buying his whole combat unit, having a war for them to fight, having absolutely no say in what spells are used if any, and keeping your fingers crossed that they'll consider your enemies a worthy challenge and aren't just usiing you as a means to an end the way they did Cyre. None of this is doing an end-run around the rules; these are the rules.
Pozas 11-21-05, 11:14 AM	I really enjoyed this article, as it was one I've been bothering Keith about for quite some time. The thought of having a Valenar druid with the Bladebearer feat ride into battle astride a Valenar Warhorse animal companion is awe-inspiring. Add a Flame Blade to that and we're talking serious butt-kicking! On the "buying divine magic" angle, I just wanted to add something: you CAN buy spells from a divine caster in Eberron. You just happen to be of the same faith and convince the priest to help you (like, say, using Diplomacy to make him Friendly). He'll cast the spell, and then take your gold to help the church (buying silver to make holy water, ingredients for making scrolls and potions, renovating the cathedral, etc).
aelryinth 11-21-05, 01:48 PM	I'm not going to be of the same faith as the Valenar druid, and I can buy him :) As for having to hire his mercenary band, that's just not true. Mercs hire out in big warbands and small. If I only want a couple Valenar for a job, I only have to pay a couple of them...I just have to get the leader's approval. ==Aelryinth
MarkB 11-21-05, 03:08 PM	As for having to hire his mercenary band, that's just not true. Mercs hire out in big warbands and small. If I only want a couple Valenar for a job, I only have to pay a couple of them...I just have to get the leader's approval. Is there any evidence that the Valenar ever had such a policy? And as already mentioned, the Valenar use mercenary jobs as a means to an end. If the job involves the sort of situation in which the druid can emulate his ancestor, he'll take it, and the money will be just a bonus. Heck, if the client changes his mind and decides not to hire him, he'll probably still go. If there is no such opportunity, he won't take the job and the leader of his warband won't ask it of him. Why is it that you keep insisting on picturing Valenar as stereotypical mercenaries when every article about them shows that they aren't?
Just another user 11-21-05, 03:20 PM	Is there any evidence that the Valenar ever had such a policy? And as already mentioned, the Valenar use mercenary jobs as a means to an end. If the job involves the sort of situation in which the druid can emulate his ancestor, he'll take it, and the money will be just a bonus. Heck, if the client changes his mind and decides not to hire him, he'll probably still go. Heck, he'll probably end with fighting the one that would have been his client in that case, you could say that you are not paying the valenar to fight for you, you are paying them to not fight against you. :)
aelryinth 11-21-05, 10:06 PM	mercs are mercs. hiring practices are going to be fairly similar. Why they fight might indeed be different then a typical merc...but they are still going to take the money and get their value for services rendered. Taking only jobs which can only employ an entire warband is going to make for a lot of unwanted downtime. They'll do whatever they need to do to stay busy...they are all about finding the fight, not holding out for the perfect job. ==Aelryinth
Euangelion 11-21-05, 10:29 PM	The Valenar are not true mercenaries. A true mercenary fights only for the money. The Valenar take the money, but they don't fight for the money. They fight because they want to fight, and they'll fight anyone, so might as well get one group of people to pay them for it. On the other hand, there's a term for someone who fights without compensation: slave. Aelryinth, surely you're not saying every member of every nation's armed forces is a mercenary simply because they get paid for being a soldier, are you? Just Another User, I like the way you put it: they are compensated so that they don't fight you. It's a protection racket. But Cyre didn't understand that until it was too late.
davethebrave371 11-21-05, 10:55 PM	Yes, the Valenar are bored and going raiding because they've nothing better to do with their time. Their culture says to go fight, and there's no handy war going on to give them an excuse to kill things...so they go looking for one. Where did I say druids couldn't be martial? Quote me. I'm having a problem with them being 'mercenary'. That's two very different things. As in, 'military for cash'. NOT military for belief. NOT martial by culture. Being able to spend cash and buy yourself a spellcaster as long as you can frame 'buying him' in the context of his beliefs...or his superior. I just KNEW someone was going to say hiring the druid for the scouting job was going to whimper and say that he wouldn't cast spells for you...which is why the rest of the sentence is 'help you fight', which does imply using all your gifts, and not just being a passive observer. As for the druids not hiring out for gold, then they probably wouldn't be riding with a mercenary warband, aye? Which doesn't address the problems of those that are doing so. And my example of Boldrei is pretty much contingent on him having a superior who orders him to cast spells on our behalf...and I pay him. O wait, it's a 'donation', riiiiight, to the community. And all the adventuring I do is for the community, nod nod, wink wink. Sure the cleric can refuse...the direct order of his superior. Yep. How many Valenar druids are you going to find competing with House Jorasco? Or even in the same area? I don't expect House Jorasco to pack up its hospital and follow me around everywhere I might run into a druid. Strangely, they just aren't as available as all that. Jorasco healers basically require civilization. Oh, and I like the argument of them Jorasco selling spells for cash, just not in the temple. Which means that druids, not having a temple, are allowed to sell their services pretty much anywhere...? As for Davethebrave and his insults, keep the personal attacks off the board. I didn't misunderstand anything, I'm looking at it with a much broader perspective then you obviously are...and unlike a lot of people, I don't mind disagreeing with Hellcow...life is more fun that way. So keep your little narrowminded commentary to yourself and argue the points. And for the 'clerics are people, too'...this is more a justification of them willing to sell spellcasting for cash then not, because it means individuality...which means more susceptibility for non-orthodox behavior. ==Aelryinth It's that time again! The logic train is reasoning its way into town, paragraph by paragraph! :teach: 1. Wrong. Read the Eberron books before posting please. I'd recommend page numbers to you, but really, just read anything that mentions Valenar or the Tairnadal, since either you haven't, or you've forgotten. They are not fighting because they are bored. They were itching for a fight, in general, yes. They felt that the Aereni were being too slow moving in their plans. This was impatience, not boredom. They were tired of, essentially, not living up to their own standards. There were no epic battles in which to honour the ancestor that lived within them. This is not boredom. Their culture does not say to go fight. Where did you read this in the ECS? Or was it in some other book I haven't read yet? Got a proof of the Secrets of Xen'drik that tells us all about the eternal boredom of the elves that defeated the giants, and that they emulate to this day? It says to honour (though emulation) their ancestors. Some of them were coopers, so you'd probably find some Expert or Commoner among the Tairnadal with Skill Focus making some wicked awesome barrels. Just because your game is nonstandard doesn't mean it applies to anyone else's arguments. Again, as I've said before, you can have your own version of Eberron. P&P roleplaying is very open, and you could throw anything you want out the window. That's fine. But don't argue against the standard with something that isn't standard. Final point on that paragraph: they didn't go looking for one. Cyre went to them. 2. Ok. You can have problem with them making a living. That's ok. Every druid in Eberron is NG by the way, and selfless to the extreme. That is correct, and so your assumption is correct. Just because someone feels a connection to nature doesn't mean they won't want to purchase or sell seeds or plants every once in a while. Or maybe a tome of rare and exotic plants to study. Note that only the Barbarian is illiterate, so they might enjoy a good read on herbal cures from regions they've never been to, etc. And they could purchase that with money, or be given it as a gp value to payment in metagame terms. Note also that they are being military for belief and culture, first and foremost, even if that includes for money. Let's frame this in military terms, since you seem to agree that druids could do things for military reasons. I'm a military man. I have to fight another military man. He's getting paid, and can repair his equipment, and even get new equipment. He has what's called "upkeep" due to this magical substance called "currency". All of his friends have it too. But wait! I love nature, and so do my friends, thus, I want to make sure my equipment becomes useless and torn/broken! This is due to my Int of 3. If only I had put that 7 into Int...then I'd be able to understand the concept of faith and self-reliance vs. stubborn suicide. When a guy who lives in a cabin and grows his own food says, "I'm self-reliant!" I wonder what he'd say if he had to group together with other mountain men and fight a war against an equipped and funded militia, real world or otherwise. If given the option to get funding to do his job, or to not, but still have to fight either way, I think he'd choose the money. Or he'd be really, really dumb. If you still think that that's a metagame excuse for paying for spells...well, I can't help you. Take a 100 level logic course. 3. Someone you've hired who can cast spells can do what they darn well please. They never told you what they can or cannot do, magically speaking, you just hired them based on their skills. You could hire a 9th level Wizard and he could just shield himself and magic missile until he runs out. Who are you to say that he can do more than that? That's metagaming. It's up to the DM what the hireling will or will not do. If it saves their own hide, or the hides of their friends, they'll do it. Otherwise, they're only obligated as far as their personality and alignment goes. A NE Druid? Might not cast a single spell unless something is directly threatening (or will soon threaten) him. LN? Might honour the contract to the letter. NG? Honour it to the spirit instead, meaning he might go a bit above and beyond. It's all up to the RP. Metagame? Hiring a hireling doesn't have any set standards, like "has to cast spells on command" or "has minimum req of spells to be cast while in employ" or anything. Buying a spell, yes. But no one is doing that with the druids. Although again, they could still do that as part of a job, like a Cleric could as part of a Jorasco healing house. It's simply how they subjectively interpret their faith. In Eberron, faith is far more subjective than other settings. This is made very clear in the section on Clerics. Again, you can have your own nonstandard game. And again, that's fine. I really don't mind. But your arguments don't hold water in a standard Eberron game. 4. I already addressed this in the previous paras, but I will make a sidenote. From their own point of view (again, the only one that really matters), it's not a mercenary thing. The money is just to make sure they can win, because they aren't the mentally challenged given sticks and rocks, they're trained Elven warriors imbued with the spirits of powerful ancestors. That includes tactics. Again, your point about druids being military is well taken, and actually subtracts from your own argument. It isn't mercenary to them, it's religious. I sure noticed that Thrane armies didn't get money because they were going on a holy crusade. "The Flame will provide, don't worry my brothers!" "...even armour?" "Of faith, yes!" "...will swords cut through it?" "Not if your faith is strong!" "...ummm...I'm an atheist. Can I have repairs now?" 5. Uhhh...did you even read the Jorasco example posted? It's not his religious superior asking him anything! It's his job! You know how sometimes a priest will do couples counselling, or other jobs that utilize things learned in seminary, and charge for it? OH NOES GOD SMIET HIM HES UESING HSI STREGNTHS TO MAEK MOENEES!!!!!11!!!1!!!!1!1!!1111!!!!!!!!! 1!!1!11!!1!!!one!!!!1!1!!!!!!11!!!eleven !!!!!!1! 6. Ok, that was an example, using a Cleric as an example. An example. Just so you know. Like, my example above. My example doesn't mean that druids do a lot of couples counselling, because it's parallel. Not competition, just a parallel example. I used example several times, which is the internet equivalent of enunciating it clearly. 7. ...again. Example. A comparable position for druids to be in would be going to their grove and demanding that they Purify your food or drink. They would be outraged and eject you from their grove, most likely, if you just plopped some money down and demanded. However, if that same druid worked as an agricultural advisor to a near-by hamlet, and you were there and unsure of the quality of food, I'm sure he'd do it for you. The people there likely pay him, whether it's tangible or not. He doesn't do it for free, but it makes sense for him to do it. Some people might pay with exotic herbs procured from bigger cities (just = value kind of a thing) for his consulting services, which may or may not, depending on circumstance, include spells. As such, it would be a hireling rate, and the hamlet is hiring him. He doesn't cast spells most of the time, because all he's doing is making a Knowledge check every visit. However, you as adventurers passing through might convince him to purify your food either for the elimination of an abberation with no treasure (whose treasure value would be equal to the amount you would have had to pay him) or he might need the money to buy a rare Aerenal herb these simple hamlet folk can't get normally. To be honest, I just don't see druids as being what most players would need to hire for spellcasting specifically. Clerics work better, and make more sense. Also, generally more accessible. When it comes to an army, that's their job, like their job at the village. Again, the money is likely used for the general good of the army, and also to bring more of the Tairnadal over...including their horses, which are just other Tairnadal to them. Army payments aren't handed right out to the men in equal portions all the time. There are ranks, and likely the druids aren't even part of that structure. As has been mentioned, they are just there to help their friends more than anything, or fight just to fight. Same goes for the hired Fighters. They don't take any money, or very little. It's their bosses taking money, and repairing and/or replacing/updating their gear. What use do they have on the battlefield of 10 platinum? Nothing. "Oh hey there rival soldier, don't hurt me, I have 10 plat!" or "Take this!" *throws plat at enemy* No value out there. You are paid in what is of value to you. 8. I'm sarcastic. I use irony. I'm not insulting you. I don't call you names, I just show the holes in your logic, or lack thereof. You can feel free to do the same to me. So far, you haven't, but I've found out about your homebrew ruleset. Which is ok by me, by the way, as I've mentioned before, and that isn't sarcasm. I honestly don't mind if your campaign is different. None of the things I've said has been with intent to harm. I will discontinue the sarcasm if you really find it that offensive, though I note that you use it as well, and I personally don't mind it, or take it personally. 9. I've already addressed this point.
davethebrave371 11-21-05, 10:57 PM	Why is it that you keep insisting on picturing Valenar as stereotypical mercenaries when every article about them shows that they aren't? And every book as well.
Shadowalk Nimblefeet 11-21-05, 11:19 PM	I define a mercenary as a soldier who fights in order to receive pay for services rendered. He or she is a professional doing a job, that job is soldiering, compensation is therefore in order. The primary relationship here is the employer and employee relationship, where a nation or other power is the employer and the mercenary is the employee. This is the typical mercenary scenario. One should not expect to find the typical Valenar ever in that scenario. The typical Valenar 'mercenary' fights in order to honor his or her patron ancestor, and happens to receive money as a secondary matter. The Valenar is not a professional doing a job, but a warrior-pilgrim pursuing a path of religious combat. It is akin to a priest or other clergyman receiving money for celebrating a wedding. In an ideal situation, the priest would perform the ceremony without monetary reward and, again in an ideal situation, the priest would not throw away his scruples in favor of the expected monetary reward. I would not say the clergyman is fleecing the bride and groom or otherwise selling his religion, and neither would I say the Valenar druids are. The Valenar, like the cleric in the example above, are receiving a monetary reward for a service they would perform without compensation. Idealistic and scrupulous druids will not throw away their moral or sell their faith for a cause that does not serve their faith. Then there will be those who are less than pious in their practice and will sell their faith as a service. For the most part, I believe the Valenar will be idealists attempting to champion their patron ancestors. They will accept money as compensation, but that money will go to maintaining their armor, weapons, horses, families, et c. Very little will be spent on luxuries, especially since such luxuries would be easily noticed and very cumbersome to the semi-nomadic Valenar.
The Dreaming Duck 11-22-05, 01:42 PM	A comparable position for druids to be in would be going to their grove and demanding that they Purify your food or drink. They would be outraged and eject you from their grove, most likely, if you just plopped some money down and demanded. However, if that same druid worked as an agricultural advisor to a near-by hamlet, and you were there and unsure of the quality of food, I'm sure he'd do it for you. The people there likely pay him, whether it's tangible or not. I agree with this 100%. As I see it, Hellcow's goal was to treat religion more like it is in our world. A church NEEDS donations to survive. It relies on the generosity of its parishioners. But a priest doesn't demand $40 every time you go to confession: he performs the services for the faithful, and in turn expects that they will care for him, whether this is through donations of money, food, or services. The point is not "Will a cleric ever accept compensation for what he does?" Of course he will. If he doesn't, he'll starve to death, his church will collapse, and so on. The issue is that he will not perform magic solely for money, or necessarily demand money. Faith comes first: and if you are faithful, you give to the church regardless of services rendered. And for those who would say "Well, this is different: the cleric can actually perform magic." So can priests in our world. Confession is, for all intents and purposes, atonement: lifting the burden of sin and misdeeds from your soul. Faith healers do believe that they can cure people through prayer, and they do ask for donations to support their ministries. But they don't demand money before healing: they heal, and ask those who have observed the miracle to allow them to continue the good work by donating. There's lots of ways you can "get around it", Aelryinth. That's not the point. The issue is that if the atheist barbarian walks into the church, flings a bag of coins at the foot of the priest, and says "You! Heal me now!" the priest is not going to do it - any more than if the athiest jerk walks into the modern-day church, tosses $50 at the priest, and says "You! Cure my cold!" If the same character said "Father, I have been blinded fighting in defense of this village. I pray that you will ask Boldrei to break this curse, so that I may continue my work," the priest may do it for free. If the barbarian hopes to receive this blessing again, he should make a donation, because otherwise the church may not be there next time he comes in search of aid. But the decision of the priest won't be based on money: it's based on the idea that he is a servant of his deity, that his deity grants him magical powers to further his ethos... and does this act serve that cause, or have nothing to do with it? Hence the point that a corrupt priest will take money, because he doesn't truly care about his faith. A devout priest won't, because if healing you is not in line with his beliefs, than it's an abuse of the gifts his god has given him. Which further comes to the point that just because all clerics can heal doesn't mean that all will. A priest devoted to Aureon is all about enforcing law and lore. He's got comprehend languages and command prepared, and he spends most of his days serving as a mediator of disputes. He believes that Aureon has granted him these powers so he may understand the complaints of any who come before him and so he can stop a violent dispute with a word. Perhaps he won't use these today, but he may need them, and Aureon has given them to him for a reason. If, during the course of his duties, someone is terribly injured, he may sacrifice one of the spells to heal. But if some stranger comes in and wants to pay him to heal... healing isn't his job. He has other potentially important uses for his magic. And there's a Jorasco house down the street that this guy can get healed at - so he should go there. Tied to this, I seem to recall you saying "Yeah, but then he's just given up 50 gold to Jorasco that he could have used for the community." Perhaps. But religion isn't about profit (at least, in the case of most religions). As a general rule, priests are supported by the community, not the other way around. His actions should be dictated by his faith, because that is what he does for the community. He serves as their intermediary with the gods, and that is a service greater than any gold. If an action consistent with his faith ends up providing him with gold he can give back to the community, great. But he shouldn't take actions against his faith just because he's being offered money, even if he could use that money for the people - because he is already serving the people with his faith, and besides which, Boldrei will provide. It's entirely appropriate for clerics to expect donations from those they aid, whether in gold, goods, or services. Without donations, he'd die. The issue is that he doesn't demand these things, and treat his abilities as a commodity to be bartered - and he won't take actions against his faith just because gold is involved. Likewise for the druid: she's not asking for gold to perform her spells, and she is acting in a manner consistent with her faith. Her warband needs gold to continue its work, and if the commander gets that gold, great. But they'll look for a fight even if he doesn't get the gold. And she won't heal the man who comes up, tosses gold at her, and says "Heal me, elf." If he fights at her side and is wounded in battle, that ties to her faith. If he got hurt somewhere else, that's not her concern, and gold alone won't buy a response.
dang 11-22-05, 07:58 PM	we're beating a deathless-magic-elf-horsey here. let's all agree to disagree, as everyone's operating in mutually-exclusive universes. and let's all agree that the valenar mercs/non-mercs are yahoos and their horses are winnims. :D
davethebrave371 11-22-05, 09:47 PM	let's all agree to disagree, as everyone's operating in mutually-exclusive universes. My point exactly.
aelryinth 11-22-05, 11:42 PM	I define a mercenary as a soldier who fights in order to receive pay for services rendered. He or she is a professional doing a job, that job is soldiering, compensation is therefore in order. The primary relationship here is the employer and employee relationship, where a nation or other power is the employer and the mercenary is the employee. This is the typical mercenary scenario. Excuse me. This is EXACTLY the scenario that most people find Valenar in. They are hired out by this or that nation to be employed against this or that other nation/power. Valenar are itchy to pick a fight. Ergo, they are bored without one, without having the opportunity to fight gloriously in the name of their ancestors. Hence, without hiring out to anyone, they go raiding into Dargunn, Mror, Talenta, and Karrnath. It's right there in the book. Hellcow explicitly stated that the Valenar would love for the war to resume so that they could get back to fighting again. They don't have the opportunity to go out and fight all the time...they are bored. For money. As mercs. The reason WHY they are warriors might be about honor, but they are paid and employed just like any other merc. They don't just take a job for Breland because it's 'fun' and 'honorable'. They get paid. They are MERCENARIES. They were brought specifically into the Last War as MERCENARIES by Cyre. They were MERCENARIES when they betrayed the Cyrans employing them (just like the goblins did to Breland) and took over. Their honor is highly subjective per elf, and even if they'd take the job without pay...the fact is, they take the pay and the job! So it amuses them others are finding them opportunities to further their honor AND improving their gear the whole while. They are STILL taking the money and the obligations that come along with it...although there's nothing that says they can't STOP taking the money, as they did when they turned the tables on them nice, over-reliant, and lazy Cyran overlords...who learned the same lessons about mercs that ancient Empires did here on our own Earth. So, why is everyone having such a problem with that idea? A mercenary is a soldier for hire...not a soldier for the honor of his ancestors. Their culture is a warrior culture based around devotion and emulation of their ancestors. Fine, fine. Karrnath is a warrior culture based around the idea that from the blood of Karrnath arose the conquerors of the Five Nations. If a Karrnath aspires to be the epitome of one of those conquering soldiers of the past, and takes money from Breland to fight for Breland, he's still a mercenary...from a warrior culture. A merc is still a merc. I'm not approaching the druid in a temple, a grove, or another holy site. I'm hiring him as a merc and getting divine magic in the bargain, because he's travelling with a warband as a merc...which is completely different from the fact that the reason he's a merc is so he can go fighting worthy enemies in honor of his ancestors and get paid for doing so. He's a merc. I pay him. Spells get coughed out as part of his fighting ability. Convenient! Spells for cash, and I don't have to be sitting in a city looking around for some silly halflings or healers, or begging at some temple and getting some inconvenient quest assigned to me as a kicker. Fun, fun. Dave's counter-examples are particularly funny, since they dance all around this without explaining any of it. And as a closer of a note, a Corrupt cleric who 'has no faith' will not be able to draw on his divine patron...he expressly MUST be able to keep his faith despite his actions, which do NOT have to agree with the 'orthodoxy' of a mere terrestrial church. As Boldrei is a god of community, being able to use divine magic to benefit the community is completely within the belief system of a 'corrupt' cleric who simply doesn't adhere to 'orthodoxy', OR who is obeying the commands of a superior. Completely within the bounds of faith. ===Aelryinth
a_psh 11-23-05, 12:18 AM	He's a merc. I pay him. Spells get coughed out as part of his fighting ability. Convenient! Spells for cash, and I don't have to be sitting in a city looking around for some silly halflings or healers, or begging at some temple and getting some inconvenient quest assigned to me as a kicker. Correct. I'm still uncertain as to why this is important, exactly. Please clarify.
Euangelion 11-23-05, 01:04 AM	I'm lost. Where was it ever said officially that a Valenar druid is obligated to cast cure light wounds on the person who hires her? They are hired to fight, not cure, IIRC. Somehow I don't think healing was part of their contract... And I still assert that the Valenar were not (Edit: ever!) actually mercenaries. They played the part as long as it suited their needs, but only when it was too late did Cyre understand the real reason the Valenar were in the War (and it wasn't for a pile of crowns and dragons!!!!)
maollelujah 11-23-05, 01:25 AM	He's a merc. I pay him. Spells get coughed out as part of his fighting ability. Convenient! Spells for cash, and I don't have to be sitting in a city looking around for some silly halflings or healers, or begging at some temple and getting some inconvenient quest assigned to me as a kicker. No what you get is a soldier that has the ability to cast spells. He will be fighting with his unit and casting his spells for his/their survival. He won't be sitting behind you casting the spells you tell him to. And I still assert that the Valenar were not (Edit: ever!) actually mercenaries. They played the part as long as it suited their needs, but only when it was too late did Cyre understand the real reason the Valenar were in the War (and it wasn't for a pile of crowns and dragons!!!!) Actually ECS states that the Valenaar fight for the love of battle and gold.
Euangelion 11-23-05, 07:54 AM	Actually ECS states that the Valenaar fight for the love of battle and gold. Well, there it is. :D
davethebrave371 11-23-05, 09:56 AM	...The reason WHY they are warriors might be about honor, but they are paid and employed just like any other merc. They don't just take a job for Breland because it's 'fun' and 'honorable'. They get paid. They are MERCENARIES... ...So, why is everyone having such a problem with that idea? A mercenary is a soldier for hire...not a soldier for the honor of his ancestors. Their culture is a warrior culture based around devotion and emulation of their ancestors. Fine, fine. Karrnath is a warrior culture based around the idea that from the blood of Karrnath arose the conquerors of the Five Nations. If a Karrnath aspires to be the epitome of one of those conquering soldiers of the past, and takes money from Breland to fight for Breland, he's still a mercenary...from a warrior culture... ...Dave's counter-examples are particularly funny, since they dance all around this without explaining any of it. Ok, since almost everything you typed about I've already addressed, let's just get down to the nitty-gritty. You contradict yourself. The reason WHY is honour, then you go on to say that the why is NOT because it's honourable. One sentence away from each other, I might add. I should also note that they DON'T take a job for Breland. They never have, and still don't. Since they've been a nation they haven't. And before they were a nation they were mercs for only one nation, Cyre. They betrayed them, not for money (and if they were in it for the money at all, they would not have betrayed Cyre unless someone else paid them more, or they saw a monetary benefit), but for their culture, their religion. They saw that their ancestors had been there before, and the sight was too much. They likely (though it doesn't say, so I'm just assuming) knew that their ancestors had been there, but when they saw it, they just knew they had to take back "their" land. This has nothing to do with money, and actually wouldn't have succeeded, due to the cash flow stop, if they hadn't been allowed by Karrnath and Breland just to put a big ol' boot in Cyre's plans. However, in very little time, most of the Valaes Tairn were on Khorvaire, along with their own cash flow. They were mercenaries for Cyre. That is true. They were itching for battle before Cyre hired them. Also true. They are now itching for battle. True once again. Out of boredom. False. I've already addressed it, but your debate style seems to be "Addressing other people's points? Why, when I can just reiterate my own stance over and over until it's right?" Let me also note your Karrn example is misleading. A Valenar is fighting for Cyre as if he were fighting for his own nation. His nation is tantamount. His nation says everyone is an enemy that isn't wearing a Cyran uniform, so that's the case. When the nation said our nation is the supreme nation, so everyone is a foe, they obeyed that as well. Did they obey it because their superior gave them money? No. Did their superiors get into it for the money? No. Did their superiors attach a money requirement because they don't want their friends/ancestors to die? Yes. Your example is like saying a Valenar would take money to fight against the Valenar. Which they wouldn't. A Karrn fighting for Breland could fight Karrnath. A Valenar fighting for ANYONE would never harm another Valaes Tairn. As to my counter-examples, I feel they directly assault instead of dancing around your points. I even did it point for point, which you, instead of responding to, once said I was insulting you, and secondly said they were irrelevent without stating why. Again, my primary counter-example is this: your game is nonstandard. Your points of view are not carried by the standard Eberron campaign. Thus, your arguments are moot in a debate where we are discussing standard game fluff and crunch.
mhacdebhandia 11-24-05, 06:35 PM	He's a merc. I pay him. Spells get coughed out as part of his fighting ability. Completely untrue. You can't hire a Valenar warband as caravan guards or as trap-fodder for a dungeon crawl. They won't accept a commission for such duties; they're looking for battles in which they can emulate their ancestors' deeds and so honour their memories. If you happen to be on one side of a conflict which can provide such a battle, you may be able to persuade a Valenar warband to take the field against your enemies. This persuasion may involve gold, or it may involve convincing them that the greater honour to their ancestors' memories lies in facing your foes than in facing you. Whether or not coin changes hands, though, you're not employing them. The Valenar fight as Valenar, not as cavalry of your nation or faction who happen to be elves. Indeed, you're not persuading them to join your side so much as you're persuading them to oppose your enemies! You haven't purchased their services. They may or may not choose to fight alongside you; they may or may not choose to defend you; they may nor may not choose to heal you, should they have the capacity. What decides them in these cases is never the money, but their ideals - the more you live up to their cultural values, the more likely they are to integrate themselves with you and fight as comrades, rather than merely as allies. Arguably, the Valenar would be less impressed with those whose cause does not strike them as worthy on its own, and who must resort to monetary incentives to sway them. That's their deal - you can't persuade a Valenar warband to fight for you on your terms, you must persuade them to fight with you on their terms. They won't accept arguments that you've paid for their services, and that includes the right for you to direct how their spellcasters use their gifts; anyone who views them as common sellswords and tries to treat them as such will be more likely to see their backs (or their blades) than their acquiescence.
davethebrave371 11-24-05, 08:34 PM	...anyone who views them as common sellswords and tries to treat them as such will be more likely to see their backs (or their blades) than their acquiescence. Maybe the thing that sparked the whole thing, after finding the ruins of course, was that rumoured insult by the Cyran monarch at the time. Maybe the unintentional insult was just such a thing. Or perhaps it was instead one of the generals. : I'm not approaching the druid in a temple, a grove, or another holy site. I'm hiring him as a merc and getting divine magic in the bargain, because he's travelling with a warband as a merc...which is completely different from the fact that the reason he's a merc is so he can go fighting worthy enemies in honor of his ancestors and get paid for doing so. He's a merc. I pay him. Spells get coughed out as part of his fighting ability. Convenient! Spells for cash.
Errant 11-25-05, 02:15 AM	Therefore, if they can be found with potentially any band of Valenar, which the article does NOT say they cannot, and the article DOES refer to their role in the military, which pretty much all Valenar are a part of, it's quite logical to infer that any group of Valenar Mercenaries could have one of those equinocentric Druids riding with them. The article does NOT say the CAN be found with ANY Valenar warband either. It says "the druids of the modern day may ride with a warband, turning the power of nature against their enemies." They MAY ride with A warband. Not the same as "they will ride with any warband". If YOU want to play it that way thats your choice, but thats not what the dragonshard said. Strictly going by the dragonshard it would be equally true to say that among all the Valenar warbands there is one warband alone that (for whatever reason) includes Valenar battle druids amongst its riders. Thats not how I would run it, but it would be just as true to the dragonshard. Which rubs me pretty wrong. Eh! Me and Hellcow got into the whole spells for cash thing pretty much, and this would be an extension of that argument...on my side, not his, which doesn't sit right. Do you not think there's a big difference between joining a battle (for instance) because you get paid for it and joining a battle because you believe in the cause while accepting payment to cover your expenses? Most druids can survive off the land easily enough if they choose to, but I imagine most still find it far more convenient, especially on the campaign trail, to buy what they need like every one else. Not to mention the costs involved if they want to make magic items etc. If you, or rather the druid(s) concerned, feel the someone is trying to do an "end run" and get the druids casting spells for something they normally wouldn't support, who says they have to play along? Maybe the Lor'taenel Warband usually does include druids amongst their numbers, but when the elder druids disagree with the warband leaders taking a particular contract the druids pull out for the duration? That would also be true to the dragonshard. And SURE, clerics and priests served in the military, they volunteered their services to help their country (or got drafted). But notice the distinct lack of financial incentive, even tangentially. They got paid squat or less...no one paid off their boss, or church, or elder, or whatever, to make them come. Where does it say those clerics and priests served for free? I think its highly unlikely they negotiated detailed contracts and secured payment up front, but they still needed food, supplies and shelter the same as everyone else. Even more than everyone else if they were expected to create and supply potions and other magic items along the way. Just because they didn't serve "for financial incentive" doesn't mean they didn't get paid at all. Bottom line, doing something because you believe it should be done should never mean you have to do it for free. You MIGHT do it for free IF you can cover the necessary costs yourself AND its not too great a burden for someone else to pay for (whether thats because you feel better taking on the burder yourself or because they just don't have the resources to cover the cost regardless), but accepting payment doesn't necessarily make you just another mercenary. And my example of Boldrei is pretty much contingent on him having a superior who orders him to cast spells on our behalf...and I pay him. O wait, it's a 'donation', riiiiight, to the community. And all the adventuring I do is for the community, nod nod, wink wink. Sure the cleric can refuse...the direct order of his superior. Yep. If I'm a cleric of Boldrei, how much do I care WHY you're helping the community so long as you ARE? If casting the odd cure spell for you (regardless of whether its on my superior's order or my own judgement) means you hang around a bit longer keeping people safe, or make life easier for members of the community I'm serving, it still suits MY purposes. You might even learn something along the way when you see the positive benefits your actions are having on the community. And if I find out the 'donation' came from robbing the next town over, my attitude will probably change. The serving in the military for belief argument Does Not Fly if you can hire them for gold. Every spellcaster serves in the military for belief or gold, and doesn't charge for the spellcasting. This is NOT the Same. These guys, you can hire. That means that, regardless of his 'beliefs', he is, in the end, selling his casting services for whoever pays the coin. Ergo, mercenary. Where does it say you can hire the druid for gold? "Valenar warbands hire out for gold" plus "druids may ride with a warband" does not equal druids can be hired for gold, or at least not for gold alone. As I said above, a druid MAY agree to work for you and take gold in return, but that doesn't mean I'll just be working for the gold. Where does it even say druids in a warband always ride with that warband or that they are subordinate to the warband commander? Druids have a highly respected, even sacred role in Valenar society and culture, without their favor you are going to have trouble finding good warhorses for your warriors, AND if they choose to ride with your warband they can use very handy spells to aid you. If a druid says "I've heard you're heading off to A to do B, I'd like to ride along and help" what leader's going to say no? If a druid says "I've heard you're heading off to X to do Y, but I've got more important things to do, maybe I'll join you next time" what is the warband leader going to do? Lock him up? Tell him not to come back? Common sense suggests the druids obey the warband leaders in a tactical sense, but even then common sense isn't as common as it sounds. Just because your average Valenar warrior is "itchy for a fight" and willing to take gold to find one does not mean all Valenar druids feel the same way. The average Valenar warrior may even be picky about what contracts he takes ("no, sorry, hunting pickpockets in Aundair isn't worth my time but if the price is right my brothers and I will fight the barbarians raiding out of the Demon Wastes"), and SOME Valenar druids MIGHT be less than ethically minded, but that still doesn't mean all Valenar druids will take any contract just for gold.
aelryinth 11-25-05, 03:10 AM	Dave, you still don't understand the job of being a mercenary, and the difference between loving to fight and having a job that means getting paid to fight. Suffice it to say that the Valenar get paid to do what they love, and you most certainly can hire them to be caravan guards and wall guards, because that's exactly the sort of thing they did for the Cyrans before they decided that if they had to do the boring duties, they might as well collect all the tax dollars instead of just a bunch of them. Your arguments to the contrary are just really strange and offbase, and I'm not sure which target you were shooting at. And the Valenar are mercs, they are called mercs, and generally speaking, are pretty honorable about their contracts. Not that anyone trusts them anymore in numbers. What is the warband leader going to do if a member abandons his group whenever he feels like it? Why don't you go ask a military man that? The answer is bloody obvious...the druid won't be coming back, because he's proven himself unreliable and not part of the team. The warband leader won't want him part of the warband. Sure, he may wander alongside them...but the warband won't consider him a member. But we are talking about druids who do JOIN the military, JOIN the warbands, and presumably take orders. In other words, they are members of a team. And yet, for some reason, won't work with those employing them in some really strange arguments for "Oh, you paid me to help you kill those guys, not to heal you up if you get hurt fighting them while I was helping you." RIGHTO, Chumley, that's going to fly...the medic in the party doesn't have to waste his efforts on those he's working for. Yessir. Good MILITARY discipline there. Yeah, I see all the reasoning behind those arguments works...not! ==Aelryinth
a_psh 11-25-05, 03:33 AM	I don't mean to be rude, but... Get them out of the mercenary warbands or there's a problem here...because I can use this same 'justification of belief and service' to justify ALL SORTS of divine casting for coin...and actually, it's going to be very hard to avoid it. Am I trying to dumb this down to Greyhawk/FR levels? No...but there's a logical problem here with the justification of why the rule exists if you can so easily make end runs around it.Umm, where is the rule, exactly? He's a merc. I pay him. Spells get coughed out as part of his fighting ability. Convenient! Spells for cash, and I don't have to be sitting in a city looking around for some silly halflings or healers, or begging at some temple and getting some inconvenient quest assigned to me as a kicker.Correct. I'm still uncertain as to why this is important, exactly. Please clarify. ...Still waiting for some explanations here...
Just another user 11-25-05, 03:52 AM	Maybe I missing something here, but someone could tell me where is said that druids are part of the Valenar military organizzation? Because the only place where I can find something remotely related is in the dragonshard where is say that a druid "may ride with a warband" but it don't say they are part of the chain of command or anything like that.
Errant 11-25-05, 09:32 AM	Dave, you still don't understand the job of being a mercenary, and the difference between loving to fight and having a job that means getting paid to fight. Suffice it to say that the Valenar get paid to do what they love, and you most certainly can hire them to be caravan guards and wall guards, because that's exactly the sort of thing they did for the Cyrans before they decided that if they had to do the boring duties, they might as well collect all the tax dollars instead of just a bunch of them. Aelryinth, you seem very fond of stating your interpretations as fact, usually without any reference to where these "facts" are stated in canon material. If you have actually seen any reference to Valenar serving as caravan or wall guards, in post-war Khorvaire or pre-Mourning Cyre, lets see it. Otherwise you're stating your opinion, presumably the way YOU choose to play it. However you might string together various assumptions it doesn't make your opinion any more "true" than someone else's opinion. In the Eberron YOU play, you might be able to hire Valenar as common guards, but that doesn't mean thats the way it is in 'canon' Eberron, or even "Eberon according to Hellcow". I don't pretend to have read everything published about Eberron but I won't roll over and see things your way just because you state something as a fact. Your arguments to the contrary are just really strange and offbase, and I'm not sure which target you were shooting at. Why do you get dismissive and choose to label someone else's viewpoint just because you disagree with it? And the Valenar are mercs, they are called mercs, and generally speaking, are pretty honorable about their contracts. Not that anyone trusts them anymore in numbers. At least this is in synch with the canon material I've read about the Valenar. Assuming you don't see them as "common mercs" that is. What is the warband leader going to do if a member abandons his group whenever he feels like it? Why don't you go ask a military man that? The answer is bloody obvious...the druid won't be coming back, because he's proven himself unreliable and not part of the team. The warband leader won't want him part of the warband. Sure, he may wander alongside them...but the warband won't consider him a member. How predictable of you to completely skip my challenge of your assumptions regarding how commonly druids can be found riding and fighting with Valenar warbands, but I'll play along. Do you really think infantry commanders in any modern war theatre refuse to call on helicopters for infiltration, exfiltration and medivacs if sometimes the helicopters refuse to come in because the air defences are too hot? Different principle you say? How so? in both cases you have a very valuable asset that isn't 100% reliable and according to your wisdom you refuse to use them at all! Armor won't follow you into swampy terrain so you scrap em, you refuse to let them help you assault a fortified position on firm ground? In a druid's case it might just be moral or ethical "swamps" they choose to avoid. The warband doesn't consider a druid to be a member because sometimes he has druid things to do more important than riding beside warband on every single mission? Or, according to your logic, an elf born and raised into the clan is ostracised because he hears natures call and goes off to tend the sacred breeding grounds rather than perform caravan guard duty? Are you serious? But we are talking about druids who do JOIN the military, JOIN the warbands, and presumably take orders. In other words, they are members of a team. YOU are talking about druids you "JOIN the military". I believe the rest of us are talking about the druids the dragonshard talks about, the ones that "may ride with a warband, turning the power of nature against their enemies". And yet, for some reason, won't work with those employing them in some really strange arguments for "Oh, you paid me to help you kill those guys, not to heal you up if you get hurt fighting them while I was helping you." RIGHTO, Chumley, that's going to fly...the medic in the party doesn't have to waste his efforts on those he's working for. Yessir. Good MILITARY discipline there. Yeah, I see all the reasoning behind those arguments works...not! ==Aelryinth Again you assume, you assume that the druids that "may ride with a warband, turning the power of nature against their enemies" are just like any other member of the warband. Hell, its even an assumption that they are organised along the traditional lines of our world. Can you even point us to a canon reference to all Valenar warbands having the same organisation of ANY kind? I put it to you that, according to canon Eberron, it is equally possible that Valenar druids are respected and valued allies that are welcome brothers in arms and spiritual advisors to Valenar warriors of more common traditions. That their contributions on the battle field AND in Valenar culture generally are SO respected and valued that if they offer to accompany a Valenar warband they are welcomed with open arms, that if they choose not to accompany a warband, even without offering any reason at all, they are nevertheless given the benefit of the doubt and greeted with friendship and respect when next the are met. "The medic in the party"!? The druid is the MEDIC in the party? HELLO! Did you actually ponder the whole dragonshard? Did you consider at all the effect of the other roles the Valenar druids play? If, IF, a Valenar druid chooses to accompany a warband, what makes them obliged to use their divine magic at the whim of others? Oh, thats right, they are members of a team. Lets forget that they might have traditions and commitments to things bigger than the warband they happen to be with at the time, lets forget that death and even suffering are natural parts of the cycle of life, lets forget that druids' magic can do more than cure wounds, if they refuse to cure someone "on their team", or use their gifts entirely at the whim of "their commander" lets just ban them entirely. "Yeah, I see all the reasoning behind those arguments works...not!" Honestly Aelryinth, some of your submissions are gold and you clearly have a great imagination, but please, take off your blinkers, let go of the death-grip you have on your preconceptions and try to see how different perspectives might be true. You might even find that adopting a different perspective or two can eliminate some annoyances and maybe even add a little more depth and enjoyment to your own gaming. You took one sentence out of that whole dragonshard, twisted it to your own interpretation, and have been stubbornly defending your impression of its implications ever since. I honestly wonder sometimes if you actually believe what you write or whether you are just trolling for bites. If you are, imagine what you could achieve if you turned your efforts to good! :confused:
davethebrave371 11-25-05, 09:47 AM	Dave, you still don't understand the job of being a mercenary, and the difference between loving to fight and having a job that means getting paid to fight. Suffice it to say that the Valenar get paid to do what they love, and you most certainly can hire them to be caravan guards and wall guards, because that's exactly the sort of thing they did for the Cyrans before they decided that if they had to do the boring duties, they might as well collect all the tax dollars instead of just a bunch of them. Your arguments to the contrary are just really strange and offbase, and I'm not sure which target you were shooting at. And the Valenar are mercs, they are called mercs, and generally speaking, are pretty honorable about their contracts. Not that anyone trusts them anymore in numbers. What is the warband leader going to do if a member abandons his group whenever he feels like it? Why don't you go ask a military man that? The answer is bloody obvious...the druid won't be coming back, because he's proven himself unreliable and not part of the team. The warband leader won't want him part of the warband. Sure, he may wander alongside them...but the warband won't consider him a member. But we are talking about druids who do JOIN the military, JOIN the warbands, and presumably take orders. In other words, they are members of a team. And yet, for some reason, won't work with those employing them in some really strange arguments for "Oh, you paid me to help you kill those guys, not to heal you up if you get hurt fighting them while I was helping you." RIGHTO, Chumley, that's going to fly...the medic in the party doesn't have to waste his efforts on those he's working for. Yessir. Good MILITARY discipline there. Yeah, I see all the reasoning behind those arguments works...not! ==Aelryinth 1. Page numbers please. I would like to know where it says "you most certainly can hire them to be caravan guards and wall guards, because that's exactly the sort of thing they did for the Cyrans before they decided that if they had to do the boring duties, they might as well collect all the tax dollars instead of just a bunch of them." Again, this is nonstandard, a point you have yet to address. Your own campaign may have this as the reason, and that's fine. Kudos to you, it makes the Valenar a little more morally black and whtie, and thus a bit more of a surprise for players who expect all the ancestor stuff. However, this is not the ECS's standpoint. This is not any Eberron book's standpoint. Nowhere does it state that their jobs were either offensive or defensive specifically that I can recall, however the implication is that they were strictly offense, unless of course your ancestor was the last Elf to hold the line as the others retreated from Xen'drik or some other defensive ancestor. Since most of them were offensive, that's what they'd do. Again, they don't do whatever they are told. They fight how their ancestors guide them, and how the Valenar war leaders guide them, who are also guided by ancestors. Cyre had no say in what they were doing beyond, "Please don't hit me or my friends!" and when a friend left, they were informed, to which most of the Valenar tacticians would probably respond, "Yes, we know." since their tactical minds are striving towards exceeding legendary tacticians...or else because they're on the front lines, where the previous ally had begun attacking them. Again, please source the quote above, because I am positive this is just your campaign, and not the setting. 2. My arguments to the contrary focused on a central point, which I'll reiterate: your campaign is nonstandard. You have yet to put a page number or article reference to anything I've asked you to. 3. Ok, so the Nazis were called a lot of positive names by the international community before they started attacking Poland, and by that point a lot of bad stuff had gone down. Just because someone calls someone something doesn't mean that's true to what they are. It's something someone calls them. They don't consider themselves mercs, and so, are not. As previously stated by someone else here, Valenar do it on their own terms. No one else can tell them what to do, save for, "Please don't hit me or my friends!" That's it. Anything past that is an insult, and they'd break it off. No contracts, just money for them so wreak havoc on everything that isn't Cyran or Cyran allied. 4. If a respected individual like a druid refused to participate, so would the warband. Druids are right up their with the Clerics who decide who your spirit is at birth. 5-7. When they were fighting alongside Cyrans, they would have been helping each other equally, as would the Aundairians if they were allied with Cyre at the time, and since alliances shifted, it probably happened more than once. This has nothing to do with the "mercenary nature" of the Valenar. That's like saying the Canadians were mercenaries in World War II because their medics aided American soldiers. To quote a brilliant mind on these forums, "Yeah, I see all the reasoning behind those arguments works...not!" Well, aelryinth, hope you enjoyed this installment of, "I won't read it, really, nor respond to the main points!" as much as you've enjoyed all my previous installments.
davethebrave371 11-25-05, 09:53 AM	"Yeah, I see all the reasoning behind those arguments works...not!" We were writing these things at the same time! :w00t: HIGH FIVE!
Errant 11-25-05, 09:55 AM	We were writing these things at the same time! :w00t: HIGH FIVE! Heheh, at least we seem to be on the same page. :D
davethebrave371 11-25-05, 10:06 AM	Heheh, at least we seem to be on the same page. :D Double entendré!
Errant 11-25-05, 10:20 AM	1. Page numbers please. I'm quite curious to see whether Aelryinth will even acknowledge this question. ...Valenar do it on their own terms. No one else can tell them what to do, save for, "Please don't hit me or my friends!" Great quote. :D 4. If a respected individual like a druid refused to participate, so would the warband. Druids are right up their with the Clerics who decide who your spirit is at birth. Personally I think it would depend on why the druid refused to participate. Its one thing to refuse because its a minor mission and there's an important ceremony coming up back home, its another thing to refuse because the mission itself will violate an important tradition or result in the destruction of something sacred. I think its pretty safe to say that a druid's opinion would be carefully weighed and considered before committing to a course of action though. 5-7. When they were fighting alongside Cyrans, they would have been helping each other equally, as would the Aundairians if they were allied with Cyre at the time, and since alliances shifted, it probably happened more than once. This has nothing to do with the "mercenary nature" of the Valenar. That's like saying the Canadians were mercenaries in World War II because their medics aided American soldiers. To quote a brilliant mind on these forums, "Yeah, I see all the reasoning behind those arguments works...not!" Even when the Valenar are fighting alongside someone I think its entirely possible that the conserve their spell use, just in case. The average warrior might be able to carry a hundred arrows without too much trouble, but the 'average' spell caster of any kind is unlikely to have as many spells. Even if a Valenar druid happens to be there when the field is won, the enemy routed and fallen companions are still bleeding from mortal wounds, who's to say he actually prepared any Cure spells? It may well have been more important that he use Entangles to break enemy cavalry charges, Warp Wood to hamper enemy archers, Obscuring Mist to cover allied charges, and Summon Natures Allies to create havoc within enemy ranks. Would a Cure Light Wounds really be more important than stopping a charge from crashing into your unit's flanks? A Valenar druid inspired by the reputation of an ancestor famous for healing the wounded might make Cure spells a high priority. A Valenar druid inspired by an ancestor famous for wielding flame and lightning against giants might only consider it as an afterthought. Thats one of the features of druids even more than clerics, there are many different ways they can specialise and wield their class abilities.
aelryinth 11-25-05, 05:38 PM	Both of you get so off base in your examples it makes my head spin. Haven't you read anything of what Hellcow has posted on the history of the Valenar? It sure doesn't look like it. Your heads are so wrapped up in the "Valenar Super-elf" mindset you are ignoring the very practicalities of what being a soldier and a mercenary is all about. Then you turn around and use the examples of huge warbands in the Last War for examples of spellcasting. This is more examples of utter ignorance. IF the Valenar have strong spellcasters, and are fighting alongside other forces, coordination of spells and effects maximizes the use and power of all involved. In effect, the Valenar will work WITH those who hired them, as long as it is not clearly to their detriment. But I'm not talking about armies, I'm talking about a warband of 4-8 Valenar. Who happen to number a druid among their number. And you happen to be the one who hired them or him. The way you see Valenar I'm suprised they remember to eat and drink while pursuing their 'utter mastery' in emulation of their ancestors. Ancestral emulation might be their goal in life, but it is not their life and breath the way the two of you seem to think. Nonstandard campaign? I think the two of you have got some very overdone views on the Valenar, and need a healthy dose of reality brought to your elves...and you need to read more of what Hellcow has posted about them. Which, incidentally, he did because I demanded answers about Valenar from other aspects. His whole take on Valenar horses basically came out of the fact that I had another money-making scheme about capturing Valenar horses and selling them off for stud. Because of the huge economic incentive there, he had to have a plausible reason that this could not happen, and hence his article. Without that justification, he just couldn't mount a defense against what I was doing. I know a great deal about how the Valenar think from arguing with Hellcow. I think the two of you need a leg up on them. ==Aelryinth
davethebrave371 11-25-05, 06:30 PM	...I didn't misunderstand anything, I'm looking at it with a much broader perspective then you obviously are...and unlike a lot of people, I don't mind disagreeing with Hellcow...life is more fun that way. So keep your little narrowminded commentary to yourself and argue the points... ...Haven't you read anything of what Hellcow has posted on the history of the Valenar?... ...Nonstandard campaign? I think the two of you have got some very overdone views on the Valenar, and need a healthy dose of reality brought to your elves...and you need to read more of what Hellcow has posted about them... ...I know a great deal about how the Valenar think from arguing with Hellcow. I think the two of you need a leg up on them. Please note your first and last comments. One is from earlier, one is from now. I'm glad to see your "broad mind" is able to "narrow back" into what you criticized earlier. But, more importantly, SOURCE. I still don't believe anything you say is standard Eberron, because you still haven't sourced. SOURCE PLEASE AND THANK YOU SIR
mhacdebhandia 11-25-05, 06:46 PM	you are ignoring the very practicalities of what being a soldier and a mercenary is all about. You're ignoring the fact that the Valenar aren't typical mercenaries. You're ignoring that it is nowhere made explicit that persuading a Valenar warband to fight for you means you get to tell them exactly what to do. You're ignoring the cultural factors which suggest strongly, if not explicitly state, that Valenar warbands are not obedient sellswords for hire, but rather independent warriors seeking battle for their own purposes who can be turned against one's enemies if properly convinced. You're assuming that your mental vision of what a mercenary contract looks like - complete with clauses "all spellcasters will use their healing on my other troops at my command" - is necessarily what a mercenary contract in Eberron would look like. You're assuming that even if this personal mental vision is accurate, it would apply to the Valenar. You're assuming that their strongly idiosyncratic cultural traits which virtually mandate against such pedestrian dealings don't actually get in the way. Actually, even you recognise the absurdity of your arguments. You're upset about this whole thing because you don't like that you perceive an end-run around the rule against divine casters selling their services in Eberron. You've cited numerous reasons why it should be against a druid's nature to serve in the military - and this whole line of argument is actually an example of reductio ad absurdum on your part to support your initial claim that druids shouldn't be involved in Valenar military actions at all, because it's supposedly contrary to their (pardon the pun) nature. (Let's leave aside the issue of whether or not a given Valenar druid's faith is necessarily exclusive of the idea of serving his country's interests. I mean, I don't see anything in the Eberron canon to suggest that there's a set of tenets which require any given druid to remain aloof from temporal affairs - and in the case of the Eldeen Reaches, plenty of evidence to suggest that some druids are extremely interested in the work of supporting a "nation" which reflects their values. Perhaps you're carrying too much baggage from other settings, hmm?) So let's collate your fallacies: Mercenary contracts in Eberron work in this very specific way which makes sense to me. Valenar warbands, which are described as fighting as mercenaries, must therefore abide by my idea of a mercenary contract despite the clear cultural reasons they have to not accept such conditions. Any druids who ride with a Valenar warband must be treated exactly the same as any other soldier, despite their special status in Tairnadal culture. Therefore such druids will always be treated as walking cure-dispensers by the soldiers and commanders of whatever force pays the warband's wages. This, of course, despite statements from the setting's creator which undermine your mistaken assumptions, and despite the more sensible and perceptive inferences of, gee, everyone else in this thread. Right.
Errant 11-25-05, 09:15 PM	Both of you get so off base in your examples it makes my head spin. Haven't you read anything of what Hellcow has posted on the history of the Valenar? It sure doesn't look like it. Your heads are so wrapped up in the "Valenar Super-elf" mindset you are ignoring the very practicalities of what being a soldier and a mercenary is all about. Yeah, yeah, for sure Aelryinth. Lets ignore what others are saying just because they don't agree with you. Lets just throw around accusations without quoting anything AS USUAL. Point us toward a statement by Hellcow, in context, that supports your arguments. Hell, quote anything where any of us spoke about a "Valenar Super-elf". Go on, I dare you. :P Then you turn around and use the examples of huge warbands in the Last War for examples of spellcasting. This is more examples of utter ignorance. IF the Valenar have strong spellcasters, and are fighting alongside other forces, coordination of spells and effects maximizes the use and power of all involved. In effect, the Valenar will work WITH those who hired them, as long as it is not clearly to their detriment. Utter ignorance? Where did we mention huge warbands? Where did we say Valenar spellcasters would not coordinate spells with their allies of the moment? Again, NO QUOTES! Utter ignorance? Insults still won't make you right. But I'm not talking about armies, I'm talking about a warband of 4-8 Valenar. Who happen to number a druid among their number. And you happen to be the one who hired them or him. Ignoring, again, the implication that we talk about "armies" without providing a quote. The fact that our arguments are equally true for "the warclan, a group of two hundred to five hundred elves" as for "warbands that consist of eight to twelve individuals" (ECS p.210) doesn't change the argument. You STILL don't respond to the arguments over the respect and value druids earn as a result of all the other roles they play in Valenar society beyond just slinging spells in combat and MAYBE curing wounds sometimes. Thankyou for proving that you are talking about YOUR campaign too Aelryinth. YOU are talking about "4-8 Valenar", not the warbands described in official material. The way you see Valenar I'm suprised they remember to eat and drink while pursuing their 'utter mastery' in emulation of their ancestors. Ancestral emulation might be their goal in life, but it is not their life and breath the way the two of you seem to think. More accusations instead of quotes. You're the one who seems to think someone's a "merc", and by implication willing to do anything for gold, just because they accept money to do a particular task. Still ignoring our observations regarding the practicalities of accepting money for doing things you believe in regardless. Nonstandard campaign? I think the two of you have got some very overdone views on the Valenar, and need a healthy dose of reality brought to your elves...and you need to read more of what Hellcow has posted about them. Again, did YOU read the rest of the dragonshard that Hellcow wrote? Did you consider at all the implications of the many other roles in Valenar society? Can you offer any quotes to support your positions? Which, incidentally, he did because I demanded answers about Valenar from other aspects. His whole take on Valenar horses basically came out of the fact that I had another money-making scheme about capturing Valenar horses and selling them off for stud. Because of the huge economic incentive there, he had to have a plausible reason that this could not happen, and hence his article. Without that justification, he just couldn't mount a defense against what I was doing. Which, incidentally, he did because he cares about the campaign world he helped create so much that he is willing to spend his spare time reading these boards and responding to all kinds of issues and questions. He responded to yet another instance of your house rules varying from the published standard. The published standard being that "a member of the Valaes Tairn values his horse and his patron ancestor above all things" (ECS p.210 again), plus the logical implication from the first "Adventure Idea" under the Valenar entry in the ECS, that for house Vadalis to acquire Valenar horses they need to mount raids to steal them. Your standard of course being that they could breed their own somehow, or steal them and sell them with impunity on a regular basis. I know a great deal about how the Valenar think from arguing with Hellcow. I think the two of you need a leg up on them. You talk a great deal about your interpretations. Arguing with Hellcow doesn't make you right (and by right I mean in accordance with official material). It makes him even more tolerant and indulgent than he had already shown himself to be. If you're really such an expert, share some of the alleged quotes Hellcow has provided that agree your arguments. We're here sharing our observations because we enjoy the official world enough that we like to explore the implications official material has in a wider view, so that we can all enjoy a richer campaign world consistent with the official setting, so that we can understand where our own campaigns vary from the official. So far, you appear to be here to troll for arguments. Prove me wrong.
a_psh 11-25-05, 09:35 PM	aelryinth, I don't mean to be rude, but... ...Still waiting for some explanations here... Emphasis added. They really are simple questions. Hell, you can probably just cut/paste what you wrote on another thread. It'd take all of 10 minutes. But, uh, I would really appreciate it if you could just clarify your own points, specifically those mentioned herein (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7836665&postcount=77). Also, could you explain how the stuff you're talking about on this thread, which basically says You can get spellcasting services for the costs listed in the PHB translates into a "money-making scheme" (your own words)?
davethebrave371 11-25-05, 10:06 PM	a_psh and Errant, I wouldn't waste your time. He'll just make another post where he pounds into our skulls that his opinion is superior because he says so, and not source, or even mention that we asked him to source, at all. Ever. I've pretty much given up hope on him.
Errant 11-25-05, 11:41 PM	Well Dave, I'm mostly curious to see whether he's capable of rising above troll level. After reading a fair number of his posts (here and on other threads) I have my doubts, but I've yet to decide whether he's ignorant and arrogant or just trying to provoke argument. If all he can do is throw around dismissive insults and personal opinions without any reference to official sources to back him up I'll assume he's just trolling. Hopefully this will give the moderators a chance to reign him in and let rational discussion take hold again. If he can rise to a rational level it will help all of us explore things without the frustration his current standard is provoking. I live in hope, but I'm not holding my breath.
a_psh 11-26-05, 01:30 AM	Y'know, an entire page spent calling someone a troll is bad form, no matter what troll-like qualities someone may or may not exhibit. If you're going to point it out at all, point it out once and keep moving with the actual debate. I'm worried too many personal attacks will lead to me never getting my simple answers; vagueness sucks: I want to actually see this damned theory explained and laid out clearly before I choose to either buy into it or rip it apart. Just sayin', is all.
aelryinth 11-26-05, 03:46 AM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's four of you giving one another slaps on the backs for flaming me, and just me arguing my point in return. I don't have the time nor the inclination to carry on flame wars with 3 people who immediately jump to one another's defense. I'm not going to be dictated to on what I can and should post, either. I will make the following statements... Just because the Valenar love to fight doesn't mean they are exempt from the standard codes of conduct that apply to any solider/military hireling. Yet, you infer over and over again that they can pretty much do their own thing...then turn around and say they won't. Where is this and where are YOU getting this from? Oops, warband of 8-12 vs 4-8. Got the numbers mixed up. Hey, wonderful, druids form all these OTHER duties in the Valenar society. Did I say I had a problem with them? Why, no, no, I didn't. I have a problem with them serving in a military capacity in a mercenary warband, essentially shelling out divine spells for, not just healing for allies, but combat spells too! And that means I can hire them to do the same for me! Money making scheme? Um, okay. My priest hires out as a mercenary, effectively selling his spellcasting for cash. By the rules, I shouldn't be able to do this unless it's a mission for the faith. Yet, by the example the Valenar set, and as long as I can 'justify it' with some stretch of doctrine as liberal as a Valenar Druid can about emulating some ancestor (who wasn't doing merc work, either) I am fully justified in doing the exact same thing. Is it per spell? Probably not...but it could easily be per day or per week, and command a substantial amount of money, now, couldn't it? And if the Valenar can do it, then ALL the faiths can do it. Dave goes ahead and points out that Valenar super-elves won't ever be mercenaries in his above posts because the only thing they think about is emulating their ancestors. Someone even argues they aren't mercs at all. They may not be human mercs, but they are mercs, and they appreciate gold as much as the next merc. They just tend to be more enthusiastic about combat then most fighters...because they come from a culture idolizing combat and acheivement. IF they didn't behave as proper mercenaries, they wouldn't get hired. But they DO get hired, so they ARE considered proper mercenaries...which means they act like soldiers, albeit with more skills then your average Deneith level 2 Fighter. These are the points I'm arguing, and you seem to be constantly hopping around those points. You blow it up to the Last War and Warclan status. You tie it to Holy Places. You make the Druid refuse because it's not his duty as a soldier (which it is). You argue about all the other kinds of druids. In other words, you keep coming in at different angles which don't mean anything to the central premise I'm seeing here, and then you decry me for not answering these off-target questions that have no bearing on what I'm laying out. Dave even has the gall to say I don't know what I'm talking about, despite the dance he's doing around my points and his strange interpretations of them, and his shooting tangents off into the ether. I didn't start the flaming, but I can't say I like it when a name I don't even recognize has the temerity to say I don't know what I'm posting, when I'm the primary source responsible for much of the thought that went into the post in question. As for where Hellcow posted much of the Valenar material, that was on the Karrnath Sucks thread that I started, which so far is the longest independent thread on these entire boards (as in, not made primarily for Hellcow). And yes, my argument there was pretty simple. Given the huge superiority of the Valenar horses over average horseflesh, you could make a SUPERB living killing Valenar for their gear and selling off their horses. Their best horses would go for fortunes...the best of the breed always do. The sheer amount of money to be made practically insures that it would be a great money-maker and a strong incentive to raid the hell out of the Valenar. One average Valenar Warhorse is better then the BEST Magebred animal...think about that in terms of Thoroughbreds and you get an idea of the money involved. Hellcow specifically had to ameliorate the fact that Valenar Warhorses could be sold and retrained; could be bred for cash (who cares about ******* off Valenar by riding them? stud rights, man!); and their lifespan (which affects the size of the herds). Valenar horses aren't even horses anymore, IMO. They have a lifespan longer then that of humans, won't accept any non-elven rider, and won't breed with other horses at all. That screams of so much magical interference in their bloodline it just isn't 'normal'. (And I also find it funny because the Prophecy picked humans as the 'animal-friendly' Dragonmark House, and the Races of Destiny book specifically points out humans as having the strongest bonds with horses). Personally, I'd make the Valenar Warhorses magical beasts, which would take them out of the Horse equation entirely. And that all came about because of the economic incentives of killing Valenar and making off with their incomparable horses. There ARE no high grade horses, except for Valenar...the best of the Magebred simply don't compare. Hellcow had to justify all of that...and he did, and now it's official. Yay for Ael prodding him to cover weaknesses in the setting. But the very first argument I had with him was over his extremely paradoxical stand that clerics wouldn't sell divine spells for cash...despite the fact that there is NO divine penalty for doing so. And we went on for pages and pages of example and counter-example, until finally, I wore him down and he finally admitted that YES, a rare cleric could sell his spells for cash, and not be penalized by the divine. he'd only have to face censure by his Church...which, in many cases (especially tailor-made adventurer-priests), meant he'd face no censure at all...and even if he was censured, he'd STILL be able to cast the spells as long as his 'faith stayed true'. Justification is a slippery slope. Hellcow really, really wants no divine spellcasting for cash in any form to be a firm part of the setting. By sticking druids into Valenar Merc warbands, he's effectively stepping around his own restrictions. The reasons why the Druid is a merc are irrelevant...he IS a merc, he's selling his spellcasting capability for coin, not for faith or belief, to the service of another. You can wrap all that up in pretty words that boil down to one thing...rationalizing something that just shouldn't BE there. The reason why I brought it up is because he's opening his door for any other priest to do the exact same thing that Druid is...make some flimsy excuse about pursuing the will of the gods, sword of the faith, hand of the holy, blahblahblah, and you break down the wall AGAIN. So, I'm calling him on it. If he doesn't think it violates the cash for spells barriar, I'll just shrug and feel free to initiate the exact same kind of behavior for divine casters of ALL faiths, not just the Valenar. And I can rationalize why with the exact same arguments he's using for the elves, and suddenly we have priests on the payroll and their magic at the service of their paymasters. And all of this can be stopped by simply noting that the Druids don't serve militarily in the mercenary warbands, but they do serve in the Warclans riding patrol around Valenar. See, I even gave him an easy 'out'. ==Aelryinth
nick012000 11-26-05, 03:53 AM	What I want to know is if Valenar paladins can get Valenar warhorses for their special mounts.
Errant 11-26-05, 05:44 AM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's four of you giving one another slaps on the backs for flaming me, and just me arguing my point in return. I was trying to challenge you to provide something more than your personal opinion Aelryinth, or at the very least to demonstrate the odd reader that might take your opinion for canon where the differences are. If that’s flaming you, my apologies to the rest of the community. For the record, I got the distinct impression that a_psh was slapping the rest of us on the knuckles. (Point taken a_psh, but so far I just can’t let Aelryinth pass off his personal interpretations as fact without challenging his inconsistencies with official material). I don't have the time nor the inclination to carry on flame wars with 3 people who immediately jump to one another's defense. I'm not going to be dictated to on what I can and should post, either. Flame wars? You’ve made numerous dismissive comments and been asked to show something, anything, in canon material supporting the opinions you present as fact. That said, I’ll strive to avoid responding any further to the labels you put on our posts. I will make the following statements... Just because the Valenar love to fight doesn't mean they are exempt from the standard codes of conduct that apply to any solider/military hireling. Yet, you infer over and over again that they can pretty much do their own thing...then turn around and say they won't. Where is this and where are YOU getting this from? Again, “a member of the Valaes Tairn values his horse and his patron ancestor above all things” (ECS p.210). Seems pretty clear there that gold isn’t their highest priority. No reference to the mythical “standard codes of conduct that apply to any soldier/military hireling"? I believe Hirelings are primarily covered on p.105 of the DMG where it is noted that they "do as they’re told (at least in theory)”, where it further noted that they are free to demand extra pay, leave, or maybe even turn on their employer. Lets also not forget, that section on Hirelings specifically defines Mercenary as “a 1st level warrior”, and Mercenary Cavalry as “a 1st-level warrior who can ride and fight on horseback”. Spellcasters and spellcasting services are not included in the sections on typical hirelings. Hey, wonderful, druids form all these OTHER duties in the Valenar society. Did I say I had a problem with them? Why, no, no, I didn't. I have a problem with them serving in a military capacity in a mercenary warband, essentially shelling out divine spells for, not just healing for allies, but combat spells too! And that means I can hire them to do the same for me! I’m not aware of it saying anywhere that they serve in a “military capacity in a mercenary warband”, again that’s your interpretation. I’ve already mentioned what the dragonshard actually said. They may not be human mercs, but they are mercs, and they appreciate gold as much as the next merc. They just tend to be more enthusiastic about combat then most fighters...because they come from a culture idolizing combat and acheivement. IF they didn't behave as proper mercenaries, they wouldn't get hired. But they DO get hired, so they ARE considered proper mercenaries...which means they act like soldiers, albeit with more skills then your average Deneith level 2 Fighter. “Heroic deeds and glory in battle are the two goals of the Valaes Tairn” (ECS p.210, my emphasis), gold is a means to an end, not the driving motivator it is for average mercenaries. If I refuse some contracts because I value my horse and my patron ancestor more than anything and I decline to put my mount at unacceptable risk or shame my ancestors, but I do a really good job when I do take a contract, I can be pretty sure people are still going to come back and see if I’m willing to do new tasks for them in the future. They probably won't come back for ANY task, but if the right kind of task needs doing why wouldn't they come back? These are the points I'm arguing, and you seem to be constantly hopping around those points. You blow it up to the Last War and Warclan status. You tie it to Holy Places. You make the Druid refuse because it's not his duty as a soldier (which it is). You argue about all the other kinds of druids. The points you are arguing are your opinions, stated as fact. I for one have tried to demonstrate how and where they are inconsistent with the official material I have read in the hopes that you (and anyone that might mistake your opinion as representative of official material) can run or enjoy Eberron consistent with the official setting as a whole, IF you so choose. In other words, you keep coming in at different angles which don't mean anything to the central premise I'm seeing here, and then you decry me for not answering these off-target questions that have no bearing on what I'm laying out. Dave even has the gall to say I don't know what I'm talking about, despite the dance he's doing around my points and his strange interpretations of them, and his shooting tangents off into the ether. Assuming your central premise is your “problem with them serving in a military capacity in a mercenary warband”, see my previous response. Personally I’m sure you know a lot about what you’re talking about, but you’re talking about your campaign, not the official campaign. I didn't start the flaming, but I can't say I like it when a name I don't even recognize has the temerity to say I don't know what I'm posting, when I'm the primary source responsible for much of the thought that went into the post in question. I believe the primary source responsible was Hellcow’s willingness to explain his take on the finer points of the setting he helped create for those who are curious about his opinion or seemed to be seeing things inconsistently. I’ll avoid any arguing that further, just as I’ll avoid rehashing the issues from your Karrnath Sucks thread here. Hellcow really, really wants no divine spellcasting for cash in any form to be a firm part of the setting. By sticking druids into Valenar Merc warbands, he's effectively stepping around his own restrictions. The reasons why the Druid is a merc are irrelevant...he IS a merc, he's selling his spellcasting capability for coin, not for faith or belief, to the service of another. You can wrap all that up in pretty words that boil down to one thing...rationalizing something that just shouldn't BE there. Hey, congrats on being appointed Hellcow’s press agent! [/end sarcasm] Again, the dragonshard that spawned this thread doesn’t “stick druids into Valenar Merc warbands”, that’s your interpretation. I’ve already discussed the ONE sentence that puts druids with a warband. The reason why I brought it up is because he's opening his door for any other priest to do the exact same thing that Druid is...make some flimsy excuse about pursuing the will of the gods, sword of the faith, hand of the holy, blahblahblah, and you break down the wall AGAIN. I doubt I really need to defend Hellcow, but I will point out that blurry morals and ethics are number 2 on the Ten Things You Need To Know about Eberron (paraphrasing ECS p.8). The section on Clerics And Deities even states that “whether the deities even truly grant divine spellcasting ability to their clerics remains an open question, since even corrupt clerics can cast spells”. This is well covered in the ECS, since selling services for cash contrary to your organisation’s offical policy is a common form of corruption, it hardly seems surprising that while most clergy would reserve the spells for use in line with official dogma there would nevertheless be some that cross this line. So, I'm calling him on it. If he doesn't think it violates the cash for spells barriar, I'll just shrug and feel free to initiate the exact same kind of behavior for divine casters of ALL faiths, not just the Valenar. And I can rationalize why with the exact same arguments he's using for the elves, and suddenly we have priests on the payroll and their magic at the service of their paymasters. Of course you can initate the exact same kind of behavior for divine casters of all faiths. The sections on corrupt clerics opens the door and lays out a welcome mat. That doesn’t mean that behavior is ‘normal’ for divine casters, of any kind, in general. And all of this can be stopped by simply noting that the Druids don't serve militarily in the mercenary warbands, but they do serve in the Warclans riding patrol around Valenar. Nowhere does it say they DO serve “militarily in the mercenary” warbands, that’s another one of your assumptions. As written, they might, or they might not, it depends entirely on the druid and warband concerned and more importantly on how you choose to play it.
Errant 11-26-05, 05:55 AM	What I want to know is if Valenar paladins can get Valenar warhorses for their special mounts. Well, Valenar warhorses aren't quite any of the standard mounts described in the SRD, but it seems a reasonable house rule to me. They are clearly superior to standard heavy warhorses, even if they are the same CR they're much faster, have +1 AC, an extra 4 Hps on average, and better stats on average. For what its worth, IMC, I'd say Valenar paladins can get Valenar warhorses as their special mounts but the paladin is considered two levels lower when calculating the mount's advancement.
Roxlimn 11-26-05, 11:36 AM	aelryinth: Without that justification, he just couldn't mount a defense against what I was doing. With all due respect, sir, it seemed more like you were spinning your yarn out of thin air without any regard whatsoever for existing Eberron canon. Your farfetched tales had Valenar Warhorses eager to be bred in Vadalis stables where this was nowhere mentioned to be true, and many times hinted to be completely impossible. Hellcow doesn't need to "mount a defense" for his ideas. The postulate that Valenar Warhorses were almost absolutely unavailable to anyone outside of a Valenar tribe is unquestionably true. You simply and blithely ignored it. Of course, such a status quo requires some bit of exposition on the exact nature of the barriers, but this is just as true for Eberron's unique sociopolitical climate as it is for Valenar Horses, and indeed, for a whole lot of the setting, since you really can't explore every little bit of minutiae in one go. There are any number of plausible reasons why Valenar Warhorses cannot be bred by House Vadalis. Your inability to come up with one is more a failure of your imagination than a weakness of the setting. Of course, such wholesale disregard for major points of Eberron lore has punctuated all your posts in that thread, and I'm hardly surprised to see the trend continued here. I respect your right to create your own material for your own campaign, but please do not mistake that respect (and Hellcow's good nature) for acqueisence to your supposed expertise on Mr. Baker's setting material.
rig 11-26-05, 02:40 PM	Dear Aelryinth, Pease STOP STEROTYPING MERCENARIES! Ditto everyone else
a_psh 11-26-05, 03:08 PM	Money making scheme? Um, okay. My priest hires out as a mercenary, effectively selling his spellcasting for cash. By the rules, I shouldn't be able to do this unless it's a mission for the faith. Yet, by the example the Valenar set, and as long as I can 'justify it' with some stretch of doctrine as liberal as a Valenar Druid can about emulating some ancestor (who wasn't doing merc work, either) I am fully justified in doing the exact same thing. Is it per spell? Probably not...but it could easily be per day or per week, and command a substantial amount of money, now, couldn't it? And if the Valenar can do it, then ALL the faiths can do it.(Emphasis added.) Thank you for the response. I'm still unclear on something, though - the portion that is highlighted above. Where is the actual prohibition on divine spellcasting for money? ... A priest can sell spells for money, as far as I'm aware. I got the distinct impression that this was the case in Eberron already, based on statements from ECS pg 35 and a lack of contradiction when I look at ECS pg 67. For that matter, I got the distinct impression that, since PCs can walk up to a priest of Pelor or Lathandar or what have you and get spells-for-coin, this wasn't a problem created by Eberron's distant gods. Further, looking at S:CoT pg 23 (under "Spellcasting") shows me that the Archheirophant doesn't sell her spells for gold because she has better things to do (like trade divine power for favors), but that there's really nothing stopping her. So, other than people maybe getting a bit miffed if you ask them for healing in the middle of a big ol' worship ceremony, and the practical restriction that most high-level casters are busy being leaders, recluses, or heroes, what exactly is the limitation on divine spellcasting here? Also, how does this actively turn into a "money-making scheme" for Player Characters? Is it just a matter of trying to sell your magic for DMG prices and keeping the profits, or is there something more complicated and lucrative here?
davethebrave371 11-26-05, 05:40 PM	What's this? Everyone sourcing but aelryinth? I must be some sort of prophet or seer! MY VISION HAS COME TO PASS!!
aelryinth 11-26-05, 06:52 PM	Emphasis on the Can Sell, apsh. Further emphasis on the Won't Sell. Hellcow came down extremely firmly on the won't sell side of the argument, and there's all sorts of censure put on priests who 'treat divine magic so cheaply', and so forth. High level magic is particularly apt for this argument, but even low level priests/adepts do the same thing. It's the only REAL reason why Jorasco has been able to corner the market on healing schtuff...clerics shuffled themselves out of competition. But, 'mercenary service' is offering an 'out' to the 'will not' argument. -------------------- There might well be all sorts of reasons why Valenar horses couldn't be bred, and not a single real reason was ever given. And without that reason in effect, economic incentive takes over BIG TIME. You can pick up a horse for under ten grand in RL. A champion thoroughbred? Ten million. Valenar Warhorse= Champion Thoroughbred+. Even now, he doesn't give a real reason for WHY they can't be bred...the former reason was because the "Valenar take umbrage at anyone daring to ride a Valenar Warhorse." He lets you figure it out, specifically states that Vidalis is unable to replicate it, and in the Board messages he noted that it would make a fine quest for adventurers...and something bound to put them in direct conflict with the Valenar while they work to discover the secret. In the meantime, Valenar horses are to be considered Magebred+...because unlike the Magebred, they don't pass on their characteristics easily. He also specifically draws a line between Valenar Riding Horse and Valenar Warhorse, and the latter are truly special by some means or another...perhaps the key to the whole process. Valenar warriors get to ride horses better then that of a paladin's mount. -------------------------------- I'd let Valenar paladins get Valenar Warhorse mounts, at the cost of their summon mount ability...and probably a level or two behind, as noted above, as they are clearly superior to any normal horse (and thus take away one of the clear advantages of the Paladin class..) ------------------------ Beyond this, the Siyal Marrain are warriors. Just as their ancestors fought the giants with lightning and flame, the druids of the modern day may ride with a warband, turning the power of nature against their enemies. Not a Warclan. Not as an adjutant healer, or to take care of the horses. As a warrior and spellcaster, with a Warband. And Warbands are the ones who hire out as mercenaries. And 'enemy' is a highly mutable term for Valenar...as long as they can garner glory and get paid for it, enemy is simply anyone they can fight. If someone doesn't pay them, they go looking for an 'enemy'...the Nations call that 'raiding'. Doing a REALLY good job as a merc involves doing what you are told to do...not whatever you want to do. There might be tremendous latitude allowed, especially if you are not under direct command...but you do do what you are told to do if you hire out and expect to keep getting hired out. If the Valenar don't like the job they won't take it...did I argue against that? But if they do take the job and gold for it, there are expectations. Valenar are cited multiple times as mercenaries in the books, and by the rules you cite, that is impossible, since they'd all have to be first level warriors. Obviously, either the ECS is wrong, or the hireling ruling you cite is for your 'basic mercenary mook'. I'll leave it for you to decide which is right. Since even a ranger/4 is a spellcaster, and Hellcow's example warbands all include spellcasters, obviously it is impossible for Valenar to be the mercenaries they are described multiple times as being. ===Aelryinth
Just another user 11-26-05, 08:03 PM	If only for that he never give a reason of why the day of mourning happened, the valenar warhorse is not of that magnitude but it is one of the many things a good master could an should decide by himself. For example, a possible reason for the unability of house vadalis to breed the Valenar warhors: To get a valenar warhorse you need a male and a female of the right stock and only males horses are sent with the patrols outside of Valenar territoy If a male valenar warshorse is mated with a non valenar mare (a thing that the horse is very unwilling to do, and they are very hard to handles if you are not a valenar druid,his valenar rider or at least another valenar- and even in the last case forget that he let you ride him without the necessary bonding rituals) all you get is a standard horse, of exceptional quality maybe, but by all measure inferior to the father or even to a magebred horse. the few females that are not in Aerenal are kept in Valenar territory, religiously guarded by the druids . Only druids can get near them. For a non valenar that try to steal or even go near one it would means a slow and painful death (if they are lucky)
a_psh 11-26-05, 08:30 PM	Y'know, Just another user, that's a nice and simple reason that no one (Keith included) (myself also included) came up with in the "Karrnath sucks" thread. Meh, oversight. It's not bulletproof, perhaps, but it conveniently dangles the opportunity for plot hooks and adventure out there while making it really, really hard to get away with it. I much prefer that to a lot of magical hokey-pokey, actually. Consider it... YOINKED!
Hellcow 11-27-05, 12:24 AM	OK. I don't have time to get involved in a long discussion, as noted by the fact that I haven't started up a new AKB thread yet. I'd love to do a point by point discussion of the Valenar, mercenaries in Eberron, and religious mercenaries, but I'll confine myself to a few points, and this is all I'm going to say in the matter. First: As I said earlier in the thread (and in the Valenar Dragonshard) gold is not the motivating factor for Valenar mercenaries - it is a way to allow them to support their military activities, both on a personal level and letting gold flow back to the kingdom. With that said, I agree with Aelryinth that once the Valenar accept a task, they will attempt to perform it to the best of their abilities. If a warband agrees to the task of "Protect this person", healers in the band will heal that person. Take the task or don't, but if you take it, do it properly. The question is what assignments they will accept or be offered in the first place. The Valenar are highly skilled troops with specialists in cavalry actions and commando operations. The latter troops would be especially likely to be hired for remote operations: being as self-sufficent as they are, and not being clearly linked to your country, they're the perfect group to send raiding behind enemy lines - as shown in "Death at Whitehearth". While there's nothing saying you can't do it, I find it hard to imagine that Valenar soldiers would sign on to be wall guards: it's a very poor match for their skills, has little foundation their history or traditions (as they prefer mobile action to fortifications), and is the sort of thing where I could see a druid telling his commander "Sorry, but if you're going to spend the next month holed up in that hellhole, I'm heading out into the wilds in search of a challenge." And that's a key point: Challenge. I think the Valenar would certainly accept a position as caravan guards - if that would take them through the heart of enemy territory. If it's a routine trade road with no likely danger? Not so much. But again, Valenar are not Klingons, and they're not fools. They want a challenge, they want to accomplish great things in battle: but charging blindly into the fray is not their style. Defeating a superior enemy is a thing to be proud of: but cunning and tactical skill are just as important as strength and skill with the blade. Valenar cavalry soldiers rely on their manueverability, and their rangers use stealth and high Spot and Listen. Scout ahead, explore the territory - and whenever possible, don't be saddled with other units that can't match your skills. Anyhow, I could ramble on about this for ages, and I don't have time. Talk amongst yourselves! Hellcow really, really wants no divine spellcasting for cash in any form to be a firm part of the setting. Yes and no. What I don't want is for a temple to be seen as a storefront instead of a house of prayer. It is a simple fact that adepts of Olladra perform healing magic for gold at Jorasco healing houses. I think that you can find adepts of Dol Dorn in House Deneith, and that priests serving in the army of Thrane draw the same income as other soldiers. But that's the point: they draw the same income. When the priest of Dol Dorn heals his fallen brother in the heat of battle, he doesn't say "That'll be 50 gp, pal" - he does it because it is a part of his faith. I think Dreaming Duck described it quite well earlier: the community should support the priest, and thus the priest should not have to charge for his services. Mechanically nothing stops him from doing so, but that's not why the temple was built, it's not why people come to the church, and it's not why a cleric believes he has the powers that he has. Confession is a good example: if a local minister started charging his congregation for confession, it would be an insult. Now let's assume the priest can only perform confession twice each day. He's going to do it for members of his faith with the greatest need. If an outsider comes in who shares his faith, he may help him, if he believes that the outsider is worthy of his aid and that his own flock will not have a greater need. But he's still not going to say "For you? Fifty bucks." It is entirely appropriate for people to donate to a priest for his services. The church may require a tithe of the faithful or services from the congregation in order to support the priest. But the church should not be a marketplace - and the cleric who does charge you for confession is demeaning his role as shepherd of the faithful. With all that said, while both clerics and druids are divine spellcasters, I personally see an enormous difference between the two - similar to that between paladins and rangers. In my mind, "natural magic" should be its own category, despite having the same mechanics as clerical magic. A typical 4th-level Valenar ranger has access to natural magic, but this is secondary to his religion, not the defining element of it. Neither druid or ranger have the alignment aura associated with the paladin or cleric. And the key difference (in my mind, and I'm certainly willing to admit that this is in my campaign only) between a druid and a cleric with the animal and nature domains is that the cleric believes that she is the servant of a nature GOD... whereas the druid is more likely to be the servant of nature itself. Looking to the druids of Eberron, only a tiny fraction of them believe in any sort of personification of nature - those who do generally believing that Eberron itself is a sentient force. The rest are attuned to nature and understand how to call on its powers: but they do not believe that they are the chosen servants of a divine being... while a cleric of Balinor believes just that. The Valenar ranger doesn't think he's calling on a god when he uses entangle; he just knows the words that will cause the weeds to aid him, or what to whisper so his horse can understand his speech. I don't feel that this makes the druid vastly more likely to cast spells for cash. The Eldeen druids are to a large extent the priesthood of the Reaches, and they do what they do to protect and guide the people of the Reaches. But I do see it as a valuable distinction nonetheless. The cleric of Aureon may not lose his powers the instant he sells a spell: but he should still believe that he is a chosen servant of Aureon, and the question is whether or not selling spells on a regular basis is what his faith dictates and what Aureon wants for him and for the congregation. So really it IS up to you. I am trying to make faith more like faith in our world, and things I write for the setting will reflect that. Want a blessing? Go to a temple. Want healing? Go to the hospital. An adept of the goddess of healing may in fact heal you at the hospital, if that's where her sense of duty and devotion has led her - but she's doing it in a place of business, not a sanctum of the divine. If it's a shrine instead of a Jorasco healing house, I'd expect the adepts to be saving their magic for the most hopeless cases who they will heal at no charge... relying on the donations of the community to support these good works. But that's what I'm doing in my campaigns and my sourcebooks. Your campaign? Do as you see fit. There's no need to make an end run around things. Just ask yourself "Does the priest believe this is why he has his powers? Do the faithful believe that this is how a priest should behave? Is this why the faith established this building here?" If the answer to all these is yes, sell away. If it's no, then you can still sell - but the priest is either violating his personal faith, the conduct of the church, or the trust of his flock. The reason why I brought it up is because he's opening his door for any other priest to do the exact same thing that Druid is...make some flimsy excuse about pursuing the will of the gods, sword of the faith, hand of the holy, blahblahblah, and you break down the wall AGAIN. I don't see it as a flimsy excuse at all. As I said: I expect a priest of Dol Dorn to seek out conflict. I think it's entirely appropriate for an adept of Dol Dorn to serve in a mercenary company. Dol Dorn is a god of war. I'd expect such a priest to heal his companions when they are injured in battle. But I wouldn't expect him to just sell a cure to a random guy he meets on the street who offers him a bag of gold. The question is why he believes he has been granted his divine powers and what he is supposed to do with them. In my opinion, "selling them to strangers" should be low on that list. And on the whole horse-breeding business: the crux of the argument for me was that the ECS makes clear that people aren't making a fortune selling Valenar horses, because if they were, Vadalis wouldn't still be desperate to get them. What it doesn't do is provide a clear and logical explanation of why... in part because it has limited space in which to address things. Having Vadalis want the horses serves a useful function within a campaign. It creates a country that has a particular flavor - superior horses - and it gives a group of PCs a possible goal (steal horses) or potential reward (receive a Valenar warhorse as a gift). I certainly consider it valuable to try to fill the gaps in the ECS and that's my goal on these boards. Of course there are holes in the world and things that won't make sense: it's a growing setting with limited material in existence. But if something is unclear - why hasn't Vadalis already caught and bred Valenar horses over the last 50 years? - I'd rather find a logical answer that preserves the existing goals of the setting than abandon what we've already said. I guess, ultimately, all I'm trying to say is that finding problems is easy: solving them is the challenge, and I appreciate the work of everyone who's helped us solve our problems since the setting has come out.
davethebrave371 11-27-05, 12:57 AM	But that's what I'm doing in my campaigns and my sourcebooks. Your campaign? Do as you see fit. There's no need to make an end run around things. Just ask yourself "Does the priest believe this is why he has his powers? Do the faithful believe that this is how a priest should behave? Is this why the faith established this building here?" If the answer to all these is yes, sell away. If it's no, then you can still sell - but the priest is either violating his personal faith, the conduct of the church, or the trust of his flock. This is my position as well. In your own game, do what thou wilt, and that shall be the whole of the DM's law unless you bribe him. :D
aelryinth 11-27-05, 03:23 AM	If only for that he never give a reason of why the day of mourning happened, the valenar warhorse is not of that magnitude but it is one of the many things a good master could an should decide by himself. For example, a possible reason for the unability of house vadalis to breed the Valenar warhors: To get a valenar warhorse you need a male and a female of the right stock and only males horses are sent with the patrols outside of Valenar territoy If a male valenar warshorse is mated with a non valenar mare (a thing that the horse is very unwilling to do, and they are very hard to handles if you are not a valenar druid,his valenar rider or at least another valenar- and even in the last case forget that he let you ride him without the necessary bonding rituals) all you get is a standard horse, of exceptional quality maybe, but by all measure inferior to the father or even to a magebred horse. the few females that are not in Aerenal are kept in Valenar territory, religiously guarded by the druids . Only druids can get near them. For a non valenar that try to steal or even go near one it would means a slow and painful death (if they are lucky) Keep in mind that managing a captive horse of the Value of a breeding Valenar Warhorse is going to be trivial because of the potential return. Bridles to control the mounts will be on hand. As for only the males being allowed out, so what? This is a magical society. Use a polymorph spell or something similar, and change the horse's gender, and you get around the problem neatly. Geldings run into the problem of regeneration to fix the castration. So, no, that's not a fix :) Leaving it completely ambiguous but official is better. Vidalis can make the horses breed...but they can't make them sire horses of their bloodlines, meaning there is something more at work, then just lack of gender. ===Aelryinth
Errant 11-27-05, 03:36 AM	There might well be all sorts of reasons why Valenar horses couldn't be bred, and not a single real reason was ever given. Maybe that’s because the whole idea of a campaign setting is to give DMs a framework so that they can build on it themselves? Not to mention the whole reality of space considerations. -------------------------------- Beyond this, the Siyal Marrain are warriors. Just as their ancestors fought the giants with lightning and flame, the druids of the modern day may ride with a warband, turning the power of nature against their enemies. Wow, a real live quote from an official source! Almost makes me ignore the assumption that follows, the assumption that if “druids of the modern day may ride with a warband” they MUST ride with the warbands that hire out as mercenaries. If I read the ECS correctly, there are forty-five warclans roaming Valenar, twenty of which are the Host under the direct command of the high king. Ten of those are maintaining order throughout the realm while the rest engage in military operations dictated by the crown. The other warclans are free to conduct military operations and raids as they see fit, but I don’t believe is specified anywhere which warbands the druids ride with. All the warclans all seem to be subdivided into warbands, so that’s a lot of warbands just operating inside Valenar. Since its not specified, isn't it possible, within the published framework, that Valenar druids are NOT riding with mercenary warbands? Doing a REALLY good job as a merc involves doing what you are told to do...not whatever you want to do. There might be tremendous latitude allowed, especially if you are not under direct command...but you do do what you are told to do if you hire out and expect to keep getting hired out. Don’t you mean it involves doing what you are contracted to do, ie what you agree to do? If the Valenar don't like the job they won't take it...did I argue against that? But if they do take the job and gold for it, there are expectations. At least we agree on something. Although I did think you were arguing against it when you said “They may not be human mercs, but they are mercs, and they appreciate gold as much as the next merc. They just tend to be more enthusiastic about combat then most fighters...because they come from a culture idolizing combat and acheivement. IF they didn't behave as proper mercenaries, they wouldn't get hired. But they DO get hired, so they ARE considered proper mercenaries...which means they act like soldiers, albeit with more skills then your average Deneith level 2 Fighter." Valenar are cited multiple times as mercenaries in the books, and by the rules you cite, that is impossible, since they'd all have to be first level warriors. Obviously, either the ECS is wrong, or the hireling ruling you cite is for your 'basic mercenary mook'. I'll leave it for you to decide which is right. Since even a ranger/4 is a spellcaster, and Hellcow's example warbands all include spellcasters, obviously it is impossible for Valenar to be the mercenaries they are described multiple times as being. My apologies, I didn’t think I needed to explain that the section I quoted was just a quick rebuttal to the “standard codes of conduct that apply to any soldier/military hireling” you refered to (do you remember writing that?) If you want, I can try to explain in more depth. Just let me know. I’ll give you a clue: maybe there’s no such thing? Lets see if I now understand your position Aelryinth, you’re opposed to druids operating in the “military”, because if Valenar druids ride with warbands they must therefore serve among mercenary Valenar warbands (because its not specified that they’re NOT available) and are therefore provide spells for cash at cheap rates because they’re bound by mercenaries mysterious “standard codes of conduct”? All this because there's* no official source ruling it out? *edited: corrected typo, changing "despite" to "because there's"
Errant 11-27-05, 03:50 AM	edit: nevermind, bad post.
Roxlimn 11-27-05, 07:27 AM	aelryinth: There might well be all sorts of reasons why Valenar horses couldn't be bred, and not a single real reason was ever given. And without that reason in effect, economic incentive takes over BIG TIME. You can pick up a horse for under ten grand in RL. A champion thoroughbred? Ten million. Valenar Warhorse= Champion Thoroughbred+. Clarification: Not a single reason was expounded on in the ECS. That doesn't mean that these reasons do not exist. Presumably, since Valenar Horses aren't sold by House Vadalis, there are reasons that this is the case. You simply ignore this and other facts about the campaign setting again and again, in favor of your own interpretations. Feel free to do so, but please try to understand that your ignoring campaign material doesn't make it weak. Even now, he doesn't give a real reason for WHY they can't be bred...the former reason was because the "Valenar take umbrage at anyone daring to ride a Valenar Warhorse." He lets you figure it out, specifically states that Vidalis is unable to replicate it, and in the Board messages he noted that it would make a fine quest for adventurers...and something bound to put them in direct conflict with the Valenar while they work to discover the secret. In the meantime, Valenar horses are to be considered Magebred+...because unlike the Magebred, they don't pass on their characteristics easily. And again, just because the reason is not expounded upon does not mean it doesn't exist. Let me mention a very simple example of what you are doing. Why does Eberron have magic? I mean no reason has been given for how Eberron developed magic as an energy, or even what it is in Eberron. Thus I (as you would) conclude (completely erroneously) that magic has had no reason to exist in Eberron and has no superstructure. Eberron is a world without magic! What about all those mentions of magical stuff in Eberron? Well, that's obviously bunk since there is no reason for magic to exist in Eberron. I will conveniently ignore the fact that Eberron as a concept is a world founded on magic and challenge Keith Baker to provide magical theory for his world, since without such, I consider his entire world to be nothing but trash. I am the greatest poster on the boards! I prod Keith Baker to make Eberron better! In fact, I'm probably at the cutting edge of Eberron development!!!! Honestly, aelryinth. I expected better of you.
Just another user 11-27-05, 01:35 PM	Keep in mind that managing a captive horse of the Value of a breeding Valenar Warhorse is going to be trivial because of the potential return. Bridles to control the mounts will be on hand. As for only the males being allowed out, so what? This is a magical society. Use a polymorph spell or something similar, and change the horse's gender, and you get around the problem neatly. Geldings run into the problem of regeneration to fix the castration. So, no, that's not a fix :) Leaving it completely ambiguous but official is better. Vidalis can make the horses breed...but they can't make them sire horses of their bloodlines, meaning there is something more at work, then just lack of gender. ===Aelryinth Last time I checked Polymorph was 1 minute for level, I doubt that would be enough even just for the mating. Polymorph Any Object could work, except that you need a 16TH level wizard to cast, but I'm sure that Mordain or Vol would be happy to works for house Vadalis coverting male horses in females, after all they have nothing more important to do. A possible consideration could even be that if house Vadalis had such a spell at its command wouldn't be necessary steal Valenar Warhoses, all you need is some standard horses to polymorph in Valenar warhoses of both genders, but Vadalis don't do that so is probable that they don't have that spell availlable.
dang 11-27-05, 03:04 PM	did this "valenar only allow stallions outside their territory" theory come from a sourcebook? i ask because the saracens and other warriors of the middle east who also bred superior horses (arabians, who are very nearly a different species, having a different number of vertebrae), almost exclusively rode MARES into battle. the dragonshard states: "Others think that there is a small herd of breeding STALLIONS that the elves have kept hidden from spies and thieves." (emphasis added) of course, there is no direct cultural relationship between any eberron cultures and real-world medieval cultures, but i thought this info might aid those who desire a little more detail flavor in campaigns. also, in terms of breeding control, depending on when the mares were used in warfare they wouldn't always be fertile. just another safeguard. finally, it may make more sense to sequester males -- perhaps they might sire better horses, but the females of this magical breed may require specific rituals or have dietary restrictions in order to successfully conceive, so they'd be safer to allow out.
Just another user 11-27-05, 03:16 PM	did this "valenar only allow stallions outside their territory" theory come from a sourcebook? No, it is not official, it is a my idea (that anyone is free to use, of course) and, yes you could do the reverse, only mares go with the patrols and the stallions are kept safe somwhere in Valenar territory, it works all the same, if not better. Actually it probably make more sense, a little number of stallions could fertilize a large number of mares, you would need only an half dozen of male warhorses or so, to get all the horses the valenar could need.
aelryinth 11-27-05, 06:16 PM	aelryinth: Clarification: Not a single reason was expounded on in the ECS. That doesn't mean that these reasons do not exist. Presumably, since Valenar Horses aren't sold by House Vadalis, there are reasons that this is the case. You simply ignore this and other facts about the campaign setting again and again, in favor of your own interpretations. Feel free to do so, but please try to understand that your ignoring campaign material doesn't make it weak.. the reason given was, the Valenar take umbrage at anyone else daring to ride Valenar Warhorses. Which, when we are talking the level of money that is being dealt with, means jack squat all. And just because they haven't found the secret YET doesn't mean that someone WON'T...which means everyone wants their own Valenar stud farm so they can find the secret first and make monster $$$$$$$$$. And again, just because the reason is not expounded upon does not mean it doesn't exist. Let me mention a very simple example of what you are doing. Why does Eberron have magic? I mean no reason has been given for how Eberron developed magic as an energy, or even what it is in Eberron. Thus I (as you would) conclude (completely erroneously) that magic has had no reason to exist in Eberron and has no superstructure. Eberron is a world without magic! What about all those mentions of magical stuff in Eberron? Well, that's obviously bunk since there is no reason for magic to exist in Eberron. I will conveniently ignore the fact that Eberron as a concept is a world founded on magic and challenge Keith Baker to provide magical theory for his world, since without such, I consider his entire world to be nothing but trash. I am the greatest poster on the boards! I prod Keith Baker to make Eberron better! In fact, I'm probably at the cutting edge of Eberron development!!!! Honestly, aelryinth. I expected better of you. And that whole section was just silly, Rox. After I posted it, Keith went on to say, no no, this isn't right, and by the information that existed at the time, it is and was perfectly plausible and justifiable (heck, it STILL is, even after the Druid post...who breeds the Horses first is instantly rich!). I didn't post the idea to make him correct it...he corrected it because obviously it would break the economics of the setting. It STILL is a perfectly valid idea...it's just that the hopes and dreams of breeding Valenar horses ISN'T going to happen for the NPC's. Quest time for the PC's as they attempt to lay bare the facts of breeding Valenar Warhorses!....and whoever has the biggest stud farm of em, makes the most gold! (or who pays the PC's the most to spill the beans). So there's still going to be a demand for the Valenar horses, of all kinds...but until the secret is found, it's not going to get explosive because you won't be able to breed them. And my arguments with Keith make him post way too much. heh! I also don't agree with his viewpoint on druidic magic...by his description, he seems to have his druids treat their gifts a lot more arrogantly then clerics do theirs...but that's a viewpoint difference. ==Aelryinth
davethebrave371 11-27-05, 08:10 PM	I also don't agree with his viewpoint on druidic magic...by his description, he seems to have his druids treat their gifts a lot more arrogantly then clerics do theirs...but that's a viewpoint difference. And the key difference (in my mind, and I'm certainly willing to admit that this is in my campaign only) between a druid and a cleric with the animal and nature domains is that the cleric believes that she is the servant of a nature GOD... whereas the druid is more likely to be the servant of nature itself. Looking to the druids of Eberron, only a tiny fraction of them believe in any sort of personification of nature - those who do generally believing that Eberron itself is a sentient force. The rest are attuned to nature and understand how to call on its powers: but they do not believe that they are the chosen servants of a divine being... while a cleric of Balinor believes just that. The Valenar ranger doesn't think he's calling on a god when he uses entangle; he just knows the words that will cause the weeds to aid him, or what to whisper so his horse can understand his speech. ...what? Seriously, I want to get inside your head and find out what constitutes logic and reason inside of it. How is that more arrogant? If anything, believing that you are a chosen servant of such and such deity is more arrogant than what he postulates druids as being. I really, really think your train of thought needs a conductor.
Errant 11-27-05, 08:17 PM	the reason given was, the Valenar take umbrage at anyone else daring to ride Valenar Warhorses. I'm at work without my books at the moment so I can't be 100% sure, but I would have thought the Valenar taking umbrage was at best a circumstantial reason for others not breeding their warhorses. Maybe that was the sole reason, because if merely riding them was offensive, maybe it was such an extreme offence to try and breed them that elite Valenar warbands &/or assassins were sent after anyone even rumoured to be trying it. Or maybe, as Just Another User and Dang suggest, its possible the Valenar only ride one gender of Valenar warhorses into battle/dangerous territory and Polymorph spells just aren't powerful enough to enable breeding. I don't think they're guaranteed powerful enough by the spell description alone. Or maybe, you can just pick one the other explanations that has been suggested around the boards. The benefit of leaving it unexplained in official material is that DMs are able to preserve the integrity of the setting despite players trying various schemes to get around the implied limitations. We're talking about Valenar (war)horses, after all. Regardless Aelryinth, you seem to ignore the implications that only the Valenar can only breed Valenar horses and declare that it must be possible for others to breed them despite the lack of any suggestion in official material that it is possible. Which, when we are talking the level of money that is being dealt with, means jack squat all. And just because they haven't found the secret YET doesn't mean that someone WON'T...which means everyone wants their own Valenar stud farm so they can find the secret first and make monster $$$$$$$$$. I happily concede that Valenar warhorses are extremely valuable, and that doubtless every horse stud thats heard of them wishes they could breed their own, but thats still a long way from many thinking the risk and costs are worth the effort, even if the ECS does clearly support the idea that there are SOME individuals who think stealing them is worthwhile. And just because they haven't found the secret YET doesn't meant that anyone ever WILL either. People have talked about turning lead into gold for centuries in our world, but I'm not aware of it ever have been reliably accomplished. And that whole section was just silly, Rox. After I posted it, Keith went on to say, no no, this isn't right, and by the information that existed at the time, it is and was perfectly plausible and justifiable (heck, it STILL is, even after the Druid post...who breeds the Horses first is instantly rich!). I think Roxlimn's point was that because the how and why that something exists isn't specified you, Aelryinth, seem to feel free to dismiss it. It seems that according to your wisdom its not specified why Valenar horses aren't bred outside Valenar, so it MUST be possible. Which reminds me of my question that you conveniently ignored, do I understand your position correctly, that you’re opposed to druids operating in the “military”, because if Valenar druids ride with warbands they must therefore serve among mercenary Valenar warbands (because its not specified that they’re NOT available) and are therefore providing spells for cash at cheap rates because they’re bound by mercenaries mysterious “standard codes of conduct”? All this because there's no official source ruling it out? I didn't post the idea to make him correct it...he corrected it because obviously it would break the economics of the setting. It STILL is a perfectly valid idea...it's just that the hopes and dreams of breeding Valenar horses ISN'T going to happen for the NPC's. Quest time for the PC's as they attempt to lay bare the facts of breeding Valenar Warhorses!....and whoever has the biggest stud farm of em, makes the most gold! (or who pays the PC's the most to spill the beans). So there's still going to be a demand for the Valenar horses, of all kinds...but until the secret is found, it's not going to get explosive because you won't be able to breed them. I thought he corrected it, while acknowledging that you had the right to play your campaign as you wish, because your scheme ignores the implications of official material and, probably, because turning breeding Valenar horses into a money making venture trivialises one of the unique features of the Valenar nation. It seems logical to me that they're Valenar horses because no-one else can breed them. And my arguments with Keith make him post way too much. heh! I also don't agree with his viewpoint on druidic magic...by his description, he seems to have his druids treat their gifts a lot more arrogantly then clerics do theirs...but that's a viewpoint difference. You seem to take a lot of credit for "making" Keith do things, is that because you're holding a gun to his head? Anything less and I think he chooses to contribute, as I've previously stated. Funny you should talk about arrogance while making comments like that. I refer back to my previous question on your position Aelryinth. Are you basing your interpretation of Keith's viewpoint on the assumption that because he doesn't specify that druids DON'T act that way they therefore MUST act that way? Its not specified anywhere that some days the sun doesn't come up in Khorvaire, does that mean there must be some days when it doesn't? As for druids treating their gifts more arrogantly than clerics, are you refering to Keith's suggestion that druids tend to serve Nature, not Gods? How is that arrogant?
a_psh 11-27-05, 08:48 PM	My problem is that I still don't see a problem here. The issue raised is that the existence of Valenar mercenary druids justifies clerics and adepts selling spells for money. However, we have the examples I cited above, and quotes like this form Keith:So really it IS up to you. I am trying to make faith more like faith in our world, and things I write for the setting will reflect that. Want a blessing? Go to a temple. Want healing? Go to the hospital. An adept of the goddess of healing may in fact heal you at the hospital, if that's where her sense of duty and devotion has led her - but she's doing it in a place of business, not a sanctum of the divine. If it's a shrine instead of a Jorasco healing house, I'd expect the adepts to be saving their magic for the most hopeless cases who they will heal at no charge... relying on the donations of the community to support these good works. I don't see anyone or anything (DMG, PH, and ECS included) saying that priests can't sell their spells. So the only point of contention seems to be about whether they do it in their own temples and shrines. At this juncture, economic arguments go straight out the window, as does any potential for "money-making schemes." All you're left with is a cultural point: do priests integrate spellcasting-for-money into the services that temples provide or cast spells for money in a different, more secular context, to better preserve the purity of their devotional activities? As Keith said, he likes option B but doesn't see a problem with other DMs using option A, 'cept that it's not the setting's default. Neither one is less logical or less advantageous for the priests money-wise. So what, exactly, *is* the arguing all about, then?
The Dreaming Duck 11-27-05, 09:40 PM	All you're left with is a cultural point: do priests integrate spellcasting-for-money into the services that temples provide or cast spells for money in a different, more secular context, to better preserve the purity of their devotional activities? Right. Clerics can cast spells for money without suffering ill effects. So if the question is "Could the Church of the Silver Flame go into the healing business and drive House Jorasco out of business", perhaps... but it never would. The major religions are still driven by faith as opposed to a desire for profit: They are churches, not corporations. Could you set up a "Church of Priests Who Want To Become Wealthy By Selling Spells"? Sure. It would be the equivalent of the practice of selling papal indulgences, which was a tremendous source of income and basically selling a license to sin... and which was eventually seen as a form of graft and corruption and banned in 1563. What Hellcow is saying is that in Eberron, none of the major religions have officially embraced this sort of practice. Nothing is stopping an individual priest from selling his services, but it's not endorsed by the churches, and when you say "I want to buy a healing spell" you look to the houses, not the churches. As such, the priests who do sell their services do it in a secular environment - because it's not what the religions are about. As Hellcow said, a shrine of Olladra should be focused on healing anyone in grave need: not healing the fighter who's at 44/54 hp, because he doesn't really need to be healed.. he may want to be at full HP, but if he's willing to wait he'll be fine. While a moment later a penniless beggar at -1 hp could be rushed through the door, who would be healed at no charge. A priest of Olladra who wants to earn money with his magic should do it in a secular environment, like House Jorasco. Is this taking money away from the churches? Money they could potentially feed back into the community? Perhaps. But it's just not what the temples are there for. The community supports the temple - and in exchange it provides spiritual and philosophical guidance. As for comparing druids and clerics, that's a useless comparison unless one goes into a greater degree of granularity. What druids? Clerics of what religions? The Siyal Marrain may be more arrogant than the friars of the Silver Flame, but I'd expect a paladin of Dol Arrah may be more arrogant than a ranger of the Wardens. "Druids" aren't anything, because the different sects and traditions are vastly different. And like Dave the Brave, I don't see how believing you are the chosen servant of divinity is more arrogant than, say, the seemingly selfless devotion of the Wardens of the Wood. It's been clear from the begining that the druids don't serve "gods". The Wardens seek to balance nature and civilization. The Gatekeepers seek to protect the natural world, while the Children of Winter want to see it wiped away and begun anew. The Ashbound want to punish those who threaten it with their abominable practices. And the Greensingers are just out for a good time (and are an excellent proof that druids aren't all dedicated to some sort of noble unified cause). All of them understand the secrets of natural magic, and how to call on animals for aid, coax the weather, or heal the sick. But this power isn't given to them by a god. It is a result of their training and devotion to the world itself. But I don't see how this makes them "arrogant"; it's just a different approach to magic. Tied to this, consider that the cleric of Balinor will, in time, be able to cast commune: he has a higher power to call on for guidance. The druid does not and cannot - he simply communes with nature.
Errant 11-27-05, 10:42 PM	So what, exactly, *is* the arguing all about, then? I'm still waiting for a response from Aelryinth (and still not holding my breath), but I think: (a) he's saying because druids ride with warbands they must be mercenaries and must therefore sell their spellcasting services "despite" Keith's comments that he generally doesn't see clerics selling spells; and (b) he seems to be saying that because there's no reason specified why others can't breed Valenar horses they "must" be able to. My issue with this is that he states both suppositions as fact without any reference to supporting official material and he dismisses any comments suggesting otherwise regardless of what official sources are quoted. Frankly, this seems to be his typical style and I'm tired of seeing him get away with that sort of commentary unchallenged. Personally, like others, I think Keith has been quite clear and reasonable in the position that generally your faith is more important to religious spellcasters (in an institutional sense) than your gold, but there are nevertheless some individual religious spellcasters that will sell you their spell casting services. I think that takes a welcome step away from money driven image religions seem to have developed in other settings and by doing so it adds more color and depth to an already rich setting. It actively simultaneously provides encouragement for the players to think about how the PCs and their actions fit into the world around them and encourages DMs to think about how the different faiths might reward suitable PC deeds (with free/cheap spell assistance to PCs serving the faith's interests or by refusing any assistance to those who's actions work against the same interests), while still allowing for some exceptions to the rule if the PCs feel they need them and the DM feels its appropriate. Aelryinth seems to think its contradictory to say the religious organisations generally don't sell their services but some individuals will, despite the fact that the ECS references to corrupt clerics alone suggests some clerics don't abide by their faith's official policies. He seems to be saying that because its not specifically spelled out clearly in official material there has to be an "end run" to buy spellcasting from clerics/druids.
aelryinth 11-28-05, 03:50 PM	...what? Seriously, I want to get inside your head and find out what constitutes logic and reason inside of it. How is that more arrogant? If anything, believing that you are a chosen servant of such and such deity is more arrogant than what he postulates druids as being. I really, really think your train of thought needs a conductor. And you wonder why I don't bother to respond to you civilly? ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 11-28-05, 04:27 PM	The whole problem with your focus on 'spell-selling' is you are focusing on spells which are most useful to low level folks. Now, my fighter just staggered in to the temple (yes, it's a temple) of a priest whose faith he doesn't follow (any conflict you like) and is in need of a Remove Curse (explosively bad acne, halitosis, or maybe he got his gender changed). Is he going to wander down to Jorasco to get this problem fixed? Is it going to go away? He could be at 9/54 hp and trailing blood all over the ground, too...but hey, he's got more hp then that commoner, so he's just fine. Did he do anything that expressly furthers the priest's faith? No...he got cursed while adventuring, one of a zillion ways. And he'd like to pay the priest (okay, he's got a rank in Diplomacy and will 'donate to the church') to get rid of his affliction. And the priest, by rote, will throw him out on his ear because he doesn't 'sell spells'. There's no arcane caster around who can do the job, etc, etc OR a Jorasco enclave that can handle the problem. Now, if the unlucky bastard is willing to accept a quest and make an offering (donation/pay the priest), then there's a possibility of aid...with a good diplomacy roll (alas, no ranks but the one, and base 8 Cha!). Is there going to be a worshipper in the area needing remove curse anytime soon? Remove paralysis? Any of the other high level spells? Not likely...but the faiths don't sell them. Well, they do...maybe...sell them for cash + service/obligation. If you are really powerful, they will consider it a swap of favors. If you aren't, too bloody bad. And that's pretty much the rote way a NPC priest/adept/cleric is supposed to be played if you stumble into the temple and need their services. There's more NPC temples with spellcasting adepts around then there are Jorasco heirs and enclaves...sometimes you just don't have the option. And Druids, as Divine casters, fall under the umbrella of this policy. Buuuuut, if the cleric/druid is a mercenary, I don't have to worry about all that suddenly. You really need to go back and read some of Hellcow's very impassioned dissertations on this topic (i.e. the old Ask Hellcow threads). To say I got him started on a roll was an understatement...he didn't want to concede ANY ground. Your explanations are being incredibly liberal in what 'selling spells' is all about...and it's not all just pure healing magic, and it's not all competition between the temple priest, the druid in the park, and the Jorasco enclave down the street. ------------------------------------ As for the whole Valenar horses thing, you are completely missing my point, as seems to be normal. The setting said the breeding had NOT been done...it never said it COULDN'T be done. Moreover, it distinctly notes that they ARE trying to crack the breeding secret! You then promptly set up the Valenar Warhorse as a 'sacred cow' of the setting. I'm sorry, but 3E doesn't play that game. If someone does it, anyone can do it...they just have to figure out HOW. No more NPC's who can do things just because they can and the PC's never will. And with that mechanic as a fundamental fact of life, going after Valenar horses for the potential money to be made there IS a terrific economic incentive....and a Quest for the PC's. And people will do lots for gold. EVENTUALLY...someone is going to crack the Valenar secret. Off Camera, in the future. It may take a century more (it has already), but it will get done. Why? Because the incentive to crack it is too darn strong, and there are no sacred cows. Or the PC's could get involved, and do it now. -------------------------------- I may well be interpreting Hellcow wrong on his view of Druids, but he seems to be putting a lot of limitations on his Divine Casters that his Druids just don't have to ascribe to, especially the Valenar. The way he's presented it, it looks like the Valenar view the magic of nature as just another weapon to be wielded...if they are capable of wielding the power, then they can do what they want with it. They are 'predators', not 'servants', and as long as they can wield the power of Nature, they can do what they like with it. As long as Nature lets me do it, I'm free to do it!, seems the justification. While eminently workable, it just comes across to me as...arrogant, for what is basically a specific branch of Divine Power. Even moreso when their drive to emulate their ancestor supercedes their devotion to Nature...which strikes me as oddly wrong for a Divine class. In short, it seems to me that they are treating Nature's power like mages treat Arcane power. No wonder the Druids despise mages so...they think too much alike! But, that could simply be the way I'm reading it. Certainly the Druids don't seem to have censure and restrictions hanging over their heads the way Clerical casters do. I've always been of the mind that rangers and druidic spellcasting was less of a Devotion to nature then knowing enough about it to tease some power out of the Land, too. Certainly I don't see most rangers worshipping the Land...they are just 'in tune' with it. Druids, on the other hand, I've seen as servants of Nature's will, but that Will seems to be whatever the Druid wants it to be, as long as they can cast spells everything's fine. Hard to wrap my ear around. I also tend to be very conservative on the subject of manipulating normal animals. Dire animals raise my hackles as being unnatural...horrid animals are distinctly unnatural, and were made by DRUIDS, of all people?? Druids despise magebred animals...but the Valenar horses are FAR more unnatural (impossible speed, unnatural longevity, breeding inability) and there doesn't seem to be any conflict with THEM. Sooo...I see the Druids of the Eberron setting as arrogant. As long as I can still cast spells, whatever I think must be right, seems to be the motto...just like clerics, but without the censure behind it...and so remarkably like mages. As for Druids having a problem seeing someone as blessed of a God...unless they are atheists, I don't see that as a problem at all...that cleric might well be the servant of a god, but the power of his god pales before the fury of My...er, Nature's Power!... :P ==Aelryinth
MarkB 11-28-05, 05:13 PM	The whole problem with your focus on 'spell-selling' is you are focusing on spells which are most useful to low level folks. Now, my fighter just staggered in to the temple (yes, it's a temple) of a priest whose faith he doesn't follow (any conflict you like) and is in need of a Remove Curse (explosively bad acne, halitosis, or maybe he got his gender changed). Is he going to wander down to Jorasco to get this problem fixed? Is it going to go away? He could be at 9/54 hp and trailing blood all over the ground, too...but hey, he's got more hp then that commoner, so he's just fine. Did he do anything that expressly furthers the priest's faith? No...he got cursed while adventuring, one of a zillion ways. And he'd like to pay the priest (okay, he's got a rank in Diplomacy and will 'donate to the church') to get rid of his affliction. And the priest, by rote, will throw him out on his ear because he doesn't 'sell spells'. There's no arcane caster around who can do the job, etc, etc OR a Jorasco enclave that can handle the problem. I don't know where you're getting the 'by rote' part. All that anyone's described are tendencies and common practice, nobody's suggesting that priests in Eberron are robots or slaves to doctrine. If the priest happens to have the spell available, and knows from experience that there's only a slim chance he'll need it (but then why did he memorise it?) he might well take pity on the soldier and cast the spell. But the soldier won't be buying the spell in that case. It would be an act of charity. If the priest doesn't have the spell available, a similar act of charity might be to speak to the master of the next trade caravan leaving town and ask him to please accomodate this poor soul as far as the nearest town with Jorasco healing facilities. Bear in mind that most priests in temples are not Clerics. It's pretty rare to find one. For a real-world equivalent example, if an injured man stumbles into a church and the vicar there happens to have been a doctor in his younger years, then will that vicar clean and sew up the wound in his leg for him? If there is no hospital close enough to help, the answer is "yes", but is that vicar going to charge for his actions? Of course not. Now, if the unlucky bastard is willing to accept a quest and make an offering (donation/pay the priest), then there's a possibility of aid...with a good diplomacy roll (alas, no ranks but the one, and base 8 Cha!). Is there going to be a worshipper in the area needing remove curse anytime soon? Remove paralysis? Any of the other high level spells? Not likely... If it's not likely, why would the priest have the spell memorised in the first place. If it is likely enough that he keeps the spell on hand, isn't he being irresponsible to those in his care by using it on someone else? Buuuuut, if the cleric/druid is a mercenary, I don't have to worry about all that suddenly. Absolute rot. You can't walk up to a Cleric who's a member of a mercenary group any more than any other Cleric and say "Right, I'm contracting you to cast Remove Curse. Here's your fee." They're there to engage in warfare, not healthcare. As for the whole Valenar horses thing, you are completely missing my point, as seems to be normal. The setting said the breeding had NOT been done...it never said it COULDN'T be done. Moreover, it distinctly notes that they ARE trying to crack the breeding secret! You then promptly set up the Valenar Warhorse as a 'sacred cow' of the setting. I'm sorry, but 3E doesn't play that game. If someone does it, anyone can do it...they just have to figure out HOW. No more NPC's who can do things just because they can and the PC's never will. And with that mechanic as a fundamental fact of life, going after Valenar horses for the potential money to be made there IS a terrific economic incentive....and a Quest for the PC's. What point are you trying to make here? The Valenar druid Dragonshard specifically stated this as a plot hook for PCs. And people will do lots for gold. EVENTUALLY...someone is going to crack the Valenar secret. Off Camera, in the future. It may take a century more (it has already), but it will get done. Why? Because the incentive to crack it is too darn strong, and there are no sacred cows. Or the PC's could get involved, and do it now. And? This is what PCs do - it's what they're supposed to do: Take the playground presented to them and start doing major re-landscaping. That doesn't in any way invalidate the article's description of the playground as it is at the start of play. I may well be interpreting Hellcow wrong on his view of Druids, but he seems to be putting a lot of limitations on his Divine Casters that his Druids just don't have to ascribe to, especially the Valenar. No, he's saying (and I agree) that the fundamental basis for religion-based divine spellcasters and that of nature-based divine spellcasters are two different things. Druids don't have less rules to obey than Clerics, they have different rules. The way he's presented it, it looks like the Valenar view the magic of nature as just another weapon to be wielded...if they are capable of wielding the power, then they can do what they want with it. They are 'predators', not 'servants', and as long as they can wield the power of Nature, they can do what they like with it. As long as Nature lets me do it, I'm free to do it!, seems the justification. While eminently workable, it just comes across to me as...arrogant, for what is basically a specific branch of Divine Power. Even moreso when their drive to emulate their ancestor supercedes their devotion to Nature...which strikes me as oddly wrong for a Divine class. The Valenar culture is driven by the concept of honouring ancestors through emulation. That being the case, I don't believe a Valenar could find the depth of commitment needed to become a Druid without also choosing a patron ancestor who was also a Druid. So there is no disunity between emulating one's ancestor and respecting nature - they are one and the same goal and action. In short, it seems to me that they are treating Nature's power like mages treat Arcane power. No wonder the Druids despise mages so...they think too much alike! I just don't see where you're getting that at all. It's not in the articles, or the sourcebooks, or Keith's posts on this thread, so I can only assume it's part of your own preconceptions. By everything else written about the Eberron setting, Druids are highly dedicated to ideals that focus upon aspects of the natural world, and belief systems dedicated to the defense of nature. Druids have more restrictions than clerics in Eberron - everything listed under Ex-Druids in the PHB still applies to them, so they can lose their powers if they cease to revere nature, just as a cleric can if he loses faith, and unlike Eberron Clerics they're still bound by alignment restrictions - a Druid who changes to an alignment without a Neutral component will lose his powers, whilst an Eberron cleric can have an alignment opposite that of his deity, provided he still has faith. I've always been of the mind that rangers and druidic spellcasting was less of a Devotion to nature then knowing enough about it to tease some power out of the Land, too. Certainly I don't see most rangers worshipping the Land...they are just 'in tune' with it. Druids, on the other hand, I've seen as servants of Nature's will, but that Will seems to be whatever the Druid wants it to be, as long as they can cast spells everything's fine. That is entirely your own interpretation, and contrary to the Player's Handbook, Eberron Campaign Setting, and Dragonshards articles.
aelryinth 11-28-05, 07:33 PM	I don't know where you're getting the 'by rote' part. All that anyone's described are tendencies and common practice, nobody's suggesting that priests in Eberron are robots or slaves to doctrine. If the priest happens to have the spell available, and knows from experience that there's only a slim chance he'll need it (but then why did he memorise it?) he might well take pity on the soldier and cast the spell. But the soldier won't be buying the spell in that case. It would be an act of charity. If the priest doesn't have the spell available, a similar act of charity might be to speak to the master of the next trade caravan leaving town and ask him to please accomodate this poor soul as far as the nearest town with Jorasco healing facilities. Bear in mind that most priests in temples are not Clerics. It's pretty rare to find one. For a real-world equivalent example, if an injured man stumbles into a church and the vicar there happens to have been a doctor in his younger years, then will that vicar clean and sew up the wound in his leg for him? If there is no hospital close enough to help, the answer is "yes", but is that vicar going to charge for his actions? Of course not. If it's not likely, why would the priest have the spell memorised in the first place. If it is likely enough that he keeps the spell on hand, isn't he being irresponsible to those in his care by using it on someone else? Absolute rot. You can't walk up to a Cleric who's a member of a mercenary group any more than any other Cleric and say "Right, I'm contracting you to cast Remove Curse. Here's your fee." They're there to engage in warfare, not healthcare. What point are you trying to make here? The Valenar druid Dragonshard specifically stated this as a plot hook for PCs. And? This is what PCs do - it's what they're supposed to do: Take the playground presented to them and start doing major re-landscaping. That doesn't in any way invalidate the article's description of the playground as it is at the start of play. No, he's saying (and I agree) that the fundamental basis for religion-based divine spellcasters and that of nature-based divine spellcasters are two different things. Druids don't have less rules to obey than Clerics, they have different rules. The Valenar culture is driven by the concept of honouring ancestors through emulation. That being the case, I don't believe a Valenar could find the depth of commitment needed to become a Druid without also choosing a patron ancestor who was also a Druid. So there is no disunity between emulating one's ancestor and respecting nature - they are one and the same goal and action. I just don't see where you're getting that at all. It's not in the articles, or the sourcebooks, or Keith's posts on this thread, so I can only assume it's part of your own preconceptions. By everything else written about the Eberron setting, Druids are highly dedicated to ideals that focus upon aspects of the natural world, and belief systems dedicated to the defense of nature. Druids have more restrictions than clerics in Eberron - everything listed under Ex-Druids in the PHB still applies to them, so they can lose their powers if they cease to revere nature, just as a cleric can if he loses faith, and unlike Eberron Clerics they're still bound by alignment restrictions - a Druid who changes to an alignment without a Neutral component will lose his powers, whilst an Eberron cleric can have an alignment opposite that of his deity, provided he still has faith. That is entirely your own interpretation, and contrary to the Player's Handbook, Eberron Campaign Setting, and Dragonshards articles. "By rote", as in, 'rule of thumb', as in, 'normally', as in, 'standard of the setting'. As in, unless I've completely misinterpreted Hellcow's arguments for this very point, this is how your average priest is going to react...meaning virtually all of them, and those who don't are going to be rare, marginalized, and hard to find. MarkB, you are jumping in at the middle of an argument sans the Valenar horses, and I wasn't replying to you. So all your questions about the questions are, um, superfluous. I wasn't talking to you. As for the whole cleric argument, you again devolve into semantics. The point being that, he can certainly memorize it tomorrow if he knows I'm going to be paying for it...or he can reserve the slot for his parishoners. By rote, he'll reserve the slot! And again, you devolve into semantics for the mercenary. I can now hire the merc to work for me...and get my remove curse as part of his job. ----ANd the rules druids seem to have are, as long as I stay a little Neutral in alignment, I can do pretty much what I want. To the point of using druidic magic against the enemy of my, uh, employer. And making Horrid animals that drip acid from their claws and fangs (good for the environment, I'm sure). I'm a predator after all...if I can use it, obviously I'm supposed to! This isn't more restrictive then a cleric, who still has to obey the tenets of his faith...somehow...while retaining his faith. The druid can bounce all over the alignment chart without losing his faith...just has to stay 'part-neutral'. Rather liberating! And no pishy codes of behavior to pay attention to. Ride with the warbands against the enemy of the day? No problemo! We all know that goblins are the same as the Giants trying to enslave/conquer/subjugate the elves that my ancestor fought back in the day. No Valenar can be a druid without a druidic ancestor? How incredibly...limiting. Appropriate, maybe. Conflicting? Most certainly, for a divine spellcaster. Forcing every Valenar who learns druidic magic to have a Druidic ancestor...sorry, don't think that's going to happen. As for Ranger spells... Beginning at 4th level, a ranger gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells, which are drawn from the ranger spell list. A ranger must choose and prepare his spells in advance (see below). To prepare or cast a spell, a ranger must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a ranger’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the ranger’s Wisdom modifier. Like other spellcasters, a ranger can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Ranger. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Wisdom score. When Table: The Ranger indicates that the ranger gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level, he gains only the bonus spells he would be entitled to based on his Wisdom score for that spell level. The ranger does not have access to any domain spells or granted powers, as a cleric does. A ranger prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does, though he cannot lose a prepared spell to cast a cure spell in its place. A ranger may prepare and cast any spell on the ranger spell list, provided that he can cast spells of that level, but he must choose which spells to prepare during his daily meditation. Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, his caster level is one-half his ranger level. This is from the d20 SRD, and there's no mention of Druidic magic in there. Clerics are referenced, and its a ranger spell list, not a subset of the druidic spell list. So, it's not in direct contravention of anything. There's nothing saying that he worships anything or anyone, god, deity, patron, power, belief. He just gets access to the spells. And since he doesn't have to 'be' partly neutral, his magic isn't druidic at all, because it's not subject to the same limitations. Ranger magic isn't druidic magic, ranger magic is ranger magic. Where it comes from is the fact it is Divine magic, and it can come from ANYWHERE...especially in Eberron. they get the magic because they get the magic...not because they have a druidic bent. Ah, you probably interpreted that sentence as rangers and Druids' spellcasting. I meant what I put down...rangers and druidic, as in ranger spells being druidic spells. They aren't and they are not, and being one doesn't mean you have to be adherent to the other. Druids get their power from Nature, sure. Not disputing that. Where rangers get their power from...well, now, that's utterly debateable, isn't it? And has nothing to do with druidism. The Archetype D@D Ranger tends to be CG, not NG...or is LG, if you are an Aragorn fan. Sure, they get along well...so do LG rangers and LG priests, etc etc. But a ranger isn't held to much standards of faith and behavior that I can see anywhere...and that means their magic isn't Druidic at all. They can freely use it to abuse the Land, exploiting it if they desire. Not sure a Druid can do that...although I'd call Horrid animals something like that, but that's me. And a last point...the Druidic traditions are the Druidic traditions. While rangers may follow them, there's nothing in the setting that says a Black Dragon came over here and started the ranger tradition...and I'd find it really, really strange if they had, considering there's nothing Druidic in the description of rangers. They may dovetail nicely...but the Church of the Silver Flame didn't start the tradition of paladins, either. ===Aelryinth
The Dreaming Duck 11-28-05, 07:57 PM	Now, my fighter just staggered in to the temple (yes, it's a temple) of a priest whose faith he doesn't follow (any conflict you like) and is in need of a Remove Curse (explosively bad acne, halitosis, or maybe he got his gender changed)... There's no arcane caster around who can do the job, etc, etc OR a Jorasco enclave that can handle the problem. But there IS a 8th-level adept in a temple who happens to have remove curse prepared? Seems like a pretty big stretch. It's been stated that the majority of temples are maintained by experts; 8th-level is a significant level in Eberron; and why's this guy have remove curse prepared anyway? It's one of the most useless spells for everyday life. Are the people of his community getting cursed all the time? Is there going to be a worshipper in the area needing remove curse anytime soon? Remove paralysis? Any of the other high level spells? Not likely... Which is why a priest wouldn't prepare them to begin with. He might have tongues so he can speak to strangers. Continual flame to provide light to his community. Now, if he's a priest of Olladra at a Jorasco house, he WILL prepare those healing spells just in case - because he's there to heal. The job of a normal priest isn't healing adventurers - and he won't prepare his spells with that task in mind. He'll prepare spells that fit the doctrine of his faith. Will he prepare it for you tomorrow? Maybe, if you are deserving of his god's bounty - and now you've got a day to prove that you are. There's more NPC temples with spellcasting adepts around then there are Jorasco heirs and enclaves... Really? Do you have proof to back this up? Furthermore, the issue isn't number. There are far more temples and shrines in Sharn than Jorasco healing houses, yes. But the point is that one Jorasco house may be able to provide more healing than a dozen shrines. Remember that the power of the houses is not based on their marks: it's on the focus items. Sivis would be nothing if it relied on its member's ability to use whispering wind once per day - the source of its power is the speaking stone network. It's items like the healing altars that let Jorasco heal over and over - providing a level of service that a single adept can't match. And as for remove curse, it's not a power of the mark - but aside from the fact that you do have adepts at Jorasco healing houses who can cast the spells, I'd expect their to be focus items broadening the power fo the mark to deal with them. Buuuuut, if the cleric/druid is a mercenary, I don't have to worry about all that suddenly. You really need to go back and read some of Hellcow's very impassioned dissertations on this topic (i.e. the old Ask Hellcow threads). No, I don't. You need to go back and read some of Hellcow's very impassioned dissertations ON THIS THREAD - have you actually done that? What he's said in the past obviously means little to what he's said recently, since like most people he is actually willing to form new opinions on things. And he's specifically said that the mercenary priest of Dol Dorn won't heal anyone - he heals in accordance with his ethos, which is in accord with serving in a mercenary band. I don't care what you think of my statements, but you might try reading his. While eminently workable, it just comes across to me as...arrogant, for what is basically a specific branch of Divine Power. But it's not. Sure, a druid uses the same method of daily preparation as a cleric. But consider the following differences between a druid and a cleric of the animal domain. The druid has no power over undead. Despite his animal focus, the cleric still does. The cleric can channel either positive or negative energy; the druid cannot. The cleric possesses a heightened alignment aura: the druid does not. The cleric can cast augury, divination, and commune, spells that all involve contact with a higher power for guidance. The druid has none of these spells. He may be a "divine caster", but no divinity guides him - while the Animal cleric has Balinor looking down from above. Likewise for spells like planar ally: despite his domains, the animal cleric can still call in outsiders. The closest the druid gets is elementals, and that because they are incarnate forces of nature. The cleric can cast align weapon, bless, consecrate, divine favor, divine power, prayer, shield of faith, spiritual weapon... and so on and so on. The druid doesn't get spells with "divine" and "holy" (or even "unholy")... with the notable and mysterious exception of hallow and unhallow. The cleric can use equipment prohibited to the druid. A cleric gets Celestial, Abyssal, and Infernal added to his spell list. Even the animal cleric doesn't get Druidic - only druids do. The mechanics may not make a big deal of it, but there's a huge difference between a druid and a cleric with nature-oriented domains... and I see no reason to consider the druidic traditions just a "specific branch of divine power". Cleric powers are tied to positive and negative energy, and in one form or another, to forces beyond this world. The druid draws his power from this world. I admire Eberron for developing that further and giving separate sects their own flavor... so where clerics can choose between Dol Dorn and the Mockery, druids can choose between the Gatekeepers and the Children of Winter. Druids despise magebred animals...but the Valenar horses are FAR more unnatural (impossible speed, unnatural longevity, breeding inability)... A cheetah is faster than a lion. Does that make it unnatural? An elf lives ten times as long as a human. Does that make it unnatural? A mule can't breed at all. Does that make it unnatural? Valenar horses are not unnatural: they are simply a different species from normal horses, as different from a standard horse as an elf is from a human. In the first druid Dragonshard, Hellcow pointed out that magical animals ARE a part of nature in Eberron - hence the Beast Totem feat. The issue with magebred animals is that they are the work of human hands, not of nature: the result of humans consciously trying to alter what nature has produced, and why? For profit. As strange as a displacer beast or Valenar horse is, both are still products of Eberron. I think horrid beasts are a seeming contradiction. But as Hellcow said, it's far easier to find fault than to actually offer a positive solution. In all likelihood, the person who wrote the Horrid description didn't consider the contradiction. Now it's out there - the question is, can you actually come up with an answer instead of simply trumpeting the problem and demanding that Hellcow fix it? As I see it, the key to horrid animals is their use of acid and acid immunity. Both of these are traits of black dragons. Who trained the Gatekeepers? A black dragon. As such, I think the idea of horrid animals is that they were created in accord with Vvaraak's teachings - and that as strange as they are, they too are natural in their way. After all, we've heard nothing more of druids creating new animals... so it seems the Gatekeepers did something odd at a time when the world itself was in danger, and that this odd thing may have been tied to their mentor. Makes sense to me. I may well be interpreting Hellcow wrong on his view of Druids, but he seems to be putting a lot of limitations on his Divine Casters that his Druids just don't have to ascribe to, especially the Valenar. The way he's presented it, it looks like the Valenar view the magic of nature as just another weapon to be wielded...if they are capable of wielding the power, then they can do what they want with it. They are 'predators', not 'servants', and as long as they can wield the power of Nature, they can do what they like with it. I've been interpreting it entirely differently. First off, I'm in complete agreement with MarkB that if your Valenar is a druid, his ancestor should be a druid too; your religion and your reverance for nature are two halves of one whole. But I think the key here is that nothing in the SRD says that a druid has to SERVE nature: he needs to respect it. Nature - not being a god - doesn't ever tell you what to do. Even commune with nature simply tells you about the environment, you don't actually "talk" to it. So the question is, what does it mean to "respect" nature? Each of the druid sects has a very clear ethos about this. The Children of Winter believe that death and disease are part of nature, and they are showing their reverence for nature by spreading its bounty. The Ashbound respect nature by fighting its opposing force - and it's a fight that they are fiercely dedicated to, despite your claim that an Ashbound druid has no more devotion than a wizard. If that were true, they wouldn't be engaging in acts of violence - they'd be opening guilds in cities and selling their services. The Gatekeepers devote their lives to protecting the natural world from the unnatural. All of these are actions requiring intense devotion and often putting the person's life in danger. The Ashbound won't suddenly take a level of wizard, and the Gatekeeper won't decide to party with the mind flayers. The devotion is there; for some reason you just don't want to see it. How does this relate to the war druids of the Valenar? As I see it, it's an approach somewhat like that of the Children of Winter. They are embracing the destructive aspects of nature: The storm, the hurricane, the wolf. All of these things are part of nature, and the druid is the incarnate vessel of this. He becomes the predator, tearing down civilization with the power of the natural world. And bear in mind that when the Tairnadal druidic tradition began, the elves were fighting a very advanced nation - so there was a basic struggle of civilization versus the wild. Today, the druid doesn't actually serve nature by doing this: but he certainly respects it, and he forces others to respect it as well. All I can say is that this makes perfect sense to me, is in keeping with the ECS, and is in keeping with what Hellcow has said.
The Dreaming Duck 11-28-05, 08:06 PM	MarkB, you are jumping in at the middle of an argument sans the Valenar horses, and I wasn't replying to you. So all your questions about the questions are, um, superfluous. I wasn't talking to you. There's been a lot of ridiculous and rude things said in this thread, but this is pretty high on my list. This is a public discussion thread. If new people aren't allowed to jump in and raise questions or discuss points, please save us all some time and private message the people you are actually talking to.
a_psh 11-28-05, 09:11 PM	(I sized up the most important points, for those who like skimming. If it seems like I'm shouting, I apologize.) The whole problem with your focus on 'spell-selling' is you are focusing on spells which are most useful to low level folks.Cue the standard counter-argument: it's a low-level world for 95% of the inhabitants, including the temple priests. You know how both sides go. Not really that important. Now, my fighter just staggered in to the temple (yes, it's a temple) of a priest whose faith he doesn't follow (any conflict you like) and is in need of a Remove Curse (explosively bad acne, halitosis, or maybe he got his gender changed). Is he going to wander down to Jorasco to get this problem fixed? Is it going to go away? He could be at 9/54 hp and trailing blood all over the ground, too...but hey, he's got more hp then that commoner, so he's just fine.Okay, here's the issue: "my fighter just staggered into the temple." Why is he wandering into a temple in the first place? So the preists have healing magic. He's not dying. He's not in critical need. Why is he going to the temple in the first place? In the real-world, churches have bathrooms. But people don't often walk into a church just to use the bathroom. I mean, they probably totally could, - in most cases, nothing's stopping them, - but, well, it's just not what churches are for, so they don't. The only reason the aforementioned fighter is walking into the church and asking for healing is because he knows healing should be there. The only reason healing should be there is because the church intends for the aforementioned fighter to be walking in and asking for it. If they didn't offer the service in the first place, he'd have no more reason to be there than a guy trying to buy a hot dog would to visit McDonald's (they do have all the necessary equipment for making one right there, after all). Did he do anything that expressly furthers the priest's faith? No...he got cursed while adventuring, one of a zillion ways. And he'd like to pay the priest (okay, he's got a rank in Diplomacy and will 'donate to the church') to get rid of his affliction. And the priest, by rote, will throw him out on his ear because he doesn't 'sell spells'. There's no arcane caster around who can do the job, etc, etc OR a Jorasco enclave that can handle the problem.Said priest has to be of low enough rank to be dealing with random people who walk in from the street demanding service, but still high-level enough to cast your spell (a cleric 5 or an adept 8). Now, for the specific example of remove curse - it's just not a useful everyday living kind of spell. I can understand a priest preparing something like remove disease or cure serious wounds, but, really, townspeople or farmers don't suffer from curses. He honestly is better off going to a wizard. Why? The wizard has the appropriate Knowledge skills and Spellcraft, so he can tell him all about his damn curse and how to deal with it. Also, the wizard can have the spell ready in 15 minutes - absolutely no need to waste slots memorizing things beforehand. That said, I can imagine, say, a shrine in Stormreach which specifically deals does offer the remove curse spell for a standard donation. Now, if the unlucky bastard is willing to accept a quest and make an offering (donation/pay the priest), then there's a possibility of aid...with a good diplomacy roll (alas, no ranks but the one, and base 8 Cha!). Is there going to be a worshipper in the area needing remove curse anytime soon? Remove paralysis? Any of the other high level spells?Those spell slots do other things. Also, clerics are meant to be out doing stuff. They're the vanguard of a church, its leaders and its warriors. Adepts handle the sitting around in temples, generally. Basically, though, here's the deal, as I see it: Whether priests sell magic or not is really a cultural question and not an economic matter. Effectively, Keith's saying that in his conception of it, like in the real world, priests don't really go out of their way to market themselves (in a profit-oriented sense) or provide material services to the communities they render. One can change this around with minimal fuss, but there's really no great economic motivator causing priests to do anything. The only reason people would really go to them in the first place is if they made their spellcasting services accessable. If they didn't, then people wouldn't seek them out and offer them money. Pretty simple, either way. I think the degree of magical aid offered by the clergy is basically something the DM can easily fine-tune to his liking without affecting a lot of other material, as long as he remembers that most priests are experts with no spellcasting capacity, and that adepts make up the overwhelming majority of the rest. Not likely...but the faiths don't sell them. Well, they do...maybe...sell them for cash + service/obligation. If you are really powerful, they will consider it a swap of favors. If you aren't, too bloody bad. And that's pretty much the rote way a NPC priest/adept/cleric is supposed to be played if you stumble into the temple and need their services. There's more NPC temples with spellcasting adepts around then there are Jorasco heirs and enclaves...sometimes you just don't have the option. And Druids, as Divine casters, fall under the umbrella of this policy.'Cept rangers and paladins are divine casters, too, and I'm sure that completely different M.O.s apply to them (e.g. a paladin probably should just be wandering around and giving spells away to the needy). I'm also quite sure that the religious doctrines of the Blood of Vol, the Path of Light, the Silver Flame, Olladra, and Kol Korran would have completely different things to say on the matter. So it's not a great big monolith that druids are a part of, by any means. Druids do cast stuff like weather magic for communities, sometimes, in addition to offering their nonmagical knowledge. I'm sure they could accept rewards for such service, too. Buuuuut, if the cleric/druid is a mercenary, I don't have to worry about all that suddenly.Why? Many of Khorvaire's mercenaries, particularly the Valenar, act in a very independent capacity. I think it was explicitly stated (don't have a source citation handy - apologies) that Valenar mercenaries don't really mingle with the troops they're helping or reinforcing at all. They just kind of act by themselves to accomplish certain tasks. In that context, the employer really can't micromanage what they're doing. I see Valenar pride generally keeping druids from acting as medics for more than just their units, and employers having little say in that part of the operation (that's what Jorasco healers or priests of Dol Arrah / Dol Dorn are for, anyway). Okay, examples aside, now we get to the core of your argument, it seems... You really need to go back and read some of Hellcow's very impassioned dissertations on this topic (i.e. the old Ask Hellcow threads). To say I got him started on a roll was an understatement...he didn't want to concede ANY ground. Your explanations are being incredibly liberal in what 'selling spells' is all about...and it's not all just pure healing magic, and it's not all competition between the temple priest, the druid in the park, and the Jorasco enclave down the street.Your claim is that mercenary druids casting spells for money justifies priests selling their spells in temples. Hellcow covered this nicely on page 4, I thought:So really it IS up to you. I am trying to make faith more like faith in our world, and things I write for the setting will reflect that. Want a blessing? Go to a temple. Want healing? Go to the hospital. An adept of the goddess of healing may in fact heal you at the hospital, if that's where her sense of duty and devotion has led her - but she's doing it in a place of business, not a sanctum of the divine. If it's a shrine instead of a Jorasco healing house, I'd expect the adepts to be saving their magic for the most hopeless cases who they will heal at no charge... relying on the donations of the community to support these good works.Now, either you're putting words into his mouth or he's changed his tune, but, either way, nothing Hellcow says here creates a contradiction or opens up the floodgates for massive amounts of priestly spells-for-hire in temples. Why? Because, right there, in his own words, Hellcow is saying that he fully expects that some divine spellcasters will totally cast spells on demand, perhaps even for money, outside the context of their religious worship. Our Valenar druid is doing just that: casting spells as a mercenary, outside the context of his religious worship (i.e. stuff like praying to the ancestors and tending the heards). And, without any hedging, Hellcow says that's fine! Et voila, no slippery slope! All that's left with is the "spells explicitly cast for profit at a temple" issue, which, as stated, is really a non-issue.
Siran Dunmorgan 11-28-05, 09:16 PM	No Valenar can be a druid without a druidic ancestor? How incredibly...limiting. Appropriate, maybe. Conflicting? Most certainly, for a divine spellcaster. Forcing every Valenar who learns druidic magic to have a Druidic ancestor...sorry, don't think that's going to happen. Read Hellcow's articles on the subject, again. Culturally, the ancestor chooses the elf However, for players, this is retroactively part of the character creation process, i.e., if a player has a Valenar elf character, and the character takes druid levels, the ancestor is assumed to have done so as well. It's possible to have a Valenar character, who—for whatever reason—has ceased to emulate their ancestor and has taken levels in a class that the ancestor did not, but this seems to be the exception rather than the norm for Valenar characters, and such a character would problably suffer in dealings with other Valenar. —Siran Dunmorgan
davethebrave371 11-28-05, 09:50 PM	Seriously, I don't know why everyone bothers arguing with aelryinth. He has proven that he does not actually read anything, whether official, Hellcow, or posted in this thread, excepting of course for his own opinion, which he reads, re-reads and regurgitates with little regard for reasoned arguments to the contrary, whereas everyone else in this thread has proven that they can, in fact, respond to each other's points, and to rebuttals to each other's and their own points, quite well. We know he won't respond rationally, or reason anything, and that he does some sort of strange "my campaign does this, so it's official" revisionism. So why even bother? I think Errant was correct in assuming he's just trolling, and we shouldn't feed the troll. Of course, unlike normal trolls, this one doesn't seem vulnerable to flame, it seems to feed off it. Again, I'm just leaving it alone from now on, unless he starts actually listening to us...or official material...or really anything outside of his own head.
The Dreaming Duck 11-28-05, 11:47 PM	Ranger magic isn't druidic magic, ranger magic is ranger magic. Where it comes from is the fact it is Divine magic, and it can come from ANYWHERE...especially in Eberron. they get the magic because they get the magic...not because they have a druidic bent. As it turns out, we were both wrong on this (see, I'm willing to admit when I make a mistake... a strange concept, I know): The divine force of nature powers druid and ranger spells. There you have it: by the rules, it is refered to as a "divine force" (making me wrong) and druids and rangers are specifically linked together as drawing their magic from the same source (making you wrong). They may be "ranger spells", but they perform the same functions as druid spells and are drawn from the same source. With that said, to give credit where credit is due, you're right that the lack of alignment restriction on rangers - along with the lack of knowledge of the Druidic language - indicates that there is a some sort of fundamental spiritual difference between the two. Of course, the majority of my points remain valid as well; while it may be "the divine force of nature", it's a force that doesn't dabble in augury, divination, or commune - a divine force that provides no guidance to those who "respect" it and does not traffic with outsiders, aside from the elementals.
Errant 11-29-05, 12:29 AM	Well Aelryinth, I see you once again skip my questions regarding what exactly your positions are. The whole problem with your focus on 'spell-selling' is you are focusing on spells which are most useful to low level folks. Maybe thats because in a world where its clearly established that most clergy are NPC Adepts, not Clerics, most of the priests you meet at your local temple will only be able to cast low level spells, if any? But, lets ignore that, because “most” of the time is apparently not what we're talking about. Now, my fighter just staggered in to the temple (yes, it's a temple) of a priest whose faith he doesn't follow (any conflict you like) and is in need of a Remove Curse (explosively bad acne, halitosis, or maybe he got his gender changed). A stranger staggers into my temple, trailing blood and complaining of a malevolent curse, what's going to be my first logical question? Probably, something like: “How did that happen?” Is he going to wander down to Jorasco to get this problem fixed? Is it going to go away?... Most likely, no and no, agreed. Did he do anything that expressly furthers the priest's faith? No...he got cursed while adventuring, one of a zillion ways. Next logical question: “Adventuring you say? What do you mean? Fighting the enemies of my faith? Robbing my sister temple in the next town over?” THAT's where your system falls down Aelryinth. Being assured of the availability of spells for cash ignores the way NPCs fit into their environment. They have their own vested interest that they want to protect and serve. You're trying to obtain a service of limited availability from an individual (or organization, take your pick) with a high demand for their services and an established agenda. There's lots of people who WANT my/our services, but only a helping fraction of those people helps my agenda. And he'd like to pay the priest (okay, he's got a rank in Diplomacy and will 'donate to the church') to get rid of his affliction. “Excellent, my son! It warms my heart that you're want to show your appreciation, but really, how did you come to so afflicted? Because gold's nice, but there's more important things in life.” See where I'm going with this Aelryinth? WHY you need my services is (generally) more important to me, as your average priest, than the fact that you're willing to pay for them. I believe that's the crux of the “argument against spells for cash”. No-one's saying you CAN'T get spells for cash (throw a quote at me and I'll surrender that point), just that generally your gold is less important than why you need the spells in the first place. Now, if the unlucky bastard is willing to accept a quest and make an offering (donation/pay the priest), then there's a possibility of aid...with a good diplomacy roll (alas, no ranks but the one, and base 8 Cha!). Of course metagaming we know Diplomacy is one of three ways to change the priest's attitude, we could also try to Bluff him or Intimidate him, but whatever way we go, we presumably start off with a Cautious NPC and we want to change his attitude to Helpful. Surely you'd agree that if we can show helping us significantly serves his own interests we'd get a significant circumstances bonus to that? You really need to go back and read some of Hellcow's very impassioned dissertations on this topic (i.e. the old Ask Hellcow threads). To say I got him started on a roll was an understatement...he didn't want to concede ANY ground. Your explanations are being incredibly liberal in what 'selling spells' is all about...and it's not all just pure healing magic, and it's not all competition between the temple priest, the druid in the park, and the Jorasco enclave down the street. You're still just ignoring statements that don't serve your position. In this very thread Hellcow said “I don't want is for a temple to be seen as a storefront instead of a house of prayer ... really it IS up to you. I am trying to make faith more like faith in our world” and “Just ask yourself "Does the priest believe this is why he has his powers? Do the faithful believe that this is how a priest should behave? Is this why the faith established this building here?" If the answer to all these is yes, sell away. If it's no, then you can still sell - but the priest is either violating his personal faith, the conduct of the church, or the trust of his flock.” Is this what you're disagreeing with Aelryinth? Or something said way back when that was since clarified or corrected? As for the whole Valenar horses thing, you are completely missing my point, as seems to be normal. The setting said the breeding had NOT been done...it never said it COULDN'T be done. Moreover, it distinctly notes that they ARE trying to crack the breeding secret! And you miss my point. You seem to be working on the assumption that because its not specified to be impossible within the official material (for House Vadalis or someone else other than the Valenar), it must be possible, despite the fact that after decades of trying no-one has achieved it. I don't think I've ever said it CAN'T be done. My position is that the official setting strongly implies that it MAY NOT be possible. For instance, if the Valenar breeding process involves breeding in a particular area co-terminus (is that the word?) with Lammania, there may be no other way to duplicate it. Again, I'm not saying it IS impossible, I'm saying (according to official material) it MAY BE impossible. You then promptly set up the Valenar Warhorse as a 'sacred cow' of the setting. I'm sorry, but 3E doesn't play that game. You mean like how the City of Sharn takes advantage of a co-terminus (I do hope thats the word) plane to keep its towers and skysleds etc aloft? If someone does it, anyone can do it...they just have to figure out HOW. They also have to have meet the necessary requirements. Whether that be doing something within a specified location, or with particular items (yes, as dictated by the DM/setting). ...going after Valenar horses for the potential money to be made there IS a terrific economic incentive....and a Quest for the PC's. And people will do lots for gold. Of course, SOME people will TRY to do anything for enough gold, but that doesn't mean everything they want is possible. I may well be interpreting Hellcow wrong on his view of Druids, but he seems to be putting a lot of limitations on his Divine Casters that his Druids just don't have to ascribe to, especially the Valenar... Once again, this seems to come back to the idea that because druids ride with warbands they must be mercenaries and must therefore sell their spellcasting services "despite" Keith's comments that he generally doesn't see clerics selling spells. If you have something else you're basing this idea on, sharing the source might be helpful. The way he's presented it, it looks like the Valenar view the magic of nature as just another weapon to be wielded...if they are capable of wielding the power, then they can do what they want with it... But, that could simply be the way I'm reading it. Certainly the Druids don't seem to have censure and restrictions hanging over their heads the way Clerical casters do. There are five possible alignments for druids which suggests to me at least five different approaches to wielding/mastering druidic magic and so far there have been 4 Dragonshards on examples of the effects/realities different druidic philosophies in Eberron. If you rely on one possible interpretation of any of Hellcow's statements in isolation without bearing in mind all of the other possibilities of course you're left with something that's hard to wrap your ear around. There may well be some druids (Valenar or not) who do view the magic of nature as just another weapon to be wielded, just like any other sort of magic. That doesn't mean its a prevalent or even common attitude. And don't forget even Valenar druids have restrictions, being specifically prohibited from taking certain feats. Doesn't this reflect, in roleplaying terms, the binding effect of their specific traditions? I've always been of the mind that rangers and druidic spellcasting was less of a Devotion to nature then knowing enough about it to tease some power out of the Land, too. Certainly I don't see most rangers worshiping the Land...they are just 'in tune' with it. Druids, on the other hand, I've seen as servants of Nature's will, but that Will seems to be whatever the Druid wants it to be, as long as they can cast spells everything's fine. Why the distinction? What is “Nature's will”? Why isn't it possible that some druids see their magic the same way rangers do (as you've described) they just have greater dedication and/or affinity to focusing on mastering the potential of that magic? Why isn't it possible that some druids approach their art that way, while others strive to interpret and serve “Nature's will”, while others sense the magic running through the natural world and wield it with the same attitude that a wizard does (only it manifests differently because they somehow manipulate it differently)? If you think less in absolutes and more in tendencies, allowing for exceptions, you might find things easier to wrap your ear around. I also tend to be very conservative on the subject of manipulating normal animals. Dire animals raise my hackles as being unnatural...horrid animals are distinctly unnatural, and were made by DRUIDS, of all people?? Druids despise magebred animals...but the Valenar horses are FAR more unnatural (impossible speed, unnatural longevity, breeding inability) and there doesn't seem to be any conflict with THEM. Again, different philosophies for different druids. Nature is impartial. Storms and droughts strike down the good and evil equally. I imagine many druids would agree with you, while others would say “the potential for all these forms of life is there in Nature, we're just bringing it to the fore”. The Ashbound (if I'm remembering which sect is which correctly) might think Valenar druidic practices are equally as abominable as arcane practices. Sooo...I see the Druids of the Eberron setting as arrogant. I'm sure there are some very arrogant druids in Eberron, but that hardly makes all of them arrogant. ----ANd the rules druids seem to have are, as long as I stay a little Neutral in alignment, I can do pretty much what I want. To the point of using druidic magic against the enemy of my, uh, employer. And making Horrid animals that drip acid from their claws and fangs (good for the environment, I'm sure). I'm a predator after all...if I can use it, obviously I'm supposed to! This isn't more restrictive then a cleric, who still has to obey the tenets of his faith...somehow...while retaining his faith. The druid can bounce all over the alignment chart without losing his faith...just has to stay 'part-neutral'. Rather liberating! And no pishy codes of behavior to pay attention to. Ride with the warbands against the enemy of the day? No problemo! We all know that goblins are the same as the Giants trying to enslave/conquer/subjugate the elves that my ancestor fought back in the day. You're right, strictly by the rules it is possible for druids to bounce all over the alignment chart and still keep their powers so long as they stay partially neutral. Same as 3E clerics can change alignment so long as they stay within one step of their deity (assuming they had a deity), hell, in Eberron they don't even have to have the stay that close in alignment. If they belong to a church or other organized faith though, their brethren might not be so forgiving but thats not covered by the rules either. As for Horrid animals, think of the Nature of the prime material plane as part of the greater Nature of the planes in general. To preserve the balance, and prevent outsiders crossing over with immunity to all native inhabitants of your plane, wrecking whole ecologies because they have no natural predator/s, Nature provides the potential for its champions (druids) to counter such creatures, just as a body develops antibodies to infection. Druids may misuse such powers because they're mortal and fallible, that doesn't mean all those that use such powers do so against Nature. No Valenar can be a druid without a druidic ancestor? How incredibly...limiting. Appropriate, maybe. Conflicting? Most certainly, for a divine spellcaster. Forcing every Valenar who learns druidic magic to have a Druidic ancestor...sorry, don't think that's going to happen. My take would be that druids follow their path because they are born with the necessary talents/sensitivity/affinity to Nature allowing them to master its requirements. How they use those talents is determined by the ancestor that inspires them. My ancestor might have been a renowned giant slaying fighter, I might not have the same talent with sword and bow, but my druidic talent allows me to emulate his deeds in battle against the giants of the modern world (whether they're actual giants or symbolic). As for Ranger spells... I don't see where you were going re Ranger spells I'm afraid. Especially since it seems to contradict your own description of how you see rangers using their magic.
Errant 11-29-05, 01:25 AM	Seriously, I don't know why everyone bothers arguing with aelryinth. Speaking for myself, I'm still not inclined to let him proclaim his unsourced opinion as absolute fact without challenging it. Plus, sometimes, Aelryinth displays some genuine creative talent. It would be nice if we could get to a place where we can take advantage of that talent within mutually acceptable bounds of reference for the benefit of a greater appreciation of Eberron all around. And finally, if he is just trolling, maybe a moderator will step in and put an end to that irritation for us. Oh, and by the way, I don't want to offend anyone, but could we please keep the font normal size? The big stuff hurts my eyes. :)
a_psh 11-29-05, 01:57 AM	Oh, and by the way, I don't want to offend anyone, but could we please keep the font normal size? The big stuff hurts my eyes.Will do. Apologies. (I find it quite annoying that there isn't a font that's only 2-3 points taller than the default available. This is what I was trying to get, but it doesn't exist. Anyway, I'll use a different mode of emphasis next time.)
aelryinth 11-29-05, 03:05 AM	And I've got four people arguing against my one, and people wonder why I don't specifically answer each and every post? Heh. I don't have that much time. As for the cleric/healing example, the point I meant to make about how he got the curse was the fact he got it in an inherently Neutral manner...i.e. not directly benefiting the faith at hand, not against it. He stumbled into the temple because it was the only place he might find help. There are far more temples/shrines/churches around then Jorasco enclaves, and let's suppose this one had a priest handy who could actually do something for him. By rote, the priest will turn him away and tell him to go to the big town and get his problem taken care of for cash, he's going to save his magic for his parishoners. UNless...there's the diplomacy button for Cash+Favor. As for the other gods and selling spells...Hellcow affirmed that even the Evil ones had the same attitude. The Blood of Vol, now, might be different...but overall, by rote is by rote, it didn't matter what temple you went to. ------------ Don't even think about comparing Valenar warhorses to cheetahs and lions. Those aren't even the same species. Valenar horses are magically modified horses, period. They have horses with other horses, something lions and cheetahs don't have. I'm sure you could even work out the template. -------------------------------------------------- As for Horrid animals...these things were made as living weapons, which is entirely unnatural, and constantly dripping acid can't be good for the environment. They represent the worst kind of tampering with nature...obliviousness to the longterm consequences. Ranger magic still isn't druidic magic. I DID say it came from the Land IMO...but ranger magic doesn't come with ANY strictures tied to it. 'Teasng it' or 'taking it' from the Land are both totally viable interpretations of what is going on. There's no connotations of 'service' involved. Forcing a druid to have a druidic ancestor is a major restriction on a Valenar character. What if I want to surpass my warrior ancestor and take a few druid levels so I have magic he didn't have? No? Why not? Emulate doesn't neccessarily mean cookie cutter imitation. And new ways of looking at Druidism have to come from somewhere...these are Valenar, not Aerenal. No obligations to Nature means Druids can be pretty much free to do what they want with their gifts...which means twisting the wording of whatever they want to do is pretty easy...which is arrogance of power, and is exactly how Mages view arcane magic. The connotation of service seems fairly low...it's merely how you choose to exercise your power, and I have a problem with that for a major Divine Casting class. The obligations of Druids to Nature should be strong...and they aren't, in Eberron. Druids do have guilds...they call them Druid Circles and put them in wild places. mages have guilds and put them in civilized places. Druids exercise power in a rural setting with influence over land and beast, and wizards in an urban one with magic items and spells for cash. Both seem to treat their magic fairly cavaliarly. I'd actually give Druids six alignments...'true' Neutral and 'false' Neutral constituting Neutral. And arguments for the Greater Nature of the Planes isn't quite selling me...Druids don't care about other planes except as intruders, and nature magic that over the long term damages the environment more then what they are supposed to stop is not responsible Druidism (the long term effects of Horrid animals I just don't want to contemplate on an environment...insanely aggressive, far more dangerous then beasts of their type, and they damage the area they live in to boot? Ugh.) Otherplanar stuff is the realm of mages and arcane magic, or Clerics and the Outsider servants of their Gods. As for Valenar horses, again, the whole premise is that making your own Valenar horse IS possible...you just have to find out how. I never said it would be easy...but elves don't monopolize manifest zones, and just because Sharn makes airsleds easier to make doesn't mean you can't make an airsled that works outside of it...it just takes more effort. You seem to be arguing for sacred cows even as you argue against them. ==Aelryinth
Errant 11-29-05, 06:52 AM	Well Aelryinth, I still want to know if you're saying (a) because druids ride with warbands they must be mercenaries and must therefore sell their spellcasting services "despite" Keith's comments that he generally doesn't see clerics selling spells; and (b) because there's no reason specified why others can't breed Valenar horses they "must" be able to. And I've got four people arguing against my one, and people wonder why I don't specifically answer each and every post? Heh. I don't have that much time. Maybe a few more sources to support your arguments would squelch some opposition? As for the cleric/healing example, the point I meant to make about how he got the curse was the fact he got it in an inherently Neutral manner...i.e. not directly benefiting the faith at hand, not against it… By rote, the priest will turn him away and tell him to go to the big town and get his problem taken care of for cash, he's going to save his magic for his parishioners. UNless...there's the diplomacy button for Cash+Favor. So, again, who says he CAN'T get help from a temple for Cash+Favor by exercising some diplomacy? Like I said before, Hellcow said he doesn't like temples being seen as storefronts. Nearly anyone gets served in a storefront for the right price. In a temple you have to do more than just front up with the gold. In a temple you have to persuade the priesthood that servicing you serves their interests, their greater cause (whatever that happens to be). The difference is it’s more than a simple financial transaction. Think of it from the other perspective. If you're a member of his congregation, looking after you probably does serve the priest’s interest, probably even enough (following Hellcow’s examples) that there may be no cash charge. How does the congregation feel if they can't rely on their local priest to meet their needs because he keeps using his magic to look after strangers in return for cash? Wouldn't be very inspiring would it? If you're not part of the congregation, the priest has to weigh up the cost of sacrificing the spells he would have devoted to his cause if you hadn't shown up, against the benefit of helping you. As for Horrid animals...these things were made as living weapons, which is entirely unnatural, and constantly dripping acid can't be good for the environment. They represent the worst kind of tampering with nature...obliviousness to the long-term consequences. Didn’t it occur to you Aelryinth, that even some (or all) of the druids that created them may have viewed them as a necessary evil, created only in desperation, as a last resort? There might be some druids that think of them as the pinnacle of predatory evolution, but I doubt they’re in the majority. The rules clearly make them possible to create with Druidic magic, that is with Nature magic. That gives us two choices, house rule them out of our games, or try to figure out how such horrible creations could come from Nature magic. The first choice is easy, and any DM/group’s right to make. The second choice is harder, and may require a mental shift in our perception of what constitutes “Nature”, but eventually it expands the options for drama and adventure at the gaming table. Ranger magic still isn't druidic magic. I DID say it came from the Land IMO...but ranger magic doesn't come with ANY strictures tied to it. 'Teasng it' or 'taking it' from the Land are both totally viable interpretations of what is going on. There's no connotations of 'service' involved. Ok, I think I get where you’re coming from here, but what if the ranger develops an affinity for Nature, but he’s not committed to it. His mastery is therefore less than the committed druid’s. The druid on the other is committed and he develops a much higher affinity to Nature, which is expressed as his “reverence” for it. Cease to revere Nature, violate the beliefs that you built your mastery of nature magic on, and you destroy the finely tuned affinity that gave you that mastery. The ranger learns to sense nature, and roughly manipulate it through that limited perception. The druid becomes much more “at one” with nature and masters it through that harmony, lose the harmony, lose the foundation to your mastery. No obligations to Nature means Druids can be pretty much free to do what they want with their gifts...which means twisting the wording of whatever they want to do is pretty easy...which is arrogance of power, and is exactly how Mages view arcane magic… The obligations of Druids to Nature should be strong...and they aren't, in Eberron. Ok, I see where the druids are arrogant came from now, but where do you get the idea that Druids don’t have strong obligations to Nature in Eberron? I’m not aware of where the SRD requirements for druids to maintain reverence and alignment restrictions were lifted. Are we still going back to because druids ride with warbands they must be mercenaries and must therefore sell their spellcasting services? … arguments for the Greater Nature of the Planes isn't quite selling me...Druids don't care about other planes except as intruders… Otherplanar stuff is the realm of mages and arcane magic, or Clerics and the Outsider servants of their Gods. Remember, I said Nature provides the potential for its champions to counter outsiders crossing over. The ebb and flow of manifest zones are part of the ongoing cycle of life in Eberron, so other planes presumably have a much greater impact on the natural environment than in just about any other setting except Planescape. Druids are foremost among the champions of Nature, so surely they’re more concerned with the planes far more than in other settings (except Planescape, assuming they have druids in Planescape), hence when Nature (as a magical entity/force of some kind) evolves to compensate for the effects of the other planes druids are able to tap into the potential to create Horrid animals etc. As for Valenar horses, again, the whole premise is that making your own Valenar horse IS possible...you just have to find out how. I never said it would be easy...but elves don't monopolize manifest zones, and just because Sharn makes airsleds easier to make doesn't mean you can't make an airsled that works outside of it...it just takes more effort. You seem to be arguing for sacred cows even as you argue against them. So does that mean you’re not talking about creating Valenar horses, you’re talking about creating Greater Magebred Horses (for want of a better term)? If that’s what you mean I have no further argument on that topic, but if you still insist that it must be possible to steal Valenar horses and breed them independently of the Valenar breeding them, we’ll have to go another round. Firstly, just because you can make an airsled that flies outside Sharn doesn’t mean you’ve made a Sharn airsled. The ECS (p.146) says “the manifest zone primarily enhances spells and magic items that permit levitation and actual flight. Outside the zone, most of these items either grow weaker or lose the ability to function altogether”. So, you’d have to use different techniques and you’d actually wind up with an airsled superior to a Sharn airsled since it wouldn’t be limited to operating inside the manifest zone. A manifest zone was one example, and if the right manifest zone only exists in one place, deep in Valenar territory (on Khorvaire or their lands in Aerenal) is someone else really going to be able to breed them without the Valenar’s permission and assistance? What if the Tairnadal legends are true and the spirits of the Valenar’s ancient champions live on in their modern day steeds, and, those spirits must freely choose to bond with newborn steeds (or help in some other way) to give them their exalted abilities? I don’t think that contradicts anything official and it would certainly go a long way toward explain the horses’ resistance to non-elves to riding them. My point is, the exact reason isn’t specified so it’s NOT necessarily possible. It MAY be possible, but SAYING its possible doesn’t make it so unless it’s something in official material doing the saying. Get your own Eberron article published by WoTC and I’ll surrender the point. It’ll be a sad day, because that will neuter all the other stories developed by creative DMs out there, but that’ll make it official.
a_psh 11-29-05, 07:35 AM	Addressing the main point here would be nice. To reiterate,Okay, examples aside, now we get to the core of your argument, it seems... Your claim is that mercenary druids casting spells for money justifies priests selling their spells in temples. Hellcow covered this nicely on page 4, I thought:So really it IS up to you. I am trying to make faith more like faith in our world, and things I write for the setting will reflect that. Want a blessing? Go to a temple. Want healing? Go to the hospital. An adept of the goddess of healing may in fact heal you at the hospital, if that's where her sense of duty and devotion has led her - but she's doing it in a place of business, not a sanctum of the divine. If it's a shrine instead of a Jorasco healing house, I'd expect the adepts to be saving their magic for the most hopeless cases who they will heal at no charge... relying on the donations of the community to support these good works.Now, either you're putting words into his mouth or he's changed his tune, but, either way, nothing Hellcow says here creates a contradiction or opens up the floodgates for massive amounts of priestly spells-for-hire in temples. Why? Because, right there, in his own words, Hellcow is saying that he fully expects that some divine spellcasters will totally cast spells on demand, perhaps even for money, outside the context of their religious worship. Our Valenar druid is doing just that: casting spells as a mercenary, outside the context of his religious worship (i.e. stuff like praying to the ancestors and tending the heards). And, without any hedging, Hellcow says that's fine! Et voila, no slippery slope!The Keith quote has been made like four times now. It seems to go straight to the heart of the larger divine-spells-for-hire issue; it also directly breaks the chain you're building between mercenary druidical spellcasting and the entire world imploding under the weight of a giant contradiction in the setting. It screams for attention.
Roxlimn 11-29-05, 07:44 AM	aelryinth: the reason given was, the Valenar take umbrage at anyone else daring to ride Valenar Warhorses. Which, when we are talking the level of money that is being dealt with, means jack squat all. And just because they haven't found the secret YET doesn't mean that someone WON'T...which means everyone wants their own Valenar stud farm so they can find the secret first and make monster $$$$$$$$$. And yet again, an excellent example of the hubris and arrogance with which you approach setting material. If the reason given for a particular situation being what it is isn't sufficient, then obviously, there are other reasons for why the situation is what it is, not that the situation isn't what it is. For example, I strongly feel that the reasons given for the existence of magic is insufficient. That doesn't mean that magic therefore does not exist. That simply means that there are other reasons not yet expounded upon. See that? In the same way that you blatantly ignore the fact that Valenar Horses are only bred in Valenar, so I also blatantly ignore the fact that magic is central to Eberron. Allow me to provide another example. Just because the Lords of Dust aren't currently the Kings of the Five Nations doesn't mean that they can't, and I don't accept the flimsy reason that they don't aspire for political power. I simply cannot accept this rationale as being sufficient (as you do for the Valenar Horses). Therefore, this means that each of the Five Nations is in imminent danger of being overtaken by one of the Lords of Dust. For that matter, I don't accept the reasons given for their being imprisoned as well. IMO, Keith needs to further justify why they aren't monarchs, or I simply believe that they are. Bye bye Five Nations Kings and Khorvaire as we know it. Yes, I am the sole authority on Eberron, greater than God when it comes to this matter! I am the absolute greatest! Keith should get down on his knees and kiss my feet! For that matter, all of you should, as well!!! See that? It gets irritating, and ultimately, actually quite funny. Your notion that you've "made Keith develop Eberron" is so arrogant and so implausible that it's downright ridiculous. You do yourself no favors by acting so foolishly. And that whole section was just silly, Rox. After I posted it, Keith went on to say, no no, this isn't right, and by the information that existed at the time, it is and was perfectly plausible and justifiable (heck, it STILL is, even after the Druid post...who breeds the Horses first is instantly rich!). Not exactly. Part of information that existed at the time is that only the Valenar have possessed Valenar Horses for the last century. This is but one of the facts about Eberron that you persist in ignoring. The question isn't whether this is true. It's true by default. It's like asking whether Eberron has magic. The question of whether Eberron has magic isn't contestable. It's a given. So is the fact that Valenar Warhorses aren't available on the market. For any price. You don't argue facts. You may as well argue whether (not why) the sun rises in the morning. It's an unwinnable argument. It's simply an empirical truth. A couple of elite soldiers raiding Valenar soldiers is not sufficient or extraordinary enough a reason for Valenar Warhorses to be suddenly available. Conflict between Karrnathi soldiers (elite or otherwise) and Valenar has been occuring for decades. If it were as simple-minded as that, surely some idiot would have eventually thought of doing just so and attempted it - and obviously failed (because Valenar Warhorses still aren't available). Here's another fact you conveniently ignore: Valenar Warhorses have been at the top of the Vadalis wish list ever since that House discovered these things. They have not managed to acquire these horses thus far. If Valenar being guarded about their horses is enough to foil the efforts of a powerful Dragonmarked House thus far, surely it is a enough to foil a small brigand outfit, no matter how elite it is? The supposition that anyone who manages to breed Valenar Warhorses outside of Valenar will have a valuable resource on his hands is reasonable. The assumption that this is an idiot's errand is not. I didn't post the idea to make him correct it...he corrected it because obviously it would break the economics of the setting. It STILL is a perfectly valid idea...it's just that the hopes and dreams of breeding Valenar horses ISN'T going to happen for the NPC's. Quest time for the PC's as they attempt to lay bare the facts of breeding Valenar Warhorses!....and whoever has the biggest stud farm of em, makes the most gold! (or who pays the PC's the most to spill the beans). So there's still going to be a demand for the Valenar horses, of all kinds...but until the secret is found, it's not going to get explosive because you won't be able to breed them. I strongly disagree. Everyone wants the secret of The Colonel's Fried Chicken. Anyone who manages to steal this secret will have a powerful resource on his hands. It's probably equally true that KFC will exert all of its considerable power to make sure that every individual who knows the secret has KFC's best interests at heart. Same for Coke's and Pepsi's secret recipes. Despite existing for long periods of time, and despite the great desirability of the secrets, these secrets are not easily divulged by the stupid. Obviously if these real world secrets are realistic, then it should also be realistic to postulate the same in a game, should it not? Indeed, Coke's secrets, while protected by patent, would easily give its competitors a powerful edge, should they be discovered by the unscrupulous, should Coke fail to take active countermeasures. In this case, the only people keeping Coke's secret a secret, are the company people themselves. There is no unique magical heritage. There is no specific unique place. Keeping secrets of economic significance does not "break" any economic model of Eberron that I know of, and indeed, I believe that you are probably less acquainted with the probable economic models than many other posters who have not voiced similar (misguided) concerns as you have. EVENTUALLY...someone is going to crack the Valenar secret. Off Camera, in the future. It may take a century more (it has already), but it will get done. Why? Because the incentive to crack it is too darn strong, and there are no sacred cows. 1. Who said that the incentive to break the secret is stronger than the Valenar's resolve to keep it? You, I guess. I did not notice anything said to that effect in any setting material. You are making up this stuff wholesale. 2. Who said that there are no sacred cows? As for the whole Valenar horses thing, you are completely missing my point, as seems to be normal. The setting said the breeding had NOT been done...it never said it COULDN'T be done. Moreover, it distinctly notes that they ARE trying to crack the breeding secret! No one is missing your point, aelryinth. You simply fail to understand the rebuttals. The material doesn't say that Valenar Warhorses can't be bred outside of Valenar. It doesn't say that humans can't fly. It doesn't say that elves wear clothing of any sort on normal days. It doesn't say that gnomes can't burrow 20 feet per round. There are literally infinite possibilities that the setting material doesn't say. That does not necessarily mean that these possibilities are inevitable or even probable. This is a very, very basic logical fallacy, aelryinth, and again, I'm disappointed that I have to point this out to you. Even if you make up your stories wholesale, at least present actual logical arguments. Your representations of matters, economic, military, and political demonstrate a remarkable paucity of knowledge on these matters, for one so arrogant. Of course, those possessed of limited funds of knowledge tend to behave exactly that way, so I suppose I should not be surprised. From the deployment and number of military units, to the economic realities of guild based systems, to the political difficulties of Eberron's existing states, your arguments focus on the simple instead of the subtle, and on absurdly incredible instead of the plausible. I could post examples from your previous thread, but I needn't bother. Your posts on this thread themselves prove these statements with little doubt. Even so, I did expect better behavior on your part, especially given Keith's good natured responses on your thread. I had thought that you'd show the guy some semblance of gratitude. And I've got four people arguing against my one, and people wonder why I don't specifically answer each and every post? Heh. I don't have that much time. Well, I believe that many of the posts that reply to your posts only propose one or two specific objections to your presumptions, and many of those themes have been repeated by most of your opponents multiple times. If you like, you can organize your post by point (yours, since your outrageous statements are the eye of the storm, so to speak) and then bullet point the various objections to each point and address them. There aren't that many. Here, I'll address your concern directly, inasmuch as this is the first instance in which you've expressed it succintly and clearly enough to actually be apparent. And that's pretty much the rote way a NPC priest/adept/cleric is supposed to be played if you stumble into the temple and need their services. There's more NPC temples with spellcasting adepts around then there are Jorasco heirs and enclaves...sometimes you just don't have the option. And Druids, as Divine casters, fall under the umbrella of this policy. Buuuuut, if the cleric/druid is a mercenary, I don't have to worry about all that suddenly. Well, not necessarily. If you hire the Druid/Priest, then he's probably at least at an Indifferent attitude towards you, possibly friendly. You might persuade him to part with his spells at the standard rate, provided that you do so while he is "on duty." Also, there's the problem of the Valenar Merc actually agreeing to be hired by you. This fact seems to escape you, and I know you have problems catching points that aren't typed several times in bold red letters, so in order to facilitate the discussion, I'll make this effort: VALENAR ARE NOT ORDINARY MERCENARIES!!!! VALENAR ARE NOT ORDINARY MERCENARIES!!!! VALENAR ARE NOT ORDINARY MERCENARIES!!!! VALENAR ARE NOT ORDINARY MERCENARIES!!!! VALENAR ARE NOT ORDINARY MERCENARIES!!!! There. You can't have missed that. Valenar seek to emulate their ancestors through combat. They'll hire themselves out for gold, but only if it furthers their higher priorities. THIS IS NOT MY OWN INVENTED FACT. Unlike many of your statements, this is supported in many instances by Hellcow on the boards, and in printed material. A Valenar soldier may or may not accept a merc assignment, but his decision will ultimately be decided by higher priorities. Getting gold to fight is just a side benefit. What does this mean? Well, for one thing, this means that you can't expect to hire Valenar Mercenaries just like regular mercenaries. Sometimes, they'll fight whether you paid or not. Sometimes, they'll fight only if you offer them their demands, and sometimes, they won't fight no matter what you offer (if, for example, they deem your assignment insulting to their ancestors). Will a Druid hired by you cast spells for you? Well, that will fall to the rules regarding casters selling spells, and if you hired him in a favorable circumstance, you've been fair, and you've treated him with respect, he might be considered Friendly to you and allow you to purchase his spells. But wait! There's more. In Eberron, these rules are somewhat modified. As according to Keith Baker, Priests will only cast their spells to further the goals of their ethos. The payment may or may not matter depending. If this extends to Druids (and there's every indication that it should), then even a Druid who's friendly or even Helpful to you will only cast his spells for you if you ask him nicely and he believes that doing so will further the cause of the Valenar. The precedent of Priests casting their spells in a professional manner can, I suppose, be extended to Druids who are mercenary hires, but again, this does not automatically mean that the Valenar Druid you hired to fight will cast spells at your behest. He'll fight, because that's what you hired him to do, but casting spells is another matter entirely. Even if you can persuade him to acquiesce to a hire condition that he will cast certain spells at your command, there will likely be many conditionals regarding this agreement, and a long list of outs that are ambiguous enough to allow him to refuse, if following your order runs counter to the interests of his ethos. And even then, you'll probably have to pay for every spell. If I were you, I think that the best course of action for now would be to consolidate your arguments into a single whole, addressing each objection as it comes along on the line of argumentation. Errant: I thought he corrected it, while acknowledging that you had the right to play your campaign as you wish, because your scheme ignores the implications of official material and, probably, because turning breeding Valenar horses into a money making venture trivialises one of the unique features of the Valenar nation. It seems logical to me that they're Valenar horses because no-one else can breed them. Actually, aelryinth trivializes everything about the Valenar themselves, not just the Warhorses. In the Karrnath Sucks! thread, he proposes that Valenar are such blithering idiots that they would willingly charge their cavalry units into a fortress. Of course, that was the least of their proposed blunders. Based on his accounts, the Valenar would probably be on par with Natasha and Boris in terms of intellectual competence in military matters, though it would be a close call. Grimlock from the Dinobots might give them a run for their money. I'm not exaggerating. Go look at the thread if you wish. a_psh: I believe aelryinth is proposing that Druid hirelings from Valenar mercenary bands are the equivalent of Dominated Druids - doing exactly as he bids, casting their spells completely for free, aside from the charge of hiring the band. There are adequate precedents on why this is unreasonable, but I'm afraid that aelryinth is assuming that this is true, rather than being open to its being false. Also, if you notice, aleryinth is arguing from very much a player's perspective, treating the campaign and its NPCs as if they were PCs and he's the one playing them. Since he's effectively playing both the DM and the player, it becomes difficult for him to see the obvious problems with his arguments. He's effectively quite blind to the flaws of his suppositions.
davethebrave371 11-29-05, 09:46 AM	I have to say, I do agree with aelryinth on one point. It's definately possible to find out how to breed the horses, just as it's possible to find out what caused the Mourning, only obviously easier than that. In every campaign, something happened. It's different in every one, because everyone has an idea. It was the Dreaming Dark, it was the Lords of Dust, it was the daelkyr and/or the Cults of the Dragon Below, it was Cannith, it was Karrnath, it was Cyre, blah blah. Everyone DM has a reason, or if they don't, would make one if their players started investigating. Personally, in my game (and I know a few of my players read the forums, so I'm just hoping they don't read this thread), I'm making the Valenar horse issue all of the above. Special herbs are needed. An Irian manifest zone is needed (I'm saying that even the original Xen'drik ones were raised in an Irian manifest zone on Xen'drik before being carted over to Aernal). A Blood Warden druid is needed. Only mares are ridden to battle. Every suggestion put forth so far is going into what needs to be done, and factors as to why it's been unsuccesful. My players, if they want to, and none of them would I imagine, could go on a quest to find an Irian manifest zone, even a tiny one, somewhere on Khorvaire, so that Vadalis could pay them the big moneyz. Then they could go to Aernal and collect herbs. Then they could kidnap a Blood Warden and somehow make him perform the initial breeding rites while a Vadalis druid watches on to learn. In the end, I could make it so that without that specific bond (an rp thing not a mechanic thing), you couldn't do it, so a Vadalis druid couldn't do anything. However, if I choose to make it mechanical (i.e. do this ritual), that'd be fine too. Then the players could have a share in magebred Valenar warhorses. And that would be a truly Eberronian adventure. I like it. So, in closing, while I agree it would be difficult, it really is up to the DM to make it impossible or not. Which I think was aelryinth's point. By default it's just unspecified and hard to find out/do. You can change the default in any way you want.
Errant 11-29-05, 09:52 AM	Actually, aelryinth trivializes everything about the Valenar themselves, not just the Warhorses. In the Karrnath Sucks! thread, he proposes that Valenar are such blithering idiots that they would willingly charge their cavalry units into a fortress. Of course, that was the least of their proposed blunders. Based on his accounts, the Valenar would probably be on par with Natasha and Boris in terms of intellectual competence in military matters, though it would be a close call. Grimlock from the Dinobots might give them a run for their money. I have in fact read several pages worth of the Karrnath Sucks thread. The tales of endless tales of his heroes' superhuman and undefeatable accomplishments eventually drove me off. That was where I first noticed Aelryinth's tendency to obstinantly refuse to give any ground on his ideas not matter what the counter-argument. Sad really. The idea of a canny battleworn leader keeping a loyal band of followers alive and carving out a pocket of refuge despite mournland horrors, a raids by the Valenar being relatively forgotten by his home nation could have been really cool. Pity the excessive and supernatural abilities of the commander (Ruin? Immune to magic AND greatest strategist of his age?) and gross disregard for the powers of others trivialised (there's that word again) the accomplishments though. Damn. I was trying to avoid making any references to the thread myself in the hope of avoiding too many of the same arguments, now I had to vent. :(
Roxlimn 11-29-05, 10:27 AM	davethebrave371: Then the players could have a share in magebred Valenar warhorses. And that would be a truly Eberronian adventure. I like it. Well, not really. You see, the PCs in that instance would have "won" with few regrets and repercussions. Where's the grey? Where's the grit? IMO, one of the most powerful reasons why the Valenar Warhorses remain firmly in the hands of the Valenar is because they want it that way. Same reason for why they have Valenar in the first place. I believe your storyline would be more Eberron-like if it were so: Option 1: The PCs discover the process of horse breeding but are given an offer they can't refuse. As with many others, they are brought to an Aerenal Embassy and their minds are wiped clean. They're handsomely paid for their cooperation (or brutally punished for their arrogance), but the secret remains with the Valenar. Option 2: The PCs discover the process of horse breeding and are offered honorable (and lucrative!) positions in Valenar society in exchange for their silence. As their alleigances solidify, they reinforce the Valenar's forces, but only serve to reinforce a more or less weak nation. As their lieges put more and more quests on their hands, it begins to look less like a prize won and more like the same old thing - adventuring. Option 3: The PCs successfully steal the secret of Valenar Warhorse breeding and transmit the information to Vadalis. To avoid an international incident, the Vadalis then disavows the PCs and hunts them down. Their reputation is smeared by both parties as both Vadalis and Valenar hunt them down, each for their own reasons. As they flee into the inhospitable Demon Wastes, they vow revenge against their former masters. By the way: So, in closing, while I agree it would be difficult, it really is up to the DM to make it impossible or not. Which I think was aelryinth's point. By default it's just unspecified and hard to find out/do. You can change the default in any way you want. You mistake his point. His point is that it's not up to the DM. His point is that it should be the way he says it is. He accepts no compromise on the matter. We have suggested many times that what he is doing is strictly campaign specific, and none of us have any objections as long as it is clear that this is simply his own take on his own Eberron, and has only peripheral bearing on what Keith Baker is saying. He expressly denies this, and insists that his way is the only way to interpret the material.
Errant 11-29-05, 10:39 AM	I have to say, I do agree with aelryinth on one point. It's definately possible to find out how to breed the horses, just as it's possible to find out what caused the Mourning... I suppose this is where I disagree with both of you, on the idea that it should definitely be possible. I like the idea that there are some things that may always remain out of the PCs' reach, that there are limits to what can be accomplished, that the exact limits of their abilities will always be uncertain. How important is the world around them if the PCs can accomplish anything? Where's the triumph if victory is assured? How significant is the discovery if it was always certain to be discovered? There has to be the possibility of failure for victory to be an accomplishment and for bravery to be heroism. At the same time, there has to be the possibility of success for the PCs to have the hope of triumph. As soon as you remove the uncertainty, you lesson the mystery and depth of achievement. The heroic journey becomes a package tour. Thats how I see it anyway.
MarkB 11-29-05, 10:49 AM	"By rote", as in, 'rule of thumb', as in, 'normally', as in, 'standard of the setting'. That's not actually what 'by rote' means. Since you seem to use the phrase a lot, you may find it advantageous to check the definition (m-w.com gives a decent one in the second entry for 'rote'). As in, unless I've completely misinterpreted Hellcow's arguments for this very point, this is how your average priest is going to react...meaning virtually all of them, and those who don't are going to be rare, marginalized, and hard to find. I like to think characters in Eberron, even in the major faiths, are more individual than that. Extrapolating 'average' to mean 'virtually all' is a reach, and a massive one. As for the whole cleric argument, you again devolve into semantics. The point being that, he can certainly memorize it tomorrow if he knows I'm going to be paying for it...or he can reserve the slot for his parishoners. By rote, he'll reserve the slot! And yet again, you respond to the minutiae, but refuse to address the real point. I gave you an example, with a real-world analogy, of how the priest might choose to help the soldier, without it ever even coming close to resembling a financial transaction, and you blithely skip over it as though it does not exist. And again, you devolve into semantics for the mercenary. I can now hire the merc to work for me...and get my remove curse as part of his job. Only if you've got combat duty handy. And this goes back to a point I made very early in this thread: If Eberron made it impossible for clerics to take on tasks for money, even ones in which spellcasting was only peripherally involved, then no normal adventuring party could include a cleric. That is not, and never has been, a design intention. Simply because a character with cleric levels may, as part of his day-job, be called upon to cast spells, that does not mean you can walk into a temple and buy spells from any priest who happens to work there. As soon as you stop looking at this as a black-and-white, all-or-nothing issue, you will see that there is no dichotomy, contradiction or 'slippery slope' involved here. ----ANd the rules druids seem to have are, as long as I stay a little Neutral in alignment, I can do pretty much what I want. To the point of using druidic magic against the enemy of my, uh, employer. And making Horrid animals that drip acid from their claws and fangs (good for the environment, I'm sure). I'm a predator after all...if I can use it, obviously I'm supposed to! This isn't more restrictive then a cleric, who still has to obey the tenets of his faith...somehow...while retaining his faith. The druid can bounce all over the alignment chart without losing his faith...just has to stay 'part-neutral'. Rather liberating! And no pishy codes of behavior to pay attention to. Ride with the warbands against the enemy of the day? No problemo! We all know that goblins are the same as the Giants trying to enslave/conquer/subjugate the elves that my ancestor fought back in the day. A cleric has to stay true to his faith. A druid has to revere nature. I honestly don't see that either is any more or less restrictive than the other. No Valenar can be a druid without a druidic ancestor? How incredibly...limiting. Appropriate, maybe. Conflicting? Most certainly, for a divine spellcaster. Forcing every Valenar who learns druidic magic to have a Druidic ancestor...sorry, don't think that's going to happen. By this point, practically every single Valenar probably has at least one Druid in his ancestry. And the Keepers of the Past choose your patron ancestor based upon your aptitudes and beliefs. It's not that you have to have a Druidic patron ancestor in order to be a druid - it's that if you choose to become a druid, you're more likely to take a druidic patron, or at least one whose philosophy is compatible with druidic ideals. And sure, there are probably Valenar druids whose patron ancestor has nothing to do with druidic traditions - and I'd bet they are very conflicted characters and excellent PC concepts. But they'll be the exception and not the rule, and you seem to have no interest in exceptions. Druids get their power from Nature, sure. Not disputing that. But you do seem to be disputing that it has any significance. How did you put it? "Druids, on the other hand, I've seen as servants of Nature's will, but that Will seems to be whatever the Druid wants it to be, as long as they can cast spells everything's fine." Druids must revere nature, and that's just as deep a commitment as any Cleric's faith. Yes, interpretations of how to revere nature will vary from druid to druid, just as they do between clerics of different faiths, but an individual druid has to adhere to a level of commitment every bit as deep and demanding as that of a cleric. Where rangers get their power from...well, now, that's utterly debateable, isn't it? And has nothing to do with druidism. The Archetype D@D Ranger tends to be CG, not NG...or is LG, if you are an Aragorn fan. Sure, they get along well...so do LG rangers and LG priests, etc etc. But a ranger isn't held to much standards of faith and behavior that I can see anywhere...and that means their magic isn't Druidic at all. They can freely use it to abuse the Land, exploiting it if they desire. Not sure a Druid can do that...although I'd call Horrid animals something like that, but that's me. And a last point...the Druidic traditions are the Druidic traditions. While rangers may follow them, there's nothing in the setting that says a Black Dragon came over here and started the ranger tradition...and I'd find it really, really strange if they had, considering there's nothing Druidic in the description of rangers. They may dovetail nicely...but the Church of the Silver Flame didn't start the tradition of paladins, either. What is all this about rangers aside from a massive non-sequitur, in any case? As you say, they are linked only peripherally to druids, and what's at issue here is your interpretation of druidic faith, doctrine and flexibility. Whether or not rangers have the same commitment to nature as druids has no bearing upon the validity of druids being part of Valenar warbands.
Siran Dunmorgan 11-29-05, 12:25 PM	And arguments for the Greater Nature of the Planes isn't quite selling me...Druids don't care about other planes except as intruders, and nature magic that over the long term damages the environment more then what they are supposed to stop is not responsible Druidism... Otherplanar stuff is the realm of mages and arcane magic, or Clerics and the Outsider servants of their Gods. In other settings, you'd be mostly right. But we're talking about Eberron. There's an entire plane that enhances druidic magic: Lammania. There's a major sect of druids that regularly interacts with at least one other plane: the Greensingers and Thelanis. There's another sect of druids that believes that causing an ecological catastrophe, bringing on a universal winter, is the right course of action: this is service only to an unusually broad understanding of nature. There is evidence to suggest—in the description of the Gloaming—that the Children of Winter do in fact work with Dolurrh to bring on their universal winter. As another example, although the Gatekeepers created the horrid animals—to aid in the struggle against the daelkyr and their aberrations—it's quite reasonable to think that the Children of Winter could—and would—build entire ecosystems of horrid animals and consider that an improvement over the existing order. The service one does to nature is strongly dependent on one's understanding of what constitutes nature, per se—and, in the Eberron campaign setting, this understanding is expressed as the sect affiliation of the character. What constitutes service to and respect for nature to a Gatekeeper is very different from service to and respect for nature to an Ashbound, or a Child of Winter. —Siran Dunmorgan
Just another user 11-29-05, 02:27 PM	About Ranger magic being different from Druidic magic, it is not specified (I think it is somewhere in the Errata or the FAQ) that Ranger and Druid caster levels stack with each other if a character happen to have both?
The Dreaming Duck 11-29-05, 04:20 PM	And I've got four people arguing against my one, and people wonder why I don't specifically answer each and every post? Heh. I don't have that much time. That's not what I wondered at all. I wondered why you thought you could tell someone who posted on a public message board that his opinion wasn't valid because "you weren't talking to him." If you're not talking to him, don't post on the board. You can send a private message to up to five people at once: if you're just having a private conversation with four people, do it. He stumbled into the temple because it was the only place he might find help. There are far more temples/shrines/churches around then Jorasco enclaves, and let's suppose this one had a priest handy who could actually do something for him. But that's the key, Aelryinth. That's a terrible assumption for the fighter to make. An earlier poster had it dead on: because priests generally don't sell magic, people don't expect them to sell magic. Yes, in Sharn, there may be a dozen shrines for every Jorasco healing enclave. But if you're lucky one of those shrines has an actual adept of high enough level to do it, and he won't just be sitting by the front door waiting for you to come in. On the other hand, you can be fairly sure that the Jorasco house IS prepared to deal with it. So, there are far more shrines. But does your fighter stagger to every shrine asking each priest "Is there someone here who can remove my curse? No? Is it because you can't cast the spell or because you just won't? Is there someone else here I could talk to?" Or does he simply go to the place he knows is most likely to be able to perform the service and that is eager to do it for him? And Jorasco houses - well, they're as common as you want them to be. Remember that the houses are massive operations spread across the continent, and I'd expect Jorasco and Ghallanda to be among the most common, since Jorasco is basically a hospital. I'd say "If this was a town in our world, would it have a clinic or hospital?" and if the answer is yes, I'd give it a Jorasco outpost. Anyhow, it seems to me that the crux of your argument is that "Everyone knows priests can heal, there's more temples than Jorasco houses, thus I'll go to the priests first." The fact of the matter is that most priests can't heal (being experts or at best adepts without spontaneous casting), and that since most don't sell their spells, few people will go to them first. It's like being in a town that has an internet cafe, but instead of going there I wander from coffeehouse to coffeehouse hoping to find one that has wifi. Sure, there are more coffeehouses, and coffeehouses MAY have wifi, but I know this cafe does: it's advertised in the title. Do I waste my time wandering to every other possible place, or do I go to the place that makes a business out of what I'm looking for? Now, if I'm a paladin of the Silver Flame, and through Knowledge (religion) I know that there is a priest renowned for his magic at a particular temple, I WILL go to him first: I am a servant of his faith wounded in the line of duty. I'd hope that he would heal me for free - though as a sign of my faith I would offer some form of gift to the temple, whether it's gold or service. But again, it's not a store: it's the case that he has been given his powers to help the fight against darkness, and I'm a soldier on the front lines of that battle. Healing me is why he has those powers. Don't even think about comparing Valenar warhorses to cheetahs and lions. Don't even think about telling me what I can or can't think! How can you write something like this and not expect to get flamed? Look at Hellcow's posts. He's always saying "You can do things however you want, but I do it this way." You? You're telling me what I can or can't think, and that your opinion is simply better than mine. Maybe you don't mean to come off as insulting and arrogant as you do, but don't tell me what I can think and then act surprised when someone flames you. They have horses with other horses, something lions and cheetahs don't have. But they don't have VALENAR horses. Horses and donkeys. More importantly, humans and elves. Elves live longer than humans. Elves can breed with humans. And yet, when they do, they do not produce elves. That's about as clear as it can be. Valenar horses are to the horses of Khorvaire as elves are to humans. They come from a different continent. They possess different abilities. They live longer. And while they can interbreed with Khorvaire horses, they do not produce other members of their breed through such matings. Period. (See, that "period" really adds a touch of class and authority, don't you think?) And if you follow the theory that it is the spirit of the ancestors that enhances the horse - that's leagues away from a magebred animal. The Valenar horse is special because it is, fundamentally, blessed by the gods. By comparison, the magebred animal has been genetically engineered by a mad scientist. The Valenar horse may be an inately magical creature, but that doesn't make it unnatural - as Hellcow noted with displacer beasts in the first Druid dragonshard. Perhaps displacer beasts can only conceive in manifest zones linked to Mabar, and other matings produce panthers. Eberron is a magical world, and the laws of genetics do not have to behave as they do in our world - but they can still be laws. If a true Valenar horse can only be conceived in an Irian zone... that's still different from a wizard seeking to graft traits that an animal would never develop on its own. No obligations to Nature means Druids can be pretty much free to do what they want with their gifts...which means twisting the wording of whatever they want to do is pretty easy... The obligations of Druids to Nature should be strong...and they aren't, in Eberron. Oh, baloney. "The obligations of druids to nature should be strong." Says who? Find ANYTHING in the SRD that backs you up. All that is said is that druids must "respect" nature, must maintain a neutral alignment, and must avoid prohibited equipment. No obligations or duty are specified. Far from removing a druid's obligation to nature, Eberron expands on it, by giving each sect clear goals. The Ashbound HAVE an obligation to nature: protecting the natural world from those who would threaten it with the use of magic. The Gatekeepers protect it from beyond. The Children of Winter will destroy the world in the name of nature. Please tell me how creating these sects - giving druids clear goals - is somehow "weakening" the obligations of the druid from what is presented in the SRD. YOU may do something different with druids in your campaign. You may have enforce strict bonds on what druids can do with their powers. But the SRD does not, and Eberron in no way weakens the SRD. it's one thing for you to say that you don't like what Eberron does with druids, and that you would do it differently. But that doesn't make what Eberron does with druids wrong. Period. (See how catchy that is?) Druids do have guilds...they call them Druid Circles and put them in wild places... Both seem to treat their magic fairly cavaliarly. Really? Cool. Could you point me to where this is stated in the SRD or the ECS? Because if you can't, we're talking about your personal campaign again, not Eberron. Meanwhile, I'm basing my campaign on things like page 172 of the ECS, where we're told that the Wardens of the Wood serve Eldeen communities as "spiritual guides and advisors". Nothing cavalier about that, in my opinion. Druids don't care about other planes except as intruders... Except for the influence of Lamannia, Fernia, and Risia, and the Greensingers' tie to Thelanis. Again, you're saying "Druids" as if it's a blanket term. In Eberron, that's like saying "Clerics don't care about necromancy." WHICH clerics? You're a smart and imaginative person, Aelryinth. What I find so intensely frustrating about dealing with you is your overwhlming attitude of "What I do in my campaign is correct, and anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot." If you told me "Here's what I do with druids, which gives them a stronger obligation to nature and which I feel gives them a more meaningful connection to the natural world" I would probably say "Sounds interesting. Tell me more!" Instead, you say "Eberron blatantly ignores the (nonexistent) obligations to nature all druids should have and makes druids wizards who live in the woods." I've used the Children of Winter and the Ashbound in my game, and they weren't wizards who lived in the woods with no interest in nature, always looking for ways to weasel out of their obligations. You may have other ideas - and they may be good ideas. But that doesn't make everyone else wrong, and your attitude of "If you're not with me, you're an idiot" doesn't encourage people to try to see things from your perspective. Period.
aelryinth 11-29-05, 06:22 PM	Twelve Posts to one, and people still wonder why I can't specifically address all their points. And half of them are longer then mine...especially Roxlimn, who not only is devolving himself into intellectual bashing again, has no understanding of economic incentives and how real life works. Amazing. --------------------------------- Let's Go over a few little things. The Cleric Healing example: Quit shoving in extraneous factors to make your point. I set up the situation. I'm perfectly aware of the charitable aspect, and did I say that wouldn't happen? No. I set it up so charity is a Neutral option...and highly unlikely. The situation is thus...the fighter needs magic, there's no need for charity, there's no one else in the area who can take care of him, and he's willing to pay/donate. I didn't even add in a time kicker of enemies in hot pursuit so that he needs help before he can reach the big town. The average village will have a shrine or church, it probably won't have a Jorasco enclave. Might have a wise woman. You have to get a notch up to generate enough business for an Enclave...although who knows, you could get lucky and there be a Hostel there, although I'd think those would stay more along the best routes too. Point being, Jorasco isn't everywhere...it's an outgrowth of civilized society, and that means there's going to be huge areas where both them and sedentary mages aren't found. But, there's always a chance with the village priest and I don't think Jorasco deals with Curse Removal, or other things you might want from a priest). And by rote, the priest will send you on your way. There is no particularly compelling circumstances here. This is the nature of the Eberron setting. I'm utterly amazed that people are arguing this at all. This is how it works, for the most part. Hellcow was pretty darn clear on this point...as far as I know, I'm arguing HIS VIEW on things. And people are still contradicting me because I'm me? =========== Don't even think about comparing cheetahs and lions means just that. They don't interbreed...cheetahs are closer to dogs then to big cats. And in case you missed it, Valenar horses bred to Valenar horses in captivity make...normal horses. Go read the Shard again. And Valenar Warhorses do, too. And how would they know that unless it had been done? Which means they got their hands on some? Ding, Ding! Almost impossible NOT to after a hundred years. Keith covered himself nicely. Problems dealing with magical genetics? The displacer beast IS a magical beast. The Valenar Warhorse is NOT. Yet it's obviously not a natural beast, because it naturally does not breed true. Nor does it hybrid true, as mules and half-elves come about. ------------- Rox seems to ignore the fact that if there is a way to make money, people will naturally be inclined to pursue it. If there is a way to make a LOT of money, more and better people will pursue it. And going after Valenar horses, and how to breed them, is a major possible source of money. I'm sorry Rox, but you seem to think the Valenar are operating in a vacuum, and I don't see it that way. You throw a system into imbalance, which they are doing with the introduction of a vastly superior product (their horses) and people WILL scramble to compete. But, because they setting doesn't expressly say they will, it's not going to happen? Riiiiiight. After the start of most of that close minded post, I'm sorry to say I skipped most of it... ========================= And Keith's revisions and clarifications on the Ruin thread basically shot down the easy revenue stream for the Wolves...as did the location of Fort Lewt, which doesn't border Valenar anywhere. I am depressed and I mope, but I concede his point. The Value of Valenar Horses that don't breed true is now limited to resale riding value...the 'stud rights', which was the center of the scheme, doesn't apply...and it IS the best way to make money there. And where in my example anywhere did I post cavalry waltzing into Fort Lewt? Someone needs to go back and read them...the whole episode with the Herdmind was at the outer marker of Fort Lewt's patrol territory. The Fort was nowhere in sight...it was Hellcow who assumed the diplomatic party was coming into the Fort, not I! Sheesh. You'll note I didn't cite the Colonel or anything else for ANY reason here. The thread was cited for Hellcow's RESPONSES to what I was trying to do...and those responses framed his thinking for the current Dragonshard and the entire Valenar Horse problem. If I hadn't been so keen/adamant on the breeding/stud rights issue, he wouldn't have touched on them at all...but it was an open point, he recognized it (something that seems remarkably lacking in the above posts), and he addressed it and closed it. Unlike him, I can't revise and clarify the information of the setting, so of course the whole premise for the Wolves looks foolish now...they've been errata'd and Sharded into non-compliance...which wasn't there when they were put in place! That doesn't make me WRONG when I made them. Again, sheesh. --------------------------- This is 3E. There are no sacred cows. It may be difficult, it may be hard, but the days of NPC's being able to do things PC's never will are no longer here...that's a tenet of the game. If you want that in your game, fine, but it's not a core concept...it's a House Rule. And I, for one, like it. ----------------------------------- Valenar Mercs are mercs. The reasons WHY they fight are completely superfluous once they agree to. I am utterly unconcerned with if, then's, whys and wherefores. They are mercs! The facts broil down to: 1) Druids ride with Valenar Warbands...not just Warclans, although those hire out, too. 2) Warbands can be hired for mercenary duty. 3) Once you've hired them for Mercenary duty, you can have the services of a divine caster for hire...which by the 'rules' of the setting shouldn't be so. For the Valenar, the WHY of the fighting is utterly irrelevant...I'm talking about the hiring person, who couldn't give a fig for the reasons why the Valenar fight, only that this warband agreed to it, and there's a druid there who can cast spells for him in it. Presto, step around the casting for gold restriction. That's all there is to it. Adding a slew of other things from the Valenar side isn't particularly compelling here...here's gold, there's spells. Neither is adding a load of maybe's...maybe the Valenar don't want to get hired, maybe you can't hire them...blah blah blah. The example is, you hired the Valenar. Period. (see? works nice.) There happens to be a druid in the band, because they DO ride with Warbands. Period. (oooo, there it is again.). As the mercenaries you've hired, you now have a divine caster on the payroll, who as part of his services has spellcasting you can employ. Again, Period! (isn't reptitive sarcasm irritating?) Go ahead and beat the dead horse. The above is my point. Nothing more to it. Adding more doesn't void my point at all, because the example exists just fine without corollary exceptions. Your but-but-buts are irrelevant to the example I just posted...the example is what it is. And the logical progression is, if the Valenar have divine casters hiring out as mercs, then others do too...which means divine casting is for sale via the mercenary walkaround. ----------------------------------- And while Valenar emulate their ancestors, they hire out for gold and glory, and are remarkably...mercenary about who they gain that gold and glory fighting against. Cyre today, Breland tomorrow, Aundair the day after. Fluidity and availability of who to fight for their glory seem built right into them. Lofty goals don't enter into the decisions nearly as much as everyone here seems to think of Super-elfsies. Emulation isn't a heady thing...it's a practical drive to succeed, and plenty of Valenar go about it with anything but lofty ideals. --------------------------- Druids don't want co-terminous zones with Lamminia or Thelanis anymore then they want them with Syrania. There's plenty of creatures hostile to the Prime on both planes...not the least of which are lycanthropes and dark fey. Neither plane is particularly friendly to bipedal sentients, and getting involved in the politics of those planes is generally a bad idea, even if you like dancing around with pixies. If both planes were good for Nature, then the Druids would be working to bring them MORE into contact with Eberron, would they not? It's just not happening that I can see...and if it is, then what we have is Druids arrogantly abusing their power, and now maybe mages should be riding to the rescue of Nature from being subjagated to these otherplanar influences! (Now there's a Gatekeeper twist for you.) And yes, I do realize Druids consider Fey an extension of the natural world in many cases. Which is rather strange, considering they tend to be far more aligned to arcane energies, but what the hey. But elementals could be considered extensions of the Natural world too, and you won't find many druids advocating permanent links to the planes of fire and earth. ------------- Major divine spellcasting without obligations to the power providing the magic strikes me as wrong. Even clerical casting in Eberron obeys this stricture...if you don't satisfy your obligations of duty and benefit to your sponsoring power, you can have all the faith in the world and lose your magic. If you do satisfy them, you can even be the wrong alignment and keep them...in Eberron, as long as you have faith, however misguided it may be. Druids have no obligations, they just need to have faith/reverence. Oh yeah, and they can bounce all over the Neutral alignments on a whim. This means they can treat their gifts just as cavaliarly as mages do...and they seem to do just that. Just gotta have faitha-faitha-faith...(cue guitar solo). That's my view on it. Feel free to disagree, as some of you seem to just for the sake of it's Ael and he can't be right, but I don't LIKE divine magic without service implied, especially for major casters. That's what Arcane magic is for, and why divine casters don't like Arcane casters, and why Arcane casters think of Divine casters as slaves for spells. Druids seem to be getting their hands completely untied. -------------------------------------------------- Neccessary Evil = Horrid Animals? Sounds exactly like the same sort of rationalization mages make when they experiment...and the same sort of arrogant "I Know Best." And these guys sit in judgement of magi? -------- And as for MarkB and his questions about the Valenar, why don't you go back and read them before sitting in judgement? He's basically repeating everything I said is true and chewing me out for posting it. Everything I posted is in reply to another poster. So he's asking me why I'm doing this when it's all perfectly obvious, and I'm not replying to him, I'm replying to another poster. Every question he asked was irrelevant, because he was agreeing with every post on that specific topic! Ergo, it was superfluous, and I told him so. We weren't in conflict, so why did he try to make it seem as if we were? --------------------------------- Wow, Dave actually had something solid to contribute, which I've been trying to get across for what, 3 pages of posts, and no one seemed to realize? Amazing...he actually got the point first. Everyone else seems to be trying to deny the point actually exists at all. ---------------------------------- ===Aelryinth
Just another user 11-29-05, 06:43 PM	Twelve Posts to one, and people still wonder why I can't specifically address all their points. And half of them are longer then mine...especially Roxlimn, who not only is devolving himself into intellectual bashing again, has no understanding of economic incentives and how real life works. Amazing. --------------------------------- Let's Go over a few little things. The Cleric Healing example: Quit shoving in extraneous factors to make your point. I set up the situation. I'm perfectly aware of the charitable aspect, and did I say that wouldn't happen? No. I set it up so charity is a Neutral option...and highly unlikely. The situation is thus...the fighter needs magic, there's no need for charity, there's no one else in the area who can take care of him, and he's willing to pay/donate. I didn't even add in a time kicker of enemies in hot pursuit so that he needs help before he can reach the big town. The average village will have a shrine or church, it probably won't have a Jorasco enclave. Might have a wise woman. You have to get a notch up to generate enough business for an Enclave...although who knows, you could get lucky and there be a Hostel there, although I'd think those would stay more along the best routes too. well, that is sure a coincidence, a village that is not even big enough for a Jorasco enclave... and there is a priest able to cast 3rd level spells? i mean, what are the odds in eberron that this happen?
MarkB 11-29-05, 07:10 PM	Valenar Mercs are mercs. The reasons WHY they fight are completely superfluous once they agree to. I am utterly unconcerned with if, then's, whys and wherefores. They are mercs! The facts broil down to: 1) Druids ride with Valenar Warbands...not just Warclans, although those hire out, too. 2) Warbands can be hired for mercenary duty. 3) Once you've hired them for Mercenary duty, you can have the services of a divine caster for hire...which by the 'rules' of the setting shouldn't be so. For the Valenar, the WHY of the fighting is utterly irrelevant...I'm talking about the hiring person, who couldn't give a fig for the reasons why the Valenar fight, only that this warband agreed to it, and there's a druid there who can cast spells for him in it. Presto, step around the casting for gold restriction. That's all there is to it. Adding a slew of other things from the Valenar side isn't particularly compelling here...here's gold, there's spells. Neither is adding a load of maybe's...maybe the Valenar don't want to get hired, maybe you can't hire them...blah blah blah. The example is, you hired the Valenar. Period. (see? works nice.) There happens to be a druid in the band, because they DO ride with Warbands. Period. (oooo, there it is again.). As the mercenaries you've hired, you now have a divine caster on the payroll, who as part of his services has spellcasting you can employ. Again, Period! (isn't reptitive sarcasm irritating?) So: All you have to do in order to have spellcasting available for gold is to find a worthy challenge for a Valenar warband to fight and find a warband with a druid and convince them that casting a specific spell falls within the remit of their duty - and then you might get the spell you're looking for as part of a package deal which costs you rather more than buying the spell from a wizard or Jorasco hospital, and requires significantly more specialised circumstances. And you're trying to equate all that with spellcasting-for-cash at the temple door and say that it's illogical or unethical for the campaign setting to include one without the other? Go ahead and beat the dead horse. The above is my point. Nothing more to it. Adding more doesn't void my point at all, because the example exists just fine without corollary exceptions. Your but-but-buts are irrelevant to the example I just posted...the example is what it is. Yes. And what it is is a highly convoluted way of finding an exception to a rule which was never more than a general guideline to begin with. And the logical progression is, if the Valenar have divine casters hiring out as mercs, then others do too...which means divine casting is for sale via the mercenary walkaround. It means that divine spellcasters who choose to serve in mercenary companies sell their general services and aptitudes. That still isn't equivalent to a direct spells-for-cash transaction. Major divine spellcasting without obligations to the power providing the magic strikes me as wrong. Even clerical casting in Eberron obeys this stricture...if you don't satisfy your obligations of duty and benefit to your sponsoring power, you can have all the faith in the world and lose your magic. If you do satisfy them, you can even be the wrong alignment and keep them...in Eberron, as long as you have faith, however misguided it may be. Druids have no obligations, they just need to have faith/reverence. How can you revere nature without feeling an obligation to it? I don't see that that's possible. Reverence for nature brings with it just as many responsibilities as belief in a religion, or an ideal. Oh yeah, and they can bounce all over the Neutral alignments on a whim. This means they can treat their gifts just as cavaliarly as mages do...and they seem to do just that. Where and when do they seem to do that? All the examples of Druidic organisations in the ECS follow pretty strict and distinct codes of belief and behaviour. Just because it's possible to change alignment and retain your druidic powers doesn't mean it's something that happens - no character changes alignment on a whim, and a character dedicated to an ideal, as any member of Eberron's druidic sects is, would be even less likely to spontaneously change his beliefs and alignment than average. That's my view on it. Feel free to disagree, as some of you seem to just for the sake of it's Ael and he can't be right, but I don't LIKE divine magic without service implied, especially for major casters. That's what Arcane magic is for, and why divine casters don't like Arcane casters, and why Arcane casters think of Divine casters as slaves for spells. Druids seem to be getting their hands completely untied. Druids have as many restrictions as clerics. They just don't have the same restrictions as clerics. Maintaining reverence for nature and neutrality of outlook requires no less commitment and dedication than maintaining belief in a deity and in the principles of a religion. Neccessary Evil = Horrid Animals? Sounds exactly like the same sort of rationalization mages make when they experiment...and the same sort of arrogant "I Know Best." And these guys sit in judgement of magi? And here you go lumping all druidic sects together again. The Ashbound druids who despise arcane magic follow a very different path to the ancient Gatekeepers who created the Horrid Animals. And maybe the ancient Gatekeeper druids were being needlessly expedient when they created the Horrid Animals - or maybe they weren't. Nobody said druids were incapable of error, and people go to great lengths in wartime. If faced with a major planar invasion, who knows what lengths the modern world's clerics might go to? After all, the Silver Flame weren't above the wholesale slaughter of lycanthropes 166 years ago, and that's certainly no less questionable an act.
a_psh 11-29-05, 07:11 PM	I totally agree with you on this much, Ael: you can pay divine casters to travel around with you and cast spells as they see fit. But where in this block of Keith text on the exact subject of priestly spellcasting (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7868929&postcount=134) is there any contradiction of this? If priests using magic outside of their religious lives is already perfectly acceptable and accepted, where's the problem? How do Valenar mercenary druids open the doors for anything?
The Dreaming Duck 11-29-05, 07:28 PM	The average village will have a shrine or church, it probably won't have a Jorasco enclave. Even assuming that's true, the average village will have a 5th level adept, so the remove curse example won't work anyway: the fighter is just plain out of luck in a small community. And once he goes to a larger community, what do you know, Jorasco healing house. Don't forget that Jorasco houses deal in mundane healing as well as magical healing: the healer's guild isn't just limited to heirs of the house. Jorasco, effectively, runs the hospitals and clinics of Khorvaire; a village may not have a Jorasco heir present, but a large village might have a clinic licensed by the house. I don't think Jorasco deals with Curse Removal, or other things you might want from a priest. What's your basis for this? Personally, I couldn't disagree more. Priests of Olladra work at Jorasco healing houses. Thus, any spell you could buy from an adept can be bought at a large enough healing house - and in a world that has magical afflictions such as curses, I would expect the hospital analogues to be prepared to deal with them. Why would the priest of Aureon, who's life is dedicated to maintaining order and studying lore, prepare remove curse... when a priest of Olladra working at a specialized facility that provides magical care to those in need wouldn't? As far as I know, I'm arguing HIS VIEW on things. Actually, his view has been quoted four times already on this thread... Is it in line with the ethos of the priest, is it what people expect from the priest, is it why the temple was established. Not simply a flat dismissal, but a suggestion to consider the elements of the specific case. The fighter in your example might be dismiessed out of hand, yes, if the priest doesn't see removing curses from infidel strangers as being his duty. But perhaps he will act out of charity. Perhaps he's a greedy bastard and wants the gold. By Hellcow's word, that's perfectly acceptable: he's just saying that people think of Jorasco when they think of buying healing, not "let's go down to the local temple" - and usually with good reason. And where in my example anywhere did I post cavalry waltzing into Fort Lewt? Who said Fort Lewt was involved? Page 4, post 104. The Battle of the Hole. Five hundred Valenar and their mounts killed with they charge into a fortress that is actually one big trap. Whatever you may think of my opinions, Aelryinth, I do read your posts (Bloodcloak Betrayal? Good stuff.). That doesn't make me WRONG when I made them. Correct. And I, for one, appreciate the efforts you do put into your creations. There's a lot of good ideas on the Karrnath thread. I just find your hostile manner and general attitude of "What i say is right, period" to be insulting and off-putting - which in turn drives me to argue your points. You have good ideas, but you're not always right. Learn to live with it. And the logical progression is, if the Valenar have divine casters hiring out as mercs, then others do too... Which Hellcow has said on this thread. Except that those mercenary spellcasters, like the Valenar, are with mercenary companies because their ethos drives them to participate in war... so the cleric of Dol Dorn serving with the Blademark is no more likely to lift a stranger's curse than the adept in the village. You're clinging to this assumption that because the priest is a mercenary, he has no values and is completely up for sale. If that's the way you want to play it, fine. But that's not what Hellcow said, and it doesn't undermine the view he's presented... which has been requoted four times on this thread already. Druids don't want co-terminous zones with Lamminia or Thelanis anymore then they want them with Syrania. Once again with the "Druids want this" and "Druids want that." Can you tell me what the Greensingers want, Aelryinth? Can you tell me the details of their relationship with Thelanis? If you don't like what you see, give me an alternative. Tell me your view of the Greensingers, and how they can spend their days in the biggest manifest zone to Thelanis even though they don't want a greater connection between the two planes. I'm certain the Gatekeepers don't want a greater tie to Thelanis... but they Gatekeepers and Greensingers are completely different traditions. Please tell me how your blanket assertions make the world a more interesting place to play in - as opposed to the existence of different druidic sects that DO want different things. There's plenty of creatures hostile to the Prime on both planes...not the least of which are lycanthropes and dark fey. Which is why the Gatekeepers don't want it. But who's to say the Moonspeakers wouldn't love to see lycanthropes back in the world? Perhaps the chaotic Greensinger gets along great with the dark fey, and doesn't care what they may do to the Prime: in his worldview, Thelanis is what nature is meant to be. And the Children of Winter want to spread plague and disease! The assumption that all druids want to protect life is inherently flawed. Good druids? Maybe. But druids don't have to be good. The PHB notes that "Just as nature encompasses such dichotomies as life and death, beauty and horror, peace and violence, so two druids can manifest different or even opposite alignments"... The Wardens of the Wood seek to preserve life and peace; the Children of Winter bring death and horror; and so a Valenar war druid brings death and violence. All of these things are part of nature. The storm that destroys a city IS natural: the druid is the embodiment of that storm. And as such, healing strangers isn't high on his list, because he's not ABOUT life and healing: he's about the destructive power of nature. That's my view on it. Feel free to disagree... Thank you. Honestly, that's all I ask. I don't LIKE divine magic without service implied, especially for major casters. Aside from my repeated question of "And does the SRD imply what that service should be?" I'm just still surprised by this because I feel that Eberron goes a lot farther in GIVING druids goals to serve. The Wardens of the Wood aren't just cavalierly wandering around selling their services. They are actively protecting and advising the people of the Reaches. The Gatekeepers devote their lives to preserving the seals and the balance between the worlds. The Children of Winter seek to turn the wheel of nature, while the Ashbound are fanatics for their cause. Are their rules saying that a PC who takes the Ashbound feat HAS to kill wizards or lose his powers? No. But normal D&D doesn't have that either - and the Ashbound at least suggests a course of action the character should follow. The service is clearly "implied", even if it's not enforced. If you choose not to play it up - and make the Children of Winter and the Ashbound as ambivalent as the members of a typical wizard's guild - that's you choosing not to explore what the setting has offered, not the setting failing to put forth ideas. But with that said, pursuant to my previous post, and given that you are a person with good ideas: what's your alternative? What are the druids of your campaign like? What is the nature of the service they must render, and how would it apply to Eberron? You seem to have a pretty clear idea of how druids should behave - if you have time, I'd like to see it. Neccessary Evil = Horrid Animals? Sounds exactly like the same sort of rationalization mages make when they experiment...and the same sort of arrogant "I Know Best." And these guys sit in judgement of magi? Of course, it was also a rationalization made when the world was about to be destroyed by extraplanar horrors. Do you think they're proud of what they did? Have they done anything like that since then? We're talking about an act of desperation, and one that they may deeply, deeply regret. But the fact of the matter is that the world survived - and a world with a few twisted species is better than no world at all. Creating horrid animals in a desperate effort to fight a superior and deadly foe is a far cry from a Vadalis magebreeder trying to create a faster horse so he can make a few platinum.
Errant 11-29-05, 10:17 PM	Twelve Posts to one, and people still wonder why I can't specifically address all their points. Maybe you could try picking one point and conclusively defending it? If (dare I say it again, of course, I must, maybe you just missed it before), if you used some references to official material instead of just your opinion you might not get so much opposition. How about this: The facts broil down to: 1) Druids ride with Valenar Warbands...not just Warclans, although those hire out, too. 2) Warbands can be hired for mercenary duty. 3) Once you've hired them for Mercenary duty, you can have the services of a divine caster for hire...which by the 'rules' of the setting shouldn't be so. For the Valenar, the WHY of the fighting is utterly irrelevant...I'm talking about the hiring person, who couldn't give a fig for the reasons why the Valenar fight, only that this warband agreed to it, and there's a druid there who can cast spells for him in it. Presto, step around the casting for gold restriction. That's all there is to it. Ok, why don't we focus on this for a little, while since that's what the “facts broil down to”. (everyone? resolve this and it might cut into a lot of the other debate going on) 1) Druids ride with Valenar Warbands...not just Warclans, although those hire out, too. Agreed, Druids ride with Valenar Warbands. No problem. Says so right there in the Dragonshard, I even quoted the relevant line myself. 2) Warbands can be hired for mercenary duty. Partially correct. Sure, SOME warbands can be hired for mercenary duty, but does it say anywhere all warbands are? Anyone? According to the ECS, at any one time SOME warbands are assigned, as part of their Warclans, to defending Valenar and preserving law and order. Are those warbands available for mercenary service? I suppose if one of the home guard Warclans are having an easy time it would be tempting to make a few warbands available, but remember we're talking about long-lived elves. Wouldn't it be more sensible to exercise patience for a few years, wait your turn (assuming ALL warbands do work as mercs sometime) and focus on the responsibilities assigned to you by your ruler? 3) Once you've hired them for Mercenary duty, you can have the services of a divine caster for hire... Oops, hang on, its automatic that because you can hire warbands they include divine casters? Where was it said that druids serve in mercenary warbands? Even if we assume particular druids always serve with the same warbands, where is it said that all warbands take mercenary service? Isn't that like saying in our world that soldiers become mercenaries (which obviously some do), so ALL soldiers in our world are mercenaries? Hellcow, post 13 of this thread: “Just as the wolf can protect his pack, the druid can call on the powers of nature to protect his people. Yes, the druid shouldn't just get involved in trivial political squabbles, or hire out his services like a common mercenary. But druids can certainly serve as defenders, or bring the wrath of nature to their foes... and either of these paths (or others) could lead a druid to the battlefield.” Now “shouldn't” doesn't mean Valenar druids don't serve as mercenaries, but doesn't it strongly suggest those that do are in the minority and generally frowned upon by their peers? If anyone(!) knows of anything official (or any other Hellcow quote) that says differently, please share, I'd genuinely like to see it. ...which by the 'rules' of the setting shouldn't be so... Which 'rules' of the setting exactly? Again, anyone? For the Valenar, the WHY of the fighting is utterly irrelevant... Again, where does it say this exactly? Remember "a member of the Valaes Tairn values his horse and his patron ancestor above all things" from the ECS p.210 again? How does that reconcile with “the WHY of the fighting is utterly irrelevant”? I'm talking about the hiring person, who couldn't give a fig for the reasons why the Valenar fight, only that this warband agreed to it, and there's a druid there who can cast spells for him in it. Presto, step around the casting for gold restriction. That's all there is to it. Hey the client doesn't care why the Valenar fight he's just glad they'll fight for him, yay! Lucky him, he fluked it and the Valenar agreed his job was worth their time, double-yay! Extra lucky him, there's a druid in the warband that thought the job was worth her riding along on too, triple-yay! Now, why suddenly, is the druid at the client's beck and call? She's the expert in her field, why does she surrender her right to decide how to use her divine gifts and let the client dictate her actions? Is this that mysterious “standard code of mercenary conduct”? Where is that explained again? Does an American ambassador get to specify how the marines guarding his embassy deploy and defend his mission? If the prime minister sends in the SAS to rescue hostages from terrorists does he get to dictate how they do it? True, they're not mercenary contracts in action (if you believe the soldiers work for patriotism instead of their pay packet), but its a similar position of a client employing military experts to conduct a military action so think its a relevant parallel. If you (or anyone else) can't defend these points Aelryinth, Presto, you're position's looking pretty ludicrous. That's all there is to it.
aelryinth 11-29-05, 10:46 PM	Even assuming that's true, the average village will have a 5th level adept, so the remove curse example won't work anyway: the fighter is just plain out of luck in a small community. And once he goes to a larger community, what do you know, Jorasco healing house. Don't forget that Jorasco houses deal in mundane healing as well as magical healing: the healer's guild isn't just limited to heirs of the house. Jorasco, effectively, runs the hospitals and clinics of Khorvaire; a village may not have a Jorasco heir present, but a large village might have a clinic licensed by the house. Who will likely be an expert with ranks in healing, an Adept if they are really lucky. For what you need, you are better off checking the local house of the Divine. I believe your odds of finding a cleric/5 in a community are better then finding an Adept/8...but I could be wrong. What's your basis for this? Personally, I couldn't disagree more. Priests of Olladra work at Jorasco healing houses. Thus, any spell you could buy from an adept can be bought at a large enough healing house - and in a world that has magical afflictions such as curses, I would expect the hospital analogues to be prepared to deal with them. Why would the priest of Aureon, who's life is dedicated to maintaining order and studying lore, prepare remove curse... when a priest of Olladra working at a specialized facility that provides magical care to those in need wouldn't? Correction...you MIGHT find a priest of Olladra at Healing Houses. You have a much higher chance of finding one at a temple of Olladra. And I will find a priest of Aureon at the temple of Aureon. That's the difference. I might need services other then 'healing', you know? But the policy stays the same for ALL types of spells. [QUOTE=The Dreaming Duck] Actually, his view has been quoted four times already on this thread... Is it in line with the ethos of the priest, is it what people expect from the priest, is it why the temple was established. Not simply a flat dismissal, but a suggestion to consider the elements of the specific case. The fighter in your example might be dismiessed out of hand, yes, if the priest doesn't see removing curses from infidel strangers as being his duty. But perhaps he will act out of charity. Perhaps he's a greedy bastard and wants the gold. By Hellcow's word, that's perfectly acceptable: he's just saying that people think of Jorasco when they think of buying healing, not "let's go down to the local temple" - and usually with good reason. And of course, you overemphasize the flat dismissal end of things. I in no way conveyed a flat dismissal. I conveyed that, on average, in most situations, the priest is going to tell you to go elsewhere, his magic needs to be reserved for his parishoners. Even if you are inquiring about magic that his parishoners normally won't need. And even if he could reasonably be expected to benefit his community by using the cash so generated on their behalf. I expressly brought up those points when arguing with Hellcow over this, and he expressly shot them down. Your alternative is a diplomacy check for a Cash+Favors. This is what goes on, on average, and what the PC's should expect...which is why they'll go to the House of Healing. Who said Fort Lewt was involved? Page 4, post 104. The Battle of the Hole. Five hundred Valenar and their mounts killed with they charge into a fortress that is actually one big trap. Whatever you may think of my opinions, Aelryinth, I do read your posts (Bloodcloak Betrayal? Good stuff.). Ah, THAT battle. To be precise, the cavalry was mostly AROUND the fort, not IN the fort (it was a big Hole so it'd catch the horses outside.) And it was designed to collapse from the outside in, so they wouldn't have time to get away. The RIDERS, now, were pressing into the fort for the fight...and it's entirely reasonable to assume there was plenty of horse and riders close to the walls when the Hole opened...that was the whole point of the trap. Some mounted people were inside...but the idea was to catch horses and riders, and that Hole was large enough to do that, especially the ones outside the walls not expecting the trap. Honestly, who expects an entire fort to be just one gaping trap looking to stuff some Valenar into? Correct. And I, for one, appreciate the efforts you do put into your creations. There's a lot of good ideas on the Karrnath thread. I just find your hostile manner and general attitude of "What i say is right, period" to be insulting and off-putting - which in turn drives me to argue your points. You have good ideas, but you're not always right. Learn to live with it. My attitude gets hostile when people start denigrating me. Rox is particularly prominent at it. You'll notice I don't respond to Keith that way...because Keith is never dismissive, arrogant, or otherwise a browbasher. Yet everyone who seems to disagree with him gets leaped on...and I feel free to disagree with anyone, so they leap on me. Which Hellcow has said on this thread. Except that those mercenary spellcasters, like the Valenar, are with mercenary companies because their ethos drives them to participate in war... so the cleric of Dol Dorn serving with the Blademark is no more likely to lift a stranger's curse than the adept in the village. You're clinging to this assumption that because the priest is a mercenary, he has no values and is completely up for sale. If that's the way you want to play it, fine. But that's not what Hellcow said, and it doesn't undermine the view he's presented... which has been requoted four times on this thread already. I consider the end result of spending cash and getting spells to undermine what he's said. How you get there is pretty much immaterial. I did this, I got this, and I can do it fairly reliably. NOT something he seems to have intended. Once again with the "Druids want this" and "Druids want that." Can you tell me what the Greensingers want, Aelryinth? Can you tell me the details of their relationship with Thelanis? If you don't like what you see, give me an alternative. Tell me your view of the Greensingers, and how they can spend their days in the biggest manifest zone to Thelanis even though they don't want a greater connection between the two planes. I'm certain the Gatekeepers don't want a greater tie to Thelanis... but they Gatekeepers and Greensingers are completely different traditions. Please tell me how your blanket assertions make the world a more interesting place to play in - as opposed to the existence of different druidic sects that DO want different things. Are they working to make that manifest zone bigger is my main measurement...and I'm pretty sure that if they were wanting the connections to those planes to be bigger we'd have heard about it by now, as central as the fey homeland seems to be to the one, and how wild-related the Other is. But, you could indeed be right...which is why I threw in the example above, and once again shake my head at the lack of obligations needed to be a Druid. Which is why the Gatekeepers don't want it. But who's to say the Moonspeakers wouldn't love to see lycanthropes back in the world? Perhaps the chaotic Greensinger gets along great with the dark fey, and doesn't care what they may do to the Prime: in his worldview, Thelanis is what nature is meant to be. And the Children of Winter want to spread plague and disease! The assumption that all druids want to protect life is inherently flawed. Good druids? Maybe. But druids don't have to be good. The PHB notes that "Just as nature encompasses such dichotomies as life and death, beauty and horror, peace and violence, so two druids can manifest different or even opposite alignments"... The Wardens of the Wood seek to preserve life and peace; the Children of Winter bring death and horror; and so a Valenar war druid brings death and violence. All of these things are part of nature. The storm that destroys a city IS natural: the druid is the embodiment of that storm. And as such, healing strangers isn't high on his list, because he's not ABOUT life and healing: he's about the destructive power of nature. I will make a key point that pretty much no one wants lycanthropes back in the world; including the Moonspeakers (who seem designed to be particularly effective against lycanthropes, not allies of them). The druid may see himself the embodiment of the storm; so does the Air Elementalist mage. This boils again down to cavaliar use of magic and attitudes on usage for me. Thank you. Honestly, that's all I ask. And yet, I seem to be the only one people want to argue with. Aside from my repeated question of "And does the SRD imply what that service should be?" I'm just still surprised by this because I feel that Eberron goes a lot farther in GIVING druids goals to serve. The Wardens of the Wood aren't just cavalierly wandering around selling their services. They are actively protecting and advising the people of the Reaches. The Gatekeepers devote their lives to preserving the seals and the balance between the worlds. The Children of Winter seek to turn the wheel of nature, while the Ashbound are fanatics for their cause. Are their rules saying that a PC who takes the Ashbound feat HAS to kill wizards or lose his powers? No. But normal D&D doesn't have that either - and the Ashbound at least suggests a course of action the character should follow. The service is clearly "implied", even if it's not enforced. If you choose not to play it up - and make the Children of Winter and the Ashbound as ambivalent as the members of a typical wizard's guild - that's you choosing not to explore what the setting has offered, not the setting failing to put forth ideas. Service is no more implied above for druids then it is for rogues. What it gives is a jot of tools and different ways to present the viewpoints of a Druid...but there's nothing in there that mandates the fact that they have to serve. Does a Warden who doesn't serve the people lose his power? Does a Winter sect who refuses to spread death lose his? Does an Ashbound who doesn't oppose Arcane magic get punished? Does a Greensinger who persecutes fey get censored? Do they HAVE to join a sect? Nope. If they were clerics, they would at least face some sort of restrictions. I don't see any here. Revere/Have Faith. Be One of any Neutral alignment. Do your own thing. Here's some ways others are doing it. But with that said, pursuant to my previous post, and given that you are a person with good ideas: what's your alternative? What are the druids of your campaign like? What is the nature of the service they must render, and how would it apply to Eberron? You seem to have a pretty clear idea of how druids should behave - if you have time, I'd like to see it. I'm pretty much a traditionalist in the idea of druids. The whole idea of druids in the military of the Valenar is what set me off...the druid's role is a caretaker of nature, in whatever aspect/sect he likes to present himself. War is NOT a natural state...it's something invented by sentients. Competition over territory happens, but war is unique in that only sentient creatures actually pursue it. They may ride with their flock of devotees as healers and caretakers and advisors...but to go hot to trot to use nature magic against the enemy of the day violates everything I picture as a servant of the Land doing...he's not serving anything but his own desire for violence. That he can actually do it and get away with it, that he could consider himself the destructive storm instead of being the one who brings it when needed to defend the land...complete and utter arrogance. Predators hunt for food. They don't ride to war and kill for whatever reason of the day strikes their fancy. Of all the classes, druids were the one that had the most unity across all the races as defenders of the One Land everyone lived on. Now, Druidism and Druidic magic is just another weapon in the arsenal of war. To tell the truth, I don't like it a bit. Clerics ride to war because their faith revolves around abstract ideals. Druids go to war to defend the Land...not because some ancestor used Druidic magic to kill Giants 30K years ago, so I've got to Call Lightning down on goblins and humans so I can be more like him, or because some dolt somewhere shelled out some gold and we're all itching for a good fight against SOMETHING to prove how great we are. Of course, it was also a rationalization made when the world was about to be destroyed by extraplanar horrors. Do you think they're proud of what they did? Have they done anything like that since then? We're talking about an act of desperation, and one that they may deeply, deeply regret. But the fact of the matter is that the world survived - and a world with a few twisted species is better than no world at all. Creating horrid animals in a desperate effort to fight a superior and deadly foe is a far cry from a Vadalis magebreeder trying to create a faster horse so he can make a few platinum. Yeah, gotta admit, creating whole breeds of self-reproducing horrors that disrupt the natural ecology IS a far cry from some nitwit making a horse that's a little bit faster, stronger, and whose traits in the wild will be bred out of it within a generation or two. Why, we couldn't even be bothered to put in genetic timers or ways to reverse the process to remove their effect on Nature. But hey, DRUIDS made Horrid animals, so I guess they know best! ==Aelryinth
a_psh 11-29-05, 10:55 PM	Following Errant's suggestions... The facts broil down to: 1) Druids ride with Valenar Warbands...not just Warclans, although those hire out, too. 2) Warbands can be hired for mercenary duty. 3) Once you've hired them for Mercenary duty, you can have the services of a divine caster for hire...which by the 'rules' of the setting shouldn't be so. For the Valenar, the WHY of the fighting is utterly irrelevant...I'm talking about the hiring person, who couldn't give a fig for the reasons why the Valenar fight, only that this warband agreed to it, and there's a druid there who can cast spells for him in it. Presto, step around the casting for gold restriction. That's all there is to it. 1. Agreed! 2. Agreed! 3. Err, as previously pointed out, this is in the 'rules' of the setting. Two quickie points on this: a.) Keith has stated and been quoted copiously as saying that there's a distinction between priests not selling spells in temples and not selling spells at all, for starters. If this was against the setting, then adventuring priests would be, too. There are priests who hire out as henchmen or adventurers, certainly, and there are definitely large numbers of priests who go to war as soldier. If this point is left standing, it makes the whole argument a non-issue. b.) To be more specific, I don't think the Valenar or even mercinaries at all are the greatest example here. The Valenar operate as more-or-less independent units. You give them a task to carry out and they handle it with speed and efficiency, but, for the most part, their own tactics. Now, it may seem a bit of a stretch to say that this works in small numbers, too. I will attempt to argue that it isn't. This is actually not too dissimilar to the way that modern PMCs (private military companies) and "security" forces operate. Even if you only pick up 10 or 20 guys, they usually run their own logistics. Now, does that mean they're willful, disloyal, or unprofessional? Nope. But they take of their own thing and you trust them to operate within the parameters of the job. I think the Valenar unit, even if it's hardly bigger than an adventuring party, most definitely operates in this manner. Given their particular skill set, which is generally good for skirmishing and related stuff (like scouting or hit-and-run raids), you're getting an elite and flexible light cavalry force that is mostly active on the periphery of the main battle. Makes quite a lot of sense that they'd have even more leeway in their operations, then. Likewise, even the Blademarks work in a similar way. When you buy a set of Blademarks, they come with their own (usually Deneith House member) leaders. These people have already established a rapport with thier men (or gnolls, for that matter) and can coordinate the activities of their unit. Your duty is to tell them what to do as a whole, and the mercenaries themselves handle the details. So, in the sense that healers are available as henchmen and the like, I agree with you, Ael: there's going to be some around. However, (a.) this doesn't break any magical rules and (b.) the Valenar are actually pretty poor candidates for this kind of thing.
aelryinth 11-29-05, 11:16 PM	Following Errant's suggestions... 1. Agreed! 2. Agreed! 3. Err, as previously pointed out, this is in the 'rules' of the setting. Two quickie points on this: a.) Keith has stated and been quoted copiously as saying that there's a distinction between priests not selling spells in temples and not selling spells at all, for starters. If this was against the setting, then adventuring priests would be, too. There are priests who hire out as henchmen or adventurers, certainly, and there are definitely large numbers of priests who go to war as soldier. If this point is left standing, it makes the whole argument a non-issue. b.) To be more specific, I don't think the Valenar or even mercinaries at all are the greatest example here. The Valenar operate as more-or-less independent units. You give them a task to carry out and they handle it with speed and efficiency, but, for the most part, their own tactics. Now, it may seem a bit of a stretch to say that this works in small numbers, too. I will attempt to argue that it isn't. This is actually not too dissimilar to the way that modern PMCs (private military companies) and "security" forces operate. Even if you only pick up 10 or 20 guys, they usually run their own logistics. Now, does that mean they're willful, disloyal, or unprofessional? Nope. But they take of their own thing and you trust them to operate within the parameters of the job. I think the Valenar unit, even if it's hardly bigger than an adventuring party, most definitely operates in this manner. Given their particular skill set, which is generally good for skirmishing and related stuff (like scouting or hit-and-run raids), you're getting an elite and flexible light cavalry force that is mostly active on the periphery of the main battle. Makes quite a lot of sense that they'd have even more leeway in their operations, then. Likewise, even the Blademarks work in a similar way. When you buy a set of Blademarks, they come with their own (usually Deneith House member) leaders. These people have already established a rapport with thier men (or gnolls, for that matter) and can coordinate the activities of their unit. Your duty is to tell them what to do as a whole, and the mercenaries themselves handle the details. So, in the sense that healers are available as henchmen and the like, I agree with you, Ael: there's going to be some around. However, (a.) this doesn't break any magical rules and (b.) the Valenar are actually pretty poor candidates for this kind of thing. The Valenar are the examples that it CAN be done. I actually think it would be far easier to do it with other merc units...and they'd be more reliable. After all, as it has been pointed out, Valenar have all these strange motivations bouncing around inside them...you can pretty much figure out why members of the Nations who do this are doing it. I'm just using Valenar because of the official statement you can find divine casters in military settings, and that said units can be hired for gold. ==Aelryinth
Errant 11-29-05, 11:22 PM	Oh come on Aelryinth, not even going to try and address my rebuttals to your points? I though you were more creative than that, or have I offended you somewhere?
The Dreaming Duck 11-30-05, 01:07 AM	I believe your odds of finding a cleric/5 in a community are better then finding an Adept/8...but I could be wrong. In Eberron, according to the Dragonshards, you definitely are. In a village, the best you'll do with a cleric is 2nd level (1d3-1); with adepts, you'll average 6th level. Correction...you MIGHT find a priest of Olladra at Healing Houses. You have a much higher chance of finding one at a temple of Olladra. Yes... but not necessarily a spellcaster. Hellcow has made clear time and again that most priests are NOT spellcasters! If your job is to provide spiritual and philosophical guidance, you don't need to be able to perform magic. On the other hand, Jorasco is a business based on healing. Therefore, they need healers. If the Jorasco house is there at all, it presumably has healers. If the temple is there, it certainly has priests - but that doesn't mean they're healers. And of course, you overemphasize the flat dismissal end of things. I in no way conveyed a flat dismissal. Um, you sure did to me. I consider the end result of spending cash and getting spells to undermine what he's said. How you get there is pretty much immaterial. I did this, I got this, and I can do it fairly reliably. NOT something he seems to have intended. We're still on completely opposite sides of this. You maintain that the priest of Dol Dorn, god of war, who serves with the Blademark to tend to warriors and bring the word of his god to the battlefield, will do anything you ask him for gold. I don't. Hellcow doesn't. Nothing new seems to being said here: it's a "Will too!" "Will not!" situtation. Oh well. and once again shake my head at the lack of obligations needed to be a Druid. And I once again ask... as opposed to the obligations implied where in the core rules? And yet, I seem to be the only one people want to argue with. Because that mention was the first time I've seen you imply that I was in fact entitled to my opinion. As I said before, I typically argue with you because your combative tone makes me say "Oh yeah? :censored: you!" I don't care if you disagree with Hellcow or not, if you have a good idea. And other people have certainly been rude to you. But when you tell me "Don't even think X" or "Things are my way. Period." it gets my hackles up. If you don't want people to argue with you, don't be argumentative. Even if you're not the first person to sling a rude remark, "He did it first" isn't a great basis for an abusive tone. Service is no more implied above for druids then it is for rogues... but there's nothing in there that mandates the fact that they have to serve. Does a Warden who doesn't serve the people lose his power? And again, where is this implied in the core rules? Where have rules EVER been laid down saying that druids must serve in X manner or lose their powers? You're right: what Eberron does is provide tools, and the DM may choose to ignore them. But at least it gives tools - tools that don't exist in the core rules! So that's where I'm puzzled: you say that this weakens druids, whereas I say it gives druids more guidelines than they have before. What am I missing from the core rules? What is Eberron taking away? You yourself said that there are no sacred cows in 3.5. There IS no rule stating "All druids are treehuggers." The PHB states that druids can embody life and death, beauty and horror. It even states that druids may prey on one another, just as beasts do in the wild (and I'm assuming these druids don't do it to eat their prey!). Eberron explores these different ideas with the different sects: the Children of Winter are terrifying, the Ashbound are violent, the Wardens are the preservers of peace. In my opinion, the Wardens exist to serve the traditional role of the druid: maintaining the balance between civilization and nature, protecting the wild. The other sects provide options and explore other ideas. I understand that they don't fit your view of druids, and naturally you can ignore them in your campaign, so ultimately no harm done. But personally, I appreciate the exploration of less traditional aspects of nature: developing that idea that peace and violence are both part of nature, that disease is as natural as life. Competition over territory happens, but war is unique in that only sentient creatures actually pursue it. Reasonable point. he's not serving anything but his own desire for violence. I do understand your point... but I still disagree. I don't expect to change your opinion, I just see things differently. The druid I see never promised to defend the land. Again, the hurricane is a part of nature. But what beneficial effects does it have for the creatures of the land? Destruction IS part of the natural world. Just as there are clerics of the Devourer, I can see a druid who channels that destructive power and sees that as his purpose. The Children of Winter believe that nature must destroy civilization; this is an extention of that same belief. No civilized creature can stand against the storm. And as I said earlier, if that's my driving force - proving the power of the natural world and forcing civilized folk to realize how trivial their swords and walls are - then healing you for money is going to be very low on my list. I don't heal: I destroy. This comes back to my point on WHAT spells people cast. By the rules, any cleric or druid can prepare every spell on his spell list. But in my campaign, NPCs prepare the spells that fit their beliefs, not simply the spells that are most efficient from a powergaming standpoint. Naturally any combatant can benefit from healing magic. But I'd be perfectly happy to say this druid never prepares them - because he's not a healer! It's not the aspect of nature that he respects, and while technically he has the ability, it's not the power he calls for. No rule prevents him from doing it. He won't lose his powers if he memorizes a healing spell. But it makes the world more colorful and interesting if the Ashbound druid DOES typically prepare a completely different set of spells from the Greensinger - so two druids feel almost like different classes, instead of just "Oh yeah, another druid." Anyhow, you explain your point much more clearly here, and I understand why we're on opposite sides. But the destructive druid still has resonance for me, as a being who teaches the civilized folk to fear and respect the power of nature. But I understand why it doesn't work for you, so I am at least willing to agree to disagree. Of all the classes, druids were the one that had the most unity across all the races as defenders of the One Land everyone lived on. Except for the part where the PHB says that they sometimes "prey on each other." ;) Personally, I find that unity problematic. Lizardfolk have a favored class of druid. If all druids share identical beliefs, then if we have a druid in our party, are we automatically friends with all druids everywhere, be they good or evil? I like the Dragonshards' approach of saying that Druidic is the shared language of natural magic as opposed to a language of a secret society that somehow stretches across all races and continents; that way druids do have a bond, but there's no need to explain who decided to go and bring the kobolds into the fold, because they started their own tradition, which may overlap but is nonetheless quite different from ours. Eberron lets us have the traditional image of the druid with the Wardens. But it allows for the existence of additional, different traditions - and in my opinion, it's always better to offer more options than to restrict DMs and players. The DM can always say "No Ashbound in my game" if that's what he wants to do. But anyhow. Shall we agree to disagree and move on with our lives? Why, we couldn't even be bothered to put in genetic timers or ways to reverse the process to remove their effect on Nature. But hey, DRUIDS made Horrid animals, so I guess they know best! I think you're assuming an awfully fine level of control over the process of creating these creatures. We don't know how it was done, and there's no apparent way to do it in the present day - so assuming that it was possible to "put in genetic timers" seems like an enormous stretch. Especially when you add in the "army of aberrations breathing down your neck, slaughting creatures by the thousands on a daily basis" factor. And they do remain animals, not aberrations. And as for "DRUIDS did it" - no, Gatekeepers did it. Yes, Gatekeepers are druids. But would the Wardens of the Wood have done the same thing in their shoes? I doubt it.
a_psh 11-30-05, 02:29 AM	I'm just using Valenar because of the official statement you can find divine casters in military settings, and that said units can be hired for gold.Do you agree that it's not really a contradiction based on the current crop of ECS, S:CoT, and Hellcow quotes, then? Basically, all we're really left with is questions of scale and motivation, not the truly binary issue of "everyone sells their magic" / "no one does" that Since I really want Eberron's religion to reflect the great amount of reverence given to religion in the real world, I fall squarely on the "almost no one bothers" side of this softer line. If PCs are going to temples to get services, I want it to at least be from people whose gods they share. I don't want to have to deal with priestly spellcasting for money at all because, well, the PCs shouldn't be thinking about it, but, instead, should be seeking representatives of their own faiths or, at the very least, churches who look favorably upon their current undertakings, to receive aid, just like a Christian guy in a deep spiritual crisis is going to look for a Christian priest rather than a Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist one (if he looks to a priest at all, of course). I want to keep at least that level of cultural verisimilitude, which is pretty sorely lacking in some other settings. I'm willing to defend this idea as the default because, well, the ECS and Hellcow both seem to really fall on this side of things as well. I think it's a misinterpretation to out-and-out say "oh, divine magic can trivially be bought at a temple according to the basic campaign setting". But crossing the line into "you have a very high likelihood of any given caster selling you a spell for money" doesn't really affect a given individual campaign very much at all. I think this is one of those cases where the intent of the designers is both reasonably clear and trivially easy to ignore if it runs counter to your preferred style. Much easier than, say, trying ot run Eberron as a high-level-NPCs-only kind of game.
aelryinth 11-30-05, 02:32 AM	Adepts average 6th in a village? So you've got better odds of hitting an adept/8, in a village? Amazing...don't even have to denigrate to scrollworks. I did use priest instead of cleric delibrately. Didn't catch that, aye? I did it so you could include both adept and cleric in the Priest catch all...and he doesn't need a healer, he needs a spellcaster...more likely at the temple then the healer. A flat dismissal conveys there is no alternative. I did say, usually, on average, etc. If that priest of Dol Dorn is now in my employ...yes, I can request spells from him, and pretty much yes, he will grant them to me. Lack of obligations for all of the Druids seems to be the thing. FR does bring in the deities to grant some control, and even Greyhawk uses the Shalm for this purpose. Most of the old campaign worlds specifically had druidic gods/sponsors. Perhaps Eberron is bringing this lack of obligation more to light? If you reread my post above, you'll have to be careful, but I never said the viewpoints of the various sects weren't perfectly valid. But those aren't guidelines to me, those are options of play. Guidelines implies penalties for stepping out of line, after all. The various sects are all perfectly valid...but if they don't do what the sects say to do, there's no penalty involved. So don't imply I'm speaking out against the sects and the options shown as ways to play them...well, except for military druids. That's about as unnatural to me as it can gets for nature priests, however specialized. And Horrid animals and the longrange threat they present is something they should have taken steps to get under control. Instead, they get mad at people who breed animals that are irrelvant to the environment and don't really breed true instead of fixing their own messes. Hey, wonderful. As for druids...sure, you had a worldwide brotherhood, united by the fact they served the land. Could they disagree, fight one another, prey on one another? Sure...but they were still united in service to the land, and not all as treehuggers. Lizard man druids don't particularly strike me as treehuggers...but at the higher levels you had a rare form of unity in that their obligations outgrew the tribes and sole forests and the like. Perhaps their obligations were implied instead of spelled out...but, they sure seemed to be there. No obligations now. The concerns all seem to be so...small, except for maybe the Gatekeepers. And they still seem to lack an over-arching unity...and no sense of obligation for their gifts. Eh. ==Ael
The Dreaming Duck 11-30-05, 03:10 AM	If that priest of Dol Dorn is now in my employ...yes, I can request spells from him, and pretty much yes, he will grant them to me. *shrug* And that's where we differ. You say "I've hired him. He'll do whatever I ask." In your campaign he will. In mine, he'll only do it if it it suits his beliefs. He's a priest of the god of war - not the god of healing-stupid-adventurers. He'll follow gold to battle, because Dol Dorn is the patron of all warriors... and if he heals, it will be the warriors around him who risk their lives in battle. But he has no interest in fixing the scrapes of some foolish tomb robber, even if that man has gold to pay for it. But that's my game. Most of the old campaign worlds specifically had druidic gods/sponsors. Perhaps Eberron is bringing this lack of obligation more to light? I suppose it is. Eberron is, after all, a 3E world - and as noted, the 3E description of druids lacks any concrete obligation beyond "respect". If you reread my post above, you'll have to be careful, but I never said the viewpoints of the various sects weren't perfectly valid...but if they don't do what the sects say to do, there's no penalty involved. I understand that, and I agree. You say that they are tools. My point is simply that they provide MORE than 3.5 does on its own - it doesn't even give any sense of clear direction for druidic behavior, aside from "respect nature and stay neutral." So all I'm saying is that the existence of some tools seems to be an improvement over the complete lack of direction of 3.5. I understand that Eberron doesn't do what you want with druids: but did 3.5 do any better? well, except for military druids. That's about as unnatural to me as it can gets for nature priests, however specialized. I do think it's a matter of perspective. If it's a matter of druids going to boot camp, spit-polishing their boots, having sergeants say "Druid Bob! I want a tactical lightning bolt at these coordinates at 0800!" "Sir! Yes sir!" - I completely agree: I find that repulsive. But for me personally, that's not at all how I see a druid associated with the Valenar. The personality I envision for such an individual - their reasons for riding with their band, their interactions with their companions, their actions on the battlefield - would be very different from the common soldier. I know it doesn't work for you, and I don't expect to convince you. But for me, what makes the game interesting is to say "Why would a druid come to the battlefield?" instead of "No druid ever would." To me, the war druid is a fascinating and disturbing individual - a very dark and frightening figure, completely different in demeanor from the Warden of the Wood or the horse-tender. Nature is frightening. Watching the lightning in a storm, seeing wind tear down the works of man, looking at the aftermath of an earthquake - I've seen terrifying things in nature, and dealing with someone who has embraced that darkness and embodies it... that's not someone I'd want to say "Hey, since I paid you guys, can you heal my boo-boo?" to. The druid who protects the land - I know what to expect from him, and to a certain degree I can feel safe when I deal with him. The storm druid - that's someone I'd prefer to stay away from, just like I don't want to invite a hurricane to my home. Only sentient creatures make war: but nature destroys, even when there is no sentient force behind it. Anyhow, I mean this to be a discussion, not an argument. I don't feel there's really anything left to argue about on this point (and possibly, nothing left to discuss). As I said, I think you're right: a druid who is simply a typical soldier who happens to throw lightning bolts instead of using a sword is a bad idea, and if that's what you want you should just use a warmage. But *I* think that the war druid can follow a very different and more interesting path, and it's one that I certainly intend to explore in my campaign. The key is our differing interpretations. I wouldn't want to use the military druid as you see it either - but I'm very interesting in using the one I see in my mind.
aelryinth 11-30-05, 04:24 AM	A druid who goes to war is one thing...a druid who serves in the military is quite another, and that's what the Valenar have. I can see a Druid going to war for his beliefs...anyone can. But being a MEMBER of a civilized military force as a warrior? Ugh. Why be a Druid at all? You are buying into the civilized beings method of resolving complaints. Nature doesn't make war...and you are. ==Aelryinth
Errant 11-30-05, 05:18 AM	Hmmm, three replies from Aelryinth since I asked him (on page 5, post #149, that is) to defend what his position "broils down to" and still no response. Were my comments really so flawless that's he has no come back at all? (I know that might sound arrogant, but I truly like to play Eberron as close to canon as I can, so if I'm off target I'd appreciate constructive criticism from anyone) I'm fairly confident in my take that (within the framework of published material): - Most Valenar druids devote themselves to preserving their ancient legacy, embodied in the Valenar Horses held sacred by their culture, and strive to ensure their respect for nature is shared by other Valenar (at least). These druids ride with warbands, happily joining in battle only when it serves their greater mission(s) and never for financial motives. - Some Valenar druids occasionally serve in mercenary warbands, be it to emulate warlike ancestors or to help their kin fulfill contracts that are in harmony with the druids' reverence for nature (eg hunting down raiders poisoning livestock and sowing fields with salt to intimidate the locals). - A few rare Valenar druids, frowned upon by their more moderate cousins, revel in their power over the elements and are sometimes driven, at every opportunity, to instill awe and respect for nature in others by wielding the forces of nature against their enemies. - Most religious spellcasters, be they adepts, clerics or druids of any kind, generally provide their spell casting services to others only if doing so serves their cause or respective faith, whatever that may be, and monetary considerations are secondary to faith. - A small minority of religious spellcasters, of all kinds, are happy to provide their spell casting services for a "proper" financial reward, seeing the income variously as an essential way to fund their own efforts to serve the faith, to a way of lining their own pockets so that they may live in "a manner fitting one set above others by divine blessing". - Most Valenar warriors are keen to emulate the heroism of the ancestors and look forward to proving their own courage and skills in battle, preferably defending their kin (because the ancestors that freed their race from giants' oppression made all subsequent accomplishments possible). When their skills are not needed in defence of their homelands, these Valenar will battle worthy foes almost anywhere, taking gold to do so because gold is a handy measure of respect for their accomplishments and usually necessary to maintain their full battle readiness. - A few Valenar, potentially of any class, inspired by the occasional ancestors who dedicated themselves to higher ideals are not swayed by any amount of gold. - The exact means of breeding Valenar Horses is a closely guarded, sacred secret known only to a trusted few and while many strive to learn that secret in the hopes of duplicating the breeding of such exceptional steeds, no-one in Eberron can truly guarantee eventual success. Again, if any of these points contradict Eberron canon (or Hellcow's posts), please let me know.
Euangelion 11-30-05, 08:17 AM	A druid who goes to war is one thing...a druid who serves in the military is quite another, and that's what the Valenar have. I can see a Druid going to war for his beliefs...anyone can. But being a MEMBER of a civilized military force as a warrior? Ugh. Why be a Druid at all? You are buying into the civilized beings method of resolving complaints. Nature doesn't make war...and you are. ==Aelryinth Druids are indeed warriors, with good Fort saves, a decent BAB progression, and reasonable weapon and armor proficiencies. Many of their spells are excellent for combat, even getting flame strike at 4th level instead of 5th like the cleric does. And who said the Valenar are civilized (they don't like cities, remember?) Nature is a horribly violent place. Come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I saw a bear and a wild boar agree to binding arbitration to resolve a territorial dispute instead of fighting it out.
davethebrave371 11-30-05, 09:48 AM	aelryinth, if you're finding it so hard to respond to so many points, I'll give you one. Your points on Valenar mercenaries, druids, Valenar druids, Valenar culture, clerics and economy are straight out of your game, and are alterations of the campaign setting. Prove me wrong. One point. Simple as that. A point that's been emphasized since the first page by many people, and on every page, and a point you haven't addressed on any page that I've seen. One point. Prove me wrong.
The Dreaming Duck 11-30-05, 12:11 PM	Guidelines implies penalties for stepping out of line, after all. The various sects are all perfectly valid...but if they don't do what the sects say to do, there's no penalty involved. Having slept on this... I disagree. I think Eberron is offering what you want... if you choose to take it. What 3.5 says is that a druid loses his powers if he fails to "respect nature". By taking a sect feat, you are defining what "respect for nature" means for you. Effectively, you are a cleric choosing your god. So yes, as a DM, I would feel entirely in the right stripping the powers of a Gatekeeper who willfully destroys a planar seal or helps mind flayers. He has defined his bond to nature as the battle against the unnatural: if he turns against that commitment, he is failing to respect nature, and by 3.5, should lose his powers. The PHB gives extremely vague circumstances under which a druid should lose his powers; the sects are tools that allow player and DM to sharpen that into a clear focus. You see the druids as acting in a cavalier manner: but if they act in a cavalier manner, are they showing "respect for nature"? If not, pow, no more powers. Which is why I see them as anything but cavalier: I seem them as grimly dedicated to their tasks. The Ashbound and Children of Winter are warriors of nature. The Wardens and Gatekeepers are its defenders. The Greensingers - OK, they may be cavalier, but that's because they represent the capricious nature of the fey, which apparently do fit into their view of the natural world. In essence, they risk losing their powers if they stop being cavalier. No obligations now. The concerns all seem to be so...small, except for maybe the Gatekeepers. Hmm. The Wardens of the Wood are how I've always seen traditional druids: defenders of the wild. What's the greater global cause druids have served in the past? Meanwhile, the Children of Winter are in essence the hand of evolution. Their task is to destroy civilization itself. That doesn't seem especially small. And taking the Children of Winter, the Ashbound, or the "war" druid, the key is that nature isn't always pretty: as the PHB says, it encompasses horror, death, and violence. If all druids are only out for life, peace, and beauty - they aren't maintaining the balance. The hurricane isn't an accident: it is part of nature. And they still seem to lack an over-arching unity... Hellcow pretty much addresses this in the Dragonshard: If you're about to be boiled alive by kobolds, an appeal to the kobold druid spoken in Druidic could save your life. However, not all druids are allies. A peaceful hermit may despise the violent actions of the Ashbound or the doom-driven work of the Children of Winter. Speaking in Druidic will establish a basic bond, but if you just killed the opposing druid's totem companion, it's not going to get you off the hook. There is a basic unity: they recognize one another as initiates of the natural mysteries. But they are NOT all allies. The Ashbound undoubtedly would oppose the creation of horrid animals, whatever the need. The Wardens of the Wood may oppose the Ashbound or Children of Winter. They draw their powers from the same source, but they aren't all part of the same secret society; the Gatekeepers were taught by Vvaraak, but the first Wardens were taught by Oalian, and the kobolds just picked it up on their own. A druid who goes to war is one thing...a druid who serves in the military is quite another, and that's what the Valenar have. Perhaps. But the point is how the Valenar military compares with other armies. I couldn't see a druid in the army of Karrnath. But a *warband* - that's a different thing entirely. The Dragonshards tell us that the Valenar approach war as predators, that they prefer independent commando operations. Hellcow said on this thread that if the warband decided to take wall guard duty, the druid is just going to leave until it's done - and apparently, in his view of the Valenar, that's perfectly acceptable. Not exactly the typical army: "Soldiers, we're going to Iraq!" "Sir, I'm not into that - can I catch up with you later?" "Certainly, Private. Have a good time." Thus it's clear that the druid fights on his own terms. He's not a grunt who does whatever he's told, who approaches war with the same dispassion as a fighter. He serves when it suits him, and leaves when it doesn't. And he's not using war as civilization's way to solve problems (which I always thought was litigation, but hey, whatever): he is simply the agent of destruction. He doesn't care about the reason for the battle, he is just there to teach them to fear the storm. I do think Dave the Brave has a point here: a lot of this is based around the manner in which you view the Valenar, which is completely different from most people on this thread (including Hellcow). I don't think a druid belongs in the armies of the Five Nations. But I can see a druid among the Valenar, because of the way in which they have been described. The way you seem to see them, I wouldn't put druids in the warbands. But that's not how Hellcow sees them - and if you choose to follow his view, there's a place for them.
aelryinth 11-30-05, 02:55 PM	Hmmm, three replies from Aelryinth since I asked him (on page 5, post #149, that is) to defend what his position "broils down to" and still no response. Were my comments really so flawless that's he has no come back at all? (I know that might sound arrogant, but I truly like to play Eberron as close to canon as I can, so if I'm off target I'd appreciate constructive criticism from anyone) I'm fairly confident in my take that (within the framework of published material): - Most Valenar druids devote themselves to preserving their ancient legacy, embodied in the Valenar Horses held sacred by their culture, and strive to ensure their respect for nature is shared by other Valenar (at least). These druids ride with warbands, happily joining in battle only when it serves their greater mission(s) and never for financial motives. - Some Valenar druids occasionally serve in mercenary warbands, be it to emulate warlike ancestors or to help their kin fulfill contracts that are in harmony with the druids' reverence for nature (eg hunting down raiders poisoning livestock and sowing fields with salt to intimidate the locals). - A few rare Valenar druids, frowned upon by their more moderate cousins, revel in their power over the elements and are sometimes driven, at every opportunity, to instill awe and respect for nature in others by wielding the forces of nature against their enemies. - Most religious spellcasters, be they adepts, clerics or druids of any kind, generally provide their spell casting services to others only if doing so serves their cause or respective faith, whatever that may be, and monetary considerations are secondary to faith. - A small minority of religious spellcasters, of all kinds, are happy to provide their spell casting services for a "proper" financial reward, seeing the income variously as an essential way to fund their own efforts to serve the faith, to a way of lining their own pockets so that they may live in "a manner fitting one set above others by divine blessing". - Most Valenar warriors are keen to emulate the heroism of the ancestors and look forward to proving their own courage and skills in battle, preferably defending their kin (because the ancestors that freed their race from giants' oppression made all subsequent accomplishments possible). When their skills are not needed in defence of their homelands, these Valenar will battle worthy foes almost anywhere, taking gold to do so because gold is a handy measure of respect for their accomplishments and usually necessary to maintain their full battle readiness. - A few Valenar, potentially of any class, inspired by the occasional ancestors who dedicated themselves to higher ideals are not swayed by any amount of gold. - The exact means of breeding Valenar Horses is a closely guarded, sacred secret known only to a trusted few and while many strive to learn that secret in the hopes of duplicating the breeding of such exceptional steeds, no-one in Eberron can truly guarantee eventual success. Again, if any of these points contradict Eberron canon (or Hellcow's posts), please let me know. #1 I'd rephrase as those are the ones that DON'T ride with warbands...they take care of the home front. They may accompany a warclan as healers or advisors, but the piffling machinations of fighting are not their concerns. WarBANDS? No. #3 I'd say use the power of Nature as a weapon against their enemies. Instill fear and awe? Well, if they are delusional. The fact that 'enemy' is so flexibile and usually has nothing to do with faith/Nature is part of my whole problem with it. They are treating the power of nature as a weapon in their arsenal...it's not about nature, it's about them. And other then that, I've got no contesting of this at all, because I don't see it as contradicting anything I've stated. Amazing, isn't it? ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 11-30-05, 03:05 PM	Having slept on this... I disagree. I think Eberron is offering what you want... if you choose to take it. What 3.5 says is that a druid loses his powers if he fails to "respect nature". By taking a sect feat, you are defining what "respect for nature" means for you. Effectively, you are a cleric choosing your god. So yes, as a DM, I would feel entirely in the right stripping the powers of a Gatekeeper who willfully destroys a planar seal or helps mind flayers. He has defined his bond to nature as the battle against the unnatural: if he turns against that commitment, he is failing to respect nature, and by 3.5, should lose his powers. The PHB gives extremely vague circumstances under which a druid should lose his powers; the sects are tools that allow player and DM to sharpen that into a clear focus. You see the druids as acting in a cavalier manner: but if they act in a cavalier manner, are they showing "respect for nature"? If not, pow, no more powers. Which is why I see them as anything but cavalier: I seem them as grimly dedicated to their tasks. The Ashbound and Children of Winter are warriors of nature. The Wardens and Gatekeepers are its defenders. The Greensingers - OK, they may be cavalier, but that's because they represent the capricious nature of the fey, which apparently do fit into their view of the natural world. In essence, they risk losing their powers if they stop being cavalier. Hmm. The Wardens of the Wood are how I've always seen traditional druids: defenders of the wild. What's the greater global cause druids have served in the past? Meanwhile, the Children of Winter are in essence the hand of evolution. Their task is to destroy civilization itself. That doesn't seem especially small. And taking the Children of Winter, the Ashbound, or the "war" druid, the key is that nature isn't always pretty: as the PHB says, it encompasses horror, death, and violence. If all druids are only out for life, peace, and beauty - they aren't maintaining the balance. The hurricane isn't an accident: it is part of nature. Hellcow pretty much addresses this in the Dragonshard: There is a basic unity: they recognize one another as initiates of the natural mysteries. But they are NOT all allies. The Ashbound undoubtedly would oppose the creation of horrid animals, whatever the need. The Wardens of the Wood may oppose the Ashbound or Children of Winter. They draw their powers from the same source, but they aren't all part of the same secret society; the Gatekeepers were taught by Vvaraak, but the first Wardens were taught by Oalian, and the kobolds just picked it up on their own. Perhaps. But the point is how the Valenar military compares with other armies. I couldn't see a druid in the army of Karrnath. But a *warband* - that's a different thing entirely. The Dragonshards tell us that the Valenar approach war as predators, that they prefer independent commando operations. Hellcow said on this thread that if the warband decided to take wall guard duty, the druid is just going to leave until it's done - and apparently, in his view of the Valenar, that's perfectly acceptable. Not exactly the typical army: "Soldiers, we're going to Iraq!" "Sir, I'm not into that - can I catch up with you later?" "Certainly, Private. Have a good time." Thus it's clear that the druid fights on his own terms. He's not a grunt who does whatever he's told, who approaches war with the same dispassion as a fighter. He serves when it suits him, and leaves when it doesn't. And he's not using war as civilization's way to solve problems (which I always thought was litigation, but hey, whatever): he is simply the agent of destruction. He doesn't care about the reason for the battle, he is just there to teach them to fear the storm. I do think Dave the Brave has a point here: a lot of this is based around the manner in which you view the Valenar, which is completely different from most people on this thread (including Hellcow). I don't think a druid belongs in the armies of the Five Nations. But I can see a druid among the Valenar, because of the way in which they have been described. The way you seem to see them, I wouldn't put druids in the warbands. But that's not how Hellcow sees them - and if you choose to follow his view, there's a place for them. 1) He's not going to lose his powers for not following the dictates of his sect. He might lose the benefits of his sect for that particular philosophy if he no longer believes in it...but he's not going to lose his powers. Does he still revere Nature? Is he still N-? Then he satisfies the druidic requirements. And you can play all over the spectrum with the sect beliefs. You called them 'guidelines'...not me. That means stay within the lines. But, there's no penalty for moving outside them. Druids, like anyone else, can change their minds...this is definitely a loss of faith for clerics, but just another way of looking at the world for druids. -- I've been asked for how I look at Druids and now I'm getting slammed for responding to that? Sigh. ----------- If I look at the Valenar and the situation they are in and see the potential for ripe abuse, it's because of a long time gaming. I'm sorry, I don't see ANY druids practicing in a military setting as a soldier (not a defender of the homeland) and especially as a merc in a warband as something proper. That's in effect buying into civilized notions of war for the sake of war. And for boars and bears, quit confusing war with territoriality...I covered that in my first post. Armies of bears don't whelm to confront armies of boars. Ursines don't yell out for friends and family and allies to run to their aid when the porcines come rooting for mushrooms. It's a civilized notion, not a wild one, and tying it to druidic magic I see as just wrong. When boar and bear meet up, its predator and prey, or a turf struggle for food rights...nothing more and nothing less. Being a merc is war for the sake of war...not predator and prey. I don't think that Valenar is eating the goblins he's butchering, do you? And lastly, if that Druid ups and leaves in a hissy whenever he decides he doesn't agree with the officer, he's not a member of the warband...he's too unreliable. Close-knit cooperation means everyone can rely on everyone, not that you get to take a leave whenever your sensibilities are offended. This is especially true at the squad level. So, that's a very poor example there...and a reason to get thrown in a brig. Without that trust that he'll be there thru thick and thin with the rest of them, you undermine the whole squad's integrity, and I rather doubt any 'elite' band, which the warbands all are, will tolerate that undermining of the group's integrity. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 11-30-05, 03:13 PM	I can't actually remember posting Bloodcloak Betrayal. WOnder where I did that at? ==Aelryinth
The Dreaming Duck 11-30-05, 03:38 PM	I've been asked for how I look at Druids and now I'm getting slammed for responding to that? Sigh. Um... Huh? Where did I slam you? I've said repeatedly that this is a discussion, not an argument. I acknowledged that you had good points, which is more than you've ever done for me. And I've said "If this is how you view the Valenar, I understand why you wouldn't want military druids." I said that I don't expect to convince you with my views... I'm talking, not arguing. I'm not trying to slam you, Aelryinth. I asked you to explain how you looked at druids. You did. As a result I understand why you feel the way you do, and why you will do what you will do in your game. I'm presenting my views and explaining why I will do what I do in my game. Why the hostility? I disagree with you - but that doesn't make one of us wrong and the other right. It means we disagree. He's not going to lose his powers for not following the dictates of his sect. He will if you chose to define that as the manner in which he shows "respect for nature." That's your choice as DM. So he may not in your campaign: he will in mine. The PHB simply says he loses powers if he fails to show respect for nature, and it's up to you to decide how that is defined. In my opinion, sect goals are an excellent definition. Druids, like anyone else, can change their minds...this is definitely a loss of faith for clerics, but just another way of looking at the world for druids. Sure, and I'd treat it just like a cleric who changes gods - which can certainly happen in D&D. A Gatekeeper might end up hanging out with aberrations and eventually become a Child of Winter - but he's violated the terms under which he shows his respect for nature along the way, and I as DM would strip him of powers until he's established his new faith. Again: not a slam. You're free to do whatever you want. But I feel that the sects do offer a tool to create that obligation and service - if you choose to enforce it. If you want them to be cavalier, they will be cavalier - in your world. But if you want them to be serious and dedicated, they will be. In the end, it's your decision. I'm sorry, I don't see ANY druids practicing in a military setting as a soldier (not a defender of the homeland) and especially as a merc in a warband as something proper. That's in effect buying into civilized notions of war for the sake of war. And I respect that. Your game. Your world. I, on the other hand, do see a role for it. The druid isn't there for the war. He's not fighting for the sake of war. He is a vessel for the destructive power of nature, whose role is to strike terror into people, to tear down the works of man and to teach them to fear the power of the storm. How and when he chooses to do that is up to him. He's not there for the gold. He's not there for the war. He's traveling with his companions and bringing the storm with him - and if he chooses to go his own way, he will. My game. My world. That's what I'll do with it. Your mileage, obviously, will vary. I don't think that Valenar is eating the goblins he's butchering, do you? I certainly don't, and if you think that's what I meant, you completely missed the point. And lastly, if that Druid ups and leaves in a hissy whenever he decides he doesn't agree with the officer, he's not a member of the warband...he's too unreliable. Your game, your world. But now you're directly disagreeing with Hellcow. You're the one saying he's leaving in a "hissy". That's not what I see at all. The commander of the warband KNOWS the druid, and why the druid travels with him: and as such, he should know the druid will leave if they take static duty at a fort. This is what others have been saying time and again: there is a fundamental difference in the military mindset of a Blademark squad and a Valenar warband. You have repeatedly said "All mercenaries behave in the same manner" - but at least in canon Eberron, that's not the case. So, that's a very poor example there...and a reason to get thrown in a brig. The Valenar don't have brigs. Again, you're applying a traditional military mentality to what is an untraditional force derived from an inhuman culture. Without that trust that he'll be there thru thick and thin with the rest of them, you undermine the whole squad's integrity, and I rather doubt any 'elite' band, which the warbands all are, will tolerate that undermining of the group's integrity. This, I agree on. The warband DOES need trust. And I feel it has it. It's what you said before: once the warband accepts the task, they're in it. I feel the same is true of the druid. He won't hang around the fort for one day and then leave, he'll say "If it's fort work, I'll see you later" - and the officer will be expecting this. If the druid accepts a task, he'll see it through. He will stand by his comrades in battle. But he will not accept every task that comes down the way, nor will others expect him to. And having traveled with him for decades, they know exactly what to expect. And, of course, as others have pointed out, the fact that druids MAY be in warbands doesn't mean that they WILL be in mercenary warbands, because not all warbands are mercenary. A non-mercenary warband chooses its own path and may be driven entirely by the druid's desires. Again, with the view that you have presented - the way that you see and use the Valenar - I understand why you find the idea of the martial druid so grating. I just see the Valenar - and the role of the druid - in a different light.
The Dreaming Duck 11-30-05, 03:44 PM	I can't actually remember posting Bloodcloak Betrayal. WOnder where I did that at? Page 4, message 104 of the Karrnath thread. Your redescription of the Battle of the Hole does make more sense to me: my problem with the description was purely the idea that the Valenar would send the entire force into the fort, especially when manueverability is their greatest strength. If the trap was spread around the fort as well, it's easier to grasp. I certainly don't think the Valenar are infalliable: but they are few in number and have survived as long as they have through both skill and cunning, so they should at least be challenging opponents. I guess my question comes to "Would you have a group of Karrnathi elite commandos fall prey to the same trap" - and if the answer is yes, fair enough. The Valenar are good, but no one's perfect.
Euangelion 11-30-05, 04:22 PM	I certainly don't, and if you think that's what I meant, you completely missed the point. He was responding to my post, but forgot to quote it. To respond to the general point, there are animals that kill out of boredom. There are animals that call for friends and allies to defend them in battle. One would be amazed at how truly animalistic we are when we resort to bloodshed. Warfare does not set us apart from the animals, it only shows how much of an animal we remain. Concepts like "Love your enemy" are what are truly revolutionary about us humans.
The Dreaming Duck 11-30-05, 04:31 PM	One more minor point: the war druid I'm suggesting is, unquestionably, neutral evil. He doesn't care about the war or who he's fighting: he is simply serving as the agent of destruction. He's not following the path of boar or bear, and he doesn't care about food or territory. He is following the path of the storm, the earthquake, the wildfire. He is shattering the works of man with the impassive force of nature - destructive power that has no interest in politics or plunder. As I said earlier, as an individual, he should be a disturbing and frightening person. He may ride with a mercenary band, but he doesn't care about the gold: he is a storm, and when the battle comes his fury will be unleashed. You don't WANT him guarding your castle - because he might choose to tear it down. In any case, the point is that I certainly see that this is NOT a nice person. In my opinion, a druid who is willing to kill in a mercenary cause will only be doing it if bringing death is how he shows his respect for nature - and that's going to be an evil person. But druids (and Valenar) can be evil. Nature can be about death and destruction. This is the druid that embodies that - as opposed to the Warden of the Wood, who seeks to maintain the balance of nature and protect the wild.
Just another user 11-30-05, 04:33 PM	About druids and lycantropy, I think the Child of winter could be interested in it, think a disease that make the weak strong and the strongs stronger, that trsofomr korvhaine in a world of predators where only the strong survive, that is exactly what the CoW wants.
davethebrave371 11-30-05, 07:29 PM	Yup. No response to my single point in a single post, but he can respond to multiple points in multiple posts. Yet his argument as to why some of our issues don't get addressed is that there are too many arguments to respond to. Funny that.
Errant 11-30-05, 08:07 PM	Firstly, thanks for responding Aelryinth, it is appreciated. #1 I'd rephrase as those are the ones that DON'T ride with warbands...they take care of the home front. They may accompany a warclan as healers or advisors, but the piffling machinations of fighting are not their concerns. WarBANDS? No. My perception is that the WarCLANS are largely defined by their blood relationships, revolving around extended families and the like. This would explain the differences in numbers, with the smaller warclans suffering the lasting effects of decimating battles and the larger warclans enjoying the effects of more fortunate campaigns (ie less attrition due to battle losses). Being based on blood relationships the warclans can't simply reassign members to keep their numbers more even, relying on more protracted processes of marriages/adoption etc to supplement new generations replacing the fallen. The Warclans are therefore fairly stable in their internal structure and only rarely (after the most disastrous battles) are Warclans broken up or merged. WarBANDS on the other hand, I see as much more fluid in their memberships, sometimes consisting of the same individuals from campaign to campaign but just as often including members of (generally) the same extended Warclan brought together based on their particular abilities for a particular mission/contract. Individual Valenar may have particular affection/loyalty toward the Warband 'brothers' they shared important experiences with (their first battle, first command, a disastrous expedition into the Mournland, etc), but their warband of the moment may include new companions there just for that mission/campaign a new warrior seeking his first battle. This is where I see the majority of Valenar druids riding with Warbands - just for a particular mission. The druid may want to observe a warrior in battle before deciding if he is worthy of a Valenar Warhorse, he may need reinforcements to track down horse thieves, and so on. The druid's first loyalty is to Valenar traditions, is second to the Warclan he was born into, third (maybe) to the Valenar nation, and lastly to the Warband he is riding with at any particular time. As the keepers of Valenar traditions (which have a strong focus on battlefield glory) they surely are concerned with fighting, but they're not permanently ATTACHED to a particular warband, they do ride with them from time to time. #3 I'd say use the power of Nature as a weapon against their enemies. Instill fear and awe? Well, if they are delusional. The fact that 'enemy' is so flexibile and usually has nothing to do with faith/Nature is part of my whole problem with it. They are treating the power of nature as a weapon in their arsenal...it's not about nature, it's about them. I think most would see the "driven to instil fear and awe" type druids as more than a little obsessed and/or tapped in the head. They may be deluded, or so awed by Nature's might they feel compelled to demonstrate it to all around them, or overwhelmed with grief (or rage) over some perceived transgression/disrespect against nature, they may even be trying to counter a real or perceived trend of complacency/irreverence within their Warclan toward Nature. Its not necessarily about using their powers to satisfy their own ego's and if they DO start to think "its not about nature, it's about them", I think that falls within the "lose reverence for nature" category that could cost them the bulk of their powers, quickly sending them in search of atonement. And don't forget, Fear and Awe can be very useful tools in educating/influencing others and often the first steps in teaching respect. Maybe not the most enlightened tools available, but effective nonetheless. And other then that, I've got no contesting of this at all, because I don't see it as contradicting anything I've stated. Amazing, isn't it? Frankly it is a little amazing yes. Mostly because you seem to have such a tendency to talk in such absolute terms that your view point doesn't seem to allow for exceptions and variations. "Druids do this" and "druids wouldn't think that" type statements don't seem to acknowledge other possibilities. I doubt you'd get very much disagreement at all if you wrote more along the lines of "some druids do this" or "some druids wouldn't think that". Make sense? Edit - Sorry, missed this statement and I think its relevant: I'm sorry, I don't see ANY druids practicing in a military setting as a soldier (not a defender of the homeland) and especially as a merc in a warband as something proper. That's in effect buying into civilized notions of war for the sake of war. If a druid is with a merc warband it may be because he's taking an advantage of an opportunity to watch the other warband members in action, or fulfill some other mission along the way, as part of the druid's overall mission without buying into the "war for the sake of war" idea. He can easily be there in a military setting, fighting alongside his brother Valenar (thats what makes a soldier a soldier isn't it?), but not "as a mercenary" (ie for the gold) and therefore behaving entirely 'properly' according to his faith. Ease off on the absolute "ANY druids" viewpoint and suddenly all sorts of possibilities open up.
Errant 11-30-05, 08:20 PM	Yup. No response to my single point in a single post, but he can respond to multiple points in multiple posts. Yet his argument as to why some of our issues don't get addressed is that there are too many arguments to respond to. Funny that. Frustrating isn't it? Almost knocked me off my chair when he replied to my take on things. Is that because he doesn't want to "lower himself" to responding to something he perceives as "just criticism of the way he plays things"? We can only speculate. We all have our limits I guess. Not as if even Hellcow can respond to multiple points/questions from multiple posters. Oh wait... Maybe its just because he hasn't figured out how to split up quotes so he can reply to posts point by point? Apologies if thats a cheap shot, but sometimes some of us need to vent frustrations when we're trying to be civil and just feel ignored. :rolleyes:
davethebrave371 11-30-05, 09:02 PM	Oh, I don't feel ignored. I think he reads them, realizes he has no reply, and then doesn't reply. That's not ignoring, that's purposeful dismissal on the grounds that he has no counter-argument.
Errant 11-30-05, 09:43 PM	I thought that refusing to acknowledge/respond to a point (because there is no come-back for example) was ignoring it. A dismissal requires at least refering to the thing being dismissed doesn't it?
aelryinth 11-30-05, 10:31 PM	Um... Huh? Where did I slam you? I've said repeatedly that this is a discussion, not an argument. I acknowledged that you had good points, which is more than you've ever done for me. And I've said "If this is how you view the Valenar, I understand why you wouldn't want military druids." I said that I don't expect to convince you with my views... I'm talking, not arguing. I'm not trying to slam you, Aelryinth. I asked you to explain how you looked at druids. You did. As a result I understand why you feel the way you do, and why you will do what you will do in your game. I'm presenting my views and explaining why I will do what I do in my game. Why the hostility? I disagree with you - but that doesn't make one of us wrong and the other right. It means we disagree. He will if you chose to define that as the manner in which he shows "respect for nature." That's your choice as DM. So he may not in your campaign: he will in mine. The PHB simply says he loses powers if he fails to show respect for nature, and it's up to you to decide how that is defined. In my opinion, sect goals are an excellent definition. Sure, and I'd treat it just like a cleric who changes gods - which can certainly happen in D&D. A Gatekeeper might end up hanging out with aberrations and eventually become a Child of Winter - but he's violated the terms under which he shows his respect for nature along the way, and I as DM would strip him of powers until he's established his new faith. Again: not a slam. You're free to do whatever you want. But I feel that the sects do offer a tool to create that obligation and service - if you choose to enforce it. If you want them to be cavalier, they will be cavalier - in your world. But if you want them to be serious and dedicated, they will be. In the end, it's your decision. And I respect that. Your game. Your world. I, on the other hand, do see a role for it. The druid isn't there for the war. He's not fighting for the sake of war. He is a vessel for the destructive power of nature, whose role is to strike terror into people, to tear down the works of man and to teach them to fear the power of the storm. How and when he chooses to do that is up to him. He's not there for the gold. He's not there for the war. He's traveling with his companions and bringing the storm with him - and if he chooses to go his own way, he will. My game. My world. That's what I'll do with it. Your mileage, obviously, will vary. I certainly don't, and if you think that's what I meant, you completely missed the point. Your game, your world. But now you're directly disagreeing with Hellcow. You're the one saying he's leaving in a "hissy". That's not what I see at all. The commander of the warband KNOWS the druid, and why the druid travels with him: and as such, he should know the druid will leave if they take static duty at a fort. This is what others have been saying time and again: there is a fundamental difference in the military mindset of a Blademark squad and a Valenar warband. You have repeatedly said "All mercenaries behave in the same manner" - but at least in canon Eberron, that's not the case. The Valenar don't have brigs. Again, you're applying a traditional military mentality to what is an untraditional force derived from an inhuman culture. This, I agree on. The warband DOES need trust. And I feel it has it. It's what you said before: once the warband accepts the task, they're in it. I feel the same is true of the druid. He won't hang around the fort for one day and then leave, he'll say "If it's fort work, I'll see you later" - and the officer will be expecting this. If the druid accepts a task, he'll see it through. He will stand by his comrades in battle. But he will not accept every task that comes down the way, nor will others expect him to. And having traveled with him for decades, they know exactly what to expect. And, of course, as others have pointed out, the fact that druids MAY be in warbands doesn't mean that they WILL be in mercenary warbands, because not all warbands are mercenary. A non-mercenary warband chooses its own path and may be driven entirely by the druid's desires. Again, with the view that you have presented - the way that you see and use the Valenar - I understand why you find the idea of the martial druid so grating. I just see the Valenar - and the role of the druid - in a different light. IF there's static duty in a fort and a druid is in the warband, then he'll put up with it for the sake of the warband...or the warband won't take the job (after all, they aren't made for that duty). If they took the duty, obviously there's a good reason for it, and if he's a member of a squad that's been around as long as a warband has, he'll stick with it...not just take off because he's a druid. That's an elite squad, NOT one of them taking off in a tiff because this job offends his sensibilities. He'd be at best at adjutant member. Otherwise, every other member, druid or no, has the same right...and you can't build ANY group of soldiers that way, in any culture, because that tiff might come in a fight, before a fight...and you can't have that. Also, you are twisting the wording. They are riding as warriors in a warband, not observors. Soldiers. The situations you describe are as adjutants and temporary members. I think of Warband units as far more closely bound then any warclan. These people depend on one another for their lives. They live, love and play together for decades at a time. I picture Seal teams and the like, and the level of camraderie there is almost frighteningly intense. Multiply that by decades more... Someone who'll just take up and leave the others becase THEY are bored? Sorry, doesn't fit in. The warband may change...but not that much. And Hellcow doesn't have to respond to six posters going over the exact same questions multiple times and ways. Those are IMMENSE time wasters for him...I know, because I used to be the only one who'd debate things out with him, and I know how long those posts take to make. When he comments about wasting time on the boards...I ate up a HUGE portion of it with my posts. Responding to a direct, simple question on the AKB thread is far from the same thing. And I don't quote and split everyone up because that's a big time waster too...especially when you are all posting variants on the same question. And if you're rude, I don't feel obligated to respond to you at all (shrugs) even if you make big long posts denying, decrying, and whatnot. Rox does that all the time. Half his posts are flames. And talking about me on a public forum as if I won't read it and debating with one another instead of doing it privately is rude too...and you wonder why I ignore you? ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 11-30-05, 11:01 PM	Ah, Bloodcloak Betrayal as part of the Colonel's background. Thought I'd somehow managed to post the entire story in one of the four permutations I have it written out in without recalling it. Heh! ==Aelryinth
Errant 11-30-05, 11:19 PM	That's an elite squad, NOT one of them taking off in a tiff because this job offends his sensibilities. He'd be at best at adjutant member. Otherwise, every other member, druid or no, has the same right...and you can't build ANY group of soldiers that way, in any culture, because that tiff might come in a fight, before a fight...and you can't have that. Sorry, which is an elite squad? DD seems to be saying the typical druid stays with the warband once he accepts a mission with them so your response confuses me. Also, you are twisting the wording. They are riding as warriors in a warband, not observors. Soldiers. The situations you describe are as adjutants and temporary members. Again, which wording? The dragonshard seems rather vague on the status with which druids ride with them, other than they fight (with their spells at least) alongside the other warband members? I think of Warband units as far more closely bound then any warclan. These people depend on one another for their lives. They live, love and play together for decades at a time. I picture Seal teams and the like, and the level of camraderie there is almost frighteningly intense. Multiply that by decades more... Thats how you think of warbands? No worries. I don't think anyone has disputed your right to play your campaign as you wish. Its just stating things (intentionally or otherwise) as if there's no other valid way to play it that gets peoples' hackles up. And Hellcow doesn't have to respond to six posters going over the exact same questions multiple times and ways. But he does try to address all of the points/questions thrown at him, even asks for people to repost questions he misses. You keep getting the same questions because you never seem to answer many of them. Responding to a direct, simple question on the AKB thread is far from the same thing. Why not? And if you're rude, I don't feel obligated to respond to you at all (shrugs) even if you make big long posts denying, decrying, and whatnot. People get emotional and sometimes can't help themselves. A lot of people, will correct themselves, strive to be less offensive and maybe even apologise if you at least ackowledge their questions. talking about me on a public forum as if I won't read it and debating with one another instead of doing it privately is rude too...and you wonder why I ignore you? I make my posts on here where you can read it specifically so that you have a chance to defend yourself if we're off target, which seems more respectful to me than whispering about you behind your back. If I misunderstand what your intent and comment based on my misunderstanding, how will I ever understand you if you just ignore me?
a_psh 12-01-05, 02:41 AM	Question for all: As a DM, whether in Eberron or elsewhere, have you ever had a PC party with a druid and thrown the group a plot hook that had absolutely nothing to do with nature (either positively or negatively... there was just no nature involved)? If the PCs jumped on it and went for the adventure, did you then strip the druid of her powers just for "neglecting her duties" by going off on this non-nature-related task with her allies? In the abstract, do you think it is reasonable for a DM to do this? Have you as a PC ever been on the receiving end of the kind of thing described above? (Just a side note about format... Ael, if it's all the same to you, I must say I really would prefer to see the quote-splitting as well, as it makes the arguments a whole lot easier to follow than just having a big quoted block and then a whole big set of responses together.)
Errant 12-01-05, 03:09 AM	I can't recall the last time I DM'd for someone playing a druid to be honest, but if I did, I don't think I'd have any problems with druids doing non-nature related missions. From a metagame point of view, I can't see myself penalizing the player for going off on a mission that had little/nothing to do with serving nature. Doesn't encourage or reward much variety in roleplaying if all the players have to make characters with fully integrated motivations. Why can't a druid be friends with and help someone fascinated by arcane lore? Heck, why can't a (generic) druid be fascinated by arcane lore himself, and/or how arcane lore interacts/springs from Nature? From a roleplaying point of view, I think a druid can live in harmony with and reverence of Nature without losing his basic (demi)human compassion and other interests. Provided the adventure doesn't involve nature-destructive PC behaviour etc, the druid can use his mastery/knowledge of nature aid allies in their interests promoting reciprocal aid/respect etc for his interests. Today we seek ancient schemas in the depths of Sharn, tomorrow we can head off to battle aberrations ravaging the countryside in the fringes of the Eldeed Reaches. Throw in some temptation for anti-Nature behaviour and you give the druid a great chance to demonstrate, defend and/or promote his beliefs. As long as its consistent with the SRD firstly, and the setting secondly, I want my players to feel free to explore any character/roleplaying concept that tickles their imagination and brings something to the table.
aelryinth 12-01-05, 03:27 AM	Question for all: As a DM, whether in Eberron or elsewhere, have you ever had a PC party with a druid and thrown the group a plot hook that had absolutely nothing to do with nature (either positively or negatively... there was just no nature involved)? If the PCs jumped on it and went for the adventure, did you then strip the druid of her powers just for "neglecting her duties" by going off on this non-nature-related task with her allies? In the abstract, do you think it is reasonable for a DM to do this? Have you as a PC ever been on the receiving end of the kind of thing described above? (Just a side note about format... Ael, if it's all the same to you, I must say I really would prefer to see the quote-splitting as well, as it makes the arguments a whole lot easier to follow than just having a big quoted block and then a whole big set of responses together.) Yeah, but when I got 4 big huge SOB posts clamoring for answers that are a pain to read, let alone respond to with some forethought in the small amount of time I can, it just eats up more time, and then people whine because I literally don't have the time to get to them. :P I know it looks better. No time:P as for denying spells...I've never been in a DM situation with that deep of role-playing. Tend to be powergaming and traditionalist "the band is all"...like the KoDT, heh. ===Aelryinth
Errant 12-01-05, 08:45 AM	Yeah, but when I got 4 big huge SOB posts clamoring for answers that are a pain to read, let alone respond to with some forethought in the small amount of time I can, it just eats up more time, and then people whine because I literally don't have the time to get to them. I'll assume "SOB posts" is something tongue-in-cheek/not meant to be offensive and merely point out that if time is the issue you could just take your time, make fewer more thought out posts, actually provide answers to questions, and get less repeated questions back at you. Who's holding a gun to your head forcing you to reply off the cuff?
a_psh 12-01-05, 09:57 AM	as for denying spells...I've never been in a DM situation with that deep of role-playing. Tend to be powergaming and traditionalist "the band is all"...like the KoDT, heh.Observe the last question: is it reasonable to do it? Is it fair and consistent for the DM to deny a druid spellcasting power because she goes off on a particular adventure (or two... or three...) that has nothing to do with nature?
Roxlimn 12-01-05, 12:03 PM	aelryinth: The Cleric Healing Example: I don't believe that you are espousing Hellcow's view on the matter at all. Don't put words into his mouth. If you want to quote what he's saying, then do so. Creating your own argument and claiming that Hellcow is supporting your argument when the connection is somewhat tenuous is logically incorrect at best, and malicious lying at worst. Again, since you tend to miss lots and lots and lots of things: if you want to quote Hellcow, do so. Valenar Warhorses being magical animals: Problems dealing with magical genetics? The displacer beast IS a magical beast. The Valenar Warhorse is NOT. Yet it's obviously not a natural beast, because it naturally does not breed true. Nor does it hybrid true, as mules and half-elves come about. Those are your own criteria for what consitutues "natural." These are not derived from any sources I know, and are thus speculative at best. Regarding my apparently close-minded post: Rox seems to ignore the fact that if there is a way to make money, people will naturally be inclined to pursue it. If there is a way to make a LOT of money, more and better people will pursue it. And going after Valenar horses, and how to breed them, is a major possible source of money. I'm sorry Rox, but you seem to think the Valenar are operating in a vacuum, and I don't see it that way. You throw a system into imbalance, which they are doing with the introduction of a vastly superior product (their horses) and people WILL scramble to compete. But, because they setting doesn't expressly say they will, it's not going to happen? Riiiiiight. After the start of most of that close minded post, I'm sorry to say I skipped most of it... As I said, your argumentation regarding how economics work is absurdly simple-minded. Completely untenable except in the most ideal of situations. If you'd actually read anything I posted to any usable understanding, you might have gotten a better grasp of what I was trying to say. Let's take apart your arguments point by point: If there is a way to make a LOT of money, more and better people will pursue it. Completely untrue. There are plenty of ways to make tons of money that people do not pursue because of the associated risks or consequences of such a method, or simply because such a method is ultimately proven to be actually unmanageable. Trying to create gold out of lead is one such prospect. Initially, it seems like it's a great deal, and yes, many people attempted it, but few now attempt it because it's widely believed to be a fool's errand. This belief may or may not be ultimately true. As a further example, attempts to turn pottery into porcelain in Middle Age Europe was also largely thought to be about as feasible as turning lead into gold - insanely difficult, but ultimately profitable if you succeed. As it turns out, one potter from a (German?) state did manage to do exactly this, and paved the way for a lucrative porcelain industry in Europe later on. Conversely, activities that are viewed as insanely dangerous provide less numbers of attempters as generations pass and every attempt is met with failure and death or ruin. For example, a great deal of money can be made by counterfeiting monies, and it was much more prevalent in the past in many different states, but the growing power of economic centers, and the escalating craft of protecting and creating monies makes this adventure more and more dangerous and difficult with each passing decade. Few now attempt to counterfeit the Singaporean dollar or the Japanese yen because it's amazingly difficult, and also very dangerous. Finally, there is the class of activity that seems to be initially profitable, but never actually comes to pass. Stealing a commercial jetliner for its fuel and parts would seem to be an amazing coup until you realize that you can't diassemble it profitably, and no one purchases planes off a fence. Similarly, stealing Coke's secret formula would seem to be extremely profitable, and eventually inevitable, until you realize that Coke is a monstrous international corporation with plenty of means to make you sorry you tried to steal its secrets. It might be profitable, but that's highly doubtful. In short, making a lot of money is not as straightforward as you seem to imagine it is. You've probably never tried to set up something as simple as a retail merchandising store before. I'm sorry Rox, but you seem to think the Valenar are operating in a vacuum, and I don't see it that way. You throw a system into imbalance, which they are doing with the introduction of a vastly superior product (their horses) and people WILL scramble to compete. This is just painful. The system is in balance, aelryinth. It's been so for centuries. That balance includes no one but the Valenar having Valenar Warhorses. I do not believe that the Valenar exist in a vaccuum. You erroneously assume that only your variables exist and that the fact that Valenar Warhorses are only available to Valenar is in question. There are other very probable and quite obvious factors at work, which are apparently beyond your perception. For example, the American military builds some of the best military hardware in the world. These products are secret and are not for sale - just as the Valenar Warhorses are secret and not for sale. Is the acquisition of these secrets inevitable, and will these secrets be then available on the open market? No, and no. First of all, any country or company would be insane to try to steal military secrets from the only remaining superpower in the world. We all know how the US reacts when it doesn't like something. Secondly, even if such a company were successful, these secrets are not saleable, because they would instantly pinpoint themselves as the culprits the moment they created a product with that technology. Finally, such secrets are so powerful that putting these products on sale in the open market is almost always less profitable than selling the secret back to its origin (blackmail the Valenar for money), or else selling the secret as a secret to interested parties of great power - like Karrnath or Aundair, for instance. I see all these factors (and more!) interacting dynamically to create a shroud of difficulties surrounding the discovery of Valenar Warhorse breeding. Your argument only postulates the existence of beings so simple-minded and stupid that they wouldn't even react with the most elementary of intelligences I would assign to LEDs on a breadboard (essentially none, in case you didn't get that). The setting says that it hasn't happened for hundreds of years, aelryinth. That means that strong forces are acting to make it so. Just because the setting doesn't say that it has happened or could happen is not a reason to say that it definitely will. Again, logical fallacy. AGAIN, LOGICAL FALLACY. Unless you field in responses with something actually significant in them, I see no point in replying to you further. You simply post and repost the same thing over and over and over again, replying to nothing. Quite frankly, I have better things to do.
The Dreaming Duck 12-01-05, 12:34 PM	As a DM, whether in Eberron or elsewhere, have you ever had a PC party with a druid and thrown the group a plot hook that had absolutely nothing to do with nature (either positively or negatively... there was just no nature involved)? You beat me to it, a_psh - I was going to ask the very same question! None of the published Eberron adventures particularly support nature. Going through The Forgotten Forge presumes that the adventurers are willing to hire out their services for money. And the thing to me is that I essentially see a Valenar warband as... a party of adventurers. They are a small unit of highly skilled individuals who accept money to take on dangerous jobs, and yet who are driven by their own personal goals and beliefs. If a party of adventurers takes money from House Cannith to recover a schema, is it because they whole-heartedly embrace Cannith's economic and political policies? Or are they driven by their own goals and histories, and feel that they can put the reward they receive to a valid use. In my opinion, a Valenar NPC druid doesn't have to support the concept of war any more than a Gatekeeper PC druid has to support House Cannith to work for them. The question is whether the job has some personal resonance for him. The Gatekeeper may be struggling to gain acess to greater power, connections, and magic because he needs all of these things to defend the world: perhaps he even hopes that an alliance with Cannith could eventually allow him to get Cannith involved in restoring the seals. The Valenar fights because it serves his goals - honoring his ancestor and channeling the destructive might of nature. He's not sitting down and considering the big picture - "In doing this, am I supporting the very concept of war, which is itself an unnatural construct?" any more than the PCs will say "In providing House Cannith with a new schema, are we supporting the magical industrialization of the world and therefore striking a blow against nature?" Some might argue that they should on both counts... but if you're going to be that strict, the druid just replaced the paladin as Most Difficult Character to Fit Into Published Adventures.
ORC_Tuhteth 12-01-05, 03:38 PM	Guys, please keep your posts both polite and constructive -- things are starting to get a little ugly, and I don't want to have to lock this thread or send out a bunch of warnings. Lots of paperwork, it's no fun for anyone, so do all of us a favor and play nice. :)
aelryinth 12-01-05, 03:45 PM	aelryinth: The Cleric Healing Example: I don't believe that you are espousing Hellcow's view on the matter at all. Don't put words into his mouth. If you want to quote what he's saying, then do so. Creating your own argument and claiming that Hellcow is supporting your argument when the connection is somewhat tenuous is logically incorrect at best, and malicious lying at worst. Again, since you tend to miss lots and lots and lots of things: if you want to quote Hellcow, do so. Valenar Warhorses being magical animals: Those are your own criteria for what consitutues "natural." These are not derived from any sources I know, and are thus speculative at best. Regarding my apparently close-minded post: As I said, your argumentation regarding how economics work is absurdly simple-minded. Completely untenable except in the most ideal of situations. If you'd actually read anything I posted to any usable understanding, you might have gotten a better grasp of what I was trying to say. Let's take apart your arguments point by point: Completely untrue. There are plenty of ways to make tons of money that people do not pursue because of the associated risks or consequences of such a method, or simply because such a method is ultimately proven to be actually unmanageable. Trying to create gold out of lead is one such prospect. Initially, it seems like it's a great deal, and yes, many people attempted it, but few now attempt it because it's widely believed to be a fool's errand. This belief may or may not be ultimately true. As a further example, attempts to turn pottery into porcelain in Middle Age Europe was also largely thought to be about as feasible as turning lead into gold - insanely difficult, but ultimately profitable if you succeed. As it turns out, one potter from a (German?) state did manage to do exactly this, and paved the way for a lucrative porcelain industry in Europe later on. Conversely, activities that are viewed as insanely dangerous provide less numbers of attempters as generations pass and every attempt is met with failure and death or ruin. For example, a great deal of money can be made by counterfeiting monies, and it was much more prevalent in the past in many different states, but the growing power of economic centers, and the escalating craft of protecting and creating monies makes this adventure more and more dangerous and difficult with each passing decade. Few now attempt to counterfeit the Singaporean dollar or the Japanese yen because it's amazingly difficult, and also very dangerous. Finally, there is the class of activity that seems to be initially profitable, but never actually comes to pass. Stealing a commercial jetliner for its fuel and parts would seem to be an amazing coup until you realize that you can't diassemble it profitably, and no one purchases planes off a fence. Similarly, stealing Coke's secret formula would seem to be extremely profitable, and eventually inevitable, until you realize that Coke is a monstrous international corporation with plenty of means to make you sorry you tried to steal its secrets. It might be profitable, but that's highly doubtful. In short, making a lot of money is not as straightforward as you seem to imagine it is. You've probably never tried to set up something as simple as a retail merchandising store before. This is just painful. The system is in balance, aelryinth. It's been so for centuries. That balance includes no one but the Valenar having Valenar Warhorses. I do not believe that the Valenar exist in a vaccuum. You erroneously assume that only your variables exist and that the fact that Valenar Warhorses are only available to Valenar is in question. There are other very probable and quite obvious factors at work, which are apparently beyond your perception. For example, the American military builds some of the best military hardware in the world. These products are secret and are not for sale - just as the Valenar Warhorses are secret and not for sale. Is the acquisition of these secrets inevitable, and will these secrets be then available on the open market? No, and no. First of all, any country or company would be insane to try to steal military secrets from the only remaining superpower in the world. We all know how the US reacts when it doesn't like something. Secondly, even if such a company were successful, these secrets are not saleable, because they would instantly pinpoint themselves as the culprits the moment they created a product with that technology. Finally, such secrets are so powerful that putting these products on sale in the open market is almost always less profitable than selling the secret back to its origin (blackmail the Valenar for money), or else selling the secret as a secret to interested parties of great power - like Karrnath or Aundair, for instance. I see all these factors (and more!) interacting dynamically to create a shroud of difficulties surrounding the discovery of Valenar Warhorse breeding. Your argument only postulates the existence of beings so simple-minded and stupid that they wouldn't even react with the most elementary of intelligences I would assign to LEDs on a breadboard (essentially none, in case you didn't get that). The setting says that it hasn't happened for hundreds of years, aelryinth. That means that strong forces are acting to make it so. Just because the setting doesn't say that it has happened or could happen is not a reason to say that it definitely will. Again, logical fallacy. AGAIN, LOGICAL FALLACY. Unless you field in responses with something actually significant in them, I see no point in replying to you further. You simply post and repost the same thing over and over and over again, replying to nothing. Quite frankly, I have better things to do. This whole thing is narrow on so many levels it's hard to reply. First of all, you have a continent at war, and a Major Power interested in breeding of horses. Into this mix you insert the Gawds of all horses...Valenar breeds. Is it hard getting your hands on Valenar breeds? Why, no. Riding horses you can buy for cash...and they are not even gelded, although you can work around that. Valenar warhorses come about as spoils of war, or covert work. They've been bred, so we know that work is already done. I literally could not believe that you actually went ahead and said people aren't stealing American military secrets. This is being done all the time...especially by foreign companies that also make military hardware. It's called reverse engineering, and it's being done at every level by companies and nations big and small. Trying to stop this theft of secrets consumes massive amounts of time and money in the present day. YOu think computer makers don't buy competitors chips and take them apart so they can learn something new? I know GM does it for cars...I'm certain munition makers do it for new hardware. But just because you know exactly what's been made doesn't mean you have the tech to make it...which is the problem a lot of our competition has. You don't trace the atomic bombs...you trace the technology to MAKE the atomic bombs (or the money..as is the case with the Zen and such). And you limit it, keep it secret...which is what the Valenar are doing, by having total control over that specific technology. And yet, the problem is, tech is always advancing. So if you don't keep staying ahead of the tech curve, somebody IS going to catch up to you eventually. The main problem with reverse engineering is that you find out what they did...now you have to figure out how they did it. The tech involved in the creation, not the end result, which is what you seem to be focused on. And that is where Eberron is at sans horses. The Valenar is the be-all and the end-all of horses, and there is no risk in just breeding them as it stands...you don't get a Valenar horse. Magebred horses cost extra time and money, and yet are clearly inferior to a Valenar horse. Vidalis and the thousands of horse breeders know what the Valenar did...but they can't yet duplicate how they did it. But Lord, are they going to try until they get it right. -------------------------- And amazingly, I've been involved in 3 start-ups of retail operations, although not as an owner. I also spent nine years in sales. I'm perfectly aware of competitive forces, and I seem to be a lot more widely read then you regarding economic incentives...must be the MBA in finance and economics, aye? Control over technology and reverse engineering of the secrets of other companies is probably the biggest 'shadow game' being played today, by everything I've read on the current state of the espionage game. The Valenar true-breeding is THE nut to crack in the breeding game...and you can be sure a lot of time, money and energy is being spent on cracking it from a lot of angles. It's analogous to you having a pistol and the enemy having a Rail Gun...you are going to attempt to break the secrets of that Rail Gun until you get there. It may take you a while, but there's nothing like higher tech, especially higher Military-applicable tech, to drive the advance of 'science'. --------------- And as for the breeding question, I consider the Valenar inability to breed true under natural conditions to be entirely unnatural. Obviously, there is something MORE involved...just like Magebred animals. It may be magical, it may be spiritual, it may involve manifest zones. But the fact remains...you can't just take two Valenar horses, breed them together, and get Valenar horses...you get a normal horse. Therefore, there is an outside agency/force at work, which means this is not a natural processs, which means Valenar horses come about by processes that are NOT natural, which means they are not a natural beast, they are an unnatural beast. Are they a Magical Beast, like a displacer? Obviously not...they are still considered Animals. But unlike even Dire Animals, they can't breed true without something mucking with them...which means they are far less natural then even Dire animals. take away the elves. Would the Valenar horses continue to reproduce themselves? No. They cannot pass on the unique characteristics that make them Valenar horses. Something else is instilling those into them. The current generation would be the last one. Natural animals exist to pass on their bloodline, and clearly the Valenar horses cannot do that of their own. Ergo, they are an unnatural animal, arguably even moreso then Magebred animals which, I believe, breed true to one another, and if not, are made far more easily then a Valenar horse is. ----------------------- Logical fallacy? Sometimes I think you don't know what you post, Rox. All your examples of earning gold eventually come to a crux point...was gold to be made, or not? IF people think there is gold to be made, they go after it, and LOTS of coin gets spent on it...even if it's a fool's errand. There is DEFINITELY money to be made cracking the Valenar secret, and unlike gold to lead, there's proof it can be done...the Valenar horses themselves. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 12-01-05, 06:11 PM	One of the funnier things about the hostility level on this thread is the first time I saw Errant's name, I thought he was borrowing the name of a character of mine from stories I posted on another board. heh! http://haxan.criticalhit.dk/Welcome Someone just started a wiki to save the original stories, and I've been editing the ones posted here. The full set of originals can be found on Monte's Board under the AU header, Au and Haxan Redux. No, there's no Eberron tie-in yet, but you might find it amusing how I'm looking at Errant when I post here. ==Aelryinth
davethebrave371 12-01-05, 06:13 PM	Sorry WizO, and sorry aelryinth. I'll tone it down. aelryinth, reiteration of a previous point, minus anything conceivably offensive. Your points on Valenar mercenaries, druids, Valenar druids, Valenar culture, clerics and economy are straight out of your game, and are alterations of the campaign setting.
Errant 12-01-05, 07:24 PM	One of the funnier things about the hostility level on this thread is the first time I saw Errant's name, I thought he was borrowing the name of a character of mine from stories I posted on another board. heh! I've actually been using Errant as an online alias/handle/whatever-we-call-it-these-days since 1995 when I created a paladin (Knight Errant...) for the online game/MUD Ancient Anguish. Fond memories. If you thought I was trying to use one of your creations in some sort of subtle dig you can dismiss that idea. If you need corroboration, I've been registered under the same name on the Enworld boards since 2002. The saddest thing I feel about the hostility on this thread is that most of it would be avoided by talking in less absolute/general terms and more specifics. I doubt even Hellcow would say many things are "impossible", or "always" happen this way, or "never" happen that way. You get the drift. But I've already suggested more than once how we can provoke less hostility. Feel free to PM me if anyone wants to discuss that further, otherwise I'll "stop preaching". First of all, you have a continent at war, Hasn't the war been over for a couple of years? If Khorvaire is in the grip of war I'd say its a Cold War. Espionage and plots all over the place maybe, with plenty of space for people to slip around trying to steal secrets and/or carry out assassinations to protect secrets/interests. Is that what you meant Aelryinth? I literally could not believe that you actually went ahead and said people aren't stealing American military secrets. This is being done all the time...especially by foreign companies that also make military hardware. It's called reverse engineering, and it's being done at every level by companies and nations big and small. Trying to stop this theft of secrets consumes massive amounts of time and money in the present day. I must say the idea that american military secrets aren't being stolen raised my eyebrows too. But, I would argue that reverse engineering in order to produce your own variant is a far cry from reverse engineering in order to produce the same product. It was my impression that the arguing over horses in this thread was over whether it is possible to reproduce "Valenar Riding Horses" or "Valenar Warhorses". I certainly don't have any trouble with the concept that House Vadalis (or anyone else with the money/resources to spare) is actively trying to steal and study Valenar Horses, or even that in doing so they might discover ways to breed superior horses themselves. But, even if someone one day breed horses with identical stats, will they necessarily make them Valenar Horses &/or able to breed true with Valenar Horses? If anyone does disagree with me on that concept, please let me know. I'm interested to see the grounds for a counter-position. :cool:
Siran Dunmorgan 12-01-05, 07:56 PM	Okay. I'm going to re-enter the general fray with a few observations. First, genetics isn't the whole answer. Remember, one of the ideas involved the interaction of the horses with manifest zones of Irian. It's quite possible that the "ordinary" horses resulting from breeding captured Valenar warhorses are genetically identical to their predecessors, but were not exposed to the effects of Irian during their mothers' pregnancies, and that connection to Irian is what gives rise to their "special" abilities. This effect could indeed be perfectly natural, and simply used by the Tairndal in much the same way that other known manifest zones of Irian give rise to "healing springs" and similar natural phenomena. Were the Valenar extinguished, the next generation of their horses would not be the last: they would simply be normal horses until exposure to the appropriate manifest zone at the appropriate point in their pre-natal development brought their potential once more to light. Now, that said, the problem for House Vadalis is to reverse-engineer the appropriate effect of the manifest zone. We know from the example of Sharn that manifest zones do not simply take on all of the traits of their associated plane, and that different manifest zones may yield different qualities, e.g. the Sharn manifest zone of Syrania enhances flight, but another manifest zone of Syrania might only yield an effect similar to a hallow spell. Thus, it's reasonable to think of a team of House Vadalis researchers working with a tunable orrery-like device that filters different Irian-based effects onto pregnant captured Valenar warhorses. Note that none of this makes Valenar warhorses unnatural, any more than normal horses that spend their formative years drinking from a spring arising from flouride-bearing rock[1] are unnatural. Of course, it's also possible that the Valenar war-herds are wholly unnatural, their ancestors consisting entirely of wildshaped elves with no natural horse genetics, but that's for you, as Dungeon Masters of your own campaigns, to decide. —Siran Dunmorgan [1] And therefore being able to travel farther, faster, and graze on a wider variety of grasses, due to stronger, more efficient teeth. C.f. studies done on feral horse herds in Texas (where the spring water is often naturally flouridated) and South Dakota (where it is not).
Errant 12-01-05, 08:21 PM	... horses that spend their formative years drinking from a spring arising from flouride-bearing rock[1] ... [1] And therefore being able to travel farther, faster, and graze on a wider variety of grasses, due to stronger, more efficient teeth. C.f. studies done on feral horse herds in Texas (where the spring water is often naturally flouridated) and South Dakota (where it is not). Cool, this is one of the reasons I still play & read about DnD, you learn all sorts of tidbits about the real world. :cool:
aelryinth 12-01-05, 10:45 PM	Let me get this straight...we come up with the idea of manifest zones might be responsible, and the breeders of House Vidalis, who live in a world with manifest zones, haven't thought of the same thing generations ago? It's not that simple, and the only manifest zones aren't going to be on Aerenal. Even if it's a small one, I'm pretty sure Vidalis could find it and make use of it, exactly as suggested...and did the simpler ideas we are thinking up long ago. Natural conditions do not presuppose all the interesting events you have coming together that MUST happen to make a Valenar horse. The test is pretty simple...put two of em together, breed them, and do they make a Valenar horse? The 'spring water' theory is nice, but that's an alteration to formative ability scores, not the introduction or removal of a template to an animal, which is basically what being Valenar is. There's also the idea that if such a manifest zone exists, it should affect more then just horses. Valenar War Dogs, Valenar Elven Cats, Valenar Cooshee, etc etc. heh! How 'bout them Valenar Valenar elves and their base 60' move?....;) Clearly there is something going on, because if it was a case of natural conditions, the answer would be known (FR does this with 'special grass'...twice!) As for you, Errant, that's not a slam...I simply found it pretty amusing. The first of those stories went up around the first time you used your name, if you got your dates right (2002). My reference to a continent at war refers to basically the last hundred years while they've been attempting to break the secret...another fact Rox seemed to conveniently ignore. And a two year lull doesn't mean the War is over...if it erupts again, the Thronehold Treaty becomes just a footnote, and the Last War resumes, not the Last War II starts...or would it be the Next Last War? Whoever coined the name for the Chronicle should be strangled anyways...heh! Such arrogance, thinking THEIR big war was going to be the last one. ==Aelryinth
PoeticJustice 12-01-05, 10:52 PM	If it were any one thing, I'm pretty sure Vadalis could cipher it out. What about it being multiple things? i.e. The horse must be foaled while in an Irian zone, raised on special grass, weaned on milk saturated with positive energy, and given the proper rites by a Valenar Shaman at a certain day of the year and time of that day. Now that's something that'll take even the elves a while to nail down, to say nothing of these upstart humans!
a_psh 12-01-05, 11:14 PM	Okay, I think it's stewed in your heads long enough, everyone (and I'm sure you all saw this coming)... Here's the point of my druid question, of course: In every standard D&D campaign world, it's basically assumed that druids will go on adventures unrelated to nature at some point in their lives. I have never heard of a DM taking away a druid's spellcasting because his party followed a story hook that turned into an adventure that neither helped nor hurt nature... at all. An adventure completely in a city or dungeon, with absolutely no consequences to the natural world. There is no argument about this. Why, then, is it suddenly wrong for Valenar druids to go on adventures military missions/campaign unrelated to nature at some point in their lives? There's copious precedent (pretty much any D&D game involving a druid ever played) to suggest that this is fine, and no precedent, only vague conjecture, to suggest the opposite. I think that sinks the whole "druids can't be in mercenary warbands" argument, frankly.
Errant 12-01-05, 11:36 PM	As for you, Errant, that's not a slam...I simply found it pretty amusing. The first of those stories went up around the first time you used your name, if you got your dates right (2002). Oh god, lets not start amusing each other, the sky will fall in! 1995 I first used the name, 2002 was just the first 'evidence' I could offer. ;) My reference to a continent at war refers to basically the last hundred years while they've been attempting to break the secret... Cool. That makes much more sense (to me). Although I would have imagined that all of the Major Powers interested in improving their own cavalry would have had a harder time moving agents through Valenar territories (to spie on how they bred the horses) than would now. If the breeding fields are remotely sacred (which seems logical considering the status of their horses), I imagine most outsiders would be strongly encouraged to stay away to the point of extreme prejudice if they ignored warnings. In a time of active warfare, where the source of the Valenar's main(?) ongoing tactical advantage would just as likely be destroyed as copied they probably didn't even bother with warnings. the Last War II starts...or would it be the Next Last War? Whoever coined the name for the Chronicle should be strangled anyways...heh! Such arrogance, thinking THEIR big war was going to be the last one. I kind of like the "Last War" title. It simultaneously tags "the war" as the most recent one and implies a lot of wishful thinking that it will be the "final" war. I imagine WW2 could just as easily have been referred to as the Last War in the first few years after that concluded. If it were any one thing, I'm pretty sure Vadalis could cipher it out. What about it being multiple things? i.e. The horse must be foaled while in an Irian zone, raised on special grass, weaned on milk saturated with positive energy, and given the proper rites by a Valenar Shaman at a certain day of the year and time of that day. Now that's something that'll take even the elves a while to nail down, to say nothing of these upstart humans! Thats almost exactly how I see the process, something complicated that most likely includes particular locations, particular practices and particular spells/rituals. Any one of which would be comparatively easy to discover, but extremely difficult to work out in totality. And if the Valenar have anyone remotely competent working against those trying to steal their secrets it would be just as difficult for interested groups to share any secrets they discover. Especially considering the number of red herrings I'd lay out to be stolen if guarding the secrets was my job.
Roxlimn 12-02-05, 12:09 AM	aelryinth: That's better. Is it hard getting your hands on Valenar breeds? Why, no. Riding horses you can buy for cash...and they are not even gelded, although you can work around that. Valenar warhorses come about as spoils of war, or covert work. They've been bred, so we know that work is already done. Not necessarily true. Riding Horses are easy to get. Warhorses are not. We don't know whether they're viable as spoils of war or manageable through covert work. For all we know, they may be throughly unmanageable unless handled by a Valenar warrior. We cannot simply assume that they can be managed easily. I literally could not believe that you actually went ahead and said people aren't stealing American military secrets. This is being done all the time...especially by foreign companies that also make military hardware. It's called reverse engineering, and it's being done at every level by companies and nations big and small. Trying to stop this theft of secrets consumes massive amounts of time and money in the present day. True. However, the prevention of this kind of theft is effective on some level. For example, US submarine technology is still pretty hard to beat, and ditto for carrier technology. These kinds of technology and products simply aren't available on the open market. The Valenar is the be-all and the end-all of horses, and there is no risk in just breeding them as it stands...you don't get a Valenar horse. Magebred horses cost extra time and money, and yet are clearly inferior to a Valenar horse. Vidalis and the thousands of horse breeders know what the Valenar did...but they can't yet duplicate how they did it. But Lord, are they going to try until they get it right. Exactly. Just because they know that Valenar Warhorses exist and may or may not be able to capture a few specimens doesn't mean that they can then breed these horses. They're going to try, yes, but that doesn't mean that they're close to success, anywhere near to it, or even that it's even possible. The Valenar true-breeding is THE nut to crack in the breeding game...and you can be sure a lot of time, money and energy is being spent on cracking it from a lot of angles. It's analogous to you having a pistol and the enemy having a Rail Gun...you are going to attempt to break the secrets of that Rail Gun until you get there. It may take you a while, but there's nothing like higher tech, especially higher Military-applicable tech, to drive the advance of 'science'. Equally, you can sure that a lot of time and money is being spent to keep it a secret. I see no hint to justify the assumption that all it will take is sufficient time and money to crack this nut. And as for the breeding question, I consider the Valenar inability to breed true under natural conditions to be entirely unnatural. Obviously, there is something MORE involved...just like Magebred animals. It may be magical, it may be spiritual, it may involve manifest zones. You consider it unnatural. Your opinion isn't necessarily true, nor are we seriously bound to consider it anything more than your own take on your own campaign. Your definitions on what constitutes natural and unnatural are strictly your own. Do not make the mistake of thinking that you are an authority on these matters. Therefore, there is an outside agency/force at work, which means this is not a natural processs, which means Valenar horses come about by processes that are NOT natural, which means they are not a natural beast, they are an unnatural beast. Magic is as natural to Eberron as science and natural forces are to us. The breeding of salmon requires outside forces to complete. For a very long time, it was considered impossible to breed them outside of their natural habitat. Similarly, salamander development is also affected by cues in the environment. Heck, plants and animals of all sorts only exist in particular seasons, other animals, and locations because there exist special circumstances that make breeding only possible in those locations. Your saying that this is unnatural has no basis, in fact. It is spun completely out of your own biases. take away the elves. Would the Valenar horses continue to reproduce themselves? No. They cannot pass on the unique characteristics that make them Valenar horses. Something else is instilling those into them. The current generation would be the last one. Natural animals exist to pass on their bloodline, and clearly the Valenar horses cannot do that of their own. We don't know that. You are again assuming that this is the case. Logical fallacy? Sometimes I think you don't know what you post, Rox. All your examples of earning gold eventually come to a crux point...was gold to be made, or not? IF people think there is gold to be made, they go after it, and LOTS of coin gets spent on it...even if it's a fool's errand. There is DEFINITELY money to be made cracking the Valenar secret, and unlike gold to lead, there's proof it can be done...the Valenar horses themselves. Here is your logical fallacy, aelryinth: "There is no proof that honeyed Mustangs do not exist, so therefore, they must." It's a classical kind of logical fallacy, and I'm sure you can find lots of people to teach you what kind of a logical fallacy it is. I'm not saying that there's no money to be had in trying to crack Valenar Warhorse breeding. In fact, there are positive indications that there is! The powerful House Vadalis has been trying to do so ever since they discovered what a Valenar Warhorse was. I'm just saying that just because people are trying to do so, doesn't mean that they will eventually succeed to any profitable end. Finally: And amazingly, I've been involved in 3 start-ups of retail operations, although not as an owner. I also spent nine years in sales. I'm perfectly aware of competitive forces, and I seem to be a lot more widely read then you regarding economic incentives...must be the MBA in finance and economics, aye? If you do have an MBA in finance and economics, how can you not understand that just because something is useful doesn't mean that it's saleable?
Siran Dunmorgan 12-02-05, 12:30 AM	Let me get this straight...we come up with the idea of manifest zones might be responsible, and the breeders of House Vidalis, who live in a world with manifest zones, haven't thought of the same thing generations ago? It's not that simple, and the only manifest zones aren't going to be on Aerenal. Even if it's a small one, I'm pretty sure Vidalis could find it and make use of it, exactly as suggested...and did the simpler ideas we are thinking up long ago. Natural conditions do not presuppose all the interesting events you have coming together that MUST happen to make a Valenar horse. The test is pretty simple...put two of em together, breed them, and do they make a Valenar horse? The 'spring water' theory is nice, but that's an alteration to formative ability scores, not the introduction or removal of a template to an animal, which is basically what being Valenar is. There's also the idea that if such a manifest zone exists, it should affect more then just horses. Valenar War Dogs, Valenar Elven Cats, Valenar Cooshee, etc etc. heh! How 'bout them Valenar Valenar elves and their base 60' move?....;) Clearly there is something going on, because if it was a case of natural conditions, the answer would be known (FR does this with 'special grass'...twice!) Why? That is, why must it be known to anyone outside the Siyal Marrain? Eberron has no scientific tradition of which we have ever heard, that is, there is no philosophy that suggests the concepts of hypothesis, experiment and control of variables. House Vadalis may have developed a set of concepts similar to what we think of as Mendelian genetics, but most of the world conducts their investigations on principles similar to those laid down by what we think of as medieval alchemists. There is no reason to think—and many reasons not to think—that the idea of isolating possible causes for the development of Valenar horses, and trying them, or combinations of them, one at a time in controlled experiments would have occurred to House Vadalis, for the simple reason that controlled experimentation hasn't occurred to anyone yet. Experimentation, yes: experimentation employing controlled variables, no. That is, breeders will think: this horse and that horse have characteristics that I want in a new line of horses. Let's breed them together and see what happens. The notion that this trait and that trait are carried on the same genetic structure, and can never, therefore, manifest in the same creature has probably not occurred to them. Of course, it's also not out of the question to suppose that in Eberron, acquired characteristics can be inherited, and we know from things like owlbears that it's possible to mate creatures that would not normally be compatible, so maybe Mendelian genetics doesn't apply. The point is that these discoveries are not inevitable, and the philosophy of reverse engineering may not have been developed at all. The idea that at least some of House Vadalis' attempts at breeding Valenar warhorses have required the horses to mate under a domination effect suggests that the horses are, at a minimum, not comfortable breeding outside the company of the Siyal Marrain, and that whatever causes the exceptional characteristics of a Valenar warhorse is at least partially determined by the horses themselves, e.g. the horses would not normally mate away from the Siyal Marrain, and pregnant mares may do something to effectively damage the foal in order to prevent its use by non-elves.[1] We can, of course, debate causes all day: the right answers are found only in our own campaigns, as we run them. For my part, the chances of either of my regular Eberron groups actually dealing with this issue is very low.[2] The key to the production of the Valenar herds may be simple, or it may be complex. In fact, it's as complicated as it needs to be. Have you ever read Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus? I mean the book itself, rather than any more recent novelizations or films. When Victor Frankenstein discovers the principle underlying animate life, he realizes that it's simple, really simple. Not something for which he needs a castle laboratory, and flashing lights and enormous pieces of equipment, and a storm of lightning to accomplish, as the matter appears in film. Rather, in the novel, he constructs the creature and animates it in perfect quietude in a garret room in Ingolstadt, effectively in the middle of the city, without attracting the notice even of other tenants in the building. His astonishment is simply that no one has struck on it before. It's possible that the secret of having stronger, faster horses with low-light vision is as simple as that, and so obvious that no one else had ever thought of it, or, if they had, then they discarded it as being "too simple." It's also possible that it's as complicated as requiring a Siyal Marrain of 3rd level or higher in attendance at the conception, having fed both mare and stallion a steady herbal diet in the fortnight leading up to conception, which must take place at a certain alignment of the moons, in a specific manifest zone if Irian, where the horses involved must be more closely related than cousins to the 4rd degree, but no more closely related than 1st cross-cousins to produce strong, viable offspring. The choices are up to us, out to the limit of what our players will accept. —Siran Dunmorgan [1] A similar phenomenon is found in rabbits: a pregnant rabbit doe can actually terminate her own pregnancy and absorb the young back into her body if conditions are not suitable for their bearing. While Valenar mares may not be able to take things quite that far, she may be able to protect the herd by rendering her foal "normal". [2] One group is taking a break from their schooling at Arcanix to deal with the machinations of a dhakaani duur'kala; the other group is tooling around the Shadow Marches, doing obscure favors for the Daughters of Sora Kell.
aelryinth 12-02-05, 03:54 AM	What the heck is a honeyed mustang, and where might I have referred to it>? 3E assumes No Sacred Cows. It's a central premise of the game. So where is this 'logical fallacy' I seem to be developing, Rox? The fact of the matter is, the Valenar secret exists in some form, it can therefore, by the central concepts of the game, be solved. Where and when is up to the DM, and can be expedited by player actions. Eventually it will be solved...but we don't have any idea when, and it probably won't have any effect on the game setting unless the PC's get involved. And you are pointing out a really ridiculous and inapplicable argument with the use/sale thing, or I really don't know where you are coming from. Valenar horses are not just useful...they are the Best, and they are In Demand. High Demand. Crazy Demand. They'd boot all the Magebreds tomorrow if they could make Valenars. But they can't, so they don't. Useful, selling...you are talking about a problem with marketing, not economics. Useful with no demand is a meaningless commodity...what you are descibing. Useful WITH demand is economic incentive, and you are ignoring that reality. Useful with crazy demand is gold rush fever tempered by risks and reality (I imagine the 'rush' was 50 years ago, and now it's just a fever). So exactly where are you coming from? All you seem to be getting is your arguments confused at this point, especially with business philosophy. --------------- And as for all those examples above...if you have to have conditions as specific as that, and the prescence of magic, etc, to actually get a Valenar horse instead of a normal horse, seems less then natural to me. Magic might exist in Nature, but that doesn't make it a Natural force! It makes it a magical force (or the druids couldn't despise arcane magic, as it would be as natural as their own)! The ability to pass on the bloodline unhindered is the natural method of reproduction. These aren't environmentally sensitive amphibians whose homes are found in a small series of lakes...these are horses. Just that...horses. They breed, they make more horses. Proven, tested, done. Your salmon example makes MY case. Valenar horses can certainly have children in natural conditions...it's been done! But they don't make Valenar horses in natural conditions. Under natural breeding conditions, they make plain horses. Under some other extremely specific and secretive ones, they make Valenar horses. Thus, it isn't a natural breed, and won't survive in natural conditions ... something must be helping them make Valenar-bred (three guesses who, first two don't count!). If anyone here thinks that without the aid of the elves they'd continue to flourish as a species and breed true, I'd have to say I'm extremely doubtful of that fact. More likely, they'd all be gone in a generation and we'd have normal horses left behind. ==Aelryinth
Roxlimn 12-02-05, 08:45 AM	aelryinth: 3E assumes No Sacred Cows. It's a central premise of the game. So where is this 'logical fallacy' I seem to be developing, Rox? The fact of the matter is, the Valenar secret exists in some form, it can therefore, by the central concepts of the game, be solved. Where and when is up to the DM, and can be expedited by player actions. Eventually it will be solved...but we don't have any idea when, and it probably won't have any effect on the game setting unless the PC's get involved. 1. The statement that 3e assumes no sacred cows must be some marketing propaganda you absorbed from somewhere. Please post your reference so we can see how this is applicable to your argument. 2. Your form of logical fallacy is typically termed "Appeal to Ignorance." We have no proof that the Valenar breeding secret is at all solvable or profitable. You simply assume that it is. You foist the burden of proof upon your opponents, when the burden of proof is actually on you. This is a very basic form of logical fallacy. Your salmon example makes MY case. Valenar horses can certainly have children in natural conditions...it's been done! But they don't make Valenar horses in natural conditions. Same logical fallacy. Appeal to Ignorance. We don't know whether Valenar Warhorses can or cannot breed in which conditions. You have to exhaustively prove that they are wholly artifical animals in order to make this kind of claim, and even then, this label of "unnatural" is still only your own particular label. You cannot.
Errant 12-02-05, 09:17 AM	So where is this 'logical fallacy' I seem to be developing I think I understand what Rox is trying to say so let me see if I can shed some light. (If I don't get it, point out where I'm wrong please Roxlimn) Basically, you seem to be saying that "because the rules don't say its impossible for anyone but the Valenar to breed Valenar horses, it MUST BE possible". That logic doesn't hold up, ie it's a logical fallacy. If that still doesn't make sense I'm sure we can think of some more examples. Your rote reply seems to be "there's no sacred cows in 3E so anything's possible". My reply to that would be remember Rule 0. That's a cliche but its true. It's up to the DM, if he says it's impossible, it's impossible. You telling us otherwise is essentially telling us we're not playing it right. I believe most people would say that's patronising, arrogant and offensive. If YOU want to say it IS possible in YOUR game, NO PROBLEM. If you want to say it IS possible (ie that is HAS TO BE possible) according to the rules/setting, you have yet to provide one single iota of evidence to support that in the SRD or Eberron canon. For example if I, as the DM for my group decide, that breeding Valenar Horses requires the free cooperation of the spirit of an ancient Valenar champion, and further that no such spirit will ever cooperate with anyone but a Valenar druid in a particular place, where am I contradicting the SRD or Eberron canon? If you can't even provide one reference to show I'm wrong, where do you get off saying it has to be possible? And you are pointing out a really ridiculous and inapplicable argument with the use/sale thing, or I really don't know where you are coming from. Valenar horses are not just useful...they are the Best, and they are In Demand. High Demand. Crazy Demand. They'd boot all the Magebreds tomorrow if they could make Valenars. I don't know anyone who doesn't think Ferrari's are awesome vehicles and far above the standard of the vast majority of other vehicles on the road. So why aren't all the vehicle manufacturers in the world making Ferraris? Bad marketing? Obviously the know-how is out there. (If you dispute Ferrari as the 'best' car in the world, swap Ferrari for your personal favorite, the argument remains the same) Valenar horses are the Ferrari's of the Eberron equine world, so saying 'they'd boot all the Magebreds tomorrow' is no more reasonable that saying we'd scrap all the lesser cars in our world because there's a higher standard available. And then there's the whole Cost factor. I don't have your qualifications but even my pass in Economics101 tells me Demand is inversely proportionate to Cost. You really should take the time to think out your posts before you write things that ignore the obvious.
Siran Dunmorgan 12-02-05, 10:15 AM	And as for all those examples above...if you have to have conditions as specific as that, and the prescence of magic, etc, to actually get a Valenar horse instead of a normal horse, seems less then natural to me. Magic might exist in Nature, but that doesn't make it a Natural force! It makes it a magical force (or the druids couldn't despise arcane magic, as it would be as natural as their own)! The ability to pass on the bloodline unhindered is the natural method of reproduction. These aren't environmentally sensitive amphibians whose homes are found in a small series of lakes...these are horses. Just that...horses. They breed, they make more horses. Proven, tested, done. Your salmon example makes MY case. Valenar horses can certainly have children in natural conditions...it's been done! But they don't make Valenar horses in natural conditions. Under natural breeding conditions, they make plain horses... Really? They do? And how, exactly, do you know this? We have no information about how they breed under natural conditions. All we have is information about how they breed in captivity:House Vadalis has acquired a number of Valenar horses over the decades, but it has yet to make them reproduce in captivity; while the horses do not appear to be sterile or under the effects of malign enchantment, even those compelled to reproduce with charm animal simply produce normal offspring, lacking the superior abilities of the Valenar horse.If you have to compel a horse to mate under charm animal, "natural conditions" would not seem to apply. Among other things, the spell itself may disturb the balance of energies required for the development of a Valenar foal. Under some other extremely specific and secretive ones, they make Valenar horses. Thus, it isn't a natural breed, and won't survive in natural conditions ... something must be helping them make Valenar-bred (three guesses who, first two don't count!). If anyone here thinks that without the aid of the elves they'd continue to flourish as a species and breed true, I'd have to say I'm extremely doubtful of that fact. More likely, they'd all be gone in a generation and we'd have normal horses left behind.Again, where is your evidence for this assertion, given that we don't have any information concerning their reproduction in the wild? We've been spending a lot of time and energy guessing about how to "make" Valenar horses, when the answer could be as simple as actually allowing them to breed in the wild, a concept that House Vadalis may not have the philosophy to grasp. On the other hand, the secretive techniques practiced by nefarious elves allow more easily approached adventure "hooks". Even if our speculations (manifest zones, herbs, spells, et al.) aren't the "real" answer, they provide grist for the mill of adventure, as House Vadalis gets the party involved in—for instance—spying out the manifest zones of Aerenal. —Siran Dunmorgan
a_psh 12-02-05, 10:56 AM	E assumes No Sacred Cows. It's a central premise of the game.As soon as you move away from the hard rules and into that grey area where rules and story meet, this breaks down pretty easily: NPCs creating giant armies of undead even though PC characters are limited to controlling 4 HD per level, plus what they can rebuke. A random NPC who lived thousands of years ago being able to craft a staff of the magi or an orb of dragonkind. All sorts of weird people being able to have prophetic visions. In Eberron, eldritch machines. Also in Eberron, a little girl whose powers spike to level 18 when she's in a particular location. &c. Though that's not a "sacred cow," I think. A "sacred cow" is an idea that is (unreasonably) considered immune from criticism or opposition. I think, definitionally, stuff like alignment, druids being unable to wear metal armor, and Vancian spellcasting are closer to being sacred cows than that.
davethebrave371 12-02-05, 12:05 PM	Especially in light of these recent posts, I make my claim again. Your points on Valenar mercenaries, druids, Valenar druids, Valenar culture, clerics and economy are straight out of your game, and are alterations of the campaign setting.
The Dreaming Duck 12-02-05, 12:43 PM	Let me get this straight...we come up with the idea of manifest zones might be responsible, and the breeders of House Vidalis, who live in a world with manifest zones, haven't thought of the same thing generations ago? You're making a number of very unsafe assumptions here. All manifest zones behave in a similar manner. There's no evidence supporting this. We don't have a list of the precise effects of manifest zones: instead, they are provided as a tool for the DM to bend the rules to fit the story. One manifest zone tied to Dolurrh may cause masses of ghosts to congregate; another may maximize necromantic spells. There's no rules saying they all behave in the same manner. Therefore, even if you can find a manifest zone tied to Irian, theres no rule stating that it will behave in the same manner as the manifest zones of Aerenal. Manifest zones are easy to locate and identify. So somehow, you've come to the conclusion that you need a manifest zone linked to Irian to breed your horses. How do you find one? In the ECS, the only ones mentioned are in Aerenal. Does that mean these are the only ones? Probably not - manifest zones are, after all, tools for the DM. However, it likely does mean they aren't common elsewhere, because they are specifically called out as an unusual feature of Aerenal - and we're also told that Vol wants to someday conquer Aerenal so she can make use of its manifest zones for powerful rituals. If she could perform her rituals elsewhere, wouldn't she? Note also that the dragonshard specifies "the powerful Irian manifest zones of Aerenal" - given all the mentions of them in the ECS, I think it's quite reasonable to assume that Aerenal does have the most powerful Irian manifest zones in Eberron, and that a weaker one found elsewhere may not have the same effect. In any case, the manifest zone may be out there... but how do you find it? What magic do you use? When you find it, it will be available. We're told that beneficial manifest zones are often the centers of communities. Hellcow has said that there's a clan of dwarves in the Demon Wastes with deathless elders. So perhaps they have a manifest zone to Irian. But are you going to set up your breeding ground in the Demon Wastes? And what makes you think the current inhabitants will look kindly on some foreign corporation coming in and wanting to set up shop on their sacred grounds? They don't care about your gold: they are concerned with the sacred territory that lets them maintain their undead elders. If manifest zones to Irian have beneficial effects, they may already be occupied and in use. The mere presence of the manifest zone is all that is required. This is the most critical assumption of all. The question is not whether the zone is the key, but WHY it is. What do we know about the elven cultures of Aerenal? They have a tradition of positive energy undeath, preserving their ancestors through veneration - and that this magic draws on the energy of Irian. What do we know about Valenar horses? They have been brought from Xen'drik. They are believed to actually be descended from Elven druids in horse form. "The Tairnadal believe that the spirits of these champions of nature live on in their descendants." This belief is strengthened by the spell spirit steed. So: The elves are known to have traditions that allow them to preserve the spirits of their ancestors through use of magic that requires an Irian manifest zone. The Valenar claim that the enhanced abilities of their horses come from the blessing of the preserved spirits of their ancestors. Therefore, it's not the manifest zone that's the issue: it's the blessing, which can only be performed IN a manifest zone. You may get the manifest zone, but without the druid, you're still out of luck. It's right there in the Dragonshard: "A third theory espouses the idea that the enhanced abilities are the result of bond to elven ancestors, just as the Tairnadal claim, and that horses bred without the blessing of a Blood Guardian never receive their full gifts." You're approaching this from a purely rational standpoint, whereas we are told that there's an excellent chance that the answer is spiritual: that it comes from the blessings of druid and ancestor. And after all, aren't you the one saying druids SHOULDN'T create new species, and should put genetic timers in blessed animals? Well, if Valenar horses can't produce other Valenar horses, they've done exactly what you asked: provided animals with enhanced abilities, but without creating a new species that could spread and replace true horses. Isn't that exactly what you're saying the Gatekeepers should have done? Even if it's a small one, I'm pretty sure Vidalis could find it and make use of it, exactly as suggested... The article specifically says "the powerful manifest zones of Aerenal" - not "a manifest zone to Irian." And these zones are powerful enough that they are specifically mentioned in the ECS section on manifest zones, and apparently sought after by Vol. All manifest zones are not created equal. There's also the idea that if such a manifest zone exists, it should affect more then just horses. Why? The article clearly states that the Valenar believe the power of the horses comes from their ancestral bond. The fact that the ritual that strengthens this bond can only be performed in an Irian manifest zone has clear precedents in the fact that the Undying Court draws its power from Irian. Unless they also have war dogs that they believe are the descendents of wild shaped druids, there's no reason for any other type of creature. It's not simply a template applied to creatures born in a manifest zone: it's a blessing performed on a creature with a tie to the ancient Tairnadal of Xen'drik, and the only such creatures we are told of are horses. Again, you're trying to make this coldly scientific, when much of the evidence suggests that it is purely spiritual.
a_psh 12-02-05, 01:52 PM	I don't like seeing good points get ignored beneath the bad stuff. Trying to make sure nothing slipped out in the most recent round of debate... Currently, the status of arguments on this thread (correct me if I'm wrong, everyone) is... Divine spellcasting for money: largely turned into a non-point, because it's been pretty clearly shown that the setting does assume a fair level of this occurring, just not in temples, and the comparison to real life made by Keith and whoever else (I forget, apologies) gives a pretty clear example of how this works, socially. Druids and war: Rebutted. Druids can go to war in any standard D&D setting. Valenar warhorses: At the moment, everything anyone has said on this topic seems to be simply a matter of adventure hooks and "here's how I would do it in my game." There is also a tangential debate about what constitutes "natural" creatures in a D&D game. Did I miss anything?
The Dreaming Duck 12-02-05, 02:22 PM	Also in Eberron, a little girl whose powers spike to level 18 when she's in a particular location. Excellent example. In Eberron, we have a concrete example of a woman who gains 15 levels of cleric in a particular location. Would anyone here deny the immense economic and military value of being able to turn 3rd level clerics into 18th level clerics? Wouldn't it be incredibly useful to House Jorasco if they could boost the power of their adepts in this manner? Clearly it can be done, because someone is doing it. Clearly there's gold to be made from replicating it. So why hasn't someone found a way? Just because it can be done by one person and because other people would love to find a way to do it doesn't mean it's possible for them to do so. In Jaela's case, she can do it because she is the blessed Keeper of the Flame. Presumably, if YOU became Keeper of the Flame, you'd gain that power as well. Unfortunately, you can't just become Keeper of the Flame. It's a spiritual thing, not just a scientific "Anyone who lives in Flamekeep and eats three helpings of spinach every day gains 15 levels" thing. Vadalis may want to find the answer. The answer may be worth an incredible amount of gold. But on their own, these two facts don't mean that there is an answer that Vadalis will ever be able to take advantage of. It has intentionally been left ambigious, so if you WANT to make it possible, you can. But given the information, a DM is on very solid ground if he wants it to be impossible. Jorasco may want 18th level clerics, Vadalis may want Valenar horses - but as both mysteries are tied to religion as much as they are to nature, it may be that neither can be solved by gold or logic.
aelryinth 12-02-05, 05:10 PM	I think I understand what Rox is trying to say so let me see if I can shed some light. (If I don't get it, point out where I'm wrong please Roxlimn) Basically, you seem to be saying that "because the rules don't say its impossible for anyone but the Valenar to breed Valenar horses, it MUST BE possible". That logic doesn't hold up, ie it's a logical fallacy. If that still doesn't make sense I'm sure we can think of some more examples. Your rote reply seems to be "there's no sacred cows in 3E so anything's possible". My reply to that would be remember Rule 0. That's a cliche but its true. It's up to the DM, if he says it's impossible, it's impossible. You telling us otherwise is essentially telling us we're not playing it right. I believe most people would say that's patronising, arrogant and offensive. If YOU want to say it IS possible in YOUR game, NO PROBLEM. If you want to say it IS possible (ie that is HAS TO BE possible) according to the rules/setting, you have yet to provide one single iota of evidence to support that in the SRD or Eberron canon. For example if I, as the DM for my group decide, that breeding Valenar Horses requires the free cooperation of the spirit of an ancient Valenar champion, and further that no such spirit will ever cooperate with anyone but a Valenar druid in a particular place, where am I contradicting the SRD or Eberron canon? If you can't even provide one reference to show I'm wrong, where do you get off saying it has to be possible? I don't know anyone who doesn't think Ferrari's are awesome vehicles and far above the standard of the vast majority of other vehicles on the road. So why aren't all the vehicle manufacturers in the world making Ferraris? Bad marketing? Obviously the know-how is out there. (If you dispute Ferrari as the 'best' car in the world, swap Ferrari for your personal favorite, the argument remains the same) Valenar horses are the Ferrari's of the Eberron equine world, so saying 'they'd boot all the Magebreds tomorrow' is no more reasonable that saying we'd scrap all the lesser cars in our world because there's a higher standard available. And then there's the whole Cost factor. I don't have your qualifications but even my pass in Economics101 tells me Demand is inversely proportionate to Cost. You really should take the time to think out your posts before you write things that ignore the obvious. ------------------------------------------------------------ I'm not saying at ALL that if 'the rules don't say it's impossible...etc." I'm saying that the rules of the game say, if NPC's can do it, so can PC's. Not being able to do so is a 1E/2E concept the likes of Monte Cook, SKR, ANdy Collins, and Skip Williams moved radically away from. You know...the Game Designers. This information is YEARS old...but I'm sure that if you care to direct an inquiry at Monte or the others concerning this issue, they'll confirm their design views again. The entire game was radically redone to embrace this concept and view. It's that simple. You are reading WAAAAAY too much into it otherwise. Hence, 'no sacred cows'...PCs can make Eldritch machines. A PC could become the Speaker in Flamehold. Rule 0 is a campaign rule that authorizes all House Rules. The Core Rules are pretty firm on the point that the days of NPC's doing things the PC's cannot ever conceive of doing are pretty much gone...the game was designed with that premise in mind. If you want to make a House Rule of the Impossible, go ahead...but it's a House Rule. Ergo, Valenar are NPC's, they can make Valenar horses, so can the PC's. Hellcow has not said this is impossible...he's said it would make a great quest for the PC's. He acknowledges this point. Making it extremely difficult does not make it impossible. I do NOT say this is going to be easy...anymore then making an Eldritch machine is easy. The whole thing on Manifest Zones represents a single concept...a Problem to be Overcome. That's it. It does not make it Impossible. And another point...the Silver Flame is not an NPC, which makes it a totally irrelevant point. It's an empowering force. What IS possible is a PC could become the Speaker...not just an NPC. Do you see the difference? The PC could become the character gaining 18 cleric levels. There might be only one in the setting...but that one could be the PC. ------------------------ Valenar horses are Ferraris in the current game because they are High in Demand, Unknown/Extremely High in Cost, and Low in Supply, not Cost. Economics 101...what do you call this? It's a price-fixing monopoly. You set the price wherever you want to. You break the bank if you like. Valenar Warhorses are effectively off the chart, because you won't sell. Demand is not inverse to cost. If you must have it, you will pay, regardless of the cost. Supply is inverse to Price and usually to cost...not Demand to cost. Cost high = Supply low, price high. Cost low= Supply high, price low. But you can certainly have high Price...you buy (think Gas). Price low, you buy. Is Demand affected by cost? Sure...once you have an excess of supply and other alternatives...but a lot more goes into demand then just cost. The key factors are Supply (and alternatives) and Demand (and need). Right now, all the weight is on the short (Supply) side of the equation...monopolized price-fixings. Now, what happens when Supply of Valenar Warhorses reaches the level of, say, Magebreds? The value of Magebreds drops thru the floor as an inferior product shafts demand for it, and the price of Valenar steeds likewise drops as supply loosens up. You can now pick up a Ferrari for 50K instead of 250k...and you completely destroy the market for Magebreds, or relegate them to the level of a Corolla or something, because they have much less value. And in the meantime you make a crapload of money doing it. Economics 101...don't forget the supply side! And when 10,000 Valenar horses are available on the market, the military forces of the nations are not going to have much choice BUT to buy them, or get left behind in the arms race. There's a point where supply and demand come together for maximum overall profit...as opposed to profit per horse. And that gap now is...substantial, to say the least. And we call that Economic Incentive operating against the Opportunity Cost of spending the money other ways. The Economic incentive of the Valenar horse is currently way, way above the cost of, say, making an Eldritch Machine. The problem is, we don't know how to build the 'Eldritch Machine' that makes Valenar Horses. Ride, Pc's, ride! Given the potential profit levels of making Valenar breeds in numbers that dwarf what the Valenar do, the Economic Incentive vastly outstrips the Opportunity Cost here...hence why Vidalis (and the governments of the 5N) is pursuing the breeding as fervently as it is quietly. If they just crunched the numbers and costs outstripped benefits, it would be a no-brainer. But if the Valenar can make enough horses to supply all their people with mounts, there's hardly any reason that Vidalis, with their superior Dragonmark-derived breeding skills, can't do the same or better, is there? Or so they think, and hence they pursue the dream. -------------------------- Druids go to war in every setting...for defensive purposes. Druids do not become military soldiers and pursue battle for battle's sake in every setting...that's a highly civilized notion that really has no place in a druidic mindset. The ability to hire mercenary spellcasters gives another option to circumvent the avowed rarity of 'divine spells for cash' that Eberron has tried very hard to set up, and should be avoided. The mercenary divine caster who takes gold for fighting should be as rare or rarer then the same caster accepting the gold of strangers to cast divine spells on their behalf anywhere else...and that is quite rare. ==Aelryinth
The Dreaming Duck 12-02-05, 05:45 PM	Ergo, Valenar are NPC's, they can make Valenar horses, so can the PC's... What IS possible is a PC could become the Speaker...not just an NPC. Do you see the difference? The PC could become the character gaining 18 cleric levels. There might be only one in the setting...but that one could be the PC. Oh, I completely agree. And even by the examples I've given, a PC could create a Valenar horse: if he's a Valenar druid, which a PC can be. You acknowledge that it's possible there can only be one Keeper of the Flame in the setting. And therefore, that in spite of the immense economic advantages of being able to have empowered clerics, it may be utterly impossible for Jorasco to replicate this effect. I'm saying that the same MAY be true of Vadalis and Valenar horses. There is a way for NPCs to breed Valenar horses, and thus yes, it is something that the PROPER PC should be able to do. But that doesn't mean that anyone can do it - any more than the chaotic evil rogue who worships the Blood of Vol can become the Keeper of the Flame. If the creation of Valenar horses is in fact bound to the divine forces associated with Valenar religion, then it's entirely possible Vadalis will be unable to replicate these in a mundane environment, no matter how hard it tries. But if the Valenar can make enough horses to supply all their people with mounts, there's hardly any reason that Vidalis, with their superior Dragonmark-derived breeding skills, can't do the same or better, is there? Or so they think, and hence they pursue the dream. Agreed - that it's what they think and why they keep trying to do it, even when it may or may not be possible. Which may be all you're trying to say here. The mercenary divine caster who takes gold for fighting should be as rare or rarer then the same caster accepting the gold of strangers to cast divine spells on their behalf anywhere else... Why? The priest of Dol Dorn takes gold for fighting because he serves the god of war. Combat is his prayer, and as for the gold, he's got to upkeep his armor and weapons. His comrades are not strangers to him, and they honor the god of war by risking their lives in battle. And if you follow the logic others have presented, he will still only cast spells that fit within his ethos, and still may not just cast remove curse on the stranger, even if the stranger hires his troop: his magic was granted to him for WAR. Bring him to a battle, he'll lift your curse so you can fight. Ask him on a street corner, why should he help you? Dol Dorn, Dol Arrah, the Mockery (especially the Mockery): all of these are gods of war, and in a time of peace, their priests may choose mercenary service as a way to find conflict. There's nothing in Dol Dorn's creed that says his priests can't be mercenaries; he's not even a lawful god, and his clerics don't have to match his alignment anyway. The mercenary cleric takes gold to fight because he believes his god WANTS him to fight, and the gold is a bonus. The issue is, do these other priests believe that their gods WANT them to cast spells for the strangers? If so, then sure, they'll be as common or more so. If not, you're back to square one. As Hellcow said before: Why does the cleric think he has his powers, what duties do the people expect of the priest, what does the church expect of him. If, in your mind, selling spells fits these criteria, sell spells. If not, don't.
davethebrave371 12-02-05, 05:47 PM	Rule 0 is a campaign rule that authorizes all House Rules. The Core Rules are pretty firm on the point that the days of NPC's doing things the PC's cannot ever conceive of doing are pretty much gone...the game was designed with that premise in mind. If you want to make a House Rule of the Impossible, go ahead...but it's a House Rule. Ergo, Valenar are NPC's, they can make Valenar horses, so can the PC's. Hellcow has not said this is impossible...he's said it would make a great quest for the PC's. He acknowledges this point. Making it extremely difficult does not make it impossible. I do NOT say this is going to be easy...anymore then making an Eldritch machine is easy. The whole thing on Manifest Zones represents a single concept...a Problem to be Overcome. That's it. It does not make it Impossible. And another point...the Silver Flame is not an NPC, which makes it a totally irrelevant point. It's an empowering force. What IS possible is a PC could become the Speaker...not just an NPC. Do you see the difference? The PC could become the character gaining 18 cleric levels. There might be only one in the setting...but that one could be the PC. I agree with this.
Errant 12-02-05, 08:58 PM	Aelryinth, maybe I should have used a bit more emphasis on what I was trying to get at: My reply to that would be remember Rule 0. That's a cliche but its true. It's up to the DM, if he says it's impossible, it's impossible. You telling us otherwise is essentially telling us we're not playing it right. I believe most people would say that's patronising, arrogant and offensive. As for sacred cows, I did a word search my downloaded copy of the SRD. Wow, no hits whatsoever. So then I did a search of the Wizards’ website, one single hit, in a Product Spotlight Chat Log excerpt with Bill Slavicsek, “Director of Roleplaying R&D and the man responsible for assembling the 3rd Edition team” (you know… the guy In Charge of the Game Designers). Here’s the bit about sacred cows: BILL: To do all this, we set up a strategy that, at its essence, boiled down to "make the game noticeably better." Every change had to be an improvement, or the change wouldn't get made. We also identified the "sacred cows" of AD&D -- concepts that the game just could not do without. These could be improved, but they couldn't be discarded or made unrecognizable. This strategy was developed by the 3rd Edition Steering Committee, which included myself, Peter, Skaff Elias, and Thomas Reid. With the strategy in place, we assembled a design team to put it all together. (underlining my emphasis) Nothing there about making it so the PCs can necessarily do anything NPCs can do. If you can find a reference that supports what you’re saying please share it, otherwise its just more of ‘the way you do it’, ie just as much a House Rule as doing it any other way. I'm not saying at ALL that if 'the rules don't say it's impossible...etc." I'm saying that the rules of the game say, if NPC's can do it, so can PC's. Can ANYONE provide a reference to this “rule of the game”? Anyone at all? It's that simple. You are reading WAAAAAY too much into it otherwise. Hence, 'no sacred cows'...PCs can make Eldritch machines. They can? My copy of the ECS (p.273) says “In essence, an eldritch machine is a plot device – a means for villains (and other NPCs) to create effects that have no easy explanation in the existing D&D rules”. Once again for emphasis, “for villains (and other NPCs)”. I think that makes it (by that rule) something the PCs can’t do. If you want to House Rule it differently, good for you. Me, I don’t really care how you play your game, I’m trying to get at what’s possible within the official rules and setting. Ergo, Valenar are NPC's, they can make Valenar horses, so can the PC's… I do NOT say this is going to be easy...anymore then making an Eldritch machine is easy. The whole thing on Manifest Zones represents a single concept...a Problem to be Overcome. That's it. It does not make it Impossible. Sure, its not Impossible, maybe all it takes is to find out how the Valenar do it, then unite Khorvaire and lead an invasion into Aerenal, wipe out all the Valenar that would oppose you, take hostage the Valenar that will submit to your will, and take over the manifest zone they’re using. Or maybe skip uniting Khorvaire and whip up an Eldritch machine that will charm all Valenar including their ancestor spirits, yeah that could work too. Demand is not inverse to cost. If you must have it, you will pay, regardless of the cost… 10,000 Valenar horses are available on the market, the military forces of the nations are not going to have much choice BUT to buy them, or get left behind in the arms race. You mean like when Stealth Fighters come onto the market and all the military forces of the world will snap them up? Or is that a technology that can’t be sold, stolen or duplicated? Sure, the military forces that don’t buy them are going to be behind the 8-ball, no argument there, but unless you can bring down the production cost to insignificant levels, there are still going to be plenty of forces that will try to make do without them. Likewise, even if the House Vadalis (not Vidalis btw Aelryinth, has it been that long since you cracked open your ECS?) can set up their own breeding operation churning out Valenar-equivalent steeds, unless they can do it for the price-per-horse equivalent of Magebred horses, there’s still going to be plenty of people wanting lesser steeds. Even if they are the 1970’s Corolla of the Eberron equine world, they’re not going to “boot all the Magebreds tomorrow”. Once again, if you’d avoid the extremist/only-one-possibility language you’d sound a lot more believable. The ability to hire mercenary spellcasters gives another option to circumvent the avowed rarity of 'divine spells for cash' that Eberron has tried very hard to set up, and should be avoided. The mercenary divine caster who takes gold for fighting should be as rare or rarer then the same caster accepting the gold of strangers to cast divine spells on their behalf anywhere else...and that is quite rare. I can’t believe you’re still singing this song. That’s all I can say at this point.
a_psh 12-02-05, 09:01 PM	Druids go to war in every setting...for defensive purposes.By your same logic, how is defense of civilization any more "natural" than warfare? Why does the druid care whether such artificial things as nation and government rise or fall, as long as the world of nature isn't affected greatly either way? Druids do not become military soldiers and pursue battle for battle's sake in every setting...that's a highly civilized notion that really has no place in a druidic mindset.The whole point of the example is that the concept of the "druidic mindset" isn't a restriction on what a druid can or should actually do: as long as it's not actually hurting the natural world, you'll probably find druids doing it. Or is it wrong for PC druids to go dungeon-crawling on treasure hunts now? The ability to hire mercenary spellcasters gives another option to circumvent the avowed rarity of 'divine spells for cash' that Eberron has tried very hard to set up, and should be avoided. The mercenary divine caster who takes gold for fighting should be as rare or rarer then the same caster accepting the gold of strangers to cast divine spells on their behalf anywhere else...and that is quite rare.The purpose of a war god's priest is to guide people enmeshed in war, isn't it? A priest of Dol Dorn serves his god by going into battle. A priest of Boldrei or Olladra could be considered to be serving his god when he heals folks. The slippery-slope argument doesn't hold in either direction. This last point in particular has been done to death.
a_psh 12-02-05, 09:19 PM	The value of Magebreds drops thru the floor as an inferior product shafts demand for it, and the price of Valenar steeds likewise drops as supply loosens up. You can now pick up a Ferrari for 50K instead of 250k...and you completely destroy the market for Magebreds, or relegate them to the level of a Corolla or something, because they have much less value.I'm going to draw some very dirty real-world parallels here. Bear with me, everyone... In a military sense, Valenar warhorses are, effectively, really sweet high-speed jeeps. How much is a jeep, even a really sweet one, worth compared to a fighter jet or a tank, though? At a movement rate of 120, the pegasus, which Vadalis offers, is faster and far more of a battlefield asset (between the aerial maneuverability and the intelligence) than a Valenar warhorse. With 6 damn Hit Dice, the magebred bear from Five Nations is a much better critter to be sitting on in melee. Karrnath's tireless skeletal steeds are better when it comes to actually getting troops somewhere quickly. They're definitely special, but the only thing that really makes them so good is that they're still just horses, which means the Valenar can get tons and tons of them. I really don't see folks shelling out veritable mountains of gold for what is just an improved horse, though. Sure, the elves' secrets might be worth a fair bit to the right few, but breaking their technique won't suddenly make Vadalis or whoever does it astronomically wealthy. I still don't think the warhorses are nearly as desirable as you make them out to be.
Euangelion 12-03-05, 02:53 AM	Those are excellent points. If large numbers of pegasi in one's game bothers the DM, then consider the glidewing - good strength, good speed, good HD, can carry Medium riders, combat capable, comparatively cheap, and best of all can fly, which beats running along the ground any day.
a_psh 12-03-05, 11:04 AM	Those are excellent points. If large numbers of pegasi in one's game bothers the DM, then consider the glidewing - good strength, good speed, good HD, can carry Medium riders, combat capable, comparatively cheap, and best of all can fly, which beats running along the ground any day.Not a bad idea. There's precedent, both in Whispers of the Vampire's Blade and in the ECS (illustration on pg 274) that, at the very least, Talenta halflings use them a fair bit. I have a hard time placing other races on 'em, honestly, but we do know (mainly from WotVB) that halfling skyriders are available as mercenaries. I certainly don't assume that there are large numbers of pegasi in the campaign world myself. I don't think there has to be for the argument to work per se. The point is that they only cost 3000 gp according to the MM (reference link (http://d20srd.org/srd/monsters/pegasus.htm)), and are vastly superior to Valenar warhorses in every capacity. Thus, my opinion is that it's ludicrous to claim that a simple improved warhorse would be worth any more than, say, a quarter of that price (which has been claimed somewhere... err, I think it was back on the "Karrnath Sucks" thread when there was a bunch of stuff on horses back there). Vadalis certainly has monetary incentive to crack the secret, but, given the other potent options available, a Valenar warhorse isn't going to be the holy grail. ... An interesting tangential question for me is this... do Karrns ever create skeletal mounts from the Valenar warhorses they slay? There are certainly advantages to be had in speed. However, the skeletal steeds in 5N are intelligent (Int 2), which lets them actually function vaguely like real animals. If the horses are resistant to control, then one has to use the nonintelligent skeleton version (Int -) to do it. Libris Mortis covers why this can be problematic: effectively, they respond to verbal commands but you can't control them with reins and legs like a living horse, which makes them a far poorer choice in many cases. So we get, fundamentally, to the question of whether Valenar warhorses will easily let others ride them (whee! can of worms, ho!).
The Dreaming Duck 12-03-05, 12:46 PM	Those are excellent points. If large numbers of pegasi in one's game bothers the DM, then consider the glidewing... Or the hippogriff, which costs 3,000 gp (2,000 gp for an egg). For those who say "Those creatures are rare", there's fair evidence that they're not. Sharn maintains a unit of the guard - the Goldwings - who are trained hippogriff riders; while it's possible these are unique to Sharn, if you have a military tradition of trained aerial cavalry, why would you only use it for peacekeeping in one city when you're in the middle of war? Meanwhile, Thrane apparently has wyvern air force, according to page 182 of the ECS. Aundair has its dragonhawks. And beyond that, there's the Race of Eight Winds itself, started by Galifar the II as a proving ground for different types of aerial cavalry. Now one could say "Yeah, but I don't want a pegasus - I just want a good, solid horse." Really? So much so that you'll pay ten times as much to get one? The pegasus has a move of 60 ft on the ground, matching a mundane light horse, and 120 feet in the air, allowing you to outpace any Valenar horse if you have room to manuever - and in long distance travel, how often will you not be able to take to the air? It's got solid combat abilties (it can inflict more damage with its hooves than a Valenar warhorse and gets a bite attack). It's just as strong as the Valenar warhorse, and stronger than the Valenar riding horse. It's got darkvision. And on top of that, it's an intelligent creature that understands Common! And we know Vadalis is selling them, because they've got a pegasi stable in Sharn! An interesting tangential question for me is this... do Karrns ever create skeletal mounts from the Valenar warhorses they slay? ...There are certainly advantages to be had in speed. Now, this is entirely "What I'm doing in my campaign" and contradicts the rules - I'm not suggesting it's the right thing to do, just that it's something you could do. Here's what I'd ask: WHY does a skeletal Valenar horse have an advantage in speed? Fundamentally, what is the difference between a skeletal Valenar horse and a skeletal light horse? Muscles are gone. If there's a blessing of the ancestors, I doubt they're bestowing it upon the undead travesty of a horse. Personally, I do like the idea that it is the blessing of the ancestors that gives the horse its speed. The horses don't breed true in captivity. So what if the Valenar horse is not a species at all - but rather a light horse enhanced by the magic of the ancestors? And since that's a whole positive energy based thing, I'd definitely see that as being wiped away when you use negative energy to bring the horse back. So, again, house rule: but in my game, you raise a Valenar horse and you get the equivalent of a normal horse. By this theory, the "Valenar" aspect is indeed a template - though one that can only be applied to horses of Valenar lineage, due to the whole ancestral bond legend.
davethebrave371 12-11-05, 06:07 PM	WHY does a skeletal Valenar horse have an advantage in speed? Fundamentally, what is the difference between a skeletal Valenar horse and a skeletal light horse? Muscles are gone. If there's a blessing of the ancestors, I doubt they're bestowing it upon the undead travesty of a horse. Personally, I do like the idea that it is the blessing of the ancestors that gives the horse its speed. The horses don't breed true in captivity. So what if the Valenar horse is not a species at all - but rather a light horse enhanced by the magic of the ancestors? And since that's a whole positive energy based thing, I'd definitely see that as being wiped away when you use negative energy to bring the horse back. So, again, house rule: but in my game, you raise a Valenar horse and you get the equivalent of a normal horse. By this theory, the "Valenar" aspect is indeed a template - though one that can only be applied to horses of Valenar lineage, due to the whole ancestral bond legend. To me, this just creates a more interesting plot hook. The ancestor spirit is TRAPPED in the skeleton, forced to live in this hideous state and fuel the skeletal horse beyond what a normal horse could do. Valenar everywhere'd be right PO'd, and want to destroy them for the abominations they are. At least, that's how I'd do it.
aelryinth 12-12-05, 03:52 AM	A skeletal Valenar horse will be capable of fast movement...it's not a template the horse loses as it dies. The Valenar may consider the spirit of the horse free...the Karrnathi animating it probably considers it different. As for hippogriffs, griffons and pegasi, shall we compare them to helicopters, powered gliders, and small aircraft? Currently none of those three are 'rare', you can buy some models for less then some 'hot cars', and certainly they have some amazing uses. Now, go take Joe off the road, out of his car, and throw him in a helicopter to go galivanting. Your level 2 Warrior is highly unlikely to have Ride (pegasi) in his bag of tricks. Everyone and their mother has Ride (horse) and Handle ANimal (horse). All 3 creatures you mention aren't even Animals, they are Magical Beasts. "Rarity" is highly subjective. Going down the highway today, I didn't see a single helicopter. Yet I know there are thousands out there. I have a Porsche stored in my garage...I could drive it if I wanted to, but alas, I'm a commoner and don't have the keys. What's more useful, the HumVee or the helicopter? To any soldier, the HumVee. The helicopter is very useful for a lot of purposes, but overall, just not the tool you are going to use for thousands of normal folk. If you want to make the time and cost of getting ranks in Riding Airborne creatures, more power to you. But any first level Warrior can learn how to ride a Valenar Warhorse with little time and cost. And that's why Valenar horses are in such demand. Once you get the organic mass-production going and can drop the price, mmmm, mmmm, Valenar will become the car of choice for the hot to trot set...instead of being the super-Jags they are now. ==Aelryinth
The Dreaming Duck 12-12-05, 12:56 PM	Valenar horses are magically modified horses, period... I'm sure you could even work out the template. A skeletal Valenar horse will be capable of fast movement...it's not a template the horse loses as it dies. So which is it? But more critically, why are you arguing the point in the first place? Look back at what I wrote. I said it "contradicts the rules" and "is a house rule." I'm not asking for your permission or saying that you should do things my way on this. I'm saying that it's what I'm doing in my game... and for me personally, the idea that the power of a Valenar horse is tied to Irian is reason enough to say that the negative energy associated with animating the dead would destroy the link. But that's me, in my campaign. You're not going to convince me I'm wrong, because I KNOW I'm wrong by the RAW. I'm not telling you that you can't have speedy undead Valenar horses in your game: I'm suggesting an alternative for people who don't like the idea. So what's the problem? As for hippogriffs, griffons and pegasi, shall we compare them to helicopters, powered gliders, and small aircraft? No, actually. You seem to be forgetting a critical factor: these creatures don't have to fly. On the ground, a pegasus has the speed of a light warhorse (60 ft). But it has more hit dice (and d10s instead of d8s), twice the BAB, greater strength, greater dexterity, better saves, darkvision, scent, and does more damage with its hooves. AND it flies. But it's not a small plane, which I can't take off road or on the highway. It's a flying car! Better yet, it's an intelligent flying car that responds to voice commands! I can say "Keep an eye out for Bob" or "Take this message to Jill" and it can do it! And hey, it can even detect evil to boot! Your level 2 Warrior is highly unlikely to have Ride (pegasi) in his bag of tricks. You're correct... because there's no such thing. Check the SRD: You don't pick a creature when you choose Ride. Craft, Knowledge, Perform, Profession: yes. Ride? No. Ride is Ride. It's a skill that can even be used untrained. Handle Animal? You are correct, a hippogriff is harder to handle (+5 on the DCs) - although the hard work of training has already been handled by House Vadalis, if you buy one. But that just brings us back to tbe superiority of the pegasus: because you don't need to handle a pegasus! It's an intelligent creature! It doesn't need war training to fight in battle, and you can just say "Trigger, guard the campsite." So I've got a creature that can respond to voice commands with NO need for Handle Animal ranks on my part. It's as fast as my light warhorse on the ground, and twice as fast in the air. It's stronger, tougher, more dangerous in battle, can see in the dark.... and only costs me 3,000 gp. What's more useful, the HumVee or the helicopter? As I see it, the question is "What's more useful, the HumVee, the slightly faster HumVee, or the flying HumVee that can respond in an intelligent manner to voice commands?" If people could buy flying cars that were just as easy to drive as normal cars, that could be used on the ground or in the air, and that you could actually talk to - don't you think the highway would look a little different?
Wolfwood2 12-12-05, 04:53 PM	No, actually. You seem to be forgetting a critical factor: these creatures don't have to fly. On the ground, a pegasus has the speed of a light warhorse (60 ft). But it has more hit dice (and d10s instead of d8s), twice the BAB, greater strength, greater dexterity, better saves, darkvision, scent, and does more damage with its hooves. AND it flies. But it's not a small plane, which I can't take off road or on the highway. It's a flying car! Better yet, it's an intelligent flying car that responds to voice commands! I can say "Keep an eye out for Bob" or "Take this message to Jill" and it can do it! And hey, it can even detect evil to boot! Given that they are intelligent, can you really "buy" a pegasus? Even ignoring the moral issues of slavery, it seems like it would be a devil of a job to keep one confined if it felt like hitting the (sky)road. Even one that Vadalis has raised from an egg. I'd see it as more of negotaiting for their services, with Vadalis acting as their agents. Now hippogriffs are, I believe, dumb enough animals to be kept under control.
The Dreaming Duck 12-12-05, 05:31 PM	Given that they are intelligent, can you really "buy" a pegasus?. Certainly. 2,000 gp for an egg, 3,000 gp for a "young" pegasus. Given that they specifically say "young" and give no price for buying an adult pegasus, I think the issue is that you have to form a bond with the pegasus. You're right, if it wants to dump you and go, it will. You'll need to treat it well and convince it that it should stay with you. It's a companion as opposed to a servant. However, the advantage of that is that if you do earn its loyalty, it can use its initiative for you. If you're captured, your pegasus can go in search of friends. It is certainly more work, and it will be hard for the slave-driver to get the same mileage out of a pegasus as he could from a dumb beast - but earn its loyalty and it will be worth the effort. With that said, I'd certainly assume that pegasi raised by House Vadalis are trained for a life of service. They are intelligent, but if they are raised from the egg, House Vadalis has taught them everything they know about the world... and this is the house of Handling. By this point I'd imagine they're pretty good at indoctrination. I do agree that intelligence can be a drawback as well as an advantage: but if you treat the pegasus right and form a strong bond, it can be an enormous advantage, especially when you add in the magical and sensory abilities of the pegasus. And don't get me wrong: The armies of Khorvaire will certainly want a faster HumVee (AKA Valenar Warhorse). I'm just saying that if you can get a pegasus for 3,000 a head, that needs to be taken into account for what you could charge for the V-Horse. Champion stud? First breeding stallion? Certainly you could get a heap of gold. But once we've got that stud and are breeding them for use by soldiers, I just don't see the typical V-Horse going for 5K/head. Now hippogriffs are, I believe, dumb enough animals to be kept under control. Dumb enough magical beasts, but yes. They respond to Handle Animal. I do think that the hippogriff and V-horse serve different functions. The V-horse is faster on the ground and is easier to deal with, and the hippogriff can't match the airspeed of a pegasus. Nonetheless, the hippogriff is as fast on the ground as a horse, and in the air is faster than a V-horse, in addition to being able to cross canyons, rivers, rough terrain, etc without difficulty, travel "as the crow flies", and serve as a platform for your archer with the Plunging Shot feat. It is a very useful creature, doesn't require special Ride skill, and costs 2K-3K. Are there reasons you'd want a V-horse instead? Sure. But would the typical soldier who's just getting a beast for personal use pay ten times as much for one? Not in my opinion. And that's all I'm saying. The V-horse is certainly a valuable commodity, which is why Vadalis is so eager to get it. It's just a question of how valuable it is, once it's available on the open market.
davethebrave371 12-12-05, 08:06 PM	See, aelryinth, this is your problem. You assume everyone's house rules are RAW for some reason, including your own. I made the point that in my game, it is not as The Dreaming Duck has them. And that's ok, I was just mentioning my reasoning. No need to drag the RAW into a house rule argument...which is really how I feel about all of your points. So, again: Your points on Valenar mercenaries, druids, Valenar druids, Valenar culture, clerics and economy are straight out of your game, and are alterations of the campaign setting. I've posted this statement so many times, and have yet to see any argument to the contrary, which logically leads me to believe you have no argument to the contrary.
aelryinth 12-12-05, 09:46 PM	And promptly Dave goes back to flaming, which is why I left the thread in the first place. The fact that pegasi is an intelligent magical animal does not mean it is trained for war. As a matter of fact, I believe the subject of controlling intelligent creatures in pre-combat situations comes down to a Diplomacy check, not the Ride skill. How many warriors have a Diplomacy check to direct the pegasi, and can make the DC 25 check to stay in the saddle on one not trained for combat? And when you fall out of the saddle because your flying mount just panicked, it's not just a little drop... What you've got is a pegasi, which is like saying you've got a horse. There's nothing there about combat training, and just because it's smart doesn't mean it will do what you want it to in a fight. Imagine trying to control that helicopter that decides its time to kick in the turbines as soon as it gets the first salvo from a .50 calibar, and heads away from the LZ. And there IS the entire fact it's an intelligent creature...just because you bought it doesn't mean it's going to do anything for you. Enter negotiations, just the thing every general and knight wants to do for their warriors' mounts...bargain with their horses??? As for my statement above on templates, neither is contradictory. The Valenar horses are magically modified, and you could even work out the template if you want to. But they aren't a 'template' creature by the rules, and certainly not a template they'd lose by merely dying. The Skeletal template exists, and you can apply it to a Valenar Warhorse as stated. The fact remains that any creature that can fly gets you that -5 to ride checks, which is a huge turnoff for any application of mounted warriors...and it's also why you don't see many warriors on Dire Bears. Their riders can't stay in the saddle. Whereas you can be pretty sure there are thousands and thousands of warriors who can leap into the saddle of a Valenar warhorse and fight perfectly well. As for cost...since pegasi are clearly so superior to normal horses, why don't they naturally displace them? Why aren't there herds and herds of pegasi? Horses should be extinct! The only reasonable explanation is that pegasi don't reproduce anywhere as easily/frequently/cheaply as horses, which fits the fact that they are magical animals. Thus, killing a few pegasi is a huge blow to a herd, while killing a few horses is not a problem within a season or two...and there's zillions of horses around. House Vidalis might make pegasi available to anyone for 3k gp, but there's a whole market that simply can't ride them (anyone Evil, and most neutrals), a huger segment that can't ride them (-5 to ride checks effectively makes a 2nd level character the equal of untrained), an even bigger segment that isn't going to be able to negotiate with them (No Diplomacy ranks, and like Cha penalties), and you STILL have to train them for combat (+1000 gp to rear a YOUNG pegasi, and +1000 gp to train them...love the price of them DC 25 Handle Animal checks) Valenar Warhorses, if successfully bred, have none of these marketing/economic hurdles...the infrastructure and market already exists,,,you are simply introducting a superior version of an existing product. Effectively, you can sell a pegasi to a Good or Neutral character with a high Ride Skill, and Diplomatic enough to get the pegasi to follow his orders unquestioningly, who then gives it the combat training to qualify for the benefits of a warhorse. Unfortunately, doing this on a military scale obviates the Good or Neutral Master clause, since the pegasi will likely have multiple riders. And if it's actually intelligent, you now probably have to pay it for the service! And you wonder why it's only 3k gp to 'own' one? The 4HD pegasi would probably be giving orders to the level 2 warrior told to ride it, considering itself the better fighter! And that's without considering the fact that it might only accept one rider for life... Can't see many pegasi in the armies of Karrnath, can you? I can see Valenar mounts in any army, however. Price 5K for a prize mare/stallion? Thoroughbreds reach a million $, and we have better transport then those. How many Valenar you want? Once the breeding program is established with normal horses, you could crank out the mounts much faster then pegasi, I'm pretty sure (the elves, of course, have no need to mass produce them...yet). I'll fully and completely agree that a pegasi makes a MUCH better animal companion, henchman for an adventurer, and perhaps a mount for a high level character. But this is Eberron, and those are few and far between. There's enough pegasi and they are cheap enough to satisfy that market. For the common mounted soldier (and horse racer!), Valenar is the way to go...and that market is absolutely huge. Another Economic truth: If pegasi/hippogriffs/grifffons were so much better then horses for the cost, everyone would have them. Since they don't, that also pretty much tells you what the demand is. I.e, why don't the Valenar all ride pegasi? Probably because it would be impossible! Lastly, there's one more hurdle to face. It specifically says in the description of the animal that even when trained to be ridden, the Rider has to make that ride check to attack...and it's an aerial mount with them bloody wings, so it's still at -5. With a Warhorse, that check is a free action....DC 10. DC 15 is pretty harsh for a lower level character. And lastly, did anyone catch how griffons only weigh 500 lbs? HTH can they take a rider...they aren't any bigger then a big normal lion. I'd pop that at least up to 1000 lbs for a Large Animal. Since they can haul the same weights as a pegasi, figure it's only fair...otherwise they are going to be skin and bones, especially since their wings are bigger then a pegasi...and griffons are Int 5. More intelligent animal headaches. ============================ Also went over to SKR's boards and point blank asked him about the NPC 'doing things' which PC's can't do (like raising Valenar horses). He reiterated what I've already said...anything NPC's can do has to be justified within the existing rules framework...PC's can aspire to anything NPC's can do. His example is Drizzt...'just because' the character is a beloved FR Icon doesn't mean he can have an instant kill ability and more attacks/round that a normal character just can't have. And 'just because' Valenar Warhorse are iconic Eberron beasties doesn't mean that PC's can't find a way to breed their own. Hellcow knows this, which is why he delibrately left the specifics out for the DMs to decide. IT's a PC quest, and it shouldn't be impossible just because he doesn't want the PC's breaking the monopoly. Difficult, sure...but not impossible. Thus, the 'no sacred cows' I brought up before...which didn't refer to the concept of levels and classes that is core D@D. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 12-12-05, 10:21 PM	The above post is pretty long, so let me reiterate some cost points. An egg for a hippogriff or pegasi is 2k GP, 3.5 for a griffon. A Young foal is 3k gp, 7K for a griffon. Animal Trainers require 1000 gp to train OR rear a young animal, 1500 per for a griffon. Thus, to actually buy a trained pegasi is going to cost you 3000 gp for the foal, +1000 gp for the cost of raising the foal, +1000 gp for them dc25 checks to train it, for a minimum cost of 5000 gp. And we haven't gotten started on the costs of exotic saddles, exotic barding and the like. And before people start bringing up the -5 Ride Check point for dispute, I'm pretty sure that any animal that requires an exotic saddle is going to require that check penalty. ===Aelryinth
davethebrave371 12-12-05, 10:57 PM	And promptly Dave goes back to flaming, which is why I left the thread in the first place. How was I flaming you at all? This seems to be your only defence. You don't want to answer, and so you say I'm flaming you. I know for a fact you don't have an answer, or you would have given a response earlier. This is a statement of fact, not a flame. I posted it over and over again, and you said nothing. Ergo, it is true, and which does not require affirmation. If it were false, there would be an argument in your favour. The fact that you still refuse to respond is further support for my argument.
The Dreaming Duck 12-12-05, 11:40 PM	The fact that pegasi is an intelligent magical animal does not mean it is trained for war. As a matter of fact, I believe the subject of controlling intelligent creatures in pre-combat situations comes down to a Diplomacy check, not the Ride skill. Can you back this up in any way? I can't find anything in the SRD that implies this. An intelligent creature is an intelligent creature, capable of choosing its actions. From the MM description of "animal", a noncombative herbivore uses its natural weapons as secondary attacks. Nothing like this is said about magical beasts, and the pegasus specifically suffers no such penalties. Can you even tell me what it means to train an intelligent creature for combat? Handle Animal doesn't apply, and most magical beasts don't take PC levels, so it's not like it needs a fighter level. Looking at a pegasus entry in an adventure, how do I tell if it's been trained for war? If the pegasus doesn't want to enter battle, sure, you'll need to use Diplomacy. But nothing implies that a pegasus sold by House Vadalis and treated well by its owner is going to resist going into battle. It's been suggested that you might have to negotiate with a pegasus, or that it may need to be paid. How does it negotiate? It can't speak. And what does it want? It has no use for gold. It's going to want good food, good shelter, comfortable gear, companionship. It's intelligent, but it's not human. On top of that, it's been raised, educated, and indoctrinated by House Vadalis. All it knows of the world, it knows through them. It's like the warforged: why didn't they all rebel? Because the very concept of freedom was alien to them. They are intelligent, but they were made for war, and it's the only life they ever knew. A Vadalis pegasus is going to be in the same situation: it knows what it's been taught. Mistreat it, and it will rebel. Treat it well and you have a loyal ally. Since this is all about economics, look at what we do know, Aelryinth. You're absolutely right: the pegasus has not replaced the horse. More on that later. Yet, Sharn: CoT clearly establishes that Vadalis not only makes a business of breeding and selling pegasi, but that it is a specific point of pride for the local house enclave. Pegasi are being sold. It can be done. As such, I don't think the theory that they won't serve neutral or evil masters holds water in Eberron. Eberron specifically tells us that creatures should not be held to their MM alignments (and pegasi aren't even an "always" alignment to begin with), and that a campaign should challenge alignment expectations. Are the House Vadalis lords of Sharn serving the cause of good? Does the Race of Eight Winds further the cause of good? Not that I can see on either count. But Vadalis sells pegasi, and they usually win the Race of Eight Winds. IMO, an Eberron pegasus will be driven by the manner in which he is treated, not "the cause of good." Why haven't they replaced the horse? You've listed lots of good reasons. I think it's extremely sensible to assume that their breeding cycle is slower than that of a normal horse. I think that they will be VERY difficult to train, precisely because they are intelligent: that indoctrination process that convinces them that the purpose of their life is aid their masters, potentially riding into battle, is going to be a lot of work! And, because of those two things, we do have the high cost of the pegasus. Why isn't everyone riding a pegasus? Because once you get to that 5K price you've pointed out, who can afford one? That's 66 times the cost of a light horse, and it's going to take a typical mercenary soldier around 2 years just to buy a light horse. No normal unit can afford to outfit its soldiers with pegasi. And that's all I'm trying to say about your pricing on the Valenar horse. People pay millions for champion thoroughbreds: but who does this? Millionaires. Do you really think the king would pay millions for one horse and then throw it out on the battlefield? All I'm saying is that if you price the V-Horse in the same range as a pegasus, then you have to decide if the unit would be better served by pegasi. If you make it less expensive than a pegasus, it's not a question. And once you've got your breeding herd going - assuming it's easier to breed than a pegasus - why does it need to be so expensive? Those first studs, absolutely: but every child? I'm just saying that if someone created a new rifle that cost $1 million, it might be assigned to a few elite units - but you wouldn't hand one out to every grunt, no matter how good it was. What you've got is a pegasi, which is like saying you've got a horse. There's nothing there about combat training, and just because it's smart doesn't mean it will do what you want it to in a fight. Re: Combat training, see my question above: explain how any intelligent creature in the MM gets "combat training". As for whether it will do what you want in a fight, I maintain the flip side of your economic argument: people pay vast sums of gold for pegasi mounts. Therefore it follows that a pegasi is superior to a normal mount. If the average pegasus was as troublesome and difficult as you suggest, no one would buy them and House Vadalis wouldn't be selling them. Vadalis isn't just selling them to adventurers, they're selling them to soldiers and athletes. This is a house that has made its business dealing with both magical beasts and animals. I think you don't give them enough credit. The fact remains that any creature that can fly gets you that -5 to ride checks... You state this like it's a fact. I can't find any evidence of this whatsoever. I believe this is another example of your using the SRD instead of the actual books. The actual PHB description is clear on a number of points. All of the following are quotes from page 80 of the 3.5 PHB, with my emphasis added: "You can ride a mount, be it a horse, riding dog, griffon, dragon, or some other kind of creature suited for riding." This is the first sentence of the skill description. It appears that the griffon and dragon are both considered to be creatures suited for riding. Therefore, I think the argument that "Wings means a creature is ill-suited for riding" holds little water. "If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount (such as most bipedal creatures), you take a -5 penalty on your Ride check." Bipedal. Not winged. "If you are riding bareback, you take a -5 penalty on your Ride check. If your mount has a military saddle, you gain a +2 circumstance on Ride checks..." Nothing about exotic saddles giving you a penalty, or meaning that a creature is ill-suited to riding. It simply means that you can't put a saddle made for a horse on it, because it is the wrong size or shape. But a saddle is a saddle, and if you've got one, you don't suffer the -5 penalty. If you've got any quotes to back up the difficulty of aerial riding - or why a pegasus would be more difficult to ride than a griffon or dragon - please post 'em. if it's a house rule, fine - but as far as I can see, it's not part of the RAW. Price 5K for a prize mare/stallion? Thoroughbreds reach a million $, and we have better transport then those. How many Valenar you want? Once the breeding program is established with normal horses, you could crank out the mounts much faster then pegasi, I'm pretty sure (the elves, of course, have no need to mass produce them...yet). But this is Eberron, and those are few and far between. There's enough pegasi and they are cheap enough to satisfy that market. For the common mounted soldier (and horse racer!), Valenar is the way to go...and that market is absolutely huge. Honestly, I'm not even sure we ARE arguing at this point. I'm not saying that the demand for Valenar horses isn't huge. I'm not saying you couldn't charge vast sums for those prize stallions - which is to say, the first few you get. But I am saying that there ISN'T a huge market for the horses at that price, because "the common soldier" couldn't afford them... and those who could can go for weirder and more exotic high-priced animals. I believe that once they are mass-produced, the Valenar horse would be considerably more expensive that the common warhorse - but I don't know if I'd go with ten times as expensive. Also, you keep bringing up the million-dollar thoroughbred as an example. My point is that the horse can command such a price because it is an exceptional horse. MOST horses don't go for anywhere near that sort of money. An exceptional donkey will command a higher price than a normal donkey (and I've been to stock shows where exceptional donkeys have been on sale). Yes, the Valenar horse is inherently superior to a normal horse, and should always be more expensive than a normal horse. But once Valenar horses are themselves for sale, the question will arise "Is it exceptional in comparison to other Valenar horses?" I just don't see the market bearing a cost of a million for every Valenar horse once they are being bred on a regular basis - any more than the average horse in our world goes for the same price as a racing champion. Furthermore, what I'd see is the value of the normal horse plummeting as an increasing number of Valenar horses flood the market... because if V-Horses are readily available, who needs the mundanes? Suddenly the horse becomes the new donkey.
aelryinth 12-13-05, 04:32 AM	I SPECIFICALLY looked under the definition of the Ride Skill in the SRD. It mentions light horses, ponies, heavy horses, warhorses, and warponies. Nowhere does it mention griffons, hippogriffs, pegasi, or the like. You are correct, you use the Ride skill to ride those...but the SRD intimates that only the animals mentioned are 'easy' animals, and the MM SRD entries specifically mention that exotic saddle...the same kind of thing you'd have to buy if you wanted to mount, say, a crocodile, a beholder, a giant slug. If you can find a better qualifier, by all means, tell me what it is. In 3.0, riding flying animals was something you actually had to take skill ranks in. There's also the question of whether Ride and Handle ANimal mean Ride (any) and Handle Animal (any). There are immense differences between riding a horse and a griffon and a dolphin...but all use the same skill. Likewise, training a horse and a dog and a giant cat are all very different...is it Handle ANimal (horse) or Handle ANimal (any)? Any animal that is easy to ride requires a normal saddle. The above animals specifically require an exotic saddle, which means they are far more difficult to equip and ride then a normal beast (Note, Riding Dogs do NOT require an exotic saddle!). And if you think that riding something with huge flapping wings isn't a whole lot more difficult then riding a normal horse, I think there's something wrong with you. Even on the ground and furled, those wings are going to be getting in the way, fluttering nervously...and aflight, they are going to be problematic. As for holding to alignments, you can ignore the alignment entirely and focus on the one statement "Serve a Good or Neutral master faithfully..." Since evil people consitute a third of the population, the pegasi won't serve them faithfully, and since their default alignment is Chaotic Good, they probably have an immense preference for Good masters, which coincdentally they CAN detect! They'll serve a Neutral master who treats them well, of course...but note that it doesn't say "Will serve Good or Neutral Master(s)..." meaning a pegasus that has to put up with multiple riders doesn't have to be faithful to any of them. Indoctrination of the pegasus probably isn't going to work outright, either. They are intelligent and charismatic...and have that twitchy Chaotic streak in them of independence. They can think for themselves, and it's not like you can overhear what they say to one another without magic. That Detect ability they have can be problematic as well, and they'd rapidly learn to trust what it tells them (and what it doesn't). The MM SRD entry specifically says that pegasi have to be trained to be ridden to fight. Also note that they are Wiser then the average human, and have more force of personality. They even have skill points in Diplomacy! And no, I don't think all Valenar Warhorses are going to be 10k a pop...except the first ones that are in the most demand. Price will drop quickly, and close in on the levels that the Magebred are at. I expect they'd stabilize somewhere above the level that Magebred are at now, with prize horses of course going for more. What would an intelligent magical beast want? What would an intelligent biped want? All those things you suggest, taken into account, cost money. Articles on intelligent mounts appear in Dragon magazine, the original Sword and Fist, the older books on Paladins and Rangers, and so forth. Riding an intelligent animal is not the same as riding a beast...Dragons are the best example of this, and there's been a LOT written on riding dragons and the relationship you have to work out. There's little reason to expect this wouldn't apply in some form to any other intelligent animal. What they want may vary, but I'd just treat 'em like warriors...protective devices, light armor, magical knickknacks, the finest quarters, bedding, food, etc etc. I'm sure if you picture yourself as a pegasus you could come up with a fine assembly of demands...likely highly unwelcome in a military setting. House Vidalis should be proud they can raise and train pegasi. That's a DC 25 Handle Animal check...it probably takes a 4th or 5th level Expert to be good enough to take 10 on that check and get the job done (more skill then is required for, say, crafting a masterwork item). It's also reflected in the price they charge for doing it. Mechanics who build Jaguars and jets consider themselves more elite then ones who work on fixing up VW Beetles, too! And as for communicating with them, they can't talk, but they understand Common just fine, and can communicate thusly with either minor magical spells, or sign language. Who knows, maybe they can read and laboriously, write! They actually have Diplomacy as a skill...there has to be a reason for it! House Vidalis breeds pegasi and charges what they do for the limited market that uses them. If they were as universally useful as the horse, likely they could charge a lot more, as demand would be higher and horses would become passe' rather quickly. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 12-13-05, 04:36 AM	How was I flaming you at all? This seems to be your only defence. You don't want to answer, and so you say I'm flaming you. I know for a fact you don't have an answer, or you would have given a response earlier. This is a statement of fact, not a flame. I posted it over and over again, and you said nothing. Ergo, it is true, and which does not require affirmation. If it were false, there would be an argument in your favour. The fact that you still refuse to respond is further support for my argument. Actually it just means I'm ignoring you. ==Aelryinth
a_psh 12-13-05, 05:43 AM	Actually it just means I'm ignoring you.Leaving points you disagree with uncountered in anything even remotely resembling a debate has the same effect on your audience as conceeding them, unfortunately. It's much like dropping a line of argument while the opposition still has numerous standing points. (All of this only applies if we're talking about trying to defend your ideas or convince others to see things your way, of course.)
davethebrave371 12-13-05, 09:35 AM	From the Wiki entry on flaming: "A normal, non-flame message may have elements of a flame – it may be hostile, for example – but it is not a flame if it is seriously intended to advance the discussion."
Siran Dunmorgan 12-13-05, 10:00 AM	I SPECIFICALLY looked under the definition of the Ride Skill in the SRD. It mentions light horses, ponies, heavy horses, warhorses, and warponies. Nowhere does it mention griffons, hippogriffs, pegasi, or the like. You are correct, you use the Ride skill to ride those...but the SRD intimates that only the animals mentioned are 'easy' animals, and the MM SRD entries specifically mention that exotic saddle...the same kind of thing you'd have to buy if you wanted to mount, say, a crocodile, a beholder, a giant slug. If you can find a better qualifier, by all means, tell me what it is. In 3.0, riding flying animals was something you actually had to take skill ranks in. But is not in 3.5, which is presumptively what we're discussing. I'm not sure how you get that the System Reference Document "intimates that only the animals mentioned are 'easy' animals." It appears to mention them specifically because they're the most common types of riding animals, and explicitly includes "and others" with respect to riding into combat. There's also the question of whether Ride and Handle ANimal mean Ride (any) and Handle Animal (any). There are immense differences between riding a horse and a griffon and a dolphin...but all use the same skill. Likewise, training a horse and a dog and a giant cat are all very different...is it Handle ANimal (horse) or Handle ANimal (any)? Any animal that is easy to ride requires a normal saddle. The above animals specifically require an exotic saddle, which means they are far more difficult to equip and ride then a normal beast (Note, Riding Dogs do NOT require an exotic saddle!). And if you think that riding something with huge flapping wings isn't a whole lot more difficult then riding a normal horse, I think there's something wrong with you. Even on the ground and furled, those wings are going to be getting in the way, fluttering nervously...and aflight, they are going to be problematic. As for holding to alignments, you can ignore the alignment entirely and focus on the one statement "Serve a Good or Neutral master faithfully..." Since evil people consitute a third of the population, the pegasi won't serve them faithfully, and since their default alignment is Chaotic Good, they probably have an immense preference for Good masters, which coincdentally they CAN detect! They'll serve a Neutral master who treats them well, of course...but note that it doesn't say "Will serve Good or Neutral Master(s)..." meaning a pegasus that has to put up with multiple riders doesn't have to be faithful to any of them. You're confusing riders and masters. It says that they will serve a Good or Neutral master faithfully, not that they will serve a Good or Neutral rider faithfully. It appears likely that a military unit would have one person assigned as Master of Pegasus in the same sense that they often have a Master of Horse—and the pegasus' loyalty would be to that person, not necessarily to a specific rider, just as soldiers in any military unit might give their loyalty to their commander, regardless of how they felt about each other. Like any intelligent species of Eberron, the alignment of pegasi is probably all over the board: the lawful good ones will probably chafe at working with evil, aye, just as a consistently good associate would quickly annoy a lawful evil pegasus. My personal guess is that most of the pegasi trained by House Vadalis[1] for military purposes are neutral, tending toward lawful neutral. Indoctrination of the pegasus probably isn't going to work outright, either. They are intelligent and charismatic...and have that twitchy Chaotic streak in them of independence. They can think for themselves, and it's not like you can overhear what they say to one another without magic. That Detect ability they have can be problematic as well, and they'd rapidly learn to trust what it tells them (and what it doesn't). The MM SRD entry specifically says that pegasi have to be trained to be ridden to fight. Yes. For six weeks. That's true of humans, too: we call it "boot camp", and indoctrination is exactly what that training period entails. Also, what is the basis for your assertion that "it's not like you can overhear what they say to one another without magic?" The Monster Manua doesn't mention a pegasus language of any kind; in fact, it specifically notes that they do not speak. Also note that they are Wiser then the average human, and have more force of personality. They even have skill points in Diplomacy! And no, I don't think all Valenar Warhorses are going to be 10k a pop...except the first ones that are in the most demand. Price will drop quickly, and close in on the levels that the Magebred are at. I expect they'd stabilize somewhere above the level that Magebred are at now, with prize horses of course going for more. What would an intelligent magical beast want? What would an intelligent biped want? All those things you suggest, taken into account, cost money. Articles on intelligent mounts appear in Dragon magazine, the original Sword and Fist, the older books on Paladins and Rangers, and so forth. Riding an intelligent animal is not the same as riding a beast...Dragons are the best example of this, and there's been a LOT written on riding dragons and the relationship you have to work out. There's little reason to expect this wouldn't apply in some form to any other intelligent animal. What they want may vary, but I'd just treat 'em like warriors...protective devices, light armor, magical knickknacks, the finest quarters, bedding, food, etc etc. I'm sure if you picture yourself as a pegasus you could come up with a fine assembly of demands...likely highly unwelcome in a military setting. Really? That strikes me as basically the same demands made by any member of a barbarian tribe or mercenary unit. Or, for that matter, desired by soldiers from the lowest grunt to the highest Field Marshal—and which few of them get in a formal military setting, because those things are determined by protocol and the needs of the mission. I believe we agree on the basic assertion that a pegasus in a military setting needs to be treated as a soldier, and not simply as a mount or piece of equipment. But that doesn't imply that they need to be treated as well as they'd like—few soldiers are—and it does imply that the penalties for just up and leaving are the same as for any other deserter. House Vidalis should be proud they can raise and train pegasi. That's a DC 25 Handle Animal check...it probably takes a 4th or 5th level Expert to be good enough to take 10 on that check and get the job done (more skill then is required for, say, crafting a masterwork item). It's also reflected in the price they charge for doing it. Mechanics who build Jaguars and jets consider themselves more elite then ones who work on fixing up VW Beetles, too! And as for communicating with them, they can't talk, but they understand Common just fine, and can communicate thusly with either minor magical spells, or sign language. Who knows, maybe they can read and laboriously, write! They actually have Diplomacy as a skill...there has to be a reason for it! House Vidalis breeds pegasi and charges what they do for the limited market that uses them. If they were as universally useful as the horse, likely they could charge a lot more, as demand would be higher and horses would become passe'[2] rather quickly. House Vadalis breeds pegasi and charges what they do for them because that's what the market will bear. They aren't as universally useful as horses because if your cavalry unit is stuck in a Karrnath winter, you can kill and eat the horses without the same moral qualms as killing and eating the sergeants: the horses are animals, without qualification. Pegasi in the same setting are comrades-in-arms, not simply mounts or beasts of burden. My personal suspicion—and this is personal suspicion, not found in the rules—is that pegasi have the wrong bone structure and musculature for a lot of things that make horses useful to humans. Specifically, while they can be ridden, they can't be harnessed. The presence of the "keel" bone needed to support the wings makes it impossible to harness them to wagons, plows, siege engines, et al. This makes them rather specialized in comparison to either horses or humanoids, and goes a long way towards explaining why they haven't replaced horses in the armies of Khorvaire. —Siran Dunmorgan [1] Note that the name of the House is Vadalis, not Vidalis. [2] passé. The boards are in UTF-8, so it's okay to use the whole Latin 1, Latin Extended A and Latin Extended B character sets. In fact, if you wanted to be annoying, you can use other character sets, like the Unified CKJ Ideograms: you can even ask 懂吗 ?
Errant 12-13-05, 10:22 AM	I SPECIFICALLY looked under the definition of the Ride Skill in the SRD. It mentions light horses, ponies, heavy horses, warhorses, and warponies. Nowhere does it mention griffons, hippogriffs, pegasi, or the like. Geez Aelryinth, yet again you spout your opinions as "fact". Heck, even when you refer to the SRD you carefully omit things that don't agree with your peculiar point of view. You know, like the bit where the SRD Ride Skill says "you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle". I don't think I need to elaborate but if the implication of "other mount" is unclear I'm sure it can be explained to you. You seem to be the only one "contributing" to this thread (I use the term loosely) unable or unwilling to distinguish between house rules and RAW. If that seems harsh to your sensibilities I'll simply point out that you tend to ignore most of what everyone else writes regardless. Now, going back to what has been discussed in less trollish posts... Given that they are intelligent, can you really "buy" a pegasus? Even ignoring the moral issues of slavery, it seems like it would be a devil of a job to keep one confined if it felt like hitting the (sky)road. Even one that Vadalis has raised from an egg. I note the SRD says that a pegasus requires training before it can bear a rider in combat, that it must have a 'friendly attitude' to be trained, and that if reared and trained by a professional trainer a pegasus will serve a good or neutral master "with absolute faithfulness for life". To me that suggests decent treatment makes for a very reliable pegasus mount and I dare say the extra combat training requirements are required more to overcome the pegasus' natural instinct to flee threats than any conscious resistance. Naturally there'd also be a lot of time devoted to teaching the pegasus how to understand and anticipate the desires of its rider in combat too. Anyone who's participated in team sports knows how much difference that kind of familiarity can make. Having noted that though, I'd argue that the use of Diplomacy is only one method of training pegasi and not the only method of obtaining a pegasus' obedient service as a mount. Ponder for a moment real world domestic violence situations where every day numerous women (& some men) put up with abuse of all kinds despite all of the "ways out" open to them. Most of the time, the victims can theoretically seek help or just walk out the door but they are frequently trapped by their terror. If human beings can fall victim to abuse like that (and having attended countless domestic disturbances in the 10+ years I've been an operational police officer I can personally testify to tragic reality that they do) I doubt even a pegasus' intelligence, naturally chaotic (good), wild and shy nature be enough to make them immune. I think its entirely possible that a small proportion of pegasi could very possibly be found in the service of evil and abusive masters, trapped by their fear and the effects of extended Intimidation. Heck, a pegasus can even sense the evil of their masters far more reliably than humans can usually judge each other, imagine how much that would enhance the terror of such a situation! So, seeing someone swoop in on a pegasus would hardly be any guarantee of the rider not being evil. Liberating a pegasus from an evil master and the soul-crushing effect of all the intimidation it took to force its obedience, would a worthy challenge too I imagine. [Apologies if anyone thinks bringing up the real world evil of domestic abuse in a DnD context is in bad taste] I notice too that in all the conversation about prices and availability of pegasi there hasn't been much said about organised military use. This doesn't seem to be an area covered very well in official material, probably because PCs aren't usually assumed to be part of any organised military. I'd suggest that while the given prices are only typical of pegasus availability on the open market, I think it could easily be argued that many nations in Eberron maintain at least one or two breeding and training programs of their own in order to provide some sort of 'air force'. Something around the level of 1920's military air support I'd suggest - often seen or spoken of around the battlefield, but rarely a deciding factor the way aerial dominance became during and after WWII. I can easily see a mix of pegasus, griffon or hippogriff units attached to all the armies of all Five Nations and it’s easy to imagine some nobles and/or towns being famous for the unit native to their area. What sort of people would make up such units? The same sort of people that made up the military fliers of WWI, rich nobles and talented commoners. What skills and feats would you need to ride flying mounts rules-wise? Please don't suggest we go back to 2E where we had a zillion skills/proficiencies covering such a specialized array of activities that you had to re-make your PC every time a new rulebook came out! Its hard enough to keep track of all the feats out there as it is and totally unnecessary since the Ride skill can easily cover it. If you want to say riding flying mounts is more difficult, throw in a circumstance penalty, throw in a big circumstance penalty if you're unfamiliar with riding a flying mount and trying to ride an unco-operative one.
The Dreaming Duck 12-13-05, 01:26 PM	I SPECIFICALLY looked under the definition of the Ride Skill in the SRD... Nowhere does it mention griffons, hippogriffs, pegasi, or the like. And I gave you a quote from the 3.5 Player's Handbook that specifically mentions griffons and dragons. You're claiming the SRD trumps that because it DOESN'T mention them? Have you forgotten what the SRD IS? Here's what WotC has to say: The System Reference Document is a comprehensive toolbox consisting of rules, races, classes, feats, skills, various systems, spells, magic items, and monsters compatible with the d20 System version of Dungeons & Dragons and various other roleplaying games from Wizards of the Coast. The SRD is the BARE BONES. It is "a toolbox compatible with D&D." It is not the absolute authority ON D&D. You may be playing SRD, but I'm playing D&D, and my rulebook clearly states - on the page that I quoted - that a griffon qualifies as "a creature suited for riding." There's also the question of whether Ride and Handle ANimal mean Ride (any) and Handle Animal (any). I don't see ANY evidence implying that this is the case. Let's look at the skills that we KNOW had subtypes. Take Craft: Your precious SRD has this to say: "Like Knowledge, Perform, and Profession, Craft is actually a number of separate skills." Hmm. How about Profession? "Like Craft, Knowledge, and Perform, Profession is actually a number of separate skills." Note the lack of "Ride" or "Handle Animal" in that list. Please point to anything in the Ride description that implies that is possible. Find me any NPC in a 3.5 WotC product that has Ride (specified creature). Meaninwhile, AS I QUOTED, the first sentence of the skill description in the Player's Handbook says "You can ride a mount, be it a horse, riding dog, griffon..." It's quite clear. Ride lets you ride: it is not a subdivided skill. Even looking to the SRD: the only place it mentions horses specifically is "control mount in battle", where it says "a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle." This is not a conclusive list, and it certainly doesn't say that these are the only creatures that are easy to ride. It simple is an extended way of saying you need to make this check when riding any creature not trained for battle. and since their default alignment is Chaotic Good... Are you even playing Eberron, Aelryinth? Dragons - listed as ALWAYS having an alignment - aren't always that alignment in Eberron. Pegasi aren't even listed as "always" to begin with. There IS no default alignment in Eberron: you can encounter an evil pegasus just as well as a good one. You argue the SRD over the PHB. You ignore fundamental principles of Eberron. And you proclaim your personal opinions as if they are absolute fact. I'm sick of it. Count me out of the "discussion", and I wish I'd had the good sense to leave sooner.
Isran_Imrador 12-13-05, 03:46 PM	Hey guys, What where we discusing again? ;) :P Sure PC can if the DM wants it try to make Valenar Warhorses... Warband Druids may or may not prepere cure spells, but will not use them on their employer if he somehow got injured while sitting in their castle. They may however use them on their employer if he or she is out with them getting injured...(if they got one) Like any other group of adventurers where druids join... Can't see many pegasi in the armies of Karrnath, can you? I can see Valenar mounts in any army, however. No i cant see many Pagasi there....But do you think that the Prude Karranthii Cavalry would ride Valanar warhorses....the beast they enemy to the south have used for the last decades of raiding their borders... Isran
Euangelion 12-13-05, 04:42 PM	I'm going to bring this argument back around to the glidewing, an animal specifically included in the ECS as a flying mount capable of carrying Medium riders. Crown for crown, it is a much better buy than any other mount available, IMHO, and thus should not be rare, either. This one animal cuts through just about every argument made for the V-horse being the mother of all mounts, again IMHO, when it comes to Vadalis.
Errant 12-13-05, 06:21 PM	You argue the SRD over the PHB. You ignore fundamental principles of Eberron. And you proclaim your personal opinions as if they are absolute fact. I'm sick of it. Count me out of the "discussion", and I wish I'd had the good sense to leave sooner. I hope you don't mean you're dropping off the thread DD, unlike the obvious your posts have been good reading. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water, some of this thread has provided excellent food for thought. No i cant see many Pagasi there....But do you think that the Prude Karranthii Cavalry would ride Valanar warhorses....the beast they enemy to the south have used for the last decades of raiding their borders... Personally I see Karrnath using griffons a lot more than pegasi. They're not as smart or as fast but pound for pound they're much tougher and nastier to fight (even if you take the default 500 lb weight as a persistent errata and make it 1500 lb as I do IMC). They seem much more in line with Karrnath IMHO. I'm going to bring this argument back around to the glidewing, an animal specifically included in the ECS as a flying mount capable of carrying Medium riders. Crown for crown, it is a much better buy than any other mount available, IMHO, and thus should not be rare, either. This one animal cuts through just about every argument made for the V-horse being the mother of all mounts, again IMHO, when it comes to Vadalis. I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest that as a reptile native to warm hills, the Glidewing is far less adaptable to colder regions that other mounts. True, this is completely outside the RAW (I think) but it would be completely reasonable for DMs to impose penalties for glidewings being taken into cold (snow-type) environments without a lot of care and precautions. Unless you decide reptiles are warm blooded in Eberron of course. Apart from that climate issue, with their ability to cross any terrain, I'd agree they're crown for crown better value for money than v-horses. Something I'll definitely try to reflect IMC (in the right climates).
aelryinth 12-13-05, 07:09 PM	Leaving points you disagree with uncountered in anything even remotely resembling a debate has the same effect on your audience as conceeding them, unfortunately. It's much like dropping a line of argument while the opposition still has numerous standing points. (All of this only applies if we're talking about trying to defend your ideas or convince others to see things your way, of course.) It also means that in a polite discussion I don't have to answer anyone I don't feel is also being polite. Much better then souping up and responding to what I merely consider multiple flames packaged up with a veneer of respectability. If he wants an answer, then he needs to learn how to post politely. Period. ==Aelryinth
davethebrave371 12-13-05, 07:21 PM	It also means that in a polite discussion I don't have to answer anyone I don't feel is also being polite. Much better then souping up and responding to what I merely consider multiple flames packaged up with a veneer of respectability. If he wants an answer, then he needs to learn how to post politely. Period. ==Aelryinth Really? December 1st Sorry WizO, and sorry aelryinth. I'll tone it down. aelryinth, reiteration of a previous point, minus anything conceivably offensive. Your points on Valenar mercenaries, druids, Valenar druids, Valenar culture, clerics and economy are straight out of your game, and are alterations of the campaign setting. December 2nd Especially in light of these recent posts, I make my claim again. Your points on Valenar mercenaries, druids, Valenar druids, Valenar culture, clerics and economy are straight out of your game, and are alterations of the campaign setting. And once more, polite as can be: Your points on Valenar mercenaries, druids, Valenar druids, Valenar culture, clerics and economy are straight out of your game, and are alterations of the campaign setting.
Errant 12-13-05, 07:24 PM	It also means that in a polite discussion I don't have to answer anyone I don't feel is also being polite. Much better then souping up and responding to what I merely consider multiple flames packaged up with a veneer of respectability. If he wants an answer, then he needs to learn how to post politely. Period. Good grief Aelryinth, you get exactly the same respect and courtesy you give everyone else. Get over yourself already.
aelryinth 12-13-05, 08:11 PM	I use the SRD because it, unlike the PHB, gets updated fairly frequently. It also strips the rules to their basic essentials for play. I.e. you have to conform to the SRD to conform to the PHB, which builds on top of it. And a living document is a better reference then a printed one. So don't flame me for using the SRD. It's every single bit as viable as using the PHB...for Eberron, moreso, because Eberron doesn't conform 100% to the standards of the PHB, MM and DMG, either. Especially regarding alignment issues! I 'agreed' with the fact that you use the Ride skill for riding just about anything. That doesn't at all contradict with the idea that flying animals are 'difficult' mounts...they require exotic saddles, it's right there in the descriptions. If you can find a better case for an animal that is difficult to ride then requiring an Exotic saddle, I'm all ears. Since the days of 1E, there's been a distinctive difference between riding horses and riding ANY form of aerial creature, and just thinking about it logically draws the same inference. Riding a creature beating its wings and 'running on air' is going to be a completely different experience then riding a horse. If they didn't require an exotic saddle, I'd agree with you. Asperii, from FR, don't have wings...I don't believe they require an exotic saddle, but I can't confirm that with the books on hand. The -5 penalty for being harder to ride is worked right into the Ride skill, you don't have to impose a circumstance penalty. It's the main reason you can justify not having to take Ride (pegasi)...they folded the skills into one and instituted a universal penalty to cover the matter. Indeed, I actually thought they had a feat which got rid of the penalty for a particular kind of mount...but I can't find it. The +4 bonus that Druids and Rangers get on such checks for Animal Companions negates the penalty for the most part, too... As for communication, come down off your, um, high horse. (heh) Pegasi are horses, in a manner of speaking, and horses can communicate. If you can speak with horses, you can probably speak with pegasi. They can communicate...they can't TALK. Speak with Animals, ESP, telepathy, etc are all viable means. And Int 10 means they can probably communicate with one another considerably better then normal horses can. Loyalty to an Overmaster still doesn't translate to loyalty to a rider. Hence why the Master is usually the rider...stops the problem! Also note that nothing in my post contradicted what you said...although you seemed to be trying to infer that it did. Thanks for telling me AGAIN about Eberron's alignment thing. Really, after a dozen times, you'd think you'd have gotten sick of it. Pegasi are listed as Usually Chaotic Good. That means that they are going to tend towards CG. SURE, there's going to be exceptions. But the majority of the NPC pegasi you are going to run into are going to be CG or close to it. Then, if you read the rest of the entry, the fact that they serve Good and Neutral masters is pretty much going to nail down the alignment of the rest of them. It is going to be an exceptional pegasi that is Evil and yet 'faithfully serves' a Good or Neutral master, with such strong alignment tendencies. Impossible? No. But the odds are very much against it...and you are making it seem as if it happens all the time and is a 'common' event. "Faithful service" is difficult for an Evil creature to have, and the Chaotic bent means you are likelier to have CE pegasi then Lawful Evil (diametrically opposed to natural tendencies). I find it absolutely Eberronesque that, by the rules, a CE pegasi will Faithfully serve a Good or Neutral master. Why? Because an Evil master is far more likely to abuse it then a Good or Neutral one, and so they'd go looking for a 'soft' master in preference to another Evil soul. Absolutely perfect. I also intimate that you aren't going to have an alignment spread as 'even' as that of Men, simply because of the alignment tendency and the 'faithful' service clause. Sure, they exist...but they are rare, not common. So, Evil pegasi are going to be rarer by % then, say, Evil human Priests of Good gods. Dragons, by specific example, are ALL extraordinary exceptions and a key part of Eberron's 'difference' from a normal campaign. And I love it, too...but that doesn't mean that completely unbundling draconic alignments mean you completely unbundle EVERYTHING's alignments. The average hobgob is still LE, after all, and they still have basically a LE society. And I love the biological reason Siran gave above why Pegasi make poor work horses...although, to be frank, the illustrations of pegasi seem to be horses with wings, not horses with physiology adapted to have wings. :( It'd be nice if they could move away from the purely mythological depiction of them. For the whole pegasi as soldiers thing, pay, etc, runs right into NPC wealth guidelines. So, in addition to shelling out 5000 gp to get your war-trained pegasi (1000 gp buys how many warhorses?? and that's just the training cost!) and outfitting it with exotic saddles, barding, you now have to treat it as an intelligent soldier, at least level 4 (does it have a +1 LA? 2? heh) and give it that amount of gear, and compensate it as you would a character of at least level 4 with some distinctive and valuable traits (i.e. the flying). $,$,$. What are we up to? 7, 8K per pegasi now? Your costs to use pegasi are just going up and up regarding a normal horse. Love them hidden, sunk costs. Lastly, if we are talking superior aerial mounts, I don't believe anything for the HD is better then a Dragonhawk. Those things are just sweet...the Optimizers were drooling over them. Glidewings are nice too...but as predators intrinsically more expensive to keep over time, they don't have the ground movement of a pegasi (do they?), and, as reptiles, aren't an 'all-environments' sort of mount. Herbivores traditionally make much more manageable mounts then carnivores... A griffon at 1500 lbs? That would be big...as massive as a pegasi, and would justify the bigger wingspan, even if it isn't as fast. Hmm. But yes, definitely bigger then 500 lbs. And I consistently misspell Vadalis because, um, because I do, that's why. Heh! I guess it looks more Italian with the 'i' in there. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 12-13-05, 08:29 PM	Good grief Aelryinth. Note, I don't specifically call out anyone by name with exclamatories...which is a standard lead-in for a flame. you get exactly the same respect and courtesy you give everyone else. Really? Everyone is pretty broad. There's quite a few people on these boards I have differences of opinions with who don't feel the need to attack my opinion and the facts I present, as opposed to disagreeing with them. Hellcow himself is one of them. Get over yourself already. See? Three different flames in one statement. And you wonder why I don't want to respond to you? I'm being polite and trying very hard not to flame back. It's called posting etiquette, and there's a lot of people on the thread who need to learn it. And yet, when I post, the thread moves and debate goes forwards. Strange, no? ==Aelryinth
davethebrave371 12-13-05, 08:29 PM	Leaving points you disagree with uncountered in anything even remotely resembling a debate has the same effect on your audience as conceeding them, unfortunately. Unaddressed. Set and match. Oh, and on the subject of "politeness" and "flames" Thanks for telling me AGAIN about Eberron's alignment thing. Really, after a dozen times, you'd think you'd have gotten sick of it.
aelryinth 12-13-05, 08:43 PM	Really? December 1st December 2nd And once more, polite as can be: Your points on Valenar mercenaries, druids, Valenar druids, Valenar culture, clerics and economy are straight out of your game, and are alterations of the campaign setting. My points on Valenar mercenaries, druids, Valenar druids, Valenar culture, clerics and economy are straight out depictions of the existing campaign rules and setting. Aren't absolute statements wonderful. The above statement by DavetheBrave I consider a flame because he is stating my opinions for me, they aren't mine, and they are absolutist. It is a flame wrapped up in a veneer, completely devaluing any and all arguments, opinions, facts and what-not I post. And that's why I ignored it. It had nothing to say...it was attempting to speak for me. The same thing was done later, by posting 'consolidated opinons' on the board that weren't my own. And then when I posted mine in rebuttal and correction, he went ballistic, as if he was entitled to speak for me. You do NOT dictate my opinion to me. We can war over facts, but as soon as you attempt that dictation and devaluation, it's a flame...and I have no obligation to respond to those. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 12-13-05, 08:44 PM	Unaddressed. Set and match. Oh, and on the subject of "politeness" and "flames" And still you flame. I, at least, am trying, and not mentioning names or posting the original quotes (well, trying not to...need the references!) ==Aelryinth
davethebrave371 12-13-05, 08:46 PM	Ok, that was not your opinion, it was mine. I was stating it as simply as possible to avoid you thinking it was a flame. What I'm really saying is defend yourself. If my statement is untrue, please provide proof. Nowhere did I say that I was providing your opinion. It is obviously my opinion, and I have never stated otherwise. Edit: Here's some board etiquette I picked up from the web. I rather like it, and adhere to it. You cut other people the same break you want them to cut you. If you want people to thoughtfully consider your point of view, you have to thoughtfully consider their point of view, too, even if you still disagree in the end. You recognize that your opponents have much to teach you because they are different from you; see what you can learn from them, even if you ultimately decide not to agree fully.
aelryinth 12-13-05, 08:48 PM	If it's your opinion, then I already replied with an equally absolutist statement. Now, defend yourself. You can't. There's nothing to defend. It's an absolutist statement. And the point was pressed over and over for me to reply. That makes it a flame. ==Aelryinth
davethebrave371 12-13-05, 08:51 PM	Alright, give me until tomorrow to compile all the statements you've made that are homebrew into one, coherent post. Then you can counter them point for point, as I suggested when you were responding to me, but which you failed to do, despite the fact that I consistently responded to every point. It will be polite, and it will not be a flame.
Errant 12-13-05, 10:00 PM	See? Three different flames in one statement. And you wonder why I don't want to respond to you? I'm being polite and trying very hard not to flame back. Aelryinth, in this thread I (and many others) have tried time and again to respond to your opinions in a reasonable and polite manner, frequently with references to official material, and more often than not your response is either to ignore a point of disagreement (especially if it includes a reference to canon) or dismiss it out of hand. That is why I said you get the respect you give. I don't wonder why you don't want to respond, I've long since come to the belief that you simply don't respond because you have no rational come-back. As I've said before I do have a lot of respect for your creativity Aelryinth, but not that respect has its limits. Now, since I'm much more interested in what the other posters have to contribute that is in line with official material than I am in you home rules, I'll try to take a leaf out of your book ignore more of what you post.
davethebrave371 12-13-05, 10:32 PM	Huh, didn't take as long as I thought. For the record, going back over your posts, I find I agree with some things I had thought I disagreed with (such as your points on horrid animals destroying nature with acid), after reading them a little calmer. You do raise good points, and do source occaisonally. However, the following things require sourcing. These aren’t all of them, but you repeat yourself a lot (from your perspective because we don’t get it, I know, I’m not accusing you of unintentionally doing it, just so you don’t take that as a flame). I’ve bolded a few things to help aid in clarification of what specifically needs sourcing, and made my own notes here and there. -I can see them as caretakers of the herds...but using them in the military effectively takes ALL of the nature out of them, and turns them into cleric wanna-bes. If they are Druids they should stay druids, above little racial squabbles and concerned about the natural world. Elven 'druids' riding to battle are probably clerics with the Animal and Weather domains...and so outsiders probably can't tell the difference. -I'm opposed to the Druids In Military view because that seems to indicate they go riding around with the Valenar casting spells for whoever will hire them...NOT as roles as defenders of the Herd and of their people. -Could I see him as defender of the horse herds? Sure, that's easy. But as a member of some Valenar raiding party out to stir up some activity out of boredom and because your ancestor could thwop on ogres? -So, riding with Valenar warriors in the heart of the land, watching over the precious horses, fine and dandy. Anywhere else...selling out Nature's magic as if it were just another sword to ply against an enemy. -What I'm pointing out is that by doing an end run around direct financial actions with the spellcaster, you can get him to leap through hoops for you. -Valenar are mercenary, and the reason they are raiders now is because they are bored and have no one to fight. Give them someone to fight and now they raid for YOU. -And SURE, clerics and priests served in the military, they volunteered their services to help their country (or got drafted). But notice the distinct lack of financial incentive, even tangentially. They got paid squat or less...no one paid off their boss, or church, or elder, or whatever, to make them come. -If, as I noted above, you restrict them to a purely defensive role as watching over the herds (and which the Eldeen Sects basically do, defending their land, not hiring out as part of merc bands or independently...except, of course, for PC's, strangely enough!), then this is fine and fits into the 'atmosphere' as noted. Druidic magic used to defend the elven people in antiquity is fine...druidic magic used to make war on the giants for the sake of conquest and/or the challenge? Definitely not the same spirit, predator or not. -Yes, the Valenar are bored and going raiding because they've nothing better to do with their time. Their culture says to go fight, and there's no handy war going on to give them an excuse to kill things...so they go looking for one. -Where did I say druids couldn't be martial? Quote me. I'm having a problem with them being 'mercenary'. That's two very different things. As in, 'military for cash'. NOT military for belief. NOT martial by culture. Being able to spend cash and buy yourself a spellcaster as long as you can frame 'buying him' in the context of his beliefs...or his superior. (Dave’s Note: So…they aren’t military for belief, which is bad, but they’re military for belief, which is bad? Although, again, clarify where it says they are military for cash, but even assuming you CAN do that, you contradict yourself here.) -I just KNEW someone was going to say hiring the druid for the scouting job was going to whimper and say that he wouldn't cast spells for you...which is why the rest of the sentence is 'help you fight', which does imply using all your gifts, and not just being a passive observer. -The serving in the military for belief argument Does Not Fly if you can hire them for gold. (Dave’s Note: Just like a cleric who receives his pay like any other soldier…oh wait.) -Every spellcaster serves in the military for belief or gold, and doesn't charge for the spellcasting. This is NOT the Same. -These guys, you can hire. That means that, regardless of his 'beliefs', he is, in the end, selling his casting services for whoever pays the coin. -mercs are mercs. hiring practices are going to be fairly similar. -Valenar are itchy to pick a fight. Ergo, they are bored without one, without having the opportunity to fight gloriously in the name of their ancestors. Hence, without hiring out to anyone, they go raiding into Dargunn, Mror, Talenta, and Karrnath. It's right there in the book. Hellcow explicitly stated that the Valenar would love for the war to resume so that they could get back to fighting again. They don't have the opportunity to go out and fight all the time...they are bored. (Dave’s Note: I looked “right there in the book” and couldn’t find a boredom mention.) -What is the warband leader going to do if a member abandons his group whenever he feels like it? Why don't you go ask a military man that? The answer is bloody obvious...the druid won't be coming back, because he's proven himself unreliable and not part of the team. The warband leader won't want him part of the warband. Sure, he may wander alongside them...but the warband won't consider him a member. -Money making scheme? Um, okay. My priest hires out as a mercenary, effectively selling his spellcasting for cash. By the rules, I shouldn't be able to do this unless it's a mission for the faith. Yet, by the example the Valenar set (Dave’s Note: And clerics who took part in the last war as part of a military…I still don’t get why this “opens the floodgates”, when there was already precedent.), and as long as I can 'justify it' with some stretch of doctrine as liberal as a Valenar Druid can about emulating some ancestor (who wasn't doing merc work, either) I am fully justified in doing the exact same thing. Is it per spell? Probably not...but it could easily be per day or per week, and command a substantial amount of money, now, couldn't it? And if the Valenar can do it, then ALL the faiths can do it. -Hellcow really, really wants no divine spellcasting for cash in any form to be a firm part of the setting. By sticking druids into Valenar Merc warbands, he's effectively stepping around his own restrictions. The reasons why the Druid is a merc are irrelevant...he IS a merc, he's selling his spellcasting capability for coin, not for faith or belief, to the service of another. You can wrap all that up in pretty words that boil down to one thing...rationalizing something that just shouldn't BE there. -And 'enemy' is a highly mutable term for Valenar...as long as they can garner glory and get paid for it, enemy is simply anyone they can fight. If someone doesn't pay them, they go looking for an 'enemy'...the Nations call that 'raiding'. (Dave’s Note: Yup, they are certainly getting paid to fight the Talentans.) -…the priest, by rote, will throw him out on his ear because he doesn't 'sell spells'. There's no arcane caster around who can do the job, etc, etc OR a Jorasco enclave that can handle the problem. Now, if the unlucky bastard is willing to accept a quest and make an offering (donation/pay the priest), then there's a possibility of aid...with a good diplomacy roll (alas, no ranks but the one, and base 8 Cha!). Is there going to be a worshipper in the area needing remove curse anytime soon? Remove paralysis? Any of the other high level spells? Not likely...but the faiths don't sell them. Well, they do...maybe...sell them for cash + service/obligation. If you are really powerful, they will consider it a swap of favors. If you aren't, too bloody bad. And that's pretty much the rote way a NPC priest/adept/cleric is supposed to be played if you stumble into the temple and need their services. There's more NPC temples with spellcasting adepts around then there are Jorasco heirs and enclaves...sometimes you just don't have the option. And Druids, as Divine casters, fall under the umbrella of this policy. Buuuuut, if the cleric/druid is a mercenary, I don't have to worry about all that suddenly. No obligations to Nature means Druids can be pretty much free to do what they want with their gifts...which means twisting the wording of whatever they want to do is pretty easy...which is arrogance of power, and is exactly how Mages view arcane magic. The connotation of service seems fairly low...it's merely how you choose to exercise your power, and I have a problem with that for a major Divine Casting class. The obligations of Druids to Nature should be strong...and they aren't, in Eberron. -…the logical progression is, if the Valenar have divine casters hiring out as mercs, then others do too...which means divine casting is for sale via the mercenary walkaround. -And while Valenar emulate their ancestors, they hire out for gold and glory, and are remarkably...mercenary about who they gain that gold and glory fighting against. Cyre today, Breland tomorrow, Aundair the day after. Fluidity and availability of who to fight for their glory seem built right into them. Lofty goals don't enter into the decisions nearly as much as everyone here seems to think of Super-elfsies. Emulation isn't a heady thing...it's a practical drive to succeed, and plenty of Valenar go about it with anything but lofty ideals. -Major divine spellcasting without obligations to the power providing the magic strikes me as wrong. Even clerical casting in Eberron obeys this stricture...if you don't satisfy your obligations of duty and benefit to your sponsoring power, you can have all the faith in the world and lose your magic. If you do satisfy them, you can even be the wrong alignment and keep them...in Eberron, as long as you have faith, however misguided it may be. Druids have no obligations, they just need to have faith/reverence. Oh yeah, and they can bounce all over the Neutral alignments on a whim. This means they can treat their gifts just as cavaliarly as mages do...and they seem to do just that. Just gotta have faitha-faitha-faith...(cue guitar solo). -I did use priest instead of cleric delibrately. Didn't catch that, aye? I did it so you could include both adept and cleric in the Priest catch all...and he doesn't need a healer, he needs a spellcaster...more likely at the temple then the healer. (Dave’s Note: I was under the impression most “priests” were Commoners and Experts, with a smaller percentage being adepts, and even smaller being clerics). And just for further reference: - Wow, Dave actually had something solid to contribute, which I've been trying to get across for what, 3 pages of posts, and no one seemed to realize? Amazing...he actually got the point first. Everyone else seems to be trying to deny the point actually exists at all. (Dave’s Note: A very respectful, polite little gem. I got something right, in his point of view, and this is what I get. Thanks ael, you’re a pal.) -I didn't start the flaming, but I can't say I like it when a name I don't even recognize has the temerity to say I don't know what I'm posting, when I'm the primary source responsible for much of the thought that went into the post in question. (Dave’s note: Wow, how did I not catch this one before? This is exactly my previous posts repetitive point.)
Errant 12-13-05, 11:42 PM	Re: Valenar druids being "a member of some Valenar raiding party out to stir up some activity out of boredom and because your ancestor could thwop on ogres?" I don't really see much of a problem with this on an occasional basis as I see it in line with the Valenar culture's emphasis on honoring ancestors, provided said thwoping doesn't involve any desecration/disrespect toward Nature (however that is defined for the druid concerned). I think it comes down to the question: does a druid have to be a druid only because his patron ancestor was a druid? If you allow that "honoring an ancestor" can be distinct to "copying an ancestor", a druid can become a druid because he personally feels a strong affinity to nature and thereafter use his druidic skills to seek glory in a way that honors both ancestor and Nature. As always, if this contradicts canon, please let me know.
Edymnion 12-14-05, 12:21 AM	I think it comes down to the question: does a druid have to be a druid only because his patron ancestor was a druid?No, I believe Keith said in the AKB thread that each Valenar finds their own way to honor the patron ancestor. You don't have to take the same class, or use the same weapons. You could be honoring a sorcerer ancestor with a modern day Fighter or Ranger, as long as you're still going for the same goals and motivation as the original. The ancestor was a druid with a love of nature, thats fine. You could be a druid or a ranger, or even a wizard or rogue that protects nature. Its up to the individual Valenar as to HOW they go about it, just as long as they are going about it.
aelryinth 12-14-05, 09:03 AM	And a lot of the sources I'm referring to aren't in the book, or even the Dragonshard(s)...they are references to things Hellcow has said in previous discussions, and they are scattered on multiple posts around the boards. Believe me when I say, I don't have time to go and scrounge them all up! Your reference to me being contradictory about them being military by belief is in error. Two things are being referenced there...One, I'm not opposed to them being martial by belief...it's irrelevant...I'm opposed to them being mercenary. Two, being military by belief is irrelevant to the fact that you can hire them...it doesn't mean ANYTHING from a practical standpoint that they are military by belief. What matters is, you stick in gold, and out comes spells. Why? Who cares...it's results that count. How do they hire out for cash? They ride with the Warbands. The Warbands hire out as mercenaries. That means that, short of directly stating that they WILL NOT hire out as mercenaries, that some Warbands will have Druids, and so you get to hire Druids for cash. Bing! Their beliefs are now irrelevant...they 'believe' they are doing the right thing by hiring as mercs. Fine. What HAPPENS is that now I get spells for cash, regardless of the job's relevance. As members of a close-knit military unit, they can't just up and take a lark if they want to remain a member of the warband (i.e. disagree with the jobs taken). If they can do something as unnatural as serve with a military unit for cash (uh, glorifying the ancestors, right, suuuuure), they can suck it up for the rest of the squad. Serving in the military for belief is a direct contravention of being HIRED out for mercenary duties. There's no way an army could actually afford to pay clerical healers by the spell. Belief has to be involved. But now, belief becomes irrelevant, because I can hire any merc cleric, input gold, out comes spells...and technically, don't even have to pay them as much as I would at a temple! All they have to do is 'believe' they are doing the right thing by suddenly taking this 'mercenary' status...and suddenly not only can I get spells for possibly nothing, but if I actually offer to pay for them, he'll consider it a big bonus! I do NOT like the inference that this draws for being able to hire Divine Casters, using a mercenary walkaround. And with the numbers of mercenaries out there, this now would logically become a standard way of getting the clerical magic you need. For cash, not for belief or service to the cleric's faith/church. I also don't believe Druids should be in a standing, ongoing military as soldiers. Being martial is one thing. But MILITARY? and MERCENARY on top of it? Ugh. Support units, fine. That whole bidding out Nature's Magic for money and applying it against the Enemy of the Day as if it were just another weapon...the argument has been gone over. You can make the 'predator' or the 'wrath of nature' argument, and it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's just not, well, natural. Clerics in the military? Sure, War, Protection, Healing...these are all 'civilized' concepts that are part and parcel of clerical duties. Not part of Druidism, which is about Natural processes. And be careful, again...equating 'military' with 'mercenary' is Not The Same Thing. ----------------- A great deal of what is ascribed to me as 'not responding to posts' is the fact that the answers were things I had already posted, and rewording them for the 3rd or 4th time was not something I wanted to do again. Also, anyone calling things 'only my opinion' is flat out dismissing this as a valid interpretation of the rules, which means I might as well not be arguing, because arguing over House Rules is completely pointless. But I'm not arguing over House Rules, I'm arguing over the setting itself and what it portends, and if all you want to do is call 'my campaign', 'my rules', and so forth, then you are utterly correct...you shouldn't be replying, posting, questioning, or otherwise bothering to answer what I post. Since I don't believe that's what I'm doing, I feel perfectly free to keep posting. And since you've made your opinion of me clear, why exactly should I be bothering to answer you? "Arguing" about 'my house rules' is completely a waste of my time and yours. That's posting etiquette, and that's another reason I've been ignoring people...and why I left the thread. And now I come back and suddenly there's more then a dozen posts on the thread in one day. Strange, that. ==Aelryinth
Siran Dunmorgan 12-14-05, 10:11 AM	Clerics in the military? Sure, War, Protection, healing...these are all 'civilized' concepts that are part and parcel of clerical duties. Not part of Druidism, which is about Natural processes. Actually, this is an idea that I'd like to explore further: where do we draw the line between what is "natural" and what isn't? We clearly have a concept that some things are "natural" and some things are not, but what is the actual distinction? We can speak of physical things—cities, for example—as being "unnatural" or "opposed to nature". Some speak of actions—the use of arcane magic, for example—as unnatural, or abominable to nature. And some speak of ideas, such as the very concepts of healing, or of protection as unnatural, and no part of the druidic tradition. But the sects of Eberron disagree. The Ashbound oppose arcane magic. The Greensingers embrace it. There are those who burn farms as blights against nature, and those who work with the farmers to increase their crops and their yield. There are even those who find that intelligence, self-awareness, and the ability to manipulate one's environment to be natural, who regard cities as the pinnacle of natural processes at work, combining intelligence with gregariousness, both of these being natural Eberron-granted aspects of humanity or of elvenkind. But wait—I hear the cry!—elves aren't natural creatures at all! They were created by the giants! Yes. The giants who followed their nature and manipulated the ancestors of the elves into sentience, just as Eberron herself brought forth the giants. We know that in nature, there is war—one has but to spend a few weeks observing insects to draw that conclusion—and we know that in nature there is murder for pleasure—a pastime in which mink are known to indulge—we know that in nature are hives and cities such as are built by termites, of many rooms, with powered "air conditioning" throughout; we know that mothers protect their young: in the case of elephants, all of the adults of the herd will gather to protect the young from predators. We know that there are tool-users, from finches to chimpanzees. Where, then, do we draw the line? At sentience, i.e., do we take "natural" to mean "unthinking" or "unaware"? Then why is awaken a druidic spell? Why is the most powerful sentient being on Khorvaire a tree—aye, and a druid in the bargain—if being able to manipulate one's environment is opposed to nature? Ponder these questions. And ponder this one: why is druid the only class in the Player's Handbook v. 3.5 specifically noted as being paid "in coin" for their services? Not even rogues share that distinction. —Siran Dunmorgan
Euangelion 12-14-05, 10:54 AM	I'm going to go way out on a limb and suggest that as a reptile native to warm hills, the Glidewing is far less adaptable to colder regions that other mounts. True, this is completely outside the RAW (I think) but it would be completely reasonable for DMs to impose penalties for glidewings being taken into cold (snow-type) environments without a lot of care and precautions. Unless you decide reptiles are warm blooded in Eberron of course. Well, keep in mind that we don't know for sure whether real life pterosaurs were warm-blooded or cold-blooded. However, we know that some species had a kind of fur, and scientists believe they were active fliers, not simply gliders. These two factors strongly suggest that pterosaurs were warm-blooded. Even if you choose to go cold-blooded in your Eberron, don't forget that there are feats (Frostburn in particular has some) that the glidewing could be given to deal with the cold, representing Vadalis breeding glidewings specifically for use in cold climates. Also, I can't think of anything that would prevent Vadalis from producing magebred glidewings, further enhancing their abilities to operate in harsher climates.
Hellcow 12-14-05, 11:28 AM	Hey all. I don't have the time to really revisit the thread, and honestly, I don't think anything has been said that changes what I wrote on the first two pages. I do feel that what I've said about the Valenar on the first few pages of this thread and in the Dragonshards sums up my current opinions on the matter; if it makes sense to you, good, and if not, follow your own path. With that said, there is a point I would like to address. I use the SRD because it, unlike the PHB, gets updated fairly frequently. It also strips the rules to their basic essentials for play. I.e. you have to conform to the SRD to conform to the PHB, which builds on top of it. And a living document is a better reference then a printed one. So don't flame me for using the SRD. It's every single bit as viable as using the PHB... As I see it, the issue was not one of flame for using the SRD. It was anger over the claim that a direct quote from the PHB was invalid because that same quote was not in the SRD. The PHB specifically says that Ride applies to griffons and dragons. This line is omitted from the SRD. So the issue is, does this mean that Ride is not supposed to apply to griffons? No. As a designer for WotC, it is my duty to use the full D&D sources in the work that I do. The SRD is an excellent and valuable tool. I use it all the time, because having it in electronic format makes it easier to search, and because errata has generally (but not always) been applied. However, it is a tool set: the most basic, fundamental rule systems, stripped down wherever possible. There's a reason WotC gives it away for free and charges for the core books: because you're paying for extra color and content. Why isn't the beholder in the SRD? Because it's a flawed monster? Does this mean that I shouldn't use it when writing D&D adventures? No. It's not in the SRD because WotC decided it was especially interesting, especially colorful, and that they should claim it as their own - and require you to purchase the Monster Manual to get it. Likewise, the Monster Manual provides more details about the behavior of afflicted lycanthropes. The fact that this isn't included in the SRD doesn't mean it's inaccurate; if that were the case, it would be in the errata. it's simply additional, more complete information... information that you don't need to play a D20 game, but information that is part of D&D. Another vitally important example is the NPC wealth table on page 127 of the DMG. This isn't in the SRD - but if I'm writing for WotC, my NPCs have to hold to it. In fact, when I write for Green Ronin, my NPCs have to adhere to it (even though, legally, it's not in the OGL - they want their NPCs to follow the power standards set in other sources). The SRD provides basic rules, but it does not provide all of the rules or go into the same level of depth as the core books on many subjects. If the SRD implies something different from the core books through omission, I'll check the errata - and unless the errata backs it up, I'll hold to the core books. In this case, with the PHB mentioning that griffons are "suitable for riding" and the SRD simply not mentioning griffons at all, I would certainly conclude that griffons are, in fact, suited for riding... and this is what I based material in, for example, Sharn: City of Towers upon. One more thing: Thanks for telling me AGAIN about Eberron's alignment thing. Really, after a dozen times, you'd think you'd have gotten sick of it. Pegasi are listed as Usually Chaotic Good. That means that they are going to tend towards CG. SURE, there's going to be exceptions. But the majority of the NPC pegasi you are going to run into are going to be CG or close to it. First, Aelryinth, I do strive to be polite even when we are arguing. I do feel that some people have dealt with you rudely on this thread. Among other things, I don't care to have people talk about me in the third person in a discussion I'm actively participating in, which you've gotten a lot of. But how can you write those first two sentences and then complain about other people flaming? You make your own point perfectly well in the following paragraph. Why is that first paragraph even necessary? I understand that you may be upset about people flaming you, but in my opinion flaming them back does not place you on the moral high ground - it simply encourages more heat. You do draw a lot of flame, but often you do so because you are an aggressive and passionate person who frequently posts in an inflammatory fashion. I respect your opinions, but I myself have often had to hold back angry responses to your posts. I don't feel that you need to change; your behavior is no more aggressive than some of the other posters of the thread. I'm calling you out specifically because you often bemoan the fact that people are flaming you. If you don't want to engage in heated discussions, don't - either by setting a example for others or by leaving a discussion where people can't be civil. But complaining about mistreatment and then following it with a rude comment just doesn't work for me. Be aggressive and expect it in return, or be polite and complain when you're mistreated. You can't have it both ways. Needless to say, I don't mean to aim this comment solely at Aelryinth. "Billy flamed me first" is no excuse for rude behavior... but if Billy didn't throw the first flame, it wouldn't be an issue to begin with. I value the boards and these discussions. I like seeing what other players and DMs come up with, and there are some brilliant ideas out there. Discussions have helped to find flaws or gaps in the world. But can't we all get along? [/sermon] Now, with all of that said, I do disagree with the second paragraph quoted above. "The creatures of Eberron are not bound by traditional alignment restrictions." That's the line from the ECS, and it doesn't just mean "there can be occasional exceptions" - it means they aren't bound. Red dragons aren't mostly evil: they aren't anything at all. You should have no expectations when encountering one... and that's a creature the MM lists as "always". As I've said many times, in my opinion the only creatures that should have predictable alignments in Eberron are outsiders, which are physical embodiments of ideas; creatures with a direct tie to a plane (negative undead, deathless); and creatures whose behavior is specifically altered by an outside force (lycanthropes, kalashtar).... and all of these can have exceptions, too. If you decided to say that pegasi are vessels of Syrania, linked to the plane and therefore vessels for a higher force of good, I'd think it would make sense to say that they are indeed usually good. However, if that were the case, I can't see House Vadalis having much luck selling them. In my campaign, the pegasi of Eberron are indeed not bound by traditional alignment restrictions, and those raised by House Vadalis are steered towards neutral alignments by their trainers. Vadalis are experts in the handling of both mundane and magical beasts, and deal in horses, griffons, and wyverns; they've had 1,500 years to perfect their trade, and they know how to work with even intelligent beasts. Certainly, they'll do their best to match a beast with a rider; a good pegasus won't like an evil rider, and an evil pegasus won't want a good rider (don't forget, they can detect good too); but the handler knows his pegasi and he can tell if a mount won't work for a particular customer. I think that part of that high price includes a day or two working with the pegasus and its trainer, helping the rider and mount bond with one another under Vadalis guidance. Certainly once the pegasus is sold, its behavior will depend on the manner in which it is treated. But when I declared that Vadalis sold pegasi to begin with, my intention was that a Vadalis pegasus that is well-treated will serve to the best of its ability. It will take time to develop the sort of bond that will get it to perform special favors for you, such as searching for help if you are injured. But it won't demand extra apples (or gold) to perform normal tasks. A wild pegasus that you capture and handle yourself would certainly do this sort of thing: it has no interest or experience in serving people, and if it's grown, even Vadalis can't change its ways. But a Vadalis pegasus has been trained since birth to work with a rider. It's intelligent... but so are the warforged, and they fought for the Five Nations without question. Undoubtedly there are those who resist and rebel against the training - but they won't be put up for sale. If a client is dropping 5K on a steed, Vadalis will make sure to take care of him. I think all of the reasons given for why the pegasus hasn't replaced the horse are solid. Breeding is likely slow. Training is very difficult and extensive. These combine to produce the cost - and the cost is extraordinarily high for any sort of normal person. 3K-5K is more money that the average warrior can ever dream of having; at that sort of price you're looking at adventurers, nobles, dragonmark heirs, or elite military forces. Furthermore, it's not like you could buy a pegasus at any Vadalis enclave. In my opinion, there are a few specialized pegasi ranches in Khorvaire: while it's true that Handle Animal doesn't have subskills, it also doesn't apply to intelligent creatures. A pegasi trainer is going to be a very special person, who has a great deal of experience working with these creatures. If you're in Karrnath, you may have to travel to the Eldeen Reaches (or Sharn) to purchase a Vadalis-trained pegasus, while you can probably find a magebred horse at the nearest major city. Well, that ended up being a lot longer than I'd planned... but I still don't have anything more to say about the Valenar. Try not to kill each other. And remember, at the end of the day the purpose of the game is to have fun.
DragonWatcher 12-14-05, 11:29 AM	While I openly admit that I haven't had the time to read this entire thread, I am wondering if anyone had taken the time to mention this: One of the main arguments that I see going on is the idea of exchanging gold for divine spellcasting because of the idea of a druid riding with a warband that sells its services as mercenaries. Well, it would seem to me that an adventuring party is nothing more than a small mercenary company, selling its services for gold or other rewards. So, do people have the same problem with hiring divine spellcasters in the way of adventurers to perform a mission? Because it seems to me that if you hire an adventuring party that includes a divine caster, you are hiring that party member to cast their spells at some point in time as well. So it would seem that you are getting divine spells cast for gold already. So, by this logic, should divine spellcasting classes be banned from Eberron games as Player Character options entirely? After all, if a player decides that their character is motivated by gold, then they are mercenary, are they not? It just seems to me that this is a ridiculous argument, especially since I cannot recall reading anything about the Valenar CURRENTLY being mercenary. I could be wrong on this, I admit, but I know that they were hired by Cyre as mercenaries during the war, but currently it would seem that they're no more mercenary than Thrane, Karrnath or any of the other nations. In fact, they would seem to be much less mercenary than the inhabitants of Darguun or Droaam... and I'm guessing that both of those regions have divine casters who hire out with mercenary bands too. There is a fundamental difference between walking into a temple, grove, or whathaveyou, uninvited, slapping some gold on the altar and ordering up a Heal spell like you just ordered a whiskey at a pub, and hiring a group that includes a divine spellcaster to go wage war on your enemies, rescue your daughter, and reclaim your crown. You're not saying: "Oh, and I want the cleric in your party to cast the following spells on the following people...", you're saying: "I need a job done, and you use whatever means you deem necessary to get it done."
Hellcow 12-14-05, 11:54 AM	Ponder these questions. Excellent post, Siran, and a good summary of the underlying premise of the sects. Each sect reveres nature, as is required of a druid: but that reverence takes different forms, and what a druid of one sect considers to be an act of devotion may be repulsive to another. What is important to me as a DM is consistency: clear dedication to the principles and interpretation of the sect. The Children of Winter believe that spreading disease is an act of devotion. If a Child of Winter says that he's going to cure a natural disease, I'm going to need to hear an excellent explanation as to why this doesn't violate the beliefs of his sect; I can think of situations where I'd allow it, but I can think of many more where I wouldn't, and might threaten the CoW with loss of power. For a Warden, I wouldn't question it - but I might question his decision to spread disease. It's all a matter of perspective and consistent behavior. The Child of Winter believes that disease is a part of nature, a tool for weeding out the weak. The Warden believes that disease is nature out of balance, and that he is right to heal the sick beast. Completely different behavior, but both showing reverence for nature in their own way. Anyhow, I could easily get involved in a long discussion about each of the sects, but I really don't have time right now: big deadline-y pressure, and besides which, you'll get more of my thoughts on druids in the Player's Guide. So hi-ho, hi-ho, it's back to lurking I go!
davethebrave371 12-14-05, 04:50 PM	And a lot of the sources I'm referring to aren't in the book, or even the Dragonshard(s)...they are references to things Hellcow has said in previous discussions, and they are scattered on multiple posts around the boards. Believe me when I say, I don't have time to go and scrounge them all up! I can understand that, but without sourcing, I have only your word. You have to understand that it just sounds like house ruling to me, and often seems contradictory to things I've read. If I'm asked for a source, I can always churn one out...if I can't, I cede my point or bow out of the argument. Etiquette, as you've discussed. Your reference to me being contradictory about them being military by belief is in error. Two things are being referenced there...One, I'm not opposed to them being martial by belief...it's irrelevant...I'm opposed to them being mercenary. Two, being military by belief is irrelevant to the fact that you can hire them...it doesn't mean ANYTHING from a practical standpoint that they are military by belief. What matters is, you stick in gold, and out comes spells. Why? Who cares...it's results that count. Ok, it just wasn't very clear. However, I'd like to point out that anyone who is in a military force by belief and/or by culture is also in it "for cash" by your definition. As in, while the PC or NPC might not care about the cash, cash is still being paid. Cash is always being paid. This would preclude any divine caster from involving themselves in any sort of military action, even self-defence, as money is needed for upkeep in every military situation. As to the point that it's mercenary, what would you call a cleric or paladin of a particular Host god, or even the Host as a whole, joining up with Breland, or Karrnath? They don't have to. They're doing it because they feel, personally (not as part of a faith), that this nation is in the right. You found Dol Arrah vs. Dol Arrah vs. Dol Arrah on some battlefields. I wouldn't define that as mercenary any more than I would what the Valenar do. The druids aren't doing it because they're getting money, they're getting money for upkeep (if they even do, and if they don't, that makes them less mercenary than the clerics and paladins). They're doing it because the Valaes Tairn are doing it, as a nation. They feel the "cause" of the Valaes Tairn is correct, and that cause is to emulate ancestors in whatever way they can. But they aren't idiots. They're not going to go solely on belief. If they go and say, "No, Cyre, don't worry about it. We don't want money, this is just part of our faith." they wouldn't be able to pay for their military actions past a year at most. Which leads me to yet another point: would you be ok with them if they were doing it for FREE? Like, if a druid were to be casting whatever spells you wanted them to at your command as you seem to think they would (another thing you didn't source), for free, would that be better than for cash? How do they hire out for cash? They ride with the Warbands. The Warbands hire out as mercenaries. That means that, short of directly stating that they WILL NOT hire out as mercenaries, that some Warbands will have Druids, and so you get to hire Druids for cash. Bing! Their beliefs are now irrelevant...they 'believe' they are doing the right thing by hiring as mercs. Fine. What HAPPENS is that now I get spells for cash, regardless of the job's relevance. The bold is what I disagree with. How are they believing that hiring out as mercs is the "right thing" anymore than a cleric feels that his joining a military is "the right thing"? It's not that they believe that joining up or hiring out is the right thing, it's that they feel the cause aligns with their religious/cultural beliefs. Any cause at all that doesn't target Aernei or Tairndal seems to mesh well with the Tairndal, but then again, any cause at all, even one which has them fighting other members of the faith, meshes well with Host clerics. As members of a close-knit military unit, they can't just up and take a lark if they want to remain a member of the warband (i.e. disagree with the jobs taken). If they can do something as unnatural as serve with a military unit for cash (uh, glorifying the ancestors, right, suuuuure), they can suck it up for the rest of the squad. I think Siran and Hellcow already addressed this, saying that what is "natural" is as subjective as anything is in Eberron, which seems to be a design element. As well, you continue to say it's "for cash", where I say that they aren't doing it for cash. In fact, you've previously said they're "itching for a fight" and that is the main motivation. I wouldn't say that's "for cash", I'd say that's "fighting for the sake of fighting" which I still wouldn't say is their motivation, but certainly how other people would see them. And remember, the druids are really respected. Even if they aren't the leader of the warband, the leader would look to them for advice, and if the honoured Siyal Marrain says this doesn't sound good, he wouldn't take the job. I think you assume that money is god to these people, and that because you define them as a particular kind of mercenary, they must take any job to maintain a good reputation. I don't think they give two craps about either their reputation or getting more money. More land? Maybe. More chances to emulate the ancestors? Assuredly, but they do that indepentantly enough anyway, now that they have their own nation to fund and feed them, as opposed to being reliant on upkeep payments. Serving in the military for belief is a direct contravention of being HIRED out for mercenary duties. There's no way an army could actually afford to pay clerical healers by the spell. Belief has to be involved. But now, belief becomes irrelevant, because I can hire any merc cleric, input gold, out comes spells...and technically, don't even have to pay them as much as I would at a temple! All they have to do is 'believe' they are doing the right thing by suddenly taking this 'mercenary' status...and suddenly not only can I get spells for possibly nothing, but if I actually offer to pay for them, he'll consider it a big bonus! So, again, like clerics in a military. They could choose to remain neutral, and what would a nation do? Force them to do something that they personally would consider against their faith? They couldn't do it. Either they'd cast one spell and not be able to cast any more without atonement, or would refuse to do it on principle. They can remain neutral, and many did. Some, however, went and joined up, getting paid. I do NOT like the inference that this draws for being able to hire Divine Casters, using a mercenary walkaround. And with the numbers of mercenaries out there, this now would logically become a standard way of getting the clerical magic you need. For cash, not for belief or service to the cleric's faith/church. This, I feel, is where the house rules come in. Almost 90% (or more than 90% in my game, but that's a house rule) of the population of Khorvaire is Commoners. Of the remaining 10%, most of them are NPC classes, and most of those are experts. There aren't even enough people with PC classes to justify what you're talking about even under the assumption that all of them feel it's in line with their beliefs, which not all of them do. I also don't believe Druids should be in a standing, ongoing military as soldiers. Being martial is one thing. But MILITARY? and MERCENARY on top of it? Ugh. Support units, fine. What about the Eldeen Reaches? That whole bidding out Nature's Magic for money and applying it against the Enemy of the Day as if it were just another weapon...the argument has been gone over. You can make the 'predator' or the 'wrath of nature' argument, and it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's just not, well, natural. Clerics in the military? Sure, War, Protection, Healing...these are all 'civilized' concepts that are part and parcel of clerical duties. Not part of Druidism, which is about Natural processes. And be careful, again...equating 'military' with 'mercenary' is Not The Same Thing.[QUOTE=aelryinth] Again, Siran and Hellcow have addressed this, for the most part. As for the seperation of mercenary and military, your definition of mercenary has been cited again and again as being the ultimate payment for services, even if the individual doesn't see money. When people in this thread brought up druids not even getting paid, you said they had superiors getting paid, ergo, they are mercenary. Which applies, again, to any and all Five Nation divine casters in the military, as all five nations had divine casters DIRECTLY receiving a paycheck. [QUOTE=aelryinth]A great deal of what is ascribed to me as 'not responding to posts' is the fact that the answers were things I had already posted, and rewording them for the 3rd or 4th time was not something I wanted to do again. Also, anyone calling things 'only my opinion' is flat out dismissing this as a valid interpretation of the rules, which means I might as well not be arguing, because arguing over House Rules is completely pointless. But I'm not arguing over House Rules, I'm arguing over the setting itself and what it portends, and if all you want to do is call 'my campaign', 'my rules', and so forth, then you are utterly correct...you shouldn't be replying, posting, questioning, or otherwise bothering to answer what I post. And this is why people like you to source. Others in this thread have been talking about the setting, and then sourcing, either to a Hellcow quote from the boards, to a web article, or to published material. When you talk about the setting, talk about the setting, and make sure people know where you're coming from. Since I don't believe that's what I'm doing, I feel perfectly free to keep posting. And since you've made your opinion of me clear, why exactly should I be bothering to answer you? "Arguing" about 'my house rules' is completely a waste of my time and yours. And, thanks to these responses, I see where you come from on a lot of issues, and therein lies the reason to answer me. I had an opinion. You addressed this opinion, and changed my opinion. This is what a debate is about. That's posting etiquette, and that's another reason I've been ignoring people...and why I left the thread. And now I come back and suddenly there's more then a dozen posts on the thread in one day. Strange, that. To be honest, that's simply not true. People were posting because it was brought back up to the top, and because I'd posted in it after a period of inactivity. Check the times. 12-03-05, 09:46 AM was the last post before I posted on 12-11-05, 03:07 PM, and before that, no post was more than a day apart, and there were more often multiple posts in a day. If anything, I should be arrogantly claiming I brought the thread back to life, but I have more "etiquette" than that. You, however, seem to take credit for everything from Hellcow writing Dragonshards, responding to anything at all in any thread you post in, and now for activity in this thread. I'm not a humble man myself, for the most part, but seriously, get off of your high horse and take a look around. You aren't the reason people post. You're the reason, I was posting, that's for sure. Take credit for that if you want, but that's not necessarily something to be proud of. :D Thank you for taking the time to respond, by the way.
aelryinth 12-15-05, 02:15 AM	Hellcow, If you will refer back to my post on Riding, you'll note I call out a singular fact. Griffons, Hippogriffs, pegasi all require an exotic saddle. You would also need an exotic saddle to ride a beholder, a crocodile or a dolphin. I don't justify the fact they are 'difficult' by the fact they aren't mentioned...I do it because their description SPECIFICALLY demands a saddle that is exotic...just like any other weird, hard-to-ride creature. A pegasi is effectively a horse with some wings. Why would it need an exotic saddle? Answer: Because Dem Wings make it a difficult creature to ride, and so there's your -5 penalty. Again, thoughout the entire history of D@D, there's been a line drawn between riding flying creatures and riding landbound. If you were to cut the wings off a pegasi, you could get around on it just find. Ditto the griffs, probably. But Dem WIngs put the status into a whole different ballgame. The whole 'ride' thing was a smokescreen by someone else saying that because they are mentioned, they are 'easy rides'. I can refute that with the SRD not mentioning them, because they aren't 'easy rides', they are 'ridable'. It's all english and smokescreens. But the crux of it was the Exotic Saddle, right in the MM description. Without that, it comes down to a viewpoint and game history/legacy. Someone who can ride a pegasi SHOULD be an excellent rider, and should be better then someone who rides a mere horse. It's harder, more exhilarating, more terrifying. The Race of Eight Winds isn't for a poor Rider. And that's the basis of where my argument stands. If you think that just because it requires a weird saddle to ride doesn't make it hard to ride, then make riding a griffon as easy as swinging on a horse. Conceptually, I really can't agree with you, and if any of you are equestrians, I'm hoping you'll agree with me that riding something getting around via wingbeats, pulling Wingovers, Power dives and Fly-by attacks (which takes a completely different feat then Ride-by Attack!) is going to be very, very different then getting around on a quadruped. I think Bull Riders will say riding a bull is vastly different then riding a horse...and they don't even need exotic saddles. ------------------------------------------------------ As for the alignment in Eberron flame-esque reply, at least I didn't mention names :). I've gotten really tired of seeing it, too. Hellcow, for someone who thoroughly espouses base Neutral alignments, you headed pretty strongly for a LE goblin society, a basically CN Orc society (influenced by Dragons, and regretfully susceptible to Evil influence by Daelkyr, and natural barbarians), a basically Lawful Dwarf society, a N(G) Gnome society (natural bards), and so forth. So, I'm taking cues from you...the individual might vary, but on average, the stereotype goes this-a-way via the MM monster tendencies. You specifically cite Dragons, above all others, to be 'exceptional', and portray them that way. But you move into the stereotypes on a lot of other creatures. And (sigh) you make exceptions for Outsiders, and they always seem to be Fallen Celestials...which I also get tired of seeing. Sure, any intelligent creature CAN be anything...but not all Pegasi are indoctrinated by Vadalis, and their natural tendency is towards CG (but is not absolute!). It's a stereotype and a starting point. Furthermore, the line about serving 'Good and Neutral masters' doesn't also say "Because they Chaotic Good" or even "Because they are Good." I'm fully aware they can Detect Good. Since the MM says they default usually to CG, this doesn't mean that they have the skill because they just might-maybe-could be be OPPOSED to Good, like it might mean for an Outsider. I saw the line about serving masters to be perfect for Eberron. Despite the personal alignment of the pegasi (and the MM does NOT say they are ALL CG, remember! It says USUALLY), they serve "Good and Neutral masters faithfully." If they serve Evil masters, then by the inclusive nature of the above statement, they not going to be serving faithfully...regardless if they are Good OR Evil. But even an Evil pegasi will serve a Good or Neutral master faithfully! Now, an Evil pegasi might prefer a Neutral Master and steer away from a Good one, and a Neutral or Good pegasi prefer a Good Master...but they are ALL going to be unfaithful to an Evil one. It's a character trait, not just an alignment=at-birth issue. But even an Evil pegasi is going to quickly figure out that a Good master tends to be a nicer person then an Evil one...easier to take advantage of, if nothing else. I liken it directly to the Evil Priest serving the Good faith...with more animal pragmatism thrown in. ====================== As for Druidic faiths: My issue with the mercenary issue is 'spells for coin.' Why the Druid or Priest is a merc is immaterial. Once he starts accepting gold to cast spells at the direction of others, There Is A Problem. Once he's a merc, the 'belief' issue is a non-issue...he believes he's doing the right thing by selling his spell ability to others. Fine and dandy. You just gave perfect justification for me to do it OUTSIDE a militant setting. I can accept gold to cast spells for a bunch of warriors or the people they protect, but I can't do it to heal the same people unless I'm a soldier too? The argument can be spun many ways to now justify spells-for-coin. The 'soldier's wages' is a non-issue. It's a given that spellcasters in the militaries are not paid what they are worth commercially...therefore, the whole reason they are there is either conscription or belief. The 'wages' are basically cost of living and minor expenses. A soldier fights for a cause, generally national, or for his people. They make a living wage...and it's always less then that of a merc, because of the underlying belief/service aspect. A mercenary, by definition, fights for whomever pays the gold. I consider this a whole 'slippery slope' for divine spellcasters...it's basically a perfect justification of the 'spells for cash' mindset, and it's even institutionalized! If you prefer to 'hand-wave' the issue, go ahead. But there's been soooo many arguments about not allowing this to happen, and I, at least, consider this a direct contravention of those arguments. ============ War and armies are not a natural phenomanon...they are a product of civilization. Thus, I have a real problem with Druids serving in something as completely unnatural as a standing military. Conflicting beliefs over ethos are part of the nature of Divine conflict. Fey, having tremendous arcane aspects and very long lives, probably annoy the heck out of at least Two of the Eldeen sects (the Ash and the Winter, putting them at odds with the Greensingers). Clerics of the Sovereign Host AND the same God can make War on one another. Clashing beliefs are part and parcel of the setting. But a Druid, at least, should be framing his service in terms of what is and is not natural to the land, IMO. Being in a standing army, or a mercenary spell-soldier for hire, just does not fit my image of ANY druid, opposed to civilization or not. As for the Eldeen Reaches, what about them? Those are militia groups, guerilla raiders, militant oppositionists...not mercs and standing armies. they might consist of a significant military force, but that does not make them a standing army, or even 'soldiers'...most assuredly not to the same level that the Valenar seem to be taking it, completely sublimating their divine mandates to the military nature of their people and their 'ancestral emulance'. They've become little more then arcane casters with better hit points by the way they are described, druidic magic just another sword in the arsenal. I find it very disillusioning, not 'an expanded option for play'. I've always believed that getting Divine magic of any sort should come with strings, but it seems Druids can now hand-wave any strings they get. =========== Dave, that 'period of inactivity' was very deliberate on my part. I got tired of it all and stopped posting to the thread...and watched the thread drop, and drop and drop, because I wouldn't post...and nobody had anything to post except rebuttals to me. There were basically 3-4 posts 'total' after I pulled out. And then I come back, and bing! wheeeeeee. Everything moves forwards again en masse. Sure, you popped it back to the front page...but the activity level still didn't do much. :o ===Aelryinth
Siran Dunmorgan 12-15-05, 02:50 AM	As for Druidic faiths: War and armies are not a natural phenomanon...they are a product of civilization. Thus, I have a real problem with Druids serving in something as completely unnatural as a standing military. I'm not sure I understand. What's unnatural about war? Or a standing army? Wars—and standing armies, and cities, for that matter—exist in a great many species in nature. With respect to the pay issue, druid is the only class in the Player's Handbook that is specifically noted as being paid in coin for their services. —Siran Dunmorgan
Just another user 12-15-05, 02:56 AM	Hellcow, If you will refer back to my post on Riding, you'll note I call out a singular fact. Griffons, Hippogriffs, pegasi all require an exotic saddle. You would also need an exotic saddle to ride a beholder, a crocodile or a dolphin. I don't justify the fact they are 'difficult' by the fact they aren't mentioned...I do it because their description SPECIFICALLY demands a saddle that is exotic...just like any other weird, hard-to-ride creature. ===Aelryinth That is your interpretation. There is nothing in the rules that associate exotic saddle = hard to ride. (but feel free to prove me wrong quoting your sources) Exotic saddle only means that a standard saddle would not fit the creature and you need one made to measure, i.e made by order and hence more expensive. And the -5 penalty to ride is, IIRC, for creatures that are unfit to be used as a mount, a beholder is not made to be used as a mount, as is a crocodile or a giant eagle, but can you really affirm that a pegasi is unfit to be used as a mount? Someway I doubt it.
a_psh 12-15-05, 05:06 AM	A mercenary, by definition, fights for whomever pays the gold. I consider this a whole 'slippery slope' for divine spellcasters...it's basically a perfect justification of the 'spells for cash' mindset, and it's even institutionalized!Ah, but this thing that you (and others, rarely) keep bringing up is a non-issue to begin with. Priests that are so inclined already cast spells for money. This has been established. It has also been established that only low-level magic is available and that the temple is generally not the locus of spells-for-cash. References that demonstrate the fact that Eberron assumes some level of divine magic available for money have alreayd been cited, as have references to the limits of this, which are (IIRC): 1.) There aren't a lot of high-level casters around. 2.) The high-level priests usually have better things to do, like run their organization or undertake perilous tasks. 3.) Spells-for-cash largely does not occur in temples. The barrier you see being broken by all of this doesn't exist in the first place. It's a lot like the real-world analogy someone posted on page 3 or 4... a real-life minister might do all kinds of side things for money, even things deeply related to his primary vocation and skill set, but he's going to keep his moonlighting out of the church itself. I think paid couples counseling by clergy was the example used. ... Dave, that 'period of inactivity' was very deliberate on my part. I got tired of it all and stopped posting to the thread...and watched the thread drop, and drop and drop, because I wouldn't post...and nobody had anything to post except rebuttals to me.Apologies, but why are we trying to figure out who started what back up when now? ... An exotic saddle is merely more expensive. The presence of one does not signify a "difficult to ride" creature all by itself. ... Oh, also, practically everyone on this thread, take note: The correct singular form of "pegasus" is... "pegasus". "Pegasi" is plural and only plural. If you ever find yourself writing "a pegasi", stop and change it to "a pegasus".
Roxlimn 12-15-05, 10:29 AM	I think, aelryinth, that the main reason why no one understands what your point is is because it seems to most of us that you are just making most of it up. The problem exists not with what Hellcow has said, anywhere, but mainly in your own head, based on opinions you cannot understand are merely your own and not fact, as you suppose them to be. I gather this specifically from one instance, but I believe it holds for many of your difficulties with Hellcow's so-called "inconsistencies." I'm not saying at ALL that if 'the rules don't say it's impossible...etc." I'm saying that the rules of the game say, if NPC's can do it, so can PC's. Not being able to do so is a 1E/2E concept the likes of Monte Cook, SKR, ANdy Collins, and Skip Williams moved radically away from. You know...the Game Designers. This information is YEARS old...but I'm sure that if you care to direct an inquiry at Monte or the others concerning this issue, they'll confirm their design views again. The entire game was radically redone to embrace this concept and view. See how this works. There are many levels on why this is wrong, but I'll limit my comments to two: 1. It still does not make your argument valid. It's still Appeal to Ignorance fallacy, which is largely why I think your arguments are almost completely worthless - not worth my time to post something more regularly, you see. 2. You have no basis for saying your incredible and clueless statement: "If the NPCs can do it, so can the PCs." In fact, I can quote a Behind the Curtains sidebar for you that more or less runs completely counter to your supposed fact. I could appeal to you to limit your wholly baseless statements, but I don't see much point to it since you've never responded to such calls in the past. I challenge you to substantiate your claim that the PCs can make Eldrtich Machines on their own, without hand-waved and gratuitous allowances on the part of the DM. Put up or shut up.
Euangelion 12-15-05, 11:08 AM	And yet, when I post, the thread moves and debate goes forwards. Strange, no? ==Aelryinth No, when you post the thread gets bogged down in meta-arguments because the way you construct your assertions makes it difficult to address your points. You bury your points under a mass of inconsistent lines of thought. And for the record, I was having what I thought was the start of a positive discussion regarding the superiority of the glidewing over the V-warhorse as a mount. But that discussion is now buried under a page and a half of arguments about you. So forgive me if I find your statement that when you post "the thread moves and debate goes forward" to be inaccurate. However, I will agree with you if you were to say that "when I post the thread locks up and the debate suddenly revolves around me." Personally, I think its high time for the WizO's to lock this thread up, because it seems to me that the likelyhood that real substantitive debate will suddenly break out to be rather small.
Siran Dunmorgan 12-15-05, 11:39 AM	And for the record, I was having what I thought was a positive discussion regarding the superiority of the glidewing over the V-warhorse as a mount... Personally, I think its high time for the WizO's to lock this thread up, because it seems to me that the likelyhood that real substantitive debate will suddenly break out to be rather small. I disagree—I'd like to hear more about glidewings. :) And the dinosaur and reptile ecology of Khorvaire in general. Questions like "are dinosaurs actually found all over Khorvaire, or only in the Talenta Plains and Blade Desert?" On the assumption that dinosaurs are closely related to birds, it seems likely that small herbivorous dinosaurs could be kept or herded as meat animals over much of southern Khorvaire, in much the same way as turkeys or geese in a more traditional world. More on the topic of druids, however, this debate has been productive in elucidating a number of points about the rôle of druids in Eberron in general and Khorvaire in particular, and I—for one—would encourage that to continue. Personally, I believe that the point about mercenary druids is moot: the Player's Handbook states fairly clearly that druids adventure to gain knowledge and power. It seems that if becoming mercenary—aye, even to casting spells on demand in exchange for coin—is a means to that end, it is possible to find a druid doing exactly that. There will also be druids who find such things distasteful, even abhorrent. The druids of Khorvaire include the entire range: from primitive, savage druids living without shelter of any kind in the wild lands, screaming at any other humanoids they encounter, to philosophical, urbane druids living in comfortable houses in Sharn and teaching cultural anthropology at Morgrave University. To believe that all druids behave the way that we expect druids to behave based on our experience of traditional Dungeons & Dragons settings is to deny a principal element of the uniqueness of Eberron, that such assumptions are frequently "turned on their heads" while still remaining true to the Rules As Written. —Siran Dunmorgan
Hellcow 12-15-05, 01:37 PM	Well, I just spent an hour posting a long, ranty response, and now I'm removing it. It just doesn't serve any useful purpose to argue over things like the interpretation of the Ride skill. I agree with Siran: if this thread has a value, it is exploring these questions, as opposed to arguing about semantics. People can and will run their games as they see fit. I will, however, say a few things. First, on Ride. Aelryinth, I agree with you: it is unrealisitic to think that riding a flying creature would be as easy as riding a land creature. And I believe that the designers of 3.5 were perfectly aware of this when they chose to remove any penalty or specific proficiency requirement for riding flying creatures, just as when they merged Innuendo with other skills. It's a game... a story. Realism is not always fun. In Eberron in particular, we're drawing on the pulps, where realism is a very low priority. If I've got a paladin with an 8 Int, I can't afford to split my Ride skill - but I want to be able to ride the pegasus and the unicorn. D&D 3.5 allows me to do that. Realistic? Not at all. But it's colorful and fun. Second, on alignments. I have never "espoused base neutral alignments"; actually, if you check my posts on paladins, I'm the one saying that in the common room of an average tavern three out of ten people will probably be evil. I believe in a spectrum of alignment, which is what the ECS says. I believe that culture and environment can and should have an impact on these things, but aren't the be-all end-all; a harsh lawful society may produce a lot of lawful people, but it can also inspire a chaotic spirit of revolution, even if it is hidden. Orcs as a whole aren't evil (or neutral). Gatekeepers tend to be lawful neutral. Ghaash'kala tend to be good. Followers of the Dragon Below tend to be evil. The Jhorash'tar are driven by vengeance, but that doesn't make them evil. Culture and environment, not "Orcs are inherently alignment X". Personally, I'll do the same with pegasi: if the players encounter a herd of pegasi in the wild, I'd want to look at the environment and consider the situation. Perhaps there's a flight of pegasi in Droaam who are vicious and cruel... or alternately, a flight in Droaam that are actually devotees of the Silver Flame, who have been hunting the Dark Pack. Unless there is a magical force at work driving them towards a particular alignment, I see no reason for any intelligent creature to be inherently any alignment, before culture and environment comes into effect. And as for the other groups I've done, I actually think Zilargo is one of the scariest nations in Khorvaire - I wouldn't call the Trust neutral (good). And when you consider the full ranks of the quori ancestors of the kalashtar, risen fiends actually far outnumber fallen celestials. The idea that pegasi may never serve evil masters, regardless of alignment, is certainly true by the rules and there's no real reason to assume that's not accurate. I'm merely suggesting that people expand their views of House Vadalis: their skills, capabilities, and traditions. In my opinion, if a pegasus will never serve an evil master, House Vadalis is well aware of that - and won't sell a pegasus to an evil master. The first thing a pegasus handler will say when introducing the pegasus to the prospective buyer is "What do you thing of him, girl?" She'll do the mystical *sniff*, and if he's evil, the handler will say "Sorry, sir, but this won't work out for you." I'd expect the handler to be an expert with Diplomacy and Sense Motive as well as Handle Animal, with long experience working with intelligent creatures; when I get the chance, I'll certainly develop feats or other tools that help explain House Vadalis' knack for working with these creatures. The idea that pegasi can be trained has also been part of D&D since the begining (the 1st edition DMG actually goes into much more detail about the training of pegasi and griffons, since there was no Handle Animal skill then), and in my opinion, we're actually presenting a solid explanation for how you could buy a pegasus - by creating a house with 1,800 years of experience at working with them. To me, it's not a question of "Can pegasi be sold?" - it's already established that they can be. That's a fact both of the setting and the MM. Instead, the question becomes "HOW can they be sold?" What would it take? What techniques will Vadalis have developed? This is what makes Vadalis such an interesting house. They do work with creatures that we normally don't see domesticated. They perform magebreeding, something which (despite the earlier discussion of sacred cows) there are currently no rules for. One of the basic tenets of Eberron is the idea that if magic existed, society would adapt around it... and House Vadalis is built around the principle that if magical creatures exist, people will find ways to domesticate them or take advantage of them. But that, in itself, is a whole 'nother topic.
davethebrave371 12-15-05, 04:00 PM	Sure, any intelligent creature CAN be anything...but not all Pegasi are indoctrinated by Vadalis, and their natural tendency is towards CG (but is not absolute!). It's a stereotype and a starting point. But we were only talking about those indoctrinated by Vadalis. Wasn't that the point, that Vadalis would be selling them, alongside glidewings and hippogrifs, in lieu of Valenar War Horses and the like? Of course they have a natural tendency, but as Hellcow mentions above me, there might be a dark flight in Droaam, and so too is there LN ones sold by Vadalis (at least, that's the alignment I'd imagine the "mass market" versions would be, I'm sure you could get them to customize training to yourself for a bunch more money, and if you're CN, they could try and raise it that way). The point is, you're arguing semantics about alignment as it pertains to the race as a whole, as opposed to how they'd be trained for customers, which could be as different as Khyber orcs worshipping the Dragon Below and Gatekeeper orcs. As for Druidic faiths: My issue with the mercenary issue is 'spells for coin.' Why the Druid or Priest is a merc is immaterial. Once he starts accepting gold to cast spells at the direction of others, There Is A Problem. Once he's a merc, the 'belief' issue is a non-issue...he believes he's doing the right thing by selling his spell ability to others. Fine and dandy. You just gave perfect justification for me to do it OUTSIDE a militant setting. I can accept gold to cast spells for a bunch of warriors or the people they protect, but I can't do it to heal the same people unless I'm a soldier too? The argument can be spun many ways to now justify spells-for-coin. The 'soldier's wages' is a non-issue. It's a given that spellcasters in the militaries are not paid what they are worth commercially...therefore, the whole reason they are there is either conscription or belief. The 'wages' are basically cost of living and minor expenses. A soldier fights for a cause, generally national, or for his people. They make a living wage...and it's always less then that of a merc, because of the underlying belief/service aspect. A mercenary, by definition, fights for whomever pays the gold. I consider this a whole 'slippery slope' for divine spellcasters...it's basically a perfect justification of the 'spells for cash' mindset, and it's even institutionalized! If you prefer to 'hand-wave' the issue, go ahead. But there's been soooo many arguments about not allowing this to happen, and I, at least, consider this a direct contravention of those arguments. Ok, I see the crux of your argument now. You assume they go to the highest bidder, and that this is a money issue. Now, I am only making an assumption as well, but remember that neither your opinion nor mine can be sourced, since they are just that: house rules. In my opinion, they took Cyre's offer because Cyre was the first. I'm sure Breland or Aundair's coffers could have made competitive offers, and I'm sure they did. They only took the offer from Cyre because it was the only way they could get their cultural-religious freak on. It wasn't about money, it was belief. Same as a soldier joining up with Cyre. I would argue that they wouldn't fall down that "slippery slope" simply because it was belief motivating them in the first place. If it violates their beliefs, like any other person, they wouldn't do it. If a Karrnathi Cleric of the Silver Flame was asked to join up, but not forced, I don't think he would unless he felt his nation was in the right. Some SF followers don't buy into that whole "The Flame is the only true way." thing, same as there are some Christians who don't buy into that today. Ergo, he might join if he feels Thrane as a whole is misinterpreting the faith, and if he feels Karrnath has the best claim to the throne for whatever reason. A Thranish Cleric of the same alignment might feel differently about the doctrine, and agree with the majority, and so joins up with Thrane to convert all of Khorvaire, through the sword, to the Flame. Just like a Valenar warband fighting for its faith's ideals: emulation of ancestors. However, like a SF cleric, they won't just join the army for "belief", unless they have some Vow of Poverty or something. They know they need that money for upkeep while doing their religious business. Again, this is just my house ruled opinion. Just as yours is. I can't find anything official that supports your belief that they do it for gold, unless you count your opinion that their commanders and leaders taking gold makes them mercenary, in which case the clerics who join up with regular military forces are also "mercenary", since they do it for the exact same reasons, and wouldn't switch sides even for better pay, at least as I see it. I don't think there's any proof they did switch sides for better pay. There's at least marginal proof that they stayed on their own side the whole time, seeing as they accepted Cyre's invitation to do battle with everything in sight not under a Cyran banner, and then decided even Cyre was not worthy. That seems pretty devout to me, and definately not tied to pay. War and armies are not a natural phenomanon...they are a product of civilization. Thus, I have a real problem with Druids serving in something as completely unnatural as a standing military. Conflicting beliefs over ethos are part of the nature of Divine conflict. Fey, having tremendous arcane aspects and very long lives, probably annoy the heck out of at least Two of the Eldeen sects (the Ash and the Winter, putting them at odds with the Greensingers). Clerics of the Sovereign Host AND the same God can make War on one another. Clashing beliefs are part and parcel of the setting. But a Druid, at least, should be framing his service in terms of what is and is not natural to the land, IMO. Being in a standing army, or a mercenary spell-soldier for hire, just does not fit my image of ANY druid, opposed to civilization or not. As for the Eldeen Reaches, what about them? Those are militia groups, guerilla raiders, militant oppositionists...not mercs and standing armies. they might consist of a significant military force, but that does not make them a standing army, or even 'soldiers'...most assuredly not to the same level that the Valenar seem to be taking it, completely sublimating their divine mandates to the military nature of their people and their 'ancestral emulance'. They've become little more then arcane casters with better hit points by the way they are described, druidic magic just another sword in the arsenal. I find it very disillusioning, not 'an expanded option for play'. I've always believed that getting Divine magic of any sort should come with strings, but it seems Druids can now hand-wave any strings they get. First off, we may be able to conclusively say that war is not "natural" in our own world, since only one species does it, but it would be an issue of contention in a fantasy world for druids (as Hellcow elaborated) since sentience would become an issue. Is sentience "natural"? There are plenty of species with it. Even constructs and the dead can be sentient...then again, they can also have animal intelligence, so is that natural? If a sect decides that it is, then they would have little qualms about entering a war so long as it aligned with their beliefs. If a sect decides that it isn't, then obviously they wouldn't. As for my bolded quote of yours there, their military nature and ancestral emulance is their culture's divine mandate. The ECS and Races of Eberron make that very clear. Even the Dragonshard for which this thread is named makes it clear that their primary job is taking care of ancestral horses! Nothing is being sublimated, since what you say sublimates is in fact the essence of what they consider divine. Dave, that 'period of inactivity' was very deliberate on my part. I got tired of it all and stopped posting to the thread...and watched the thread drop, and drop and drop, because I wouldn't post...and nobody had anything to post except rebuttals to me. There were basically 3-4 posts 'total' after I pulled out. And then I come back, and bing! wheeeeeee. Everything moves forwards again en masse. Sure, you popped it back to the front page...but the activity level still didn't do much. :o ===Aelryinth I think Euangelion said all that needs be said on this point.
davethebrave371 12-15-05, 04:07 PM	I disagree—I'd like to hear more about glidewings. :) And the dinosaur and reptile ecology of Khorvaire in general. Questions like "are dinosaurs actually found all over Khorvaire, or only in the Talenta Plains and Blade Desert?" On the assumption that dinosaurs are closely related to birds, it seems likely that small herbivorous dinosaurs could be kept or herded as meat animals over much of southern Khorvaire, in much the same way as turkeys or geese in a more traditional world. I actually use their "Environment" entry to say where I feel they'd be, and in fact have quite a few dinosaur types in the Eldeen Reaches. I feel that there is simply a larger concentration in the Talenta Planes and Xen'drik than other areas, and more dinosaurs in those two areas out of their "typical" environment than elsewhere. That's how I run it, anyway.
Hellcow 12-15-05, 05:14 PM	On the subject of war and nature, I personally like the "storm druid" points that were made earlier. This is the sort of thing I had in mind with the druid who rides into battle, and is similar in principle to the Children of Winter. Nature may not produce creatures which fight for the same reasons as humans do. But nature IS a source of terrible destruction. The druid who embodies that destruction has no interest in the ploitics of the situation, and doesn't fight because he supports the cause or believes that group A deserves to control the territory disputed by group B. He joins in the fight because it gives him the opportunity to unleash the power of the storm. If he just walked up to a village and destroyed it, he and his companions would be hunted. But here, people come to him and ASK him to bring the fury of the storm to their doorstep. It is the chance to do what he might do anyway, to perform an act that he sees as meditation and prayer, washing away the works of man with the power of the storm. And people ask for it. As I said earlier on this thread, I don't believe that gold is the primary motivation for most Valenar mercenaries. I think that it's easily possible that a druid in a warband being paid will actually refuse to take his share of the pay; the gold isn't why he's there. Same principle as the old paladin, who was supposed to refuse gold when traveling in an adventuring party. I know that some believe that a druid in a warband must obey absolutely every order given by the people that hire him. It's not my intention to debate that point: it's become clear that such arguments are counterproductive. By now, we all know our respective opinions. But in case mine isn't clear, I do believe that the druid will not place himself under the command of the employer, and that a warband will function more as an autonomous unit: accomplishing the goal, but doing so in accordance with their own tactical guidelines, and if you don't like that, don't hire them. Obviously a cavalry unit will coordinate with any other troops it will be working with, but it will not disperse among them. Warbands do not, and will not, accept every job. An expert cavalry unit won't sign on as wall guards, no matter the gold involved. A commando unit won't volunteer to lead a charge. A warband devoted to paragons of honor and virtue won't volunteer for an ambush. If they take a job, they'll carry it out. But they'll only take a job if it matches their interests and skills... and the presence of a druid is something that would play a major role in "interests and skills." A warband is a tight-knight group, as close as a family. If the other members of the warband do not respect the beliefs of the druid, he wouldn't remain with them: therefore, if a druid is a member of a warband, he is a valued part of it, they understand what drives him, and the missions they are willing to take will reflect that. Again: not an argument. If you disagree, that's OK. I'm not going to change my mind, and I don't expect anyone else to: I just wanted to say once and for all where I stand on the matter. I agree with previous posters: the destructive power of nature is an awesome thing, and something just as worthy of respect as the beauty of life. The traditional image of the druid is that of the defender, but as the PHB says, horror, death, and violence are also part of nature, and from the begining I wanted to include the druids who respected those powers as well as the defenders of the wild. As for the Greensingers: well, in a month you'll see more about them in the Player's Guide to Eberron. But what is their deal? How does this fey connection work? In Eberron, magic IS a part of the magical world. The Ashbound despise wizards, who use words and formulas to twist reality. But they don't hate the displacer beast for simply being magical. To me (and only to me) this is what the fey represent: they are the incarnations of magic, as the elemental is the incarnation of fire. This, then, is the role of the Greensinger: to embrace this magic that is part of the natural world, the song that most living creatures cannot hear. Certainly, the Ashbound and Greensingers will often be at cross purposes and may even come to blows. But to the Greensinger, the fey are part of nature: a beautiful part of nature most people never see.
davethebrave371 12-15-05, 06:25 PM	As I said earlier on this thread, I don't believe that gold is the primary motivation for most Valenar mercenaries. I think that it's easily possible that a druid in a warband being paid will actually refuse to take his share of the pay; the gold isn't why he's there. Same principle as the old paladin, who was supposed to refuse gold when traveling in an adventuring party. I know that some folks (not naming names, because I've heard that it's rude ;)) believe that a druid in a warband must obey absolutely every order given by the people that hire him. It's not my intention to debate that point: it's become clear that such arguments are counterproductive. By now, we all know our respective opinions. But in case mine isn't clear, I do believe that the druid will not place himself under the command of the employer, and that a warband will function more as an autonomous unit: accomplishing the goal, but doing so in accordance with their own tactical guidelines, and if you don't like that, don't hire them. Obviously a cavalry unit will coordinate with any other troops it will be working with, but it will not disperse among them. Warbands do not, and will not, accept every job. An expert cavalry unit won't sign on as wall guards, no matter the gold involved. A commando unit won't volunteer to lead a charge. A warband devoted to paragons of honor and virtue won't volunteer for an ambush. If they take a job, they'll carry it out. But they'll only take a job if it matches their interests and skills... and the presence of a druid is something that would play a major role in "interests and skills." A warband is a tight-knight group, as close as a family. If the other members of the warband do not respect the beliefs of the druid, he wouldn't remain with them: therefore, if a druid is a member of a warband, he is a valued part of it, they understand what drives him, and the missions they are willing to take will reflect that. As usual, I wish I could have been that eloquent earlier on. Not to kiss buttocks, but that's exactly how I viewed it, and was trying to get across this whole thread. Takes you one post what it takes me several pages to get across to no avail. Although, again, as you said, just opinion. We can all differ in opinion. No Hasbro police to come knockin' on our doors.
aelryinth 12-16-05, 12:07 AM	That is your interpretation. There is nothing in the rules that associate exotic saddle = hard to ride. (but feel free to prove me wrong quoting your sources) Exotic saddle only means that a standard saddle would not fit the creature and you need one made to measure, i.e made by order and hence more expensive. And the -5 penalty to ride is, IIRC, for creatures that are unfit to be used as a mount, a beholder is not made to be used as a mount, as is a crocodile or a giant eagle, but can you really affirm that a pegasi is unfit to be used as a mount? Someway I doubt it. IF you can ride a floating beachball, I think you can ride a pegasus. I never intimated they were unfit to ride. I noted they were difficult to ride...because they are a flying animal with wings. I'd think riding a beholder would be easier then anything, because of their perfect manuverability...but I rather doubt that would fly well. If you think about it, just about anything can be fit to use as a mount, if it's common enough. It's whether your 'mount' is close enough to the 'common' mount that strikes you as an 'easy ride'. I'm of the firm opinion that a winged mount is not anything like riding a walking horse...just as riding a beholder is going to be different, but probably easier then riding a pegasus! Thus, the easy -5 penalty and the matter is done with. No need to split the skills anymore...and ripeness for a feat to remove the penalty. And you know, I did say that was my interpretation, and you were free to disagree with it. ================ I haven't advocated absolute obedience of anything to anyone ANYWHERE I've posted. I've made the simple point of merc Druid/cleric = spells/cash, and not just "O heal me I'm down 8 Hit points." The divine caster might be believing in what he does, but the end result is the same whether he's a zealot or a not...it might not be a task that directly furthers his faith, but he's a merc and ambivalently neutral about it. As long as its not opposed, he'll do it...it's now his job, not just about his beliefs. Honestly, the conflict comes from reading far more into what I post. "Absolute Obedience" is a term I've never used. ================ Hellcow, 'base neutral' is what I meant by the 'any alignment' viewpoint. Your example is EXACTLY what I meant. An even spread of alignments around Neutral, with slight favoritism to N (the base). You did use 3/10 are Evil, not 3/9, right? Well, I'm of the mind that pegasi are 'base CG' and their alignment flows around there. It doesn't disallow any other alignment...but I just don't think they are base N like Humans are. But, that's an IMO. ========= As for being per-snickety about the plurality of pegasus...(sigh) http://www.sca.org/heraldry/loar/1985/09/cvr.html The plural of Pegasus In my cover letter of 8 May 1985, I asked the College of Arms for the correct plural of pegasus. The following is courtesy of the aforementioned Bruce Draconarius of Mistholme: The original word for the winged horse of myth is the Greek Peggsos. Its diminutive is Peggsion, its adjectival or genitive form is Pegasidos; so the pristine Greek plural would be Pegisides. [1] The Greek Pegisos was subsumed directly into Latin, and into Middle English via Old French. In each case the spelling was changed to conform to local grammatical usage. In Latin, it became Pegasus, whose plural is Peggasi. I know this because of a stater [a type of coin) of Corinth, stamped with an image of the winged horse and taking its name from it; and the plural of the coin pegasus is definitely pegasi. [2] In English, the word became Pegase, Pegasee; and the plural became Pegases. [3] In later centuries the Latin form was itself subsumed into English, and was made to conform to its usage; a 1761 treatise on heraldry gives Pegasusses as the plural. [3) To sum up, then, there are many words that might be used to denote a group of winged horses. But to answer the question you asked, the plural of pegasus is pegasi or pegasusses., depending on your linguistic purity. I prefer pegasi, myself, he said reflexively AND Absolute astronomy.com lists the plural form of the constellation Pegasus as Pegasi. So, the plural form is not pegasus, it's pegasi. Can we drop the nit-picking on semantics, now? ================ As for Zilargo, did I refer to the Trust? Nope. I said the Gnomish society, which has such faith in its invisible government it does wonderfully without an open ruler. This is about the best representation of a pure and ruthless NG government that I think mortals can come up with. You better be good, for goodness sake...and the people have enough faith in the Trust's definition of 'goodness' to let it go on doing what it does. A hard line for good can be as terrifying as a hard line for evil, without the self-interest that allows some room for us neutral types. Their primary form of competition may be fairly ruthless...but is IS non-violent. So, base N(G) society...with room for expansion outwards. ---------- And as for the Glidewing, it got mentioned, discussed the merits, and we've gone on. It's one among many alternatives. -------------- As for standing armies and cities, I can't think of a single higher life form that does that. Mmmm, bugs and specialized functions in society...which tend to double their soldiers with 'kill food' bugs. Sure, you get colonies and nest building...but druids aren't opposed to family/blood centered living arrangements and living in harmony with nature, so where did that come from? ----------------------- Differentiation of arcane magic among intelligent beings vs unintelligent. Is the Displacer Beast using arcane magic or just magic? If the fey are seen differently then humans, is sorcery seen as different from wizardry? What about gnomish wizards, with natural illusion crafting? Is what they do unnatural? How about Dragonmarks? Unless they are against Dragonmarks, the Mark of Making is almost a direct proof of the validity of artificing. Methinks the Ashbound have a tremendous amount of skewed bias...but thats part and parcel of representing a closed set of druidic beliefs, I be guessing. But now it looks like the set of druidic beliefs is every bit as liberal and all-encompassing as clerical beliefs...without the messiness of having to choose domains to do it. :( I kinda miss the underlying uniformity and focus. They are becoming more and more like clerics and wizards every day. And the whole druids inna military thing seems to make it moreso. :P Ah well. More things to see covered. ==Aelryinth
Euangelion 12-16-05, 12:40 AM	And as for the Glidewing, it got mentioned, discussed the merits, and we've gone on. It's one among many alternatives. But that's kind of the point. You and Errant both dismissed the glidewing as not being widely popular because it's a reptile, and therefore not suitable to cold climates. I countered with the point that some pterosaurs had a kind of fur, and many paleontologists now believe that they were active flyers (like their distant cousins, the birds). These two factors strongly suggest that real world pterosaurs were warm-blooded (like birds). Game-wise, is it a big deal? Heck no. But that's the most agravating thing about the way you debate. Someone brings up a strong point to counter one of yours, and you drop it (Edit: the discussion, not your weak point. Your other tactic is to ignore the other's point, and continue the debate as if it were never presented). And you missed the real point, that your participation makes it harder to have a healthy discussion, rather than moving things forward.
a_psh 12-16-05, 12:47 AM	As for being per-snickety about the plurality of pegasus...(sigh) http://www.sca.org/heraldry/loar/1985/09/cvr.html <SNIP! /> AND Absolute astronomy.com lists the plural form of the constellation Pegasus as Pegasi. So, the plural form is not pegasus, it's pegasi. Can we drop the nit-picking on semantics, now?I don't pick nits unless I know I'm right. (Tiny, tiny nit to pick: semantics means "meaing and interpretation"; this is strictly a matter of grammar.) Thank you for the explanation. It is, most honestly, good to know that the plural of "pegasus" is just as confusing as the plural of "octopus" (octopi? octopuses? octopodes? pick whichever you like!). However, I now ask you to read what I actually wrote: The correct singular form of "pegasus" is... "pegasus". "Pegasi" is plural and only plural. If you ever find yourself writing "a pegasi", stop and change it to "a pegasus". Emphasis added. Note the emphasized word: "singular." Pegasus. The word "pegasus" itself is singular. Turning it into "pegasi" makes it plural. It's not the only way to make it plural, but, in English, "pegasi" is, unequivocally, not a singular form of the word. Now, using the basic functionality of my browser to search for the phrase "a pegasi" and no other possible erroneous uses, and just counting your misuses (acceptable use: "a pegasi ranch" - here it's an adjective-y thing; incorrect use: "it is hard to ride a pegasi"), I find at least ten on this thread. I am not being persnickety about correct pluralization. I'm being persnickety about the fact that "pegasus" is the only singular form of the word. And, yes, I am being persnickety. I totally agree with the characterization. But: 1.) I'm complaining about basic singular vs. plural, not arcane "Is this Latin? Is this Greek?" pluralization rules. 2.) Folks are using it wrong, sir, and doing so consistently. As such, I think I'm well within my rights to pound out two whole lines (~30 seconds of my time to write them, ~30 seconds of everyone's time to read them) to correct what is a straightforwardly-correctable mistake being made by several people over and over again. So, in short, you're arguing something much more grammatically arcane and completely unrelated to what I actually posted. Even if one was to write "pegasides" or "pegasuses" or "pegases" or whatever, it would still be erroneous if used in sentences like "Molly wants a pegasi pegasus for her birthday" (the red version is the correct one), which clearly call for the singular form of the word only. I'm willing to just assume that the whole torrent of argument against this is an honest error caused by skimming too fast and move on if you are.
a_psh 12-16-05, 01:12 AM	But that's kind of the point. You and Errant both dismissed the glidewing as not being widely popular because it's a reptile, and therefore not suitable to cold climates. I countered with the point that some pterosaurs had a kind of fur, and many paleontologists now believe that they were active flyers (like their distant cousins, the birds). These two factors strongly suggest that real world pterosaurs were warm-blooded (like birds). Game-wise, is it a big deal? Heck no.Well, even if they're a warm-climate only critter, I definitely see them being used in southern climes. Fighting did happen there, too, after all. I would speculate that most pterosaur riders involved in the Last War would be mercenary halflings, however, as they have cultural knowledge of the techniques required to ride one and I see most human air cavalry as being elite soldiers on beefier mounts. Such halflings would make good airborne scouts and skirmishers, for example, but I think guys on dragonhawks, wyverns, or griffons would certainly be better suited for shock tactics in battle: all the power of a heavy cavalry charge, but from a much less well-defended direction.
maollelujah 12-16-05, 01:19 AM	But that's kind of the point. You and Errant both dismissed the glidewing as not being widely popular because it's a reptile, and therefore not suitable to cold climates. I countered with the point that some pterosaurs had a kind of fur, and many paleontologists now believe that they were active flyers (like their distant cousins, the birds). These two factors strongly suggest that real world pterosaurs were warm-blooded (like birds). Game-wise, is it a big deal? Heck no. And you missed the real point, that your participation makes it harder to have a healthy discussion, rather than moving things forward. The Glidewing, at 800 gp, would be a cheap way to enter the air race. The only problem (rules aside) with the Glidewing is that unless it is a "magical beast" I can't imagine how it can carry the saddle (30 lbs) let alone 300 lbs, considering they weigh about 50 lbs themselves. The other problem with them is that they eat fish, which means you need to provide them with fish. Other that they are fine.
Hellcow 12-16-05, 01:25 AM	The weird thing about your posts, Aelryinth, is that you come across as being very angry. I don't know if you mean to or not, but I feel like if we were having a conversation, you'd be shouting at me. I feel like you want this to be an argument, as opposed to a conversation. Honestly? I don't. I don't see the need. We believe different things. Neither of us is going to change our opinions, that should be clear by now. If someone wants to elaborate on a point they've already made, and in doing so provide new ideas that people who share their opinions may use in their games, great. But that's all I'm looking for here. On the issue of Ride, I still can't read the first few sentence of the skill the way you want me to. It specifically states what the skill should apply to, including griffons and dragons. It tells me what is penalized, calling out bipeds. In my opinion, if they intended me to suffer a penalty when riding a dragon, the writer did a terrible job with what should be a trivial task; all he needed to do is say "You suffer a -5 penalty when riding a creature that is ill-suited as a mount (such as bipeds or flying creatures)" and bang, no argument. But I understand why you prefer to do things differently. I understand that it's more realistic to do things differently; I just don't see that as automatically being a virtue. And I did notice that you said it was just your opinion... as this is just mine. So why am I even bringing it up again? Honestly, I don't know. You'd think we would both have better things to do, yet here we are. Well, I'm of the mind that pegasi are 'base CG' and their alignment flows around there. Fair enough. And yes, you are correct: in my opinion, without some magical or cultural force at work, I consider intelligent creatures to have a base neutral alignment; I misunderstood your remark. In a bad part of Sharn or the Demon Wastes, you will base off of evil. My point is that without some REASON why the newborn pegasus is inherently steered towards good - the way the kalashtar have the quori spirit seeding their mind with noble impulses - they'll be shaped by their surroundings. As I said before, if you give pegasi a reason to be inherently good - like the couatl - I'm all for it. At the moment, i don't see them as having such a reason, so I don't. But that's just my position. This is about the best representation of a pure and ruthless NG government that I think mortals can come up with. Interesting way of looking at it. I'll have to consider that. A hard line for good can be as terrifying as a hard line for evil, without the self-interest that allows some room for us neutral types. Agreed. Is the Displacer Beast using arcane magic or just magic? Just magic, I would say. At the heart, divine magic, arcane magic, and natural magic (which again in MY campaign I treat as a third category) are all different ways of manipulating the same energy. The issue is that the wizard is manipulating it in a way he was not meant to, while the displacer's talent is a gift from nature. But I'm certainly interested in hearing other opinions on the matter. If the fey are seen differently then humans, is sorcery seen as different from wizardry? What about gnomish wizards, with natural illusion crafting? Is what they do unnatural? How about Dragonmarks? Unless they are against Dragonmarks, the Mark of Making is almost a direct proof of the validity of artificing. These are certainly good questions, and I'd love to see what others have to say on the subject... again, perhaps getting back to discussion as opposed to argument. I would certainly say that the natural abilities common to all gnomes would be fine with the Ashbound. Note that these are spell-like abilities, not spells: they have no components and require no training. They are inherent, natural gifts. On that line of thinking, I think they'd be OK with dragonmarks: spell-like abilities, after all. However, I don't think THAT means they accept the entire Cannith magic-industrial complex. The heirs of House Cannith were given a gift. It lets them mend things. They didn't have to use that gift to create a monstrosity, as they have. Likewise, just because they accept gnomes speaking with animals doesn't mean they like gnome wizards. Spell-like abilities vs spells - it's very easy to tell them apart. So the real issue is sorcerers: and the problem is the question of "What are sorcerers?" While sorcerer's abilities are technically inherent, they are not spell-like abilities. They require components (which raises the question: how does a sorcerer learn what incantations, gestures, and material components are required for a spell? Does he just instinctively know when he needs 50 gp worth of powdered ruby?). As far as I know, when you watch a wizard and a sorcerer, there's no way to tell which is which. As such, I'd assume that the Ashbound will brain the sorcerer. Other opinions? I kinda miss the underlying uniformity and focus. They are becoming more and more like clerics and wizards every day. Then you should keep your druids as they are, and keep druids out of warbands. I won't come to your house and tell you to do otherwise. You obviously have a clear vision of what you want druids to be. it's been interesting to see it spelled out, and I'm not telling you you're wrong to use them as you do. What I am doing is describing how I see them in Eberron and how they are thus going to be portrayed in official material... which you can of course ignore. Yes, personally, my goal WAS to provide druids with some of the versatility of belief and ability that clerics recieve in 3.5: the Child of the Winter and the Warden essentially have different domains. With that said, in my mind, they still recognize that they are part of a greater whole... much as the priest of Balinor and the cleric of Aureon both worship the Sovereign Host. Life and Death are both part of nature. The Warden may not agree with the CoW's approach to death, and may try to heal someone infected by a CoW-initiated plague. But he still understands that the CoW sees herself as a servant of nature... twisted and confused in his view, but serving nature nonetheless. In my mind, the goal was to let people pick a druidic path that resonated with them. So far, I'm quite happy with the results. I've run games for Ashbound, Wardens, Gatekeepers, and even a Child of Winter. From a roleplaying perspective, each character was completely different and brought something unique to the story. So I am sorry they don't work for you, but it sounds like you've got your own vision that does. I'm happy with mine... and I look forward to the opportunity to explore it further in PGtE and future books.
a_psh 12-16-05, 01:50 AM	The Glidewing, at 800 gp, would be a cheap way to enter the air race. The only problem (rules aside) with the Glidewing is that unless it is a "magical beast" I can't imagine how it can carry the saddle (30 lbs) let alone 300 lbs, considering they weigh about 50 lbs themselves. Err, I'm rather rusty on flight rules: can a glidewing actually fly while bearing a Medium character, or are they going to be restricted to halfling-sized riders (by weight if not by size)?
aelryinth 12-16-05, 04:23 AM	Apsh, that was indeed a case of skimming. Having some english nut correct the plural form of pegasus just gets under my skin (not the first time I've seen it)...as for octopus, how bout them octopoids? Heh. =================== Hellcow, That's a VERY interesting case on Spell-like abilities. By that manner of thought, Hexblades and Warlocks are both perfectly acceptable as spellcasters! How wonderful:) Demonically-imbued casters good, intelligent and scholarly casters bad! And if you aren't born with magic, you don't deserve to have any...except our kind, of course, of course. I'd call them the magic nazis, but they aren't organized enough yet! (But, you know, they can join an army now...) --- I'll bring up one other point too...I don't consider qu'ori 'fiends' in the classic sense, since they are from the plane of dreams...AND since the race gets 'rebooted', they may have been 'celestials' at one point (and hence the whole race might be Fallen...maybe the Kalashtari are the 'original qu'ori'!). Also, you can't interact with the qu'ori who've formed the kalashtar, you can interact with Radiant Idols. And I'm pretty sure more celestials have Fallen then there are Kalashtar sponsors...:) (since we are going off-camera). I'd compare them more to the Rajahs, as 'powerful and present' but 'out-of-play'. Not so the Radiant Idols (3 of those in Sharn alone! with only 250K people there? How DO they stop killing one another). This isn't your fault, btw...there's bound to be more Evil creatures to interact with, because they make better foes then Good creatures. So we've got Radiant Idol cults because they make good Bad Guys...but Good Guys steal the spotlight from PC's if they are powerful, so they aren't in demand in the pulp setting of Eberron. A Redeemed LoD would be interesting...but he'd also be an 'Elminster' for Eberron. Better to handwave them and say they exist and keep right on going... Which, mmm, brings up an interesting point. The couatls were the natural rivals to the rakshasa/LoD here, is there another race of Good outsiders native to Eberron? Or a Neutral race of them? Because it IS rather strange that after a million years of experience dealing with Dragons and the like, that the LoD running around haven't been more successful at taking out their enemies. After all, there's LoD who can cast Freedom (reverse Imprisonment), so unless every lesser Lord was bound by the silver flame (which probably takes more then just a level 9 spell), they'd just get released eventually and keep on plugging away...and with the numbers and powers of Dragons declining, it seems like there would be another force at work. =============== I really having been looking at Eberron druids through a different lens...I've been looking at them as classic druids who have chosen different duties to focus themselves on. It seems to me that you are looking at them as divine casters using Nature magic in different ways. Once you seperate divine and nature magic, you do indeed get a clerical variant with a vastly different focus...and the different 'traditions' are effectively different 'churches' of the druidic faith. Mmmm. Well, like I said, that makes them more like clerics, and the dispersion of duties means they can justify just about any set of beliefs by cherry-picking the tradition that suits...which makes them more like wizards. With better HP and saves. Heh. I still don't like them serving in a standing military, however...eh. Too 'civilized'...military is 4th sector stuff, only consuming, never producing...like government. I'd think they'd avoid it like the plague...they'd want to stay in the First and Second Sectors, extractives and crafting, while minimizing the manufacturing aspect of the second. Going into the Third and Fourth means you are advancing civilization, not fighting it... ===================== Um, glidewings weigh 50 lbs? And can carry a rider? Exactly how strong are they? You can't fly with a heavy load, only lose altitude, I believe. ===== We DO need the question on dinosaur dispersal answered, too. After all, the Eldeen would be a playground for dinos, but it seems you are more likely to find dires and horrids of mammals and stuff there. Horrid advanced dire bear against a tyrannosaur, anyone? Plus, does it get cold in the Talenta? if Not, fine home for dinos...or maybe they just migrate south come winter, which is why the halflings are still nomadic. Sharn is supposed to be subtropical, so I'd think the Talenta are prob very warm year round...and dinos are still cold-blooded, unless there's a specific exception. Also, barring some exceptions, pterosaurs are relatively clumsy fliers, doing mostly gliding. Without some magic to justify aerial power (I mean seriously, pegasi wings only go 25'? Gotta be magic there...), they basically have to take off from some height and get some speed, or they don't get into the air. Not exactly what you want in an aerial mount... ==Aelryinth
Euangelion 12-16-05, 09:32 AM	On pages 280 and 281 of the ECS it has the stats for the glidewing. I'm not going to post all of them, of course, just the pertinent ones. First it's a Large animal, meaning it can carry Medium riders or smaller. Second, it has a ground speed of 20 ft., and a fly speed of 80 ft. Third, it has a strength of 18. Fourth, it can advance to as many as 10 HD. Fifth, it's light load is listed at 300 lbs. (mumbles something about people not bothering to look things up in the book before spouting off. They seem to be directed at himself.) Now, I did make a mistake before when I said it's price was 400 gp; it is 800 gp. This does make it less of a bargain compared to other mounts in general, especially a magebred version. But for a flying animal it's still a great buy, and unlike magical beasts like the griffon, pegasus, hippogriff, giant eagle, and giant owl, it can be magebred. Clearly, by the rules, a standard glidewing can carry a Medium rider with no problem. A fly speed of 80 ft. isn't great as fly speed go, but it's great compared to the speed of land animals. Lastly, there's nothing by the rules preventing Vadalis from producing magebred versions of the glidewing, most likely swiftbreed, thus increasing it's fly speed by 10 ft, and making it easier to work with. Feats like Hover and Improved Flight can be used to improve its flying abilities. And unlike the dragonhawk, there's probably vast numbers of them, and few besides the Ashbound are going to get hot and bothered if Vadalis starts experimenting with them.
Errant 12-16-05, 10:25 AM	Well, keep in mind that we don't know for sure whether real life pterosaurs were warm-blooded or cold-blooded. However, we know that some species had a kind of fur, and scientists believe they were active fliers, not simply gliders. These two factors strongly suggest that pterosaurs were warm-blooded. Even if you choose to go cold-blooded in your Eberron, don't forget that there are feats (Frostburn in particular has some) that the glidewing could be given to deal with the cold, representing Vadalis breeding glidewings specifically for use in cold climates. Also, I can't think of anything that would prevent Vadalis from producing magebred glidewings, further enhancing their abilities to operate in harsher climates. Good points Euangelion, things I hadn’t thought of and excellent explanations that will let me expand the use of glidewings across khorvaire. A classic example of why I read and post on these boards. :D Apologies, but why are we trying to figure out who started what back up when now? Someone feels a need to feed for their ego? So, again, like clerics in a military. They could choose to remain neutral, and what would a nation do? Force them to do something that they personally would consider against their faith? They couldn't do it. Either they'd cast one spell and not be able to cast any more without atonement, or would refuse to do it on principle. Excellent point Dave, no matter what the reason you can't consistently force a divine spellcaster to use his spells if it is contrary to his faith. Even if they choose to follow your commands they would quickly lose the ability. Kinda puts a great big hole in the spells for cash argument huh? I think even in Eberron, where the existence of gods is an open question, divine spellcasters still draw upon faith and strong belief in something to cast their spells, so if you can buy spells "for cash" at all it can only be when providing the spell suits the divine spellcaster's belief, with only the very rare (& short-lived) exceptions. If you want their services at all you have to respect their beliefs and limitations. In my opinion, they took Cyre's offer because Cyre was the first. I'm sure Breland or Aundair's coffers could have made competitive offers, and I'm sure they did. They only took the offer from Cyre because it was the only way they could get their cultural-religious freak on. It wasn't about money, it was belief. Isn't it possible the Tairnadal took Cyre's offer precisely because it put them in a prime position to seize the lands they currently hold? The very lands they originally laid claim to when they first came to Cyre? Seems a bit unlikely that was just coincidence to me. I think it much more likely that the Tairnadal answered Cyre's call always planning to take back the Valenar lands. But, did they intend to 'steal' the land all along, or did they answer the call because they were promised the land? First off, we may be able to conclusively say that war is not "natural" in our own world, since only one species does it, but it would be an issue of contention in a fantasy world for druids (as Hellcow elaborated) since sentience would become an issue. Is sentience "natural"? There are plenty of species with it. Even constructs and the dead can be sentient...then again, they can also have animal intelligence, so is that natural? If a sect decides that it is, then they would have little qualms about entering a war so long as it aligned with their beliefs. If a sect decides that it isn't, then obviously they wouldn't. Can we conclusively say that war is not “natural” even in our own world? As Siran Dunmorgan pointed out there are species of insects that war on each other. Swarms of highly army ants war moving across the landscape devouring every living thing they can reach for instance. Or does organised mass destruction and killing have to result from conscious awareness or something to be classed as war? Point is, when creatures in the natural (untouched be the hand of man/elf/etc) world act together to prey upon each other expand their territories and kill each other, it leaves a lot of room for differing beliefs when druidic leaders set out their traditions.
Errant 12-16-05, 10:26 AM	A warband is a tight-knight group, as close as a family. Since I discussed the possible makeup’s of warbands earlier in the thread I’m curious Hellcow, do you see them as pretty static in their memberships (i.e. each warband usually consists of the same individuals), more fluid (consisting of individuals selected for their suitability to missions) or somewhere in the middle (usually the same individuals with the occasional ringer)? I figure any society structured around anything including ‘clan’ in the name has got to have a high emphasis on blood ties. So, my guess is that as members of the warclan come of age they are assigned to existing warbands to replace the fallen, normally staying with the same warband most of their careers except perhaps for the occasional mission where they are selected for their particular talents to aid another warband accomplish a specific objective. I can imagine the selection of a valenar’s first/primary warband being the highly celebrated result of tough competitions during big warclan gatherings too. Providing possible adventure hooks with PCs trying to keep the competitions fair (or rig them) and so on.
Errant 12-16-05, 10:33 AM	Doh! Double-post. :embarrass
davethebrave371 12-16-05, 10:36 AM	That's a VERY interesting case on Spell-like abilities. By that manner of thought, Hexblades and Warlocks are both perfectly acceptable as spellcasters! How wonderful:) Demonically-imbued casters good, intelligent and scholarly casters bad! And if you aren't born with magic, you don't deserve to have any...except our kind, of course, of course. I'd call them the magic nazis, but they aren't organized enough yet! (But, you know, they can join an army now...) Ok, so are you saying that since a Cleric of the Blood of Vol goes around raising the dead, so too will a Cleric of the Silver Flame? Because that's the argument you're presenting. You acknowledge that, like clerics, druids have more PC and NPC creation freedom. Some argue that is good, and some that it is bad. I, like Keith, tend towards good on that issue. You tend towards bad, and that's ok. But what you're saying here is that the Ashbound can join an army because the Siyal Marrain can. Now, I'll be the first to say that the Ashbound could indeed form an army. In D&D, you can justify anything with anything. It's fantasy, that's the point. If a DM wants a situation to arise, it will. If a player wants a particular character, barring DM disapproval, that player will play that character. I could come up with a justification right now. Let's see...a particularily charismatic Ashbound takes over the sect as Elder Druid, and declares all-out war on the perversions against nature. Let's say for the sake of argument that their ranks swell with common people who love their message, as well as rangers and druids all over the Reichstag...errr...Eldeen Reaches converting to the cause because of this Ashdolf Boundtler. This army then marches on civilization, wasting all in it's path. First and foremost, I see them taking control of the Eldeen Reaches, or "taking it back" as they might say. That provides a financial base for the majority of the army who would not be magically inclined and as reliant on nature. They're still going to need equipment. Personally, I see them failing just due to the fact that every soldier being restricted to non-metal armour and non-metal weapons (for the most part) might be a little overzealous, and more than a little suicidal...but I also don't see them diverging from their core beliefs too much, which would include everyone respecting nature the same way. You, with the shovel! That better be all wood. Anyway, point is, that took me all of 2 minutes to type up, and it was off the top of my head. You can do the same thing for any sect of anything. I'm sure you could justify, in some weird, warped way, a group of pacifists being in an army of some kind. It might take a bit more than 2 minutes for a work-around, but creative minds find creative ways. Essentially, I don't see the Ashbound joining any army except the one they already did: the Eldeen army, to seperate from Aundair, and fend off the Aundairians, Thranes and Brelanders. I let out an audible sigh when I read that "but you know" sentence. Even before this series of druid articles, they could have, and have joined an army. You seem to think this article is the be-all and end-all of druids forever, but every point you bring up is already there! There are already druids and clerics that have joined armies in the Last War, of almost every sect and faith! Divine magics have been "mercs" by your definition for practically the entire history of war in Eberron. You're subtling jabbing at a "new" point which is hardly new in this setting. I really having been looking at Eberron druids through a different lens...I've been looking at them as classic druids who have chosen different duties to focus themselves on. It seems to me that you are looking at them as divine casters using Nature magic in different ways. Once you seperate divine and nature magic, you do indeed get a clerical variant with a vastly different focus...and the different 'traditions' are effectively different 'churches' of the druidic faith. Mmmm. Well, like I said, that makes them more like clerics, and the dispersion of duties means they can justify just about any set of beliefs by cherry-picking the tradition that suits...which makes them more like wizards. With better HP and saves. Heh. I still don't like them serving in a standing military, however...eh. Too 'civilized'...military is 4th sector stuff, only consuming, never producing...like government. I'd think they'd avoid it like the plague...they'd want to stay in the First and Second Sectors, extractives and crafting, while minimizing the manufacturing aspect of the second. Going into the Third and Fourth means you are advancing civilization, not fighting it... Question: Which settings of D&D have you played? Is one of then Greyhawk, the standard setting? Or maybe FR? Because there are many different sects of druids in those settings to, and they also have differing points of view over what constitutes nature (although some "differences" are hardly more than between the Wardens and the Gatekeepers). There are NE Druids out there in every setting, so there are sects akin to the Children of Winter in various settings, just on smaller scales. But the justification is still there. Also, in other settings, there have been wars in which druids have partook, and been part of a national military force. Including Greyhawk, which is the standard setting. As well, and this is something I can't source because I don't own this Dragon mag, but an old 2e mag in the 80s had an article about druids who espoused the city as the pinnacle of nature, but only if made with nature in mind. This was around the time that Earth Day was getting to be big, and the article said something along the lines of "as long as the materials were harvested sustainably, and the workers not forced to work 'unnaturally', disrupting their sleep patterns, blah blah, then these druids see cities as awesome, but right now, they feel they need work" or something like that. I suppose you could say the urban druid variant would be something like this. The point is, no matter what setting you play, druids have been part of a larger military force at some point in the history of the world. You can justify exactly these same things for druids of other settings, and even previous editions if you consider the fact that timelines often take into account edition changes, and a lot of these events would have been "prior" to 1e. Your earlier point about standing armies and cities I already addressed, even earlier. I'll quote it for you. ...we may be able to conclusively say that war is not "natural" in our own world, since only one species does it, but it would be an issue of contention in a fantasy world for druids (as Hellcow elaborated) since sentience would become an issue. Is sentience "natural"? There are plenty of species with it. Even constructs and the dead can be sentient...then again, they can also have animal intelligence, so is that natural? If a sect decides that it is, then they would have little qualms about entering a war so long as it aligned with their beliefs. If a sect decides that it isn't, then obviously they wouldn't. P.S. I feel you are being a lot more respectful and polite in your more recent posts. Etiquette ++! :D
Euangelion 12-16-05, 10:41 AM	Plus, does it get cold in the Talenta? if Not, fine home for dinos...or maybe they just migrate south come winter, which is why the halflings are still nomadic. Sharn is supposed to be subtropical, so I'd think the Talenta are prob very warm year round...and dinos are still cold-blooded, unless there's a specific exception. Also, barring some exceptions, pterosaurs are relatively clumsy fliers, doing mostly gliding. Without some magic to justify aerial power (I mean seriously, pegasi wings only go 25'? Gotta be magic there...), they basically have to take off from some height and get some speed, or they don't get into the air. Not exactly what you want in an aerial mount... ==Aelryinth Uh, do you actually read other peoples' posts? I addressed these points twice now, once in a direct response to one of your posts. Edit: keep in mind that it's a glidewing, not a pterodactyl, not an ornithocheirus, not a tapejara. It's a fantasy species of pterosaur, and thus does not have to conform specifically to a species of real-life pterosaur.
davethebrave371 12-16-05, 10:46 AM	Isn't it possible the Tairnadal took Cyre's offer precisely because it put them in a prime position to seize the lands they currently hold? The very lands they originally laid claim to when they first came to Cyre? Seems a bit unlikely that was just coincidence to me. I think it much more likely that the Tairnadal answered Cyre's call always planning to take back the Valenar lands. But, did they intend to 'steal' the land all along, or did they answer the call because they were promised the land? Actually, in my own game, I've half-decided (in that if something more interesting becomes an option, I'll go with that, since they haven't investigated it) that it was a decision on the part of the commander, due either to a perceived cultural insult or the discovery of something...big. Something he couldn't let fall into the hands of any of the neighbouring races. Perhaps even something to do with the Mournland. In fact, now that I think of it, perhaps he was even warned of the Mourning ahead of time in some fashion, and knew it would only affect Cyre...so let's not be part of Cyre. Of course, that's a little out there. But again, I haven't really decided, but I have said that it was essentially a lone decision that even kind of surprised his close aides and confidants. Can we conclusively say that war is not “natural” even in our own world? As Siran Dunmorgan pointed out there are species of insects that war on each other. Swarms of highly army ants war moving across the landscape devouring every living thing they can reach for instance. Or does organised mass destruction and killing have to result from conscious awareness or something to be classed as war? Point is, when creatures in the natural (untouched be the hand of man/elf/etc) world act together to prey upon each other expand their territories and kill each other, it leaves a lot of room for differing beliefs when druidic leaders set out their traditions. I think what I was getting at was even if aelryinth and others believe that that doesn't constitute "war", they have to see that several sentient species vs. us seeing only one, with the majority if not all warring with each other and/or themselves, would make war seem natural to SOME druids. I'm not saying it's necessarily the point of view of the minor sect, Druids For Peace And Love, but perhaps the Siyal Marrain are one of those sects that believe that war is, in fact, natural, seeing as every "naturally" sentient race they've ever encountered has made war, which seems, to them, to be the way of things if you're sentient...which they are, and why deny the nature of who you are? After all, we criticize others for not respecting nature, and the lessons begin at home. :D
davethebrave371 12-16-05, 10:48 AM	Uh, do you actually read other peoples' posts? I addressed these points twice now, once in a direct response to one of your posts. To be fair, I think he's paying attention now.
Siran Dunmorgan 12-16-05, 11:15 AM	Also, barring some exceptions, pterosaurs are relatively clumsy fliers, doing mostly gliding. Without some magic to justify aerial power (I mean seriously, pegasi wings only go 25'? Gotta be magic there...), they basically have to take off from some height and get some speed, or they don't get into the air. Not exactly what you want in an aerial mount... [Aside: I am not picking on aelryinth. This is relatively late-breaking news that few of you may have picked up, and it's relevant to the glidewing discussion.] Recent discoveries have suggested that pterosaurs did (or, for our purposes, do) not have to "take off from some height." We're all familiar with that little "claw" on the leading edge of pterosaur wings, yes? Well, it turns out that the wing membrane is connected to the "claw" as well, giving pterosaurs something akin to the "flaps" on a modern fixed-wing aircraft that they can use to change the airfoil shape of their wings and generate the extra lift needed to become airborne from a more or less standing start. Check out http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8133 —Siran Dunmorgan
Errant 12-16-05, 12:21 PM	But that's kind of the point. You and Errant both dismissed the glidewing as not being widely popular because it's a reptile, and therefore not suitable to cold climates. I countered with the point that some pterosaurs had a kind of fur, and many paleontologists now believe that they were active flyers (like their distant cousins, the birds). Just for the record I didn’t reply to your point earlier Euangelion only because I didn’t have the time, I wasn't being dismissive. :) I would speculate that most pterosaur riders involved in the Last War would be mercenary halflings, however, as they have cultural knowledge of the techniques required to ride one and I see most human air cavalry as being elite soldiers on beefier mounts. Such halflings would make good airborne scouts and skirmishers, for example, but I think guys on dragonhawks, wyverns, or griffons would certainly be better suited for shock tactics in battle: all the power of a heavy cavalry charge, but from a much less well-defended direction. With Euangelion’s pointers in mind I’m now thinking glidewings would be the dominant halfling air cavalry, but also seen as airborne scouts and skirmishers for many other nations/races too, with heavier/more expensive flying mounts being reserved for the higher risk tasks/areas. At the risk of another economics lecture, the glidewing’s lower price (compared to other flying mounts) would make them useful despite being slower than hippogriffs and pegasi, and snackfood for griffons (HD-wise). So, make them your first choice air support, but pull them out (if you can) if they come up against tougher/faster enemy air support. I could just see the Red Baron of the Last War as a red-cloaked Karrnathi sorcerer riding a black griffon, hurling lightning bolts and speeding his mount along with Haste, carving through the luckless glidewing riders that cross his path… The Glidewing, at 800 gp, would be a cheap way to enter the air race. The only problem (rules aside) with the Glidewing is that unless it is a "magical beast" I can't imagine how it can carry the saddle (30 lbs) let alone 300 lbs, considering they weigh about 50 lbs themselves. Where does it say the glidewings only weigh 50 lbs? Surely that’d be a typo, they’re Large animals… Just magic, I would say. At the heart, divine magic, arcane magic, and natural magic (which again in MY campaign I treat as a third category) are all different ways of manipulating the same energy. The issue is that the wizard is manipulating it in a way he was not meant to, while the displacer's talent is a gift from nature. But I'm certainly interested in hearing other opinions on the matter. In my mind there’s really only one base-line magic ‘force’ in the world, the same force (or energy or whatever label you want to give it) that brought the world into existence. Different creatures simply learn to manifest it differently. Clerics perceive and channel magic through their spiritual connection to the divine. Druids learn to sense and master magic as it flows through the natural world. Wizards use arcane (ancient secret knowledge type arcane) traditions to master and manipulate it. Sorcerers use instinct to draw magic out. Psions use their mental focus. Warlocks use instinct like sorcerers, but in an even more limited manner. When any of them use material components, they are using the tangible item to help focus the particular magical energy that most resonates (just like different sound frequencies vibrate different tuning forks) with that particular item. In my mind instinctive grasp of ‘magic’ on a much deeper subconscious level is even what allows experienced rogues and fighters to survive fireballs and lightning bolts that can slay others standing next to them. Why doesn’t anti-magic affect this form of magic? Because as the very energy of Creation, the glue that holds Reality together, it is never entirely gone, sometimes it is just completely beyond conscious reach (and even magic items are just lingering effects of conscious manipulation). With that foundation, the Ashbound are problematic and probably a little misguided I think (although I can’t say I’ve given them a lot of thought). At best they see arcane spell casters as tampering with the “natural flow” or evolution of magic. Think x-men mutants (natural spell casters) vs normal humans dabbling in genetic experimentation to duplicate mutant powers (arcane spell casters). As druids, I think Ashbound are mostly interested in ensuring people don't "disturb the natural order" by doing things like forging flying castles and town-size fortresses, gouging lightning rails across the countryside, creating a whole new artificial race. Actually, in my own game, I've half-decided (in that if something more interesting becomes an option, I'll go with that, since they haven't investigated it) that it was a decision on the part of the commander, due either to a perceived cultural insult or the discovery of something...big. Something he couldn't let fall into the hands of any of the neighbouring races. Perhaps even something to do with the Mournland. In fact, now that I think of it, perhaps he was even warned of the Mourning ahead of time in some fashion, and knew it would only affect Cyre...so let's not be part of Cyre. Of course, that's a little out there. But again, I haven't really decided, but I have said that it was essentially a lone decision that even kind of surprised his close aides and confidants. Add together: (1) the Tairnadal allied themselves the exact nation that controlled their original lands; (2) honor is important to them (they ‘honor’ their ancestors and they honor their mercenary contracts enough to still be employed); (3) they DID abruptly abandon their allegiance to Cyre and effectively steal “their” lands 40 years before the Day of Mourning; & (4) a broken promise to hand over “their” lands would have been a good reason to abandon their allegiance. I come up with that’s the most likely way things panned out. Disappointment with the rulers of Cyre could easily of inflamed resentment over a broken promise and maybe even have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, & the Tairnadal’s patience. Of course, so could a seer’s warning that Cyre would be consumed in a magical apocalypse. Still, like you Dave, I haven’t really decided. “Most likely” is far from “definitely happened that way”. I think what I was getting at was even if aelryinth and others believe that that doesn't constitute "war", they have to see that several sentient species vs. us seeing only one, with the majority if not all warring with each other and/or themselves, would make war seem natural to SOME druids. That was pretty much my point too, although I’d say “they hopefully see…”
Euangelion 12-16-05, 12:54 PM	Just for the record I didn’t reply to your point earlier Euangelion only because I didn’t have the time, I wasn't being dismissive. :) My bad! :D And for the record, my main point about the glidewing isn't that it will replace the griffon, pegasus, etc., since there's always people who must have the sleek, cool, intelligent pegasus rather than the odd looking glidewing, even if the pegasus isn't a better buy. It'll just be a lot more common. "Daddy, I'm turning 16 next month, and I want a flying steed." "Okay, my daughter, we'll go over to the Vadalis compound and you can pick out a glidewing." "A glidewing?! I'm not riding some dingy dinosaur. I want a pegasus!" "First of all, glidewings aren't really dinosaurs. You see, sweetie, "dinosaur" refers to a specific kind of land creature..." "Daaaddy! You know what I mean! I want a pegasus for my birthday." "Whatever you say, my little flower." I'm also not saying that Vadalis wouldn't want to get their hands on the V-warhorse, if for no other reason than that they're House Vadalis and there isn't anyone who can handle any animal better than they can, goshtarnit. It's an issue of coveting the V-warhorse more than the V-warhorse being the best mount possible. But yes, the glidewing is a darn good mount.
Siran Dunmorgan 12-16-05, 12:58 PM	I. Defining Druids The question that we come down to revolves around what qualifies a druid as a druid. The System Reference Document states that "A druid who ceases to revere nature, changes to a prohibited alignment, or teaches the Druidic language to a nondruid loses all spells and druid abilities." Therefore, a character who has taken levels in the druid class, is of a non-prohibited alignment, does not teach druidic to non-druids, and reveres nature is and remains a druid. Now, it is official—per Druids of Khorvaire, Part One (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20051017a)—that the teaching of the Druidic language is not a basis for denial of abilities in Eberron, since learning the druidic language is effectively taking a level of druid, i.e., you can't teach the druidic language to a nondruid, because by learning it they become a druid. This leaves changing to a prohibited alignment and ceasing to revere nature; changing to a prohibited alignment—Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, Chaotic Evil—is included because being a druid means maintaining some sense of balance. It's up to the druid to decide where the balance lies, i.e., on the law-chaos axis, or the good-evil axis. This discussion is deferred for another time, interesting though it may be. II. Defining Reverence for Nature Which brings us to the present discussion: "A druid who ceases to revere nature..." Analytically, this requires us to define two terms, "revere" and "nature", and their conjunction. What is reverence? For our purposes, we may refer to the Merriam-Webster definition: "honor or respect felt or shown: deference; especially: profound adoring awed respect." What, then is nature? The examples we have used in this discussion to date have attempted to define nature by exclusion: we have provided examples of things that we believe to be unnatural. Unfortunately, we do not always agree. To provide one example, there are those who believe that civilization is an inherently unnatural institution. There are also those who believe that civilization is inevitable—natural—climax of gregarious sentient manipulative species[1] acting in accordance with the nature of their kind.[2] What we need is an inclusive definition of nature, rather than defining this object or that concept[3] as unnatural, to define whether this object, or that action, or this concept are natural, or a part of nature. III. Appeal for Assistance Unfortunately, I am presently—no doubt owing to a loss of imagination or creativity on my part—unable to devise such a definition that does not immediately exclude most druidic class features from the category of natural actions, nor most druidic philosophies from the category of natural concepts, nor most permitted gear from the category of natural objects. For example, in attempting to define a natural object, I have: • A natural object is an object that has not been placed, shaped, or otherwise caused to exist in its present location and form by the will of a sentient being other than the Progenitor dragons. This certainly excludes everything that could reasonably be defined as an unnatural object—generally including non-sentient living creatures, incidentally—but it apparently also excludes all gear, equipment, or tools, including those used by druids. —Siran Dunmorgan Footnotes [1] That is, species comfortable in really large numbers—more than a few hundred—aware of what they are doing, and able to readily manipulate their environment. By way of comparison, orcas are gregarious and sentient, but have limited means of manipulation, i.e., they don't have hands. Known civilization-building species on Eberron include—but are not limited to—giants, rakshasas, dragons, humans, elves, goblins, yuan-ti, gnomes, dwarves, couatls, medusas, and possibly lizardfolk. Species that have apparently not built civilizations—usually because they are not comfortable in really large numbers—include orcs and halflings. [2] The idea of nature of a kind suggests that certain things follow evolutionary paths, i.e., that the definition of nature is fluid: perhaps civilization wasn't natural to humans twenty thousand years ago, but it is now. Perhaps civilization was natural to giants eighty thousand years ago, but is not now. Hence, presently, humans live in and build cities, and giants presently do not. [3] Which begs the question of how any concept can be unnatural to a being capable of forming concepts, but the point has been made before in this discussion.
Hellcow 12-16-05, 01:07 PM	That's a VERY interesting case on Spell-like abilities. By that manner of thought, Hexblades and Warlocks are both perfectly acceptable as spellcasters! How wonderful:) Demonically-imbued casters good, intelligent and scholarly casters bad! Yes, that is pretty much what I am saying. The Ashbound don't like the scholarly caster, because he shouldn't be studying ways to twist nature. Whereas the gnome or dragonmarked heir: their powers are, as far as can be told, part of nature. All gnomes can speak to burrowing mammals. It's simply part of what it means to be a gnome. Now, where does this leave warlocks? That depends on their origins. Just because CArc says that they are demonic in nature doesn't mean that this has to be the case. Among other things, even CArc has suggested that the powers of SOME warlocks may be derived from fey connections... and I think you can certainly find such warlocks among the Greensingers. I've also suggested warlocks as drawing their powers from Khyber or the Mournland. So I'm not a big fan of the "demonic bargain"... and in any case, warlocks are as I recall descended from people who have made such bargains, they have not made such bargains themselves. With that said, the Ashbound don't like magebreeding. As such, it's possible that the Ashbound would see a warlock as being, essentially, a magebred creature. His powers are the result of intelligent design. Gnomes have always had their powers. Dragonmarks just appeared; there's no evidence that they were not part of nature's plan. But if the warlock's ancestor dealt with unnatural forces to gain his abilities... then the warlock is, essentially, a horrid animal. He's not personally at fault for possessing those powers... but he is an unnatural creature. It's up to you to decide if a particular Ashbound will try to destroy him or feel that he gets a pass; i'd say they'd respond to a horrid animal in the same way (I can see Ashbound seeking to destroy horrid animals). And if you aren't born with magic, you don't deserve to have any...except our kind, of course, of course. If you mean "our kind of magic", then yes, that's exactly what they believe. They think that natural magic is all the world needs. Just clarifying that they are perfectly happy dealing with druids and rangers of other cultures... it's unnatural magic that sets them off. (But, you know, they can join an army now...) But why would they? Others have hit on it: just because one of the siyal marrain may find that HIS beliefs justify joining a warband doesn't mean that every druid can or will... because each sect is different. I don't think the Ashbound even joined the organized effort to help the Aundairians secede; if they did anything, it was probably targeted attacks against Aundairian units making excessive use of magic. Most Ashbound are particular dedicated to their cause, and would never manage to work within the structured framework of an army or accept tasks that they did not see as furthering their cause. Again, just because some druids might do a thing doesn't mean they all can or will. I'll bring up one other point too...I don't consider qu'ori 'fiends' in the classic sense, since they are from the plane of dreams... AND since the race gets 'rebooted', they may have been 'celestials' at one point. Fair enough. I use the term "fiend" for any evil outsider, and "celestial" for any good outsider. In Eberron particularly, there is no "hell"; pit fiends come from the plane of fire, succubi the plane of night, etc. And with the plane of dreams being a nightmarish place, I certainly consider the quori fiends. But it's purely a semantic issue. The point is that I feel that outsiders are driven to a particular alignment. In this age, the quori are driven to be evil. And yet, 67 of them turned to good. Also, you can't interact with the qu'ori who've formed the kalashtar, you can interact with Radiant Idols. Physically, yes. However, I'd make the argument that you can interact with the quori... by interacting with the kalashtar. Again, it is the presence of those quori that drives the kalashtar race towards good alignments. And I certainly think it would be interesting to have a story where someone does find a way to directly contact a quori founder. But you are correct, they have no physical presence... and you're likewise correct that this is partially driven by the desire to prevent the interference of powerful good beings in events we want the players to have to deal with. With THAT said, one issue is whether there are risen fiends... who just aren't on Eberron. I'm a pit fiend and I turn to good... Is Eberron where I'm going to go? Or will I perhaps go to Syrania to share in the meditations of the angels? Is there a cornugon in Shavarath fighting on the side of the archons? They may be out there - we just haven't seen them because we have no reason to. And I'm pretty sure more celestials have Fallen then there are Kalashtar sponsors :) (since we are going off-camera). But once we go off-camera, why not assume that there are more risen fiends, as well... just out on other planes, engaged in the mysterious business of the outsiders? And if we stay on-camera, we've got 67 kalashtar sponsors; I've said that the Council of Ashtakala itself is around 90, and most of those are rakshasa, and I personally wouldn't think there to be more than a dozen radiant idols (though the exact number is, of course, up to you). Aside from the radiant idols, I can only actually think of one fallen celestial that we've named (the Ghaele in Sharn) but your earlier statement seemed to imply there were lots of them... who am I missing? Not so the Radiant Idols (3 of those in Sharn alone! with only 250K people there? How DO they stop killing one another). Well, the reason for the high concentration of radiant idols in Sharn is twofold: first, it's a manifest zone to Syrania, their home plane; they draw strength and sustenance from that connection, and I believe radiant idols will usually be found in such places. Second, radiant idols are all about worship. That is what they seek. They don't necessarily want to kill one another, at least until they reach a point where they need to in order to gain more followers; they are all outcasts from their realm, and perhaps someday they will choose to join together to storm the gates of Syrania. In either case, the largest city in the world is a good place to find worshippers. Really, the radiant idols are a good match for the Gou'ald; they are all about the "Kneel before your god!" schtick. (With this said, I'll note that the radiant idols are actually James Wyatt's creation, so I'm not the authority on them.) As for the war between the dragons and LoD (why haven't all dragons been killed long ago?), I believe I've gone into some detail about my thoughts on that in the FAQ... but you're certainly free to add another immortal player into the mix. We DO need the question on dinosaur dispersal answered, too. Personally, I don't think the Eldeen is dinoland. The reason we have dino-riding halflings is because those are common creatures suitable for domestication in the region. You may have dinos in the Blade desert, but the Valenar brought their own horses. Sharn is in a tropical region, so the dinos will certainly be comfortable there, but the fact that the symbol of breland is a bear instead of a clawfoot implies to me that mammals have the stronger foothold... though halflings may certainly have imported their favorite beasts, so by now they may be gaining a foothold in the King's Forest. Also, barring some exceptions, pterosaurs are relatively clumsy fliers, doing mostly gliding. I'm not sure I see the relevance of this statement. Are we talking about pterosaurs, or are we talking about glidewings? Because glidewings have an average manueverability, same as... well, a pegasus. It may be magic. They may be those rare exceptional pterosaurs. Either way, they can climb at a sixty-degree angle.... and if you can train them to take the Improved Flight feat (which is, of course, questionable) they could even hover. The capabilities of the glidewing are in all likelihood far beyond those of any pterosaur from our history; the issue is what kind of mount a glidewing makes. Now, it's certainly interesting to discuss how a glidewing could have such power and manueverability... is it magic? Wing flaps? Blessing of ancient halfling spirits? But regardless of the source, they do have the power.
Hellcow 12-16-05, 01:13 PM	With that foundation, the Ashbound are problematic and probably a little misguided I think... I completely agree. I've never said that the Ashbound are RIGHT... but they believe what they blieve, and are fervent about it. I think common belief does hold that arcane and divine magic flow from the same source - the "blood of Siberys" - and that it's all just different lens used to channel it. Unfortunately, the Ashbound aren't particularly interested in a rational discussion of the topic or conclusions based on your accursed research.
a_psh 12-16-05, 01:23 PM	Edit: keep in mind that it's a glidewing, not a pterodactyl, not an ornithocheirus, not a tapejara. It's a fantasy species of pterosaur, and thus does not have to conform specifically to a species of real-life pterosaur.Actually, it's not just a fantasy species of pterosaur. The sidebar in the ECS dinosaur entry (ECS pg. 280) pegs the glidewing as the direct equivalent of a pteranodon.
Hellcow 12-16-05, 01:33 PM	Since I discussed the possible makeup’s of warbands earlier in the thread I’m curious Hellcow, do you see them as pretty static in their memberships... My guess is that as members of the warclan come of age they are assigned to existing warbands to replace the fallen, normally staying with the same warband most of their careers except perhaps for the occasional mission where they are selected for their particular talents to aid another warband accomplish a specific objective. Your guess is pretty accurate in my view. I believe that inital assignment will furthermore be guided by the Keepers of the Past and the elders of the Warclan; it's not simply a case of "fill the gap" but "Where do you belong?" If you have problems in the first year, I'd expect you to return to the elders and seek reassignment. This isn't our army, where you do go where you're told. This is more than just a job: it's their culture and religion, and it's vital for the new blade to find the band where he belongs. With that said, yes, I see ringers showing up for special jobs, but of course, ideally you find a warband that is itself qualified for the task. So, if a druid is with a warband, it's either as a ringer or as a long-term member of the band; if he's a long-term member, it's because he fits the band and the missions it generally undertakes. The druid of a warband has far more in common with a typical PC adventuring druid that a druid, say, joining the Brelish army. He travels with a band of close companions, who he cares for deeply. They undertake missions which, if they do not always serve his druidic goals, do not oppose them - otherwise he'll expect the group to pass them by. Money may come to the group, and he may even use it to improve his gear, but that's not why he travels with them.
Hellcow 12-16-05, 01:37 PM	Actually, it's not just a fantasy species of pterosaur. The sidebar in the ECS dinosaur entry (ECS pg. 280) pegs the glidewing as the direct equivalent of a pteranodon. Eh. It's pterodon-y... but again, if it can be conclusively proven that the pteradons of our world didn't have a flight speed of 80 with average manueverability, my response is "So? The glidewing does."
a_psh 12-16-05, 02:07 PM	Eh. It's pterodon-y... but again, if it can be conclusively proven that the pteradons of our world didn't have a flight speed of 80 with average manueverability, my response is "So? The glidewing does." I agree. I think we should still at least partially look to the real pteranodon for questions such as "do they have hair or fur?" or "what climates do they live in?" (Though, actually, I can answer the first question using an ECS illustration, and the answer to the second one is "Talenta Plains," so I guess those are bad examples to begin with.) The druid of a warband has far more in common with a typical PC adventuring druid that a druid, say, joining the Brelish army.Mmm... Valenar warband campaign, anyone? ;)
davethebrave371 12-16-05, 02:45 PM	For example, in attempting to define a natural object, I have: • A natural object is an object that has not been placed, shaped, or otherwise caused to exist in its present location and form by the will of a sentient being other than the Progenitor dragons. This certainly excludes everything that could reasonably be defined as an unnatural object—generally including non-sentient living creatures, incidentally—but it apparently also excludes all gear, equipment, or tools, including those used by druids. What blasphemy speaketh thou? For surely it was Siberys who deigned to make the spoon, and Khyber the dark instrument of fork. Binding together, Eberron didst create the spork, and so was an age of cutlery conflict averted. Seriously though, I love your posts, and I think this was very clear and concise. My answer to this would simply be to label it subjectively, as it is the only way to have druids available as a PC class without forcing them to take the Vow of Poverty from BoED.
DragonWatcher 12-16-05, 03:28 PM	For surely it was Siberys who deigned to make the spoon... There is no spoon. (Sorry)
Hellcow 12-16-05, 04:45 PM	And if you aren't born with magic, you don't deserve to have any...except our kind, of course, of course. I wanted to make one more point about the Ashbound. In there view, it isn't a question of "You don't deserve to have magic." It's that non-natural magic is dangerous. Non-natural magic threatens us all. Look at the Mourning! The Crying Fields! THIS is what comes of your "research"! Even natural magic can be used in inappropriate ways; the Ashbound didn't exist when the Gatekeepers created the first horrid animals, but I have no doubt that they would have fought bitterly to stop this. So the key is that the Ashbound do what they do because they believe the fate of the world depends on it. And, of course, magic is only part of what the Ashbound stand against: of the established sects, they also draw the hardest line against what they see as civilization threatening the natural order. An Ashbound druid might not have a problem with a spirit shaman who lives in harmony with the wild. But he certainly feels that the floating towers of Arcanix should be torn from the sky... for the good of us all. One other random point I'll throw out. The druid reveres nature. But he is not an animal (well, in D&D terms). In my mind, the druid is not simply supposed to go off into the wild and live the life of a badger. Will a bear fight magic-users? No. Fighting magic users is not "natural" behavior. But what the Ashbound will tell you is that it is NECESSARY. It is what Eberron needs. And it is why the Ashbound have been called into service and granted the power to command the beasts. The bear won't fight a wizard on his own, but he will do it if the druid commands him to. The Gatekeepers seek to preserve the seals and block extraplanar incursions. Does any animal instinctively do this? No. But it is an act that protects the natural world. Each sect believes that it is, in its own way, serving the natural world. The fact that their behavior does not mimic the behavior of wild animals only goes to show why they are needed in the first place: to perform the tasks the world needs, but the beasts cannot perform. And, at least in their eyes, the gift of natural magic - the ability to call animals and plants into serve - is proof of the righteousness of their cause. (All my opinion, of course.)
maollelujah 12-16-05, 08:25 PM	Eh. It's pterodon-y... but again, if it can be conclusively proven that the pteradons of our world didn't have a flight speed of 80 with average manueverability, my response is "So? The glidewing does." pteranodon may or may not have been an active flier. I believe that some of the smaller species of pterosaurs were active fliers, so I don't have any problem with the flying aspect of the glidewing. my problem is that it is silly to believe that something the probably weighed 50 lbs. can lift 300 lbs. as a light load. It would be like saying a wolf could carry 4,000 lbs, a human can jump 50 feet into the air or a black bear can turn invisible. This might be fine if the glidewing was a "magical beast", but this ability is counter to what should expect a 50 lb. flyer to do. Where does it say the glidewings only weigh 50 lbs? Surely that’d be a typo, they’re Large animals… It isn't in the books, but a pteranodon (glidewing) has an estimated weight between 30 lbs. and 50 lbs. While they have a potential wingspan of 25 feet, they aren't that long (5 or 6 feet) with hollow bones to allow flight.
Hellcow 12-16-05, 09:32 PM	This might be fine if the glidewing was a "magical beast", but this ability is counter to what should expect a 50 lb. flyer to do. And yet, making it a magical beast brings all sorts of other factors into play. Suddenly speak with or calm animals don't work any more. It's harder to handle. It can't be an animal companion. BAB and hit dice increase. And in theory, it can have an intelligence over 2. In Eberron, you can have creatures that have been influenced by magical forces and yet remain animals. Magebred creatures. Horrid animals. Valenar horses, depending on how we look at them. We KNOW magic went into the horrid rat, but it nonetheless remains an animal. Perhaps the same is true of the glidewing; perhaps, 30,000 years ago, a lizardfolk shaman used his powers to create a superior flying mount. To me, it comes back to the fact that Eberron IS a world of magic, and this can play a role in the evolution of natural creatures. There is more to the distinction between animal and magical beast than "you could find one in our world and not the other" - the manner in which they interact with skills, spells, and class abilities is just as important. The glidewing may not be a realistic creature. It may not be something that could exist in our world. But it DOES exist in Eberron. Regardless of its own weight, it can carry 300 lbs and fly at 80 feet with an average manueverability. And for game purposes, it is considered to be an animal. I'd love to see more explanations as to how it can pull these things off... but the fact remains that it can, though you can certainly choose to drop it in your game. EDIT: And with all that said, I can't imagine that the glidewing is actually 50 pounds. Nothing says this in the entry, and it just doesn't add up. As listed, it can drag 4,500 pounds... at 90 times its own weight, that would be quite impressive, even with the idea that it may have a touch of magic at work. Personally, while the glidewing has a superficial resemblance to an earthly pteranodon, I think it's only skin deep; physically, I think it's far closer to a dragon or wyvern, though it's obviously a better flier (with that said, James Wyatt wrote the creature, so I can't speak to the intent of the designer).
aelryinth 12-16-05, 09:35 PM	Errant is again making the strange leap of mercenary = military. Sure, all sorts of casters have worked as soldiers...for belief. For Druids, this would be largely a militia/guerilla style duty. As soon as the caster makes the leap to mercenary stats, his belief has already made the switch...his belief that money for spells is not a bad thing has already been made. Else, he wouldn't be a mercenary, he'd still be a soldier...who doesn't serve for the piddling wage if he's a spellcaster. And this doesn't contradict with anything that's been posted on Druids being IN the warband. He's with the warband for his own reasons, but he's plainly made the choice that selling his spell services for coin is not against his beliefs. I, being on the outside of this transaction, could care less. I've got spellcasting for cash. If I have to be diplomatic about it, so what? I can always find a different set of mercs with a divine spellcaster...there's now precedent. That's really all there is to it. No more, no less. ================= AGAIN, with the huge hostile tone on Glidewings aimed at me...completely ignoring the fact that I made the assertation that magic could indeed be involved. Is the Glidewing a magical beast? (Kindly note I wouldn't be asking if I had my books at hand). Also, with those weight loads, it's pretty clear that they don't weigh 50 lbs...I can see a skin and bones 500 lbs for a Large animal...but he can actually fly with a Load bigger then he is! Definitely magic involved... And if it's 800 gp to purchase one, and it is NOT in demand, then we should be looking for reasons why it's not a more common animal...especially for the Race of Eight Winds, considering the popularity among halflings...Exotic Saddle? Difficult to ride? Very difficult to train? Raise? Feed? Bad temper? Horrible upkeep? Lousy land movement speed? ========== Hellcow, you overjumped my point and seemed to infer that I was saying all Ashbound would join armies, and so all Druids. This is where my frustration starts to come in...again, people keep overstating and over-inferring my point. I actually think the Ashbound would be the MOST likely to join an army, because they have the biggest opponent...all of civilization. I was actually starting to get real worried that I was remembering the Ashbound wrong when you started focusing on their anti-magic...I thought they were anti-civilization, and magic was just one of the symptoms of that. I'd think that the example above of a Druidic army would be far more likely organized, led and motivated by the Ashbound then any other sect (and likely collapse because they don't have any real idea how to run an army as more then a collection of independent Hordes...) The Winter sect will probably hop on as a great opportunity to spread some population control, but outright head-bonking isn't their style...but the religious fanatics leading the barbarians out of the wilderness is likely a bunch of Ashbound... (And not for money, and they STILL wouldn't be a 'standing army'. Heh.) They'd be the most happy to use civilization against itself...anyway they could. It's the viewpoint being more then a focus...it's how the Ashbound define the purpose of being a Druid. Above, I noted how I see Druids as being a 'core' of beliefs, and the sects were 'individual duties'. By chopping off and making 'natural magic' stand alone, what you've got is a monotheistic faith with splinter sects, each believing they've got the 'one true purpose', and all the others are rather misguided but still useful in their own way...and that is the first time I've actually seen anyone ever mention druidic sects fighting one another over how they are performing their duties... I wonder what the Ashbound would think of the Mourning if/when they learned Druidic magic was involved? Heh. And I haven't intimated that serving Nature involves living like an animal...classic Druids don't do that either. In one of the Ulek states, I believe a Druid is the ruler (County, I think...it's in the Fate of Istus module which I am referring to) and cities do indeed live in harmony with the land. And even in the Complete Handbook series, one of the duties of Druids was as advisors to rulers and the people who worked the land, maximizing benefits while minimizing impacts...key part being minimizing impacts. And then you had the , uh, Shadow Circle?, who do what the Ashbound do...and FR's Emerald Enclave, who like to seed forests with dangerous predatory beasts, and are quite militant about people messing with the land... But these were all Druids, at the core...there's some serious deviation from the old philosophy here, which, of course, is what Eberron is all about. As for Warlocks...I think it's incredibly funny that because warlocks can be empowered by fey, that the majority who aren't are 'passable' by the Ashbound. Also, if the Ashbound can't tell the dif between wizardry and sorcery, they must consider the Dragons to be bad...after all, they 'taught' the Giants magic, and look how that turned out! And what the Gatekeepers did! Obviously corrupted... ==Aelryinth
Errant 12-16-05, 09:44 PM	It isn't in the books, but a pteranodon (glidewing) has an estimated weight between 30 lbs. and 50 lbs. While they have a potential wingspan of 25 feet, they aren't that long (5 or 6 feet) with hollow bones to allow flight. Cool, thanks for the response. Even allowing for hollow bones, 50 lbs for a 25 foot wingspan sounds incredibly skinny. I'm thinking solid bones and a lot more wiry muscle is going to account for glidewing lifting capacity in my campaign. Maybe an average weight of 500 lbs? Still pretty skinny compared to other Large Animals, but... 50 lbs for a a 25 foot wingspan! Thats half a pound per foot, less if you take into account a more 'solid' torso. Reality really is stranger than fiction sometimes.
Errant 12-16-05, 10:20 PM	Errant is again making the strange leap of mercenary = military. Sure, all sorts of casters have worked as soldiers...for belief. For Druids, this would be largely a militia/guerilla style duty. As soon as the caster makes the leap to mercenary stats, his belief has already made the switch...his belief that money for spells is not a bad thing has already been made. Else, he wouldn't be a mercenary, he'd still be a soldier...who doesn't serve for the piddling wage if he's a spellcaster. Well I've been trying to ignore your posts to avoid 'flaming' you but since you claim I'm making a "strange" leap... Now who's putting words in someone else's mouth? Nowhere did I say mercenary = military. And whats with the "mercenary stats" bit again? What mercenary stats? Is this from the same mysterious source as the "standard mercenary code" you refered to previously? I would expect a priest of Dol Arrah selling spells for cash, i.e. regardless of whether doing so supports the principles of honor and sacrifice, would be on a short path to losing his powers, or at the very least becoming a corrupt priest of Dol Arrah (and where corrupt priests get their powers is a whole other topic I think). Where that selling takes place, in a battle field, a temple, or the front bar of the local tavern, is irrelevant! Seems to me the general consensus is that divine spellcasters consider belief first, gold a distant second (if at all) when deciding where, how and for whom to use their powers. Is anyone but Aelryinth arguing for the idea that you can just hand over cash and dictate what spells a divine spellcaster (using divine to include druids) will cast on whom? That concept sounds like it makes for a pretty colourless campaign world and since I've read enough of your posts on other threads to know you have a generous amount of creativity Aelryinth, I find it hard to believe you actually believe it yourself. Makes me want to yell 'troll' and point fingers. Your tone makes it an effort of will to keep a reply polite Aelryinth, especially when you're violating the very 'etiquette' you bash others with.
Hellcow 12-16-05, 10:37 PM	This is where my frustration starts to come in...again, people keep overstating and over-inferring my point. No offense, Aelryinth, but you really make it easy to do so. I honestly don't think you realize how hostile and abrasive you often come across. And I really mean that: I don't think you realize it. If you think I'm overreacting to you - well, I'm doing it because what you wrote provoked that reaction. And I personally do try to keep a cool head when it comes to posting; I think that flaming serves little purpose, and if you think I'm flaming you, I'm sorry to hear it. You're a sensible person. You have good ideas. So like I said, I don't believe that you mean to be rude or bullying - but nonetheless, that's often how you come across, and that tone often provokes a less reasoned response than you might otherwise get. I actually think the Ashbound would be the MOST likely to join an army, because they have the biggest opponent...all of civilization. And this is where the question of what it means to "join an army" comes up... which I do think is a valid one. Since you'd been complaining about druids in the "standing military" before, I assumed that was your concern here as well. If the question is "Will they band together to fight civilization?" Certainly... that's more or less all they do. But they usually operate in their own small groups, have a loose hierarchy based on religious beliefs as opposed to an established military chain of command, and rarely engage in massive, coordinated actions (in my opinion, of course). There's not a lot of them to begin with, among other things. So if your point was that they might engage in military actions of their own, certainly. When you said "Joining an army" I read it as "attaching themself to an army of some other nation or cause, accepting a place in its hierarchy." And that I don't see. I was actually starting to get real worried that I was remembering the Ashbound wrong when you started focusing on their anti-magic...I thought they were anti-civilization, and magic was just one of the symptoms of that. They are against what they perceive to be a threat to nature. If anything, I think they're the most likely to avoid coordinated military actions because, as you have said before, those things are inherently unnatural. They'd rather assault an opposing army through guerrilla action with natural magic than meeting it head-on with an army of their own, dealing with manuevers and tactics and the like. The Winter sect will probably hop on as a great opportunity to spread some population control, but outright head-bonking isn't their style... Agreed on the head-bonking. Likewise, they follow the "Wars aren't natural" theory. Getting ten thousand soldiers together to fight? Not natural. Those soldiers dying of dysentery? Now that's natural, in their view. but the religious fanatics leading the barbarians out of the wilderness is likely a bunch of Ashbound... Actually, despite what I said above, I do agree with this. If you bring in a group of barbarians to form the bulk of the army, the leader of such a horde would be most likely Ashbound, if he followed any of the existing sects. But as you say, it wouldn't be a tightly organized, disciplined unit, and would likely collapse in the long run... and they'd want it to. They'd be the most happy to use civilization against itself...anyway they could. No, that I still don't agree with. That's more like the Children of Winter, with the "So, you've gathered all these people in one place where disease can be easily spread? How kind of you!" In my mind, the Ashbound are both more wild and pure: you wouldn't have an Ashbound becoming a wizard to fight wizards, and likewise you wouldn't have him aping disciplined military behavior. More often then not, I don't even have Ashbound wear armor. Undisciplined, wild horde? Certainly. But I don't see them creating a Roman legion, even for the purpose of destroying a city. If he can find a way to turn your magic on you, good. If he can use natural magic to crumble your city, great. And it may be that's all you mean here... there's many different ways to interpret the sentence, and I may be taking it the wrong way. But I don't see him adopting civilized methods, even for the purpose of fighting civilization. But that's just my opinion. and that is the first time I've actually seen anyone ever mention druidic sects fighting one another over how they are performing their duties... I certainly think druids fight each other in Eberron. No question in my mind that the Ashbound would fight anyone who tried to make horrid animals today. The Wardens occasionally fight Ashbound and CoWs, though that's more of a case-by-case than a war against the sects: the Wardens haven't tried to eliminate the Ashbound, but a Warden druid would certainly defend a village against an Ashbound raid. I wonder what the Ashbound would think of the Mourning if/when they learned Druidic magic was involved? Heh. Which is more or less what the Children of Winter claim to be the case, as they say the Mourning is the clear harbinger of the coming Winter. And I haven't intimated that serving Nature involves living like an animal... Not directly, no. But the example comes up frequently that animals don't go to war, don't do this, don't do that. My point is that the druid may, in the course of his duties, be called upon to do things that animals don't, or can't do: because as an intelligent being possessed of natural magic, he is capable of doing these things. This may not be natural behavior. But if it is necessary to restore or maintain the balance of nature, than the druid may have to do it. So the question going back to the war druid is why he considers it necessary, and how he sees his actions as being a form of reverence for nature. Which I do think is an interesting question... and I think that druid would be a dangerous person to be around. ... one of the duties of Druids was as advisors to rulers and the people who worked the land, maximizing benefits while minimizing impacts...key part being minimizing impacts. Which is exactly what the Wardens do, though I assume that you already knew that. As for Warlocks...I think it's incredibly funny that because warlocks can be empowered by fey, that the majority who aren't are 'passable' by the Ashbound. Actually, if you reread the message, that's not what I said. I said that the Ashbound would likely consider the warlock (regardless of origin) to be on par with a magebred or horrid creature, and that it was up to you to decide how they would react: and specifically followed that with the statement that I could easily see Ashbound hunting magebred creatures. Furthermore, while I didn't spell it out, I personally think it would be childs' play to tell the difference between a warlock empowered by Thelanis and a warlock empowered by Xoriat or Khyber... even if the layman couldn't tell which was which. There's no rules for it, but to me, it's entirely up to the DM and player to work out the appearance of a warlock's abilities - and as a DM, I would insist that those reflect the source of the power. The umbragen fling bolts of pure shadow, and craft wings out of darkness. But if I had a fey-powered warlock who manifested fell flight, I'd say that her wings were beautiful traceries of light. I like the warlock because it fills a lot of roles (I also have CoW warlocks empowered by the Gloaming) - but to me, the choice of powers a warlock possesses and the appearance of those powers are important tools for building a story and sense of character. Also, if the Ashbound can't tell the dif between wizardry and sorcery, they must consider the Dragons to be bad...after all, they 'taught' the Giants magic, and look how that turned out! And what the Gatekeepers did! Obviously corrupted... In general, I think that's a fair assumption, actually. Though bear in mind that the "sorcery comes from dragons blood" is a story... and that as noted in the ECS, many sorcerers claim that their power comes from the progenitors, not from literally draconic heritage.
davethebrave371 12-16-05, 10:38 PM	Errant is again making the strange leap of mercenary = military. Sure, all sorts of casters have worked as soldiers...for belief. For Druids, this would be largely a militia/guerilla style duty. Where does it say this? As soon as the caster makes the leap to mercenary stats, his belief has already made the switch...his belief that money for spells is not a bad thing has already been made. Else, he wouldn't be a mercenary, he'd still be a soldier...who doesn't serve for the piddling wage if he's a spellcaster. Again, where does it say that he believes money for spells is not a bad thing? Please source. Hellcow, you overjumped my point and seemed to infer that I was saying all Ashbound would join armies, and so all Druids. This is where my frustration starts to come in...again, people keep overstating and over-inferring my point. Your point, as I understand it, is that because someone, somewhere, takes money for services, regardless if it is the person themselves, that makes them mercenary. That line of logic associates almost every divine caster in the history of Eberron who has ever partook in military action as a mercenary. This also, incidentally, includes PCs who use divine magic. Mercenaries, by your definition. I'm just trying to stick to your terminology, not over-infer or overstate. As Hellcow said, "just because some druids might do a thing doesn't mean they all can or will." You were inferring that since Valenar druids could join up, the Ashbound could. I'll quote you: That's a VERY interesting case on Spell-like abilities. By that manner of thought, Hexblades and Warlocks are both perfectly acceptable as spellcasters! How wonderful Demonically-imbued casters good, intelligent and scholarly casters bad! And if you aren't born with magic, you don't deserve to have any...except our kind, of course, of course. I'd call them the magic nazis, but they aren't organized enough yet! (But, you know, they can join an army now...) ...oh wait, I already countered this point in my previous post. It's the viewpoint being more then a focus...it's how the Ashbound define the purpose of being a Druid. Above, I noted how I see Druids as being a 'core' of beliefs, and the sects were 'individual duties'. By chopping off and making 'natural magic' stand alone, what you've got is a monotheistic faith with splinter sects, each believing they've got the 'one true purpose', and all the others are rather misguided but still useful in their own way...and that is the first time I've actually seen anyone ever mention druidic sects fighting one another over how they are performing their duties... No, what you've got is a monotheistic faith with splinter sects. As Siran, myself, a_psh, errant, Hellcow, and pretty much everyone else on this thread seems to have already covered exhaustively, druids have differing viewpoints on what is deemed "natural". It's subjective. Siran even pointed out the 3.5 official viewpoint on the issue in his post. What everyone playing standard 3.5 has "got" is subjective viewpoints on nature, just as much as subjective viewpoints on the Silver Flame, or the Blood of Vol, or what have you. What your nonstandard fluff presumes is not what the setting presumes. And I haven't intimated that serving Nature involves living like an animal...classic Druids don't do that either. In one of the Ulek states, I believe a Druid is the ruler (County, I think...it's in the Fate of Istus module which I am referring to) and cities do indeed live in harmony with the land. And even in the Complete Handbook series, one of the duties of Druids was as advisors to rulers and the people who worked the land, maximizing benefits while minimizing impacts...key part being minimizing impacts. And then you had the , uh, Ash Circle?, who do what the Ashbound do...and FR's Emerald Enclave, who like to seed forests with dangerous predatory beasts, and are quite militant about people messing with the land... You even contradict yourself here. In a previous post, you say Heh. I still don't like them serving in a standing military, however...eh. Too 'civilized'...military is 4th sector stuff, only consuming, never producing...like government. I'd think they'd avoid it like the plague...they'd want to stay in the First and Second Sectors, extractives and crafting, while minimizing the manufacturing aspect of the second. Going into the Third and Fourth means you are advancing civilization, not fighting it... Then in this one, you go on to state that those sectors are A-OK, seeing as there is a druid ruler of a nation. Government, right there. In other words, which side do you support? Your own opinion of things (which is not official by any stretch), or what is already established, even by your own admission? You can have your own opinion, but as I've tried to make clear many times, this is supposed to be about what is standard/official, not nonstandard/homebrew. It seems that when you do source, you source something that opposes your definition of things. I can see why you don't source.
Wolfwood2 12-16-05, 10:45 PM	Fair enough. And yes, you are correct: in my opinion, without some magical or cultural force at work, I consider intelligent creatures to have a base neutral alignment; I misunderstood your remark. In a bad part of Sharn or the Demon Wastes, you will base off of evil. My point is that without some REASON why the newborn pegasus is inherently steered towards good - the way the kalashtar have the quori spirit seeding their mind with noble impulses - they'll be shaped by their surroundings. As I said before, if you give pegasi a reason to be inherently good - like the couatl - I'm all for it. At the moment, i don't see them as having such a reason, so I don't. Actually, pegasi do have a reason to be good. At least, when forming a society together in a herd. Every pegasus has the inherent ability to both detect good and detect evil at will. They can't speak, but they're as intelligent as humans. That means that if a pegasus is evil, his whole herd will know about it. Contariwise, if a pegasus is good, his herd will also know it absolutely and without question. Most creatures admire "good" qualities. Even those neutral or evil in alignment tend to prefer having good neighbors to having evil neighbors. And pegasi know for a fact how each other are going in the good/evil standings. To me, that's going to create a lot of societal pressure to be good. Good pegasi will be trusted and followed by their herdmates. Contariwise, evil pegasi will tend to be shunned by their herdmates. So if I'm an evil pegasi and my herd is shunning me, that's a pretty strong motivation to rethink my behavior. Contrariwise, a good pegasi will be encouraged to keep being good. And a neutral pegasi will be faced with the inescapable knowledge that he could be doing better if he wanted. Now there will certainly be evil pegasi who go, "Forget these fools!" and go off on their own to sulk, but I think they're going to be fewer in number. Obviously this doesn't apply as much to pegasi raised by humans, but I still think there's going to be some reinforcement going on. A young pegasus will know some humans are good and see how they behave, and it will know some humans are evil and see how they behave, and if we assume that the results of 'detect evil' are unpleasant, then the pegasus-child will be encouraged to mimic the behavior of good people.
maollelujah 12-16-05, 10:52 PM	In Eberron, you can have creatures that have been influenced by magical forces and yet remain animals. Magebred creatures. Horrid animals. Valenar horses, depending on how we look at them. We KNOW magic went into the horrid rat, but it nonetheless remains an animal. Perhaps the same is true of the glidewing; perhaps, 30,000 years ago, a lizardfolk shaman used his powers to create a superior flying mount. To me, it comes back to the fact that Eberron IS a world of magic, and this can play a role in the evolution of natural creatures. There is more to the distinction between animal and magical beast than "you could find one in our world and not the other" - the manner in which they interact with skills, spells, and class abilities is just as important. The glidewing may not be a realistic creature. It may not be something that could exist in our world. But it DOES exist in Eberron. Regardless of its own weight, it can carry 300 lbs and fly at 80 feet with an average manueverability. And for game purposes, it is considered to be an animal. I'd love to see more explanations as to how it can pull these things off... but the fact remains that it can, though you can certainly choose to drop it in your game. EDIT: And with all that said, I can't imagine that the glidewing is actually 50 pounds. Nothing says this in the entry, and it just doesn't add up. As listed, it can drag 4,500 pounds... at 90 times its own weight, that would be quite impressive, even with the idea that it may have a touch of magic at work. Personally, while the glidewing has a superficial resemblance to an earthly pteranodon, I think it's only skin deep; physically, I think it's far closer to a dragon or wyvern, though it's obviously a better flier (with that said, James Wyatt wrote the creature, so I can't speak to the intent of the designer). The ECS states that the Glidewing is a pteranodon, and a pteranodon is estimated to have weighed 50 lbs. I am just stating the facts. Now I know they EXIST in Eberron, but so do Quori that remember the invasion of the Giant Kingdoms. Does this mean either make sense? My point is that either it is poorly thought up 'animal' or has some powerful magic that allows it carry a medium creature in flight. Other flying creatures that can carry riders of medium size I think are all magical beasts (Giant Eagle, Giant Owl, Griffon, Pegasus...). For my part, I would allow a Glidewing to carry small creatures instead of medium ones, which would allow halflings to continue to use it. This also would create a reason that it hasn't taken over the aerial market yet.
a_psh 12-16-05, 11:13 PM	Carrying capacity is strictly a matter of size, body type (quadruped or biped, usually) and Strength, IIRC. So house-ruling down the pteranodon would require reducing its Strength score (18 does seem pretty high for a flying skinflap, to be honest). But, uh, first... are we actually talking about the pteranodon and not some kind of smaller pterosaur here? Just want to double-check. Basically, the carrying capacity wasn't assigned to be realistic/unrealistic. It was calculated based on size and Strength score. So, if you want to change it, remember that you do actually have to modify the actual monster stats, not just that one line. Though there is already precedent in D&D art for fur-bikini-clad jungle women riding around on these things so maybe they should be strong enough to fly with your average Medium rider. ;)
Hellcow 12-17-05, 12:12 AM	Actually, pegasi do have a reason to be good. At least, when forming a society together in a herd. Best argument I've heard. That’s good thinking. But just to explore this further: Why the chaos? What you're saying is essentially that alignment will be dictated by the herd. Doesn't that imply an inherent bent towards law? The fact that every member of a herd can detect the alignment of their companions is a good argument for people encouraging desired behavior. Certainly, as a general rule, one would expect good individuals to be preferable to evil. But on the other hand, if you HAD an evil herd... wouldn't they encourage their offspring to share their behavior? Why would you have such a thing? That's certainly a good question... but if you have a tough herd in Droaam that lives in a harsh environment and survives by preying on the weak creatures around them, won't they raise their offspring to be as strong and deadly as they are? It's all back to how good and evil are interpreted... is an evil alignment always a bad thing, or may some people believe evil traits to be admirable? I do think the basic principle is intriguing, and a logical exploration of the cultural impact of having everyone able to detect alignment. And I agree that that's more likely to produce a good society than a neutral one. But I still think it could also - if less often - produce an evil society. The good pegasus may be honorable and kind - but in the wild, that may not be actually be a quality I want in my leader (It's worth noting that pegasi herds are fairly small - 6 to 10). A young pegasus will know some humans are good and see how they behave, and it will know some humans are evil and see how they behave... I think this comes to the question of levels of evil. In the herd, I'll quickly discover that the evil guy is a vile pegasus, and the good one is trustworthy and honorable. But can I figure that out with my Vadalis trainers? The baron may be a ruthless businessman who earns his evil alignment through his business practices, but who loves his animals more than life itself and treats them like members of his own family. Won't this just confuse the pegasus, who never actually sees (or could likely understand) the evil actions he does? It's back to the idea that good people can do evil things, and evil people can do good. If the evil man is good to his pegasi... well, that's just puzzling. Nonetheless, it's a good point. But here's another possibility. What if Vadalis pegasi can't detect alignments? My whole point all along is that House Vadalis knows everything their is to know about training pegasi. They've been doing it for almost two thousand years! If the alignment detection is a problem, I would assume they've found a way around it - so the question is, how would YOU counter this? Question one: a pegasus has the power - but how does he learn to use it? If it's something normally taught by other pegasi, perhaps you can solve the problem through isolation. Perhaps Pegasi handlers are themselves trained into neutral alignments, or wear rings of undetectible alignment. Or, since magebreeding is a factor, perhaps they've actually come up with a way to magebreed the ability out of the pegasus - which would also allow you to sell it to the evil master. Obviously that's a house rule, and a direct contradiction of the MM. But again, it is canon that Vadalis sells pegasi. They are experts at handling and selling animals and magical beasts. So, with the resources at their disposal, how would they overcome this obstacle? Again, lest I seem contrary, excellent argument for most pegasi being good. I brought up my points to explore the idea further, not because I think your basic premise is flawed.
Hellcow 12-17-05, 12:21 AM	Now I know they EXIST in Eberron, but so do Quori that remember the invasion of the Giant Kingdoms. Does this mean either make sense? My point is that either it is poorly thought up 'animal' or has some powerful magic that allows it carry a medium creature in flight. Certainly. My point is that it could be both: that it can be a creature that defies the laws of physics and still be an “animal”, because the designer felt that in spite of its unnatural capabilities, it still responds as an animal to skills and spells. Just out of curiosity, is your point with the quori thing that this is a contradiction in canon (since it is)? For those who don’t know: By Races of Eberron, no quori of the present age remembers the Xen’drik incursion, which occurred during the previous age. However, Magic of Eberron states that dream master quori has been scheming ever since the incursion. That’s certainly an accident – a case of the author not checking the previous source material as closely as he might (it could be an intentional choice to ignore RoE, but I know that the RoE material is being used in other sourcebooks). If there is an accident with the glidewing, I think that it was calling it a pteranodon to begin with – instead of making it a creature with no natural counterpart, like the bloodstriker or battletitan. I believe that James’ intent was not to create a realistic counterpart to the pteranodon, but rather to create an interesting flying mount. So all I’m saying is that if HE were to make a change, I’m guessing it would be to pull “pteranodon” off that table… as opposed to dropping the carrying capacity of the glidewing to a more realistic level. But hey, I’ll ask him next time we chat. ;)
Wolfwood2 12-17-05, 01:04 AM	[list] Why the chaos? What you're saying is essentially that alignment will be dictated by the herd. Doesn't that imply an inherent bent towards law? Actually, this one's easy. Usually, any creature with an intelligence of 3 or more is expected to have a language, unless noted otherwise. With the pegasi, however, it's noted that they can't actually speak. (Bear with me here, and you'll see where I'm going.) Now a big part of being lawful is respect for tradition, one's place in society, and all of that. But how do you pass down traditions and customs and things like that when you can't talk? I mean, you can do it without writing, but at least some kind of oral tradition is necessary. Without being able to talk, how do you lay down codes of conduct? How do you preserve precendent? You don't. Oh, to some extent the pegasi can (and no doubt do) learn by watching the behavior of those older than them, but in the end each individual has to depend on their own individual experience to guide their decision-making. And I'm sure they've got all kinds of non-verbal body language things going down, but a certain level of detail will always be lacking. Admittedly this is more not-lawful than pro-chaos, but you can see how self-reliant, chaotic pegasi would tend to prosper. (I don't think this would be a very pleasant way for humanoids to live, but as you've pointed out before, non-humanoids may have very alien perspectives on things. I'm sure for a magic flying horse not being able to talk is no big deal.) Of course, all of the above applies to pegasi in the wild. Raised by House Vadalis, they could end up lawful as easily as anyone else. The fact that every member of a herd can detect the alignment of their companions is a good argument for people encouraging desired behavior. Certainly, as a general rule, one would expect good individuals to be preferable to evil. But on the other hand, if you HAD an evil herd... wouldn't they encourage their offspring to share their behavior? Why would you have such a thing? That's certainly a good question... but if you have a tough herd in Droaam that lives in a harsh environment and survives by preying on the weak creatures around them, won't they raise their offspring to be as strong and deadly as they are? It's all back to how good and evil are interpreted... is an evil alignment always a bad thing, or may some people believe evil traits to be admirable? Certainly interesting questions to explore in Eberron, I agree. I think this comes to the question of levels of evil. In the herd, I'll quickly discover that the evil guy is a vile pegasus, and the good one is trustworthy and honorable. But can I figure that out with my Vadalis trainers? The baron may be a ruthless businessman who earns his evil alignment through his business practices, but who loves his animals more than life itself and treats them like members of his own family. Won't this just confuse the pegasus, who never actually sees (or could likely understand) the evil actions he does? It's back to the idea that good people can do evil things, and evil people can do good. If the evil man is good to his pegasi... well, that's just puzzling. A most valid point! Nonetheless, it's a good point. But here's another possibility. What if Vadalis pegasi can't detect alignments? My whole point all along is that House Vadalis knows everything their is to know about training pegasi. They've been doing it for almost two thousand years! If the alignment detection is a problem, I would assume they've found a way around it - so the question is, how would YOU counter this? Question one: a pegasus has the power - but how does he learn to use it? If it's something normally taught by other pegasi, perhaps you can solve the problem through isolation. Perhaps Pegasi handlers are themselves trained into neutral alignments, or wear rings of undetectible alignment. Or, since magebreeding is a factor, perhaps they've actually come up with a way to magebreed the ability out of the pegasus - which would also allow you to sell it to the evil master. I don't know, it's a pretty useful ability for your mount to have, being able to judge the character of everyone you meet. Not to mention the side benefits like detecting powerful auras so you know someone's unusual. Just watch a PC party with a paladin in action. "Is he evil? Did he detect as evil? Scan ahead, see if anybody evil is hiding in there. Yo, see if that dude's evil!" You know what I'm talking about. And a pegasus can detect good as well, so it can do it even better. Sure it limits your customer base somewhat, but I can't see Vadalis deliberately surpressing such a useful talent. It's all about fitting the customer to the car, and if a pegasus doesn't work for Baron Evilos I'm sure they can find some other mount that will.
Hellcow 12-17-05, 01:43 AM	Just watch a PC party with a paladin in action. "Is he evil? Did he detect as evil? Scan ahead, see if anybody evil is hiding in there. Yo, see if that dude's evil!" You know what I'm talking about. Absolutely! Which is, of course, why I try to make alignment more complicated in my campaign, so that jumping to conclusions too quickly based solely on the fact that the guy is good or evil may carry you down the wrong path. ;) Sure it limits your customer base somewhat, but I can't see Vadalis deliberately surpressing such a useful talent. It's all about fitting the customer to the car... Personally, I agree - that's what I was talking about earlier, when I said the handler would take time to work with buyer and pegasus, and be able to tell you "This just won't work for you, sir." But at the same time, I want folks to consider that Vadalis might be able to do something like breed out/stunt the detection ability of a pegasus, if that was somehow critical to their efforts. Vadalis is a house that hasn't received a lot of attention so far... and I think that the idea of a business built around the use of magical (and mundane) creatures has a lot of intriguing possibilities. So all I'm saying is that just because Joe the Farmer might have an impossible time training creature X doesn't mean it can't be done. It just becomes a question: if you had vast resources, magic, and hundreds of years to figure out a way to solve the problem, what would you come up with?
aelryinth 12-17-05, 05:39 AM	Where does it say this? Again, where does it say that he believes money for spells is not a bad thing? Please source. Your point, as I understand it, is that because someone, somewhere, takes money for services, regardless if it is the person themselves, that makes them mercenary. That line of logic associates almost every divine caster in the history of Eberron who has ever partook in military action as a mercenary. This also, incidentally, includes PCs who use divine magic. Mercenaries, by your definition. I'm just trying to stick to your terminology, not over-infer or overstate. As Hellcow said, "just because some druids might do a thing doesn't mean they all can or will." You were inferring that since Valenar druids could join up, the Ashbound could. I'll quote you: ...oh wait, I already countered this point in my previous post. No, what you've got is a monotheistic faith with splinter sects. As Siran, myself, a_psh, errant, Hellcow, and pretty much everyone else on this thread seems to have already covered exhaustively, druids have differing viewpoints on what is deemed "natural". It's subjective. Siran even pointed out the 3.5 official viewpoint on the issue in his post. What everyone playing standard 3.5 has "got" is subjective viewpoints on nature, just as much as subjective viewpoints on the Silver Flame, or the Blood of Vol, or what have you. What your nonstandard fluff presumes is not what the setting presumes. You even contradict yourself here. In a previous post, you say Then in this one, you go on to state that those sectors are A-OK, seeing as there is a druid ruler of a nation. Government, right there. In other words, which side do you support? Your own opinion of things (which is not official by any stretch), or what is already established, even by your own admission? You can have your own opinion, but as I've tried to make clear many times, this is supposed to be about what is standard/official, not nonstandard/homebrew. It seems that when you do source, you source something that opposes your definition of things. I can see why you don't source. And this is why I get so freaking frustrated. You REVERSE what I'm saying on two important points. And then you make a snap judgement and say I'm wrong because you can't make the correct inference. You THEN misinterpret the monotheistic aspect of "We all Serve Nature" and go off on some wild tangent, and tell me I'M the one who is WRONG? You blatantly assume that there's an inherent contradiction in being a ruler and being a druid. Do you even HAVE the Fate of Istus and read the module about the society/book I'm referring to? No? Then tell me how a Druid being the HEAD of a Druidic-centered and worshipping culture is WRONG. He's not a beauacratic paper-pusher...he's the man on top. That's not government...that's tribal cheif gone big time. YOu have them in Sector One economies. Government is the whole economic sector that rises out of the administration of laws and solving Other People's Problems for them...something a Druid would minimize his involvement in at best. And Hellcow wonders why I seem to get angry. ==Aelryinth
Roxlimn 12-17-05, 08:55 AM	If you made your arguments logical, systematic, as concise as possible, and comprehensible, fewer people would misunderstand what you were trying to say.
Euangelion 12-17-05, 10:43 AM	Now a big part of being lawful is respect for tradition, one's place in society, and all of that. But how do you pass down traditions and customs and things like that when you can't talk? I mean, you can do it without writing, but at least some kind of oral tradition is necessary. Without being able to talk, how do you lay down codes of conduct? How do you preserve precendent? You don't. Oh, to some extent the pegasi can (and no doubt do) learn by watching the behavior of those older than them, but in the end each individual has to depend on their own individual experience to guide their decision-making. And I'm sure they've got all kinds of non-verbal body language things going down, but a certain level of detail will always be lacking. Admittedly this is more not-lawful than pro-chaos, but you can see how self-reliant, chaotic pegasi would tend to prosper. I'm not 100% sure this is relevant, but from what little I understand about the behavior of elephants, they do indeed have what might be considered to be a lawful social structure, in that there are certain rules and patterns that they follow, and when one elephant steps out of line (sometime literally) the others will put him in his place. Also, communication is something like 70% non-verbal. One whinny could sound angry while another might be more soothing, not to mention body language. Thus there are ways that the pegasi could communicate what behavior is desirable or not without actually speaking. Bottom line: if somehow the elephants manage, then certainly a creature that is equally as intelligent, and more wise, than an average human can figure it out!
davethebrave371 12-17-05, 12:57 PM	And this is why I get so freaking frustrated. You REVERSE what I'm saying on two important points. And then you make a snap judgement and say I'm wrong because you can't make the correct inference. You THEN misinterpret the monotheistic aspect of "We all Serve Nature" and go off on some wild tangent, and tell me I'M the one who is WRONG? You blatantly assume that there's an inherent contradiction in being a ruler and being a druid. Do you even HAVE the Fate of Istus and read the module about the society/book I'm referring to? No? Then tell me how a Druid being the HEAD of a Druidic-centered and worshipping culture is WRONG. He's not a beauacratic paper-pusher...he's the man on top. That's not government...that's tribal cheif gone big time. YOu have them in Sector One economies. Government is the whole economic sector that rises out of the administration of laws and solving Other People's Problems for them...something a Druid would minimize his involvement in at best. And Hellcow wonders why I seem to get angry. ==Aelryinth Ok then, ignore that point. Address the other ones. You tend to do this, focus on one point you know you can win. I address all of your points, and indeed all of everyone's points directed at me. I have made several counter-arguments to your points earlier that you didn't address at all, even though they countered your points, and now I've asked for sourcing, and you focus on one thing. I cede that I was not aware of what kind of government, it just seems to me that you didn't allow exceptions in the absolutist statement that all government is something for druids to avoid. You said that. And then you said government is ok. You didn't specify in your original statement, "But I think it'd be fine if it were THIS way." you just said "gov't=bad". Now I see more clearly what you were talking about. While I thank you for that clarification, I would dearly love for my last two posts to be responded to as a whole, as opposed to one point out of the bunch.
Hellcow 12-17-05, 01:16 PM	And Hellcow wonders why I seem to get angry. Honestly, I do. In one of our earlier exchanges, you said that because of my stance on warlocks, the fact that fey-empowered warlocks might exist meant that the Ashbound couldn't fight infernally-powered warlocks. This was a misinterpretation of what I had said; in fact, in the original message I suggested that while they might give warlocks a pass as they were only the descendents of people who had bartered with the unnatural, there was an equal chance that they would consider all warlocks unnatural and attempt to destroy them. In my response, I recognized the misunderstanding and attempting to clarify my statement so you could understand what I intended to say. There's no need for me to be angry about it. Either I didn't make the point clear, or you didn't read it closely enough. Either way, getting angry doesn't help me, you, or anyone else who might be interested in the subject. DavetheBrave misunderstood your statement. He read your initial post as "Druids should have no involvement in government of any kind" followed by a post stating that a druid ran a country. Your clarifying statement that this was a country guided and governed by druidic principles places the initial message in an entirely different light, and even Dave says that he now understands what you meant. So why the need for anger? You had a point to make. It was misunderstood. If you clarify it, conversation can continue. Again, if we were sitting around a table, I'd rather you said "Actually, Dave, what I was trying to say was..." as opposed to jumping up and shouting "Dave, you idiot, how dare you claim..." *I* have frequently found your posts to be confusing: when you talked about Ashbound in an army, I jumped to the conclusion that you were refering to the same sort of army you were complaining about in previous posts, helped by the fact that you used the example of the Nazis in the same sentence... and while it wasn't the connection I expect you were trying to make, "Nazi" to me conjured an image of a highly organized modern war machine, exactly the sort of army I'd see druids having trouble with. When you clarify "Actually, in this case, the army I was talking about was an undisciplined barbarian horde" - that completely changes the picture. I misunderstood what you wrote. Is that a good reason to get angry? Should I be furious at you for misinterpreting my feelings on the warlock? Or should we just clarify and move on? Obviously, I feel this applies to board etiquette in general. Aelryinth is not the only person to respond in anger, and as I've said I have had to struggle to restrain angry responses of my own. But wouldn't this thread - and the boards - be a more useful place if we all could contain those instincts? I'm enjoying the discussion. The recent points on pegasi have been especially interesting. But the aggression and shouting just strikes a sour note, and serves no useful purpose, while clarifying and expanding on points of confusion does.
Errant 12-17-05, 11:31 PM	So why the need for anger? You had a point to make. It was misunderstood. If you clarify it, conversation can continue. Again, if we were sitting around a table, I'd rather you said "Actually, Dave, what I was trying to say was..." as opposed to jumping up and shouting "Dave, you idiot, how dare you claim..." Not only can conversation continue, if you clarify something someone has overlooked and they’re open-minded about it, you might give them an insight that will expand their game play, just as I can now see (and plan) a greater use of glidewings in Eberron because Euangelion explained to me how they could be survive in colder climates, despite my initial impression that they were limited by their warmer native environment.
aelryinth 12-18-05, 05:38 AM	Ok then, ignore that point. Address the other ones. You tend to do this, focus on one point you know you can win. I address all of your points, and indeed all of everyone's points directed at me. I have made several counter-arguments to your points earlier that you didn't address at all, even though they countered your points, and now I've asked for sourcing, and you focus on one thing. I cede that I was not aware of what kind of government, it just seems to me that you didn't allow exceptions in the absolutist statement that all government is something for druids to avoid. You said that. And then you said government is ok. You didn't specify in your original statement, "But I think it'd be fine if it were THIS way." you just said "gov't=bad". Now I see more clearly what you were talking about. While I thank you for that clarification, I would dearly love for my last two posts to be responded to as a whole, as opposed to one point out of the bunch. At this point, I'm just getting angry again. You are again calling for me to justify positions I've already plainly stated numerous times...and which you reverse on me, so you are countering points I've never made. Go back and look. Read. Understand. I posted this more then once. Military does not equal Mercenary. Reread this. Digest this. Consider this. Look at what Errant posted on #283 and you somehow considered a statement of my belief, despite my stating more then once the complete opposite. He's stating that I consider every caster that's been in an army a mercenary...totally ignoring the fact I've posted more then once the complete opposite. Now, go back and justify what you posted above. I noted that spellcasters don't serve as soldiers in an Army for the money. They never get compensated enough. They do it for belief. Reread that paragraph. Understand it. I've stated it several times. It's eminently logical...there's no way a military would pay them the value of their spellcasting services, so they must be doing it for other reasons. Now, clarify the term 'mercenary'. In D@D, it's someone who fights for hire. For gold. In a social aspect, it's someone who does things for the highest bidder. For a spellcaster, being a mercenary is considerably different from being military. As a merc, you get full value for your spellcasting services. You may be in a military role, but you now get the gold...because you aren't serving for belief. Your 'belief' is now that being a mercenary is the 'right thing'. It's YOUR CHOICE to be a merc...not military. And why do I have a problem with this? Because the difference between 'mercantilism' and selling spellcasting services and 'mercenary' hiring out of spellcasting services is nothing more then a level of violence. If there is nothing to fight, it makes perfect sense for this 'mercenary' to make use of his primary assets as he does in wartime...and hire out his spellcasting services. Mercenary becomes mercantile. ANd the whole point is, the setting is supposed to avoid mercantilism as applied to divine magic, isn't it. And as I've also previously stated, whoever hires the merc doesn't care if he believes in the job, is ambivalent, neutral, or what. He pays money, he gets spells. Is it neccessarily 'cure this 8 hp boo boo' right now? No. It might be 'two Call Lightnings to the command legion' and then 'help get the wounded and ready for the March' to 'make this prisoner talk, he has information.' The merc has been bought, and he does what he's expected to do. The implications go far beyond mere healing. They provide a direct arrow leading from patron->gold->spells. And I can justify it all by saying I hired a mercenary divine caster to do it. How wonderful...and against the flavor of the setting. That's it. That's all. There's nothing more. I don't see how I can make it any clearer. And I've said it all before, and STILL people are twisting it around, blowing it up, or reading it wrong. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 12-18-05, 05:52 AM	As for the whole Valenar thing, remember that we have a post (Dragonshard?) stating that Valenar averaged 8-12 Elves, levels 4-6, including a spellcaster, and the average Valenar is a level 4 ranger. That's incredibly strong for Eberron. Level 4, and PC classes! Now we have followup posts by Hellcow saying how he treats them like adventuring bands! No more 5-8 R/4's, 1-2 r/5's, an r/6 and a warmage/6. This is now a quantum increase in toughness, because not only are they the rare PC classes, but they minmax on top of this! Truly, the Valenar become something not to mess with. Not only do they all have PC classes and are high level, but they multi-class between PC classes extensively on top of that...something no other culture even comes close to. Or, as Charlie Phibbs said it best... The Valenar are completely unaware that they are not the stars of the show. ==Aelryinth
Roxlimn 12-18-05, 06:47 AM	aelryinth: He's stating that I consider every caster that's been in an army a mercenary...totally ignoring the fact I've posted more then once the complete opposite. To tell you the truth, aelryinth, you post so many pointless statements that contribute nothing to your argument, posts that ramble on about other arguments, and just outright seeming contradictions that it's quite difficult to make sense of what you're saying at all. If you filtered out the incoherent ramblings, the angry interjections, and streamlined your arguments, you would probably have less problems. Really. No, really. Try it out. Now, clarify the term 'mercenary'. In D@D, it's someone who fights for hire. For gold. In a social aspect, it's someone who does things for the highest bidder. For a spellcaster, being a mercenary is considerably different from being military. As a merc, you get full value for your spellcasting services. You may be in a military role, but you now get the gold...because you aren't serving for belief. Your 'belief' is now that being a mercenary is the 'right thing'. It's YOUR CHOICE to be a merc...not military. And why do I have a problem with this? Because the difference between 'mercantilism' and selling spellcasting services and 'mercenary' hiring out of spellcasting services is nothing more then a level of violence. If there is nothing to fight, it makes perfect sense for this 'mercenary' to make use of his primary assets as he does in wartime...and hire out his spellcasting services. Mercenary becomes mercantile. This entire block is purely speculative and completely made up wholesale on your part. There is nothing in the books that says that mercenary Priests sell their services when not on duty, and vice versa. It's a complete fabrication. There is nothing in this block that refers to rules or to flavor text in either the core books, Eberron material, or Hellcow's posts. Here's a good excercise. If you think what you post is completely based on the core books, Eberron material, or Hellcow's posts, then make your argument posting nothing that isn't quoted word for word from somewhere else. It's quite possible, I assure you, and I've made my points strongly on other matters doing just so. In many ways this clarifies where you're getting your ideas and what kind of interpretation of which passages makes you think the way you do. s for the whole Valenar thing, remember that we have a post (Dragonshard?) stating that Valenar averaged 8-12 Elves, levels 4-6, including a spellcaster, and the average Valenar is a level 4 ranger. That's incredibly strong for Eberron. Level 4, and PC classes! Now we have followup posts by Hellcow saying how he treats them like adventuring bands! No more 5-8 R/4's, 1-2 r/5's, an r/6 and a warmage/6. This is now a quantum increase in toughness, because not only are they the rare PC classes, but they minmax on top of this! Truly, the Valenar become something not to mess with. Not only do they all have PC classes and are high level, but they multi-class between PC classes extensively on top of that...something no other culture even comes close to. Or, as Charlie Phibbs said it best... The Valenar are completely unaware that they are not the stars of the show. 1. I'm pretty sure that the poster's handle is Charles Phipps, not Charles Phibbs. You also frequently miss large blocks of text. Perhaps you have some problem we should be making allowances for? 2. Hellcow never said that they are minmaxed. Not all adventuring bands minmax, since not everyone who plays D&D is a power gamer of some sort. Indeed, many PCs are practically anti-minmaxxed if the player is an RP guy playing some unfortunately underpowered concept, or a class clown who underpowers his characters on purpose. I strongly believe that you are mistaken in your understanding on what Hellcow means on this point, and on many, many other points, for that matter. ANd the whole point is, the setting is supposed to avoid mercantilism as applied to divine magic, isn't it. Strongly disagree. There are any number of divine magic spells on sale regularly at any House Jorasco compound, and the divine magic potions and scrolls, while not decreased in price, are increased in availability throughout Khorvaire. You are making a mistake regarding what Hellcow is saying, and one other poster has been making the same point over and over again with no response whatsoever on your part. You are making your point somewhat clear on this matter. There is no problem there. The problem is that you offer absolutely no coherent responses to the rebuttals regarding your objections, and very strong rebuttals they happen to be. Everyone: I ask everyone here to hold their keyboards in abeyance regarding aelryinth. I strongly believe that he does not intentionally ignore responses and arguments, although he may do so in a seemingly malicious manner. I have good reasons to believe that he may be unable to process information on the screen as well as many of us, so you must make your arguments simple and to the point. Making them bold, less than one line, and in red letters tends to help. I am neither joking nor making fun of aleryinth. I'm dead serious.
Errant 12-18-05, 08:53 AM	Reread this. Digest this. Consider this. Look at what Errant posted on #283 and you somehow considered a statement of my belief, despite my stating more then once the complete opposite. He's stating that I consider every caster that's been in an army a mercenary... Are we reading the same message board? When I look at post #283 I see a post from davethebrave. Does anyone see a post from me at #283? And I'm still waiting for clarification on where I said mercenary = military (see post #304). I certainly don’t remember saying that ever, let alone in this thread. I can't politely say what I think of the mercenary = military idea. At least you provided your definition of "mercenary" at last. it's someone who fights for hire. For gold. In a social aspect, it's someone who does things for the highest bidder. For a spellcaster, being a mercenary is considerably different from being military. As a merc, you get full value for your spellcasting services. You may be in a military role, but you now get the gold...because you aren't serving for belief. Your 'belief' is now that being a mercenary is the 'right thing'. It's YOUR CHOICE to be a merc...not military. Mercenary = someone who works for gold, sure, np. Mercenary = someone who works for the highest bidder? Different statement. Why the insistence that gold can be the only consideration for gaining a mercenary’s employment? Mercenary, mercantile, whatever label you want to put on it, I believe most here, if they agree divine spellcasters work for gold at all, would say that they only do so as a secondary consideration to their faith. Reread that. Digest it. Understand it. Why are you are holding onto the idea that mercenary means “someone who does things for the highest bidder” ignoring the possibility “unless the highest bidder has unsatisfactory conditions”? Unsatisfactory conditions like expecting a divine spellcaster to act contrary to their faith. Let go of the idea that working for gold means necessarily abandoning other priorities and maybe you’ll see how a divine spellcaster can possibly serve in a mercenary warband (for example) without violating their faith and maybe break the patron->gold->spells “arrow”. Roxlimn – I’ve suspected what you suggest for some time, I’m already trying to ignore Aelryinth’s posts but when he names me I feel compelled to respond. I refuse to intentionally ignore a challenge (or misquote) of my posts.
Roxlimn 12-18-05, 09:42 AM	Errant: Well, my point isn't that we should ignore aelryinth. He does have some substance in his posts, even if that substance is only applicable in his own games. God forbid we find useful nuggets of inspiration is someone else's campaign. My point is that you can't argue with aelryinth with a conversational style of post because he misses rather important points when the word count gets over like 100 or so. If you want to point out a weakness in his arguments, do so in one line, bold the statement, and put it in red. If possible, post it multiple times in successive lines for about 4 or 5 lines. This is a tested method that will get the point across effectively to him. I suggest not to place your rebuttal in question form. You need to be more direct, more to the point. Rhetoric needs to be sacrificed for the sake of simplicity and comprehension. A clinical statement of why his argument fails is the best way to tell him what you mean. For example, the best way to form your particular rebuttal would be to simplify his statement thus: it's someone who fights for hire. For gold. In a social aspect, it's someone who does things for the highest bidder. And then rebut using what I interpret from your statements as: YOU HAVE NO BASIS IN RULES OR FROM EBERRON MATERIAL FOR SAYING THAT. YOU HAVE NO BASIS IN RULES OR FROM EBERRON MATERIAL FOR SAYING THAT. YOU HAVE NO BASIS IN RULES OR FROM EBERRON MATERIAL FOR SAYING THAT. YOU HAVE NO BASIS IN RULES OR FROM EBERRON MATERIAL FOR SAYING THAT. One line, bolded, in red. That gets the message across clearly, and he's unlikely to misunderstand what you mean, or miss it for insignificant chit chat or rhetoric.
Hellcow 12-18-05, 01:23 PM	Now we have followup posts by Hellcow saying how he treats them like adventuring bands! No more 5-8 R/4's, 1-2 r/5's, an r/6 and a warmage/6. This is now a quantum increase in toughness, because not only are they the rare PC classes, but they minmax on top of this! I'm not sure I follow the logic here. When I said I'd treat them as adventuring groups, I was refering purely to their motivation, not their composition or power. They are like adventurers in that you have a group of highly skilled individuals bound together by friendship as much as by circumstance, and who typically have the ability to choose the missions they undertake: as opposed to a military unit of one of the Five Nations, which would be more circumstantial in its composition and lack the ability to say "No, we just don't feel like taking that job." Beyond that, I'd still keep the uneven distribution of levels, though I might go with 2-3 5th level characters in the bunch... and I'd also swap a few rangers for scouts (which didn't exist when I initially wrote up the Valenar material), and consider a bard, which have always been noted as being part of Valenar culture. I would use the elite array, but if I'm setting up an warband to fight PCs, I'd use NPC gear values... or if I chose to improve their gear, I'd raise their CR accordingly. And where does minmaxing come in? I wouldn't "minmax" them any more than I would for any other elite fighting force, from the Dhakaani elite to a human unit. Now, the point may be "If they're like an adventuring group, they've all gone on the same adventures, and as such, should all be the same level." Not in my view. This comes back to my opinion that NPCs don't have the same right to experience as PCs. That group of 4th-6th level Valenar might fight a dozen battles and still be 4th-6th level, just as a Karrnathi veteran could come out of the war and potentially still be a 1st or 2nd level warrior. I believe that people have a certain potential they plateau at, and the the ability of PCs to reach any level - and in remarkable short order - is a key aspect of what makes them PCs. Valenar are ahead of the curve; as a normal Brelish soldier is a 1st level warrior and a skilled Brelish soldier is a 5th level fighter, if a normal Valenar soldier is a 4th level ranger, an exceptional Valenar will be higher level. But just like the bulk of the population remains at first level despite their life experience, I have no problem with the idea that most Valenar hit 4th and never advance from there. (This is of course a house rule of my own, which I hold to because it's one of the only way D&D demographics - where the vast bulk of the world is 1st level - makes sense to me. I am well aware that it is not supported by the RAW. In short, I believe that NPCs essentially get their XP from story awards, with critical events in their lives pushing them up... but I hate the idea that an average village blacksmith becomes a better blacksmith by hitting a goblin over the head with his hammer.) Truly, the Valenar become something not to mess with. Um... Yes? How is this news? From the begining we've said that pound for pound the Valenar are the most dangerous soldiers on Khorvaire. If they weren't, considering their actions, they'd have been exterminated. They are hampered by their small numbers, limited industrial base (not much for siege weaponry, for example), and potentially by the degree of discipline displayed when multiple warbands have to work together - the flip side of them being sort of like adventurers. Individual warbands are very effective, but a warclan may not be able to enforce or react with the same tight discipline as a Karrnathi or Dhakaani army. Their skill may enable them to defeat a larger force in spite of this... but they certainly don't have the numbers it would take to do something like actually try to invade Breland, even if they have enough skill to make Breland think twice about invading them. But the Valenar have never been someone to mess with... that's nothing new. Not only do they all have PC classes and are high level, but they multi-class between PC classes extensively on top of that...something no other culture even comes close to. Since when did 4th-6th level become "high level"? I always saw it as the low end of midlevel, if that. In any case, the next closest would be the Dhakaani... who themselves suffer from the same problem of limited numbers. As for the other nations, they do have elite units that make use of PC classes... just look at Aundair's Knight Phantoms. And if I am allowing members of a unit to take PC classes in the first place, I'd certainly allow them to multiclass. I was working on a Dhakaani troop recently, and it includes fighter/rangers and a scout/rogue. I do try to focus most NPCs on NPC levels, but if I've decided that a character gets 4 PC levels, I don't care if they're in one class or four, provided it makes sense for the character. But yes, it's true. One on one, the Valenar are supposed to be the toughest warriors around. That is their role in the setting. However, the average Valenar still tops out at 4th-6th level.... so by the time your PC hits 12th, you're a badass even by their standards. But getting all the way back to the original issue: the Valenar may BEHAVE like adventurers, but they still suffer all the restrictions stated before. They average 4th-6th level, and while they have their own elite units that are above this (with the same relative percentage of elite units to average soldiers you'll find in other armies), the average soldier will stay at 4th level throughout his career. His gear is determined as an NPC, not as a PC. And as far as minmaxing goes, when I make a Valenar NPC, I do the same things I'd do for any 4th level PC-classed character of any culture or race.
a_psh 12-18-05, 06:40 PM	Now, clarify the term 'mercenary'. In D@D, it's someone who fights for hire. For gold. In a social aspect, it's someone who does things for the highest bidder. For a spellcaster, being a mercenary is considerably different from being military. As a merc, you get full value for your spellcasting services. You may be in a military role, but you now get the gold...because you aren't serving for belief. Your 'belief' is now that being a mercenary is the 'right thing'. It's YOUR CHOICE to be a merc...not military.In my opinion, you're overextending things. Take real-world PMCs, for example. They're definitely mercenaries. But can you see, say, Blackwater doing anything other than working for the US government or national/corporate entities which the US government approves of? Likewise, for example, what's wrong with particularly independent-minded and experienced Cyran patriots forming their own mercenary company that is strictly fighting just for Cyre? Now, Valenar don't care as much about Khorvaire's political situation, but... As Keith said, compare the Valenar to an adventuring party: many PCs usually don't pick up jobs unless they directly concern them ("That evil overlord is going to kill your sister!") or there's a substantial reward involved, too. Does this mean that they don't have any beliefs and are willing to work "for the highest bidder"? As for the whole Valenar thing, remember that we have a post (Dragonshard?) stating that Valenar averaged 8-12 Elves, levels 4-6, including a spellcaster, and the average Valenar is a level 4 ranger. That's incredibly strong for Eberron. Level 4, and PC classes! Now we have followup posts by Hellcow saying how he treats them like adventuring bands! No more 5-8 R/4's, 1-2 r/5's, an r/6 and a warmage/6. This is now a quantum increase in toughness, because not only are they the rare PC classes, but they minmax on top of this! Truly, the Valenar become something not to mess with. Not only do they all have PC classes and are high level, but they multi-class between PC classes extensively on top of that...something no other culture even comes close to.Once again, overextending. Keith's statements basically amount to this (please correct me if I'm misreading your intent, Keith): <ATTEMPTING TO PARAPHRASE KEITH> Basically every Valenar warrior out there wants to be a hero, and is trying very, very hard to become one, whatever his personal ideal of a hero might be. He tries very hard to seek out opportunities to do so, placing himself in situations where he can make a name for himself through his courage and battle prowess. As such, the primary motivation behind the actions of the Valenar, particularly when in small groups, is to join in glorious battles, not make a fast buck. This is why they'll laugh in your face if you ask them to do many mundane mercenary tasks (e.g. guard stuff). Likewise, because of their devotion to personal glory, Valenar warbands do indeed tend to be more democratic than anything you'd find in one of the Five Nations' standing armies. They're closer to a band of equals than a squad of soldiers. You have said before that you think this doesn't work, Ael, but Keith seems to be saying that it works just as well as a PC party: sometimes there might be issues, but the potential for truly amazing teamwork is very high, as well. </PARAPHRASE> "Adventuring party" does not mean "player characters with all the perks thereof". No, they don't all get action points or PC-level treasure or super-high stats (though, like the warforged and other PC-classed elites, they should probably use the elite array rather than the standard non-elite array). It's effectively its own profession in all three of the big campaign worlds (though only a profession for crazy risk-takers). And Eberron's Valenar, particularly when they're only riding around in small groups, are definitely courageous risk-takers.
Hellcow 12-18-05, 08:58 PM	(please correct me if I'm misreading your intent, Keith): Basically every Valenar warrior out there wants to be a hero, and is trying very, very hard to become one, whatever his personal ideal of a hero might be. He tries very hard to seek out opportunities to do so, placing himself in situations where he can make a name for himself through his courage and battle prowess. In part. He doesn't just want to be a hero, he wants to be a vessel for the essence of his patron ancestor, which he does by performing similar deeds. "But his ancestor fought giants!" some may say. True, and the Silaes Tairn (page 218 of the ECS) specifically believe that the Tairnadal can only attain true glory by fully recreating these deeds. But most Tairnadal believe that it is not necessary to precisely mimic either cause or foe: it is simply a question of seeking out conflict and carrying themselves as their ancestor would. It was in battle that their ancestors attained the status of legends - and it is in battle that the Valenar can become a true vessel for his patron. In the process, many Tairnadal hope that through their own deeds they will become worthy of veneration by future generations of Tairnadal; their are patron ancestors from the Dhakaani wars, for example. But the first goal is to emulate the patron, and the second to make a name for yourself. This may not make sense to some folks, and that's OK with me. As I've said before, it's religion - and religions often seem odd to outsiders. This also comes back to the issue of "honor" among the Valenar. A Valenar seeks to emulate the deeds of his ancestor. If his ancestor was honorable, he will attempt to be honorable. If his ancestor was a vicious man who massacred captives, he will massacre captives. Needless to say, warbands are generally comprised of people with ancestors whose behaviors compliment each other (and remember, multiple elves can have the same patron), so you wouldn't have the honorable warrior in the same band as that ruthless killer. But the issue is that there are SOME Valenar that think honor and glory go hand in hand... but many others who feel that honor has no place on the battlefield.
a_psh 12-18-05, 09:28 PM	This also comes back to the issue of "honor" among the Valenar. A Valenar seeks to emulate the deeds of his ancestor. If his ancestor was honorable, he will attempt to be honorable. If his ancestor was a vicious man who massacred captives, he will massacre captives. Needless to say, warbands are generally comprised of people with ancestors whose behaviors compliment each other (and remember, multiple elves can have the same patron), so you wouldn't have the honorable warrior in the same band as that ruthless killer. But the issue is that there are SOME Valenar that think honor and glory go hand in hand... but many others who feel that honor has no place on the battlefield.Follow-up: is it a matter of "honor vs. no honor," or of "honor vs. a different kind of honor"? I would imagine Valenar who butcher or betray others would be like Rokugan's Bayushi - they still consider themselves honorable, they just define honor a wee bit (read: a lot) differently from the rest. In other words, it's a matter of actually valuing stuff like ruthlessness and being feared by your enemies rather than going "he was a bad person" and trying to emulate him anyway, yes?
aelryinth 12-18-05, 09:48 PM	Errant: Well, my point isn't that we should ignore aelryinth. He does have some substance in his posts, even if that substance is only applicable in his own games. God forbid we find useful nuggets of inspiration is someone else's campaign. My point is that you can't argue with aelryinth with a conversational style of post because he misses rather important points when the word count gets over like 100 or so. If you want to point out a weakness in his arguments, do so in one line, bold the statement, and put it in red. If possible, post it multiple times in successive lines for about 4 or 5 lines. This is a tested method that will get the point across effectively to him. I suggest not to place your rebuttal in question form. You need to be more direct, more to the point. Rhetoric needs to be sacrificed for the sake of simplicity and comprehension. A clinical statement of why his argument fails is the best way to tell him what you mean. For example, the best way to form your particular rebuttal would be to simplify his statement thus: And then rebut using what I interpret from your statements as: YOU HAVE NO BASIS IN RULES OR FROM EBERRON MATERIAL FOR SAYING THAT. YOU HAVE NO BASIS IN RULES OR FROM EBERRON MATERIAL FOR SAYING THAT. YOU HAVE NO BASIS IN RULES OR FROM EBERRON MATERIAL FOR SAYING THAT. YOU HAVE NO BASIS IN RULES OR FROM EBERRON MATERIAL FOR SAYING THAT. One line, bolded, in red. That gets the message across clearly, and he's unlikely to misunderstand what you mean, or miss it for insignificant chit chat or rhetoric. =================== estimation confirmed...there IS a reason I don't bother to reply to Roxglimm. No postive contributions. The whole statement is a flame, and a troll...and wrong, to boot. ========================= Errant is correct, 283 is DTB. Whoopsie. See, that's why I try normally not to cite names...inevitably I'll goof up when replying, whereas the person who I'm replying to generally knows it. Bleh! Apologies. At least I got the post # right...problem is, I tried to reply to that post 3 times, and every time the site locked up. So I stopped going back to reread it and see whose name was on top. However, Errant, reread my post again. Where does it say the merc ever gives up their right to refuse a job? Point out where exactly I said this. They may take the job, they may not. If it's opposed to their beliefs, they won't take it. But...if they are neutral..they will...and go to whoever is paying the most. Moreover, if they DO believe in the job...they STILL will sign on with whoever is paying them the most to do it. As for Blackwater, etc...I most certainly can see these guys doing stuff the U.S. Government wouldn't approve of...they are working for corporations for a Thousand dollars a day. Is it going to be common? No...but pay enough, and I'm sure these guys will be willing to pull 'special jobs' that don't have any backing. That IS why they are mercs. Are they going to make a habit out of it? No, they are going to bury it down deep and charge a mint for it...but someone will do it. Mercenary in a social aspect refers to money-grubbing. "Sylvia there is completely merecenary." Money is her key trait. Social talking. Language. It's why I included it, to point out that in common speech it has none-military usages. Again, nowhere do I mention the ability to refuse to take a job. But, the patron does not have to care anything about why you did or did not take the job. Either you do, or you don't, and he moves on to someone who does. He's paying the gold, and all he's truly concerned with is his goals for what he's paying. Your goals are something he has to pay lip service to or ignore. So, again, you did indeed overextend what I wrote. ======================== On the Valenar: What I'm commenting on is the ramping up of the threat level. I also used 'high level' from a campaign aspect as opposed to a PC aspect...the Valenar are exceeedingly high level for the setting. Against PC's? Sure, they are the top of low level. Human Elites, Brels - The Redcloaks, level 9. Mostly NPC classes, a dash of PC classes. Most Brel elites (3-5th+) will have NPC classes. Sharn has numerous examples. Human Elites, Karrns - Higher level soldiers can be pure fighters, it's part of the culture. (And yet, posting a company of pure fighters still gets flak). Human Elites, Other - Thranes will have priests and Aundair have arcane casting classes. Valenar - Normal Valenar = human elites, and have pure PC classes...while most are rangers, they can have any PC class. Truly a notch up. Hellcow makes up his warbands - Eeek, now they can have any combo of PC classes. Not just R/4, but f/2 R/2, etc. This is a big step, because a Ranger can effectively perform all the normal Valenar military duties with just that class (infantry, cavalry, scout, skirmisher, etc). By multi-classing, and inferring it's done on a broad scale (unlikely among human NPC's), this really pops up the threat level a notch for these guys. I never said this was wrong...but as a note, when I made up the Wolves a while back, it was with the idea that Valenar were mostly pure rangers, and so the Wolves were mostly pure fighters with the single PrC thrown in to make use of armor while sneaking around (and I still say that ability should be available as progressive feats...) since we'd been going around with the Marauder PrC from the Heroes of Battle. Hellcow notes the Scout class wasn't even around...equally valid point. I'm just pointing out that a group of Valenar who don't fit into the niche originally made for them represent a much more dangerous entity. I'm not disputing anything...I'm emphasizing the increased threat level. O wait, I'm again disputing something...the idea that A-psh has that somehow I'm saying they are equipped like PC's, have hero points, etc. Amazing! I looked through my post and couldn't find a single place where I mentioned they were not subject to NPC wealth guidelines and they had action points. So exactly why is this statement being directed at me, when I said nothing of the sort? What I did post was this, which actually sums up the paragraph quite well. As Charlie Phibbs put it, The Valenar are not aware that they are not the stars of the show. which, I believe, is the role of the PC's. ===Aelryinth
Hellcow 12-18-05, 11:54 PM	So exactly why is this statement being directed at me, when I said nothing of the sort? What I did post was this, which actually sums up the paragraph quite well. As Charlie Phibbs put it, The Valenar are not aware that they are not the stars of the show. which, I believe, is the role of the PC's. Except... The PCs DO have action points. Higher wealth levels. Unlimited advancement. A 4th level ranger (or Ftr2/Rgr2, if you prefer) is terrifying for an average soldier of the Five Nations. But go through 6 adventures, and you'll match that - and have your better gear and action points to boot. Go through 12 adventures, and you'll outshine it. Furthermore, the Valenar are to a large degree confined to a particular section of the continent, limiting the role they have in the story. Are the Valenar a force with a power that belies their small population? Absolutely. Do they take the spotlight away from the PCs? They never have in MY campaigns, but I perhaps we use them differently. Honestly, I've had more action from the Redcloaks, because you've got a large group of them in Sharn with more frequent reason to encounter the PCs. If I'd run a campaign based in the Blade Desert or Talenta Plains, yes, they'd play a major role. But even then... it just doesn't take PCs that long to get to 4th, in my experience. In my campaign, the Valenar are a force the PCs know to deal with carefully. When they encounter the Valenar swordsman on the road, they know "He's a Valenar - he's probably pretty good, and there's probably three more we haven't spotted." And actually, in the adventure I've run a few times where the party DOES encounter a Valenar in the road, the elves are the villians of the scenario. In any case, the reaction that encounter has always provoked has always been perfect - and very different from what it would have been with a few Brelish soldiers. With the Valenar, the party knows to be on their guard. And the PCs have always won when I've run it - but because they have acted carefully, not just charging in wildly and trusting to luck. So the fearsome reputation of the Valenar served the story well, but it didn't mean that the more capable group of PCs couldn't take them on and triumph... it simply meant that it was a serious challenge, and not just wandering damage. But your mileage, as always, may vary.
Hellcow 12-19-05, 12:10 AM	In other words, it's a matter of actually valuing stuff like ruthlessness and being feared by your enemies... yes? Yes - I'm just not sure he'd try to justify that as "honor". He may believe that victory at all costs is the only logic of war; that terror is more powerful than steel, and is a weapon you cannot afford to pass up; that war is itself an abomination, and only through abominable acts can people be made to see this; or any number of other reasons. A Tairnadal will generally believe that his patron's behavior is, for whatever reason, admirable: after all, these are the heroes of their nation. With that said, I do think that there may be a few Tairnadal ancestors with a darker reputation than others. To be revered, they would have to have done great deeds - turned the tide of critical battles, saved hundreds of elves, what have you. But you might have an ancestor who was mad, or disturbingly bloodthirsty, or who died especially young. Being chosen by such an ancestor is an ill omen, but it is your duty to find peace with it. In a sense it's like saying that Dol Arrah, Dol Dorn, and the Mockery are all elven ancestors... but instead of the warrior choosing which to follow, the god chooses the warrior. if you're chosen by the Mockery, you need to decide if you will embrace that, and come to see the way in which the Mockery's world-view makes sense. Or you can try to fight it... but in doing so, you are turning your back on the gods. If the Mockery has chosen you, you can never receive the favor of Dol Arrah: it's just not your destiny. I do think the idea of the Valenar at odds with his patron has great RP potential... but most are going to adopt the views of the patron. The key point here is that if I'm a follower of Dol-Arrah-as-patron, and you're a follower of the Mockery-as-patron, we're not going to work well in the same warband, and we're not going to accept the same sorts of jobs or missions.
davethebrave371 12-19-05, 12:39 AM	Now, clarify the term 'mercenary'. In D@D, it's someone who fights for hire. For gold. In a social aspect, it's someone who does things for the highest bidder. For a spellcaster, being a mercenary is considerably different from being military. As a merc, you get full value for your spellcasting services. You may be in a military role, but you now get the gold...because you aren't serving for belief. Your 'belief' is now that being a mercenary is the 'right thing'. It's YOUR CHOICE to be a merc...not military. They do not do it for the highest bidder. Please source. As I have said too many times to count, I have already listed examples of people joining militaries by choice which you have yet to rebutt. Essentially, I've already countered this. I'll make it simple. A Q&A format. Can you respond to them? Please? Where does it say the Valenar go to the highest bidder? Where does it say you can't join a military by choice? Where does it say clerics/paladins/divine casters were forced into the military? Where does it say that divine casters felt they were getting shorted on their pay, as you've suggested? Where does it say that mercs never feel shorted on their pay? Where does it say the Valenar hold gold over belief?
a_psh 12-19-05, 12:40 AM	O wait, I'm again disputing something...the idea that A-psh has that somehow I'm saying they are equipped like PC's, have hero points, etc. Amazing! I looked through my post and couldn't find a single place where I mentioned they were not subject to NPC wealth guidelines and they had action points. So exactly why is this statement being directed at me, when I said nothing of the sort?Your exact statement was this: Now we have followup posts by Hellcow saying how he treats them like adventuring bands! No more 5-8 R/4's, 1-2 r/5's, an r/6 and a warmage/6. This is now a quantum increase in toughness, because not only are they the rare PC classes, but they minmax on top of this! Truly, the Valenar become something not to mess with. Not only do they all have PC classes and are high level, but they multi-class between PC classes extensively on top of that...something no other culture even comes close to.I quoted it previously to indicate that I was replying to it. Your implication (as I took it, at least) was that Keith dropping the word "adventuring party" to describe the social/command dynamics of the warband somehow amounts to overpowering them up the wazoo; that, somehow, calling them adventurers is associating them with PCs. I'm pointing out just how much they don't, indeed, resemble the PCs. I don't mean to kiss ass, but Keith (Just for reference, Keith, do you personally prefer to be referred to / addressed as Keith or Keith Baker or Hellcow when being referred to in a board conversation that you're taking part in yourself?) made this point much better than I could have. Additionally, I wouldn't say that a little bit of multiclassing suddenly ramps up their power level. First off, the warband still consists of Valenar and they're following Valenar traditions. Likewise, the band is more battle-oriented than the standard adventuring party (which does stuff like explore ruins, go to parties, fight criminals in Sharn's underworld, and fight the Emerald Claw on airships, after all), and in almost all cases, everyone has to be able to ride, too. This limits the make-up quite a bit. You're not going to get anything like a Cannith rogue/artificer, Brelish shifter cleric, changeling dread necromancer, and warforged fighter/juggernaut. The way I see it, the make-up is still going to be mainly warrior-types with some magical support - a cleric, druid, bard, or evocation-oriented arcanist - thrown in. So what you're left with is additional multiclassing for the warrior-types... is it really that much of an advantage for the warriors to be Rng2/Ftr2 rather than Rng4? The standard PC party follows the "A-Team" paradigm: a group of very diverse experts. You have the guy who makes the plan, the guy who flies the helicopter, the guy who can bluff and smooth-talk, and a guy whose job it is to get shot 50 times and then build the giant armored vehicle that the PCs will use to escape at the end of the adventure... okay, not quite, but you get the idea. This means that they can excel in almost any situation, but ultimately operate in small encounter situations. The Valenar warband, in contrast, is pretty focused on a specific sort of combat, usually mounted skirmishing and archery. This is a scenario where having just one or two guys who can do everything is rather undesirable, as you actually need something more like a whole bunch who can all do the same thing (snipe targets from range, hold the line, whatever). In addition to culture shaping the make-up of the warband, they're just plain better off specializing rather than diversifying in the way that PC parties usually do.
aelryinth 12-19-05, 02:48 AM	They do not do it for the highest bidder. Please source. As I have said too many times to count, I have already listed examples of people joining militaries by choice which you have yet to rebutt. Essentially, I've already countered this. I'll make it simple. A Q&A format. Can you respond to them? Please? Where does it say the Valenar go to the highest bidder? Where does it say you can't join a military by choice? Where does it say clerics/paladins/divine casters were forced into the military? Where does it say that divine casters felt they were getting shorted on their pay, as you've suggested? Where does it say that mercs never feel shorted on their pay? Where does it say the Valenar hold gold over belief? Unbelievable. I state the point Again and still you claim the same thing. 1) Given the job is the same? They'll go to the higher bidder. Where does this matter to the person who hires them? 2) What does this have to do with what I've posted?? Nothing. 3) What does this have to do with what I've posted?? Nothing. 4) What does this have to do with what I've posted?? Are you telling me that military spellcasters get paid by the spell, like private casters, or get the same pay as a merc spellcaster does? 5) What does this have to do with what I've posted?? Do people anywhere ever feel shorted on their pay? 6) What does this have to do with what I've posted?? They can turn down jobs they don't agree with...do I ever say they can't? Why, no. Again, you are again overextending and overinferring. I nowhere intimate that they don't have the right to turn down a job. It makes no difference to the patron looking for a merc. ==Aelryinth
aelryinth 12-19-05, 03:02 AM	Your exact statement was this: I quoted it previously to indicate that I was replying to it. Your implication (as I took it, at least) was that Keith dropping the word "adventuring party" to describe the social/command dynamics of the warband somehow amounts to overpowering them up the wazoo; that, somehow, calling them adventurers is associating them with PCs. I'm pointing out just how much they don't, indeed, resemble the PCs. I don't mean to kiss ass, but Keith (Just for reference, Keith, do you personally prefer to be referred to / addressed as Keith or Keith Baker or Hellcow when being referred to in a board conversation that you're taking part in yourself?) made this point much better than I could have. Additionally, I wouldn't say that a little bit of multiclassing suddenly ramps up their power level. First off, the warband still consists of Valenar and they're following Valenar traditions. Likewise, the band is more battle-oriented than the standard adventuring party (which does stuff like explore ruins, go to parties, fight criminals in Sharn's underworld, and fight the Emerald Claw on airships, after all), and in almost all cases, everyone has to be able to ride, too. This limits the make-up quite a bit. You're not going to get anything like a Cannith rogue/artificer, Brelish shifter cleric, changeling dread necromancer, and warforged fighter/juggernaut. The way I see it, the make-up is still going to be mainly warrior-types with some magical support - a cleric, druid, bard, or evocation-oriented arcanist - thrown in. So what you're left with is additional multiclassing for the warrior-types... is it really that much of an advantage for the warriors to be Rng2/Ftr2 rather than Rng4? The standard PC party follows the "A-Team" paradigm: a group of very diverse experts. You have the guy who makes the plan, the guy who flies the helicopter, the guy who can bluff and smooth-talk, and a guy whose job it is to get shot 50 times and then build the giant armored vehicle that the PCs will use to escape at the end of the adventure... okay, not quite, but you get the idea. This means that they can excel in almost any situation, but ultimately operate in small encounter situations. The Valenar warband, in contrast, is pretty focused on a specific sort of combat, usually mounted skirmishing and archery. This is a scenario where having just one or two guys who can do everything is rather undesirable, as you actually need something more like a whole bunch who can all do the same thing (snipe targets from range, hold the line, whatever). In addition to culture shaping the make-up of the warband, they're just plain better off specializing rather than diversifying in the way that PC parties usually do. You can build a tremendous amount of focus into a straight ranger build without neccessitating multiple warrior builds, especially the type of combat the Valenar prefer. Multi-classing is about optimizing, and specializing functions. Other NPC's generally end up multiclassing from NPC classes into PC classes. It's just another way to ramp up the threat level. And given the enthusiasm with which the idea is accepted with Valenar Warbands being 'organized like adventuring bands' and all that, I'd say it's being seen as quite a step up in utility and threat level for the enterprising DM... Since misinterpretation following what I say seems rampant, I in no way am judging this a bad thing...I am merely pointing it out as another reason why the Valenar would be feared. Even among equal levels, they are going to have an advantage. as for Charlie's words, if you read into what he says, it dovetails perfectly. Hellcow is inferrring to build just about any group of Valenar as you would PC's, and the Valenar would of course know they've got this edge. They think they are the stars of the show. And the PC's come in and school'em. ==Aelryinth
davethebrave371 12-19-05, 03:15 AM	Unbelievable. I state the point Again and still you claim the same thing. 1) Given the job is the same? They'll go to the higher bidder. Where does this matter to the person who hires them? 2) What does this have to do with what I've posted?? Nothing. 3) What does this have to do with what I've posted?? Nothing. 4) What does this have to do with what I've posted?? Are you telling me that military spellcasters get paid by the spell, like private casters, or get the same pay as a merc spellcaster does? 5) What does this have to do with what I've posted?? Do people anywhere ever feel shorted on their pay? 6) What does this have to do with what I've posted?? They can turn down jobs they don't agree with...do I ever say they can't? Why, no. Again, you are again overextending and overinferring. I nowhere intimate that they don't have the right to turn down a job. It makes no difference to the patron looking for a merc. ==Aelryinth 1. Where does it state this? Source. 2. You stated that "It's YOUR CHOICE to be a merc...not military.", so please answer this point, as it directly pertains to what you're talking about. 3. You stated that "It's YOUR CHOICE to be a merc...not military.", so please answer this point, as it directly pertains to what you're talking about. 4. You stated that "spellcasters don't serve as soldiers in an Army for the money. They never get compensated enough. They do it for belief." Show me where it says both a) that this is not the case for Valenar and b) is the case for clerics. 5. Yes, people everywhere often feel shorted on pay. And people everywhere feel they are paid too much. And everything in between. This is how this question pertains to your point. You make a generalized statement that can't be anything but overextended. Please make it concise, because otherwise this is what you are saying: "Clerics in a military are different because they aren't compensated enough." Ok, what if a merc says he isn't compensated enough? Now by your logic, he is a-ok financially, since he bemoans his financial state. Personally, I don't see that as a valid point. 6. You stated that a merc would not be serving for belief. You are saying that Valenar are mercenary. Ergo, you are saying they are not serving for belief. I was asking you to source. Let me make this clear, as you did. The implications go far beyond mere healing. They provide a direct arrow leading from patron (nation)->gold (military pay)->spells. And I can justify it all by saying I hired a mercenary (or military) divine caster to do it. How wonderful...and in line with setting history, and thus flavour, unless the history as recent as two years ago in game time is not in flavour. How it pertains to your points is that I'm responding to a point you made. I will refrain from answering questions with questions. Please do the same. If you see a point, don't say, "How does it pertain?" just answer. I would answer even if I thought it irrelevent, because perhaps you could enlighten me. That's the point of a debate. You'll note that question 5 was essentially saying I didn't agree the point was relevant. But I didn't say, "How does this pertain to my argument????????????????questionmark???? ????" I responded with logic and reason to show you that it didn't pertain. Please do the same. If you feel a point I make is not pertinent, show me how. Don't just say, "BECAUSE IT ISN'T" because that doesn't get us anywhere. Use logic and reason, not rhetorics and ear-stopping. If you want to end with rhetorics, feel free. I can ignore that if it's just part of your point. But when your entire point is like that, that's all I have to respond to.
Isran_Imrador 12-19-05, 04:34 AM	Very interesting points about the Valenar warbands! We started one of our campaigns out of Valenar as a newly formed “warband” of eight members…This is probably not a “normal” warband if there is such a thing. The Chief just assembled us from the local warclan and the human was one of the locals…The druid was (is) a Lyrandar… 1. Male Elf Cleric 2. Male Elf Conjurer 3. Male Elf Ranger 4. Male Elf Monk (was aiming for Dervish) 5. Male Elf Ranger 6. Female Half-elf Druid 7. Male Elf Fighter / Ranger 8. Male Human Wizard (Evoker) Are warbands formed and dissolved on the warclan leader’s demands? Do the Keepers of the past cleric or bard join the Warband sometimes? Or do they act on their own outside the clan structures? If warclans are not at the mercy of the clan leaders they could have their own names and be famous for what they have done. Maybe future Valenar will try and do like past warbands. Having there own markings along with the clan mark would also be cool… The Panther Stalkers of Clan Vaalderiz just rode into our camp my lord… So I finally get to meet the most talked about heir of Gharlation of Xen`Drik, well exept for me that is… The chiefs advisory keeper of the past whispers someting in his ear just as the leader of the Stalkers arrive in the command tent of High Chief Mertrahir. He has a long way to go to get to where you have reached my lord.. Isran ;)
Errant 12-19-05, 05:43 AM	Errant is correct, 283 is DTB. Whoopsie. See, that's why I try normally not to cite names...inevitably I'll goof up when replying, whereas the person who I'm replying to generally knows it. Bleh! Apologies. At least I got the post # right...problem is, I tried to reply to that post 3 times, and every time the site locked up. So I stopped going back to reread it and see whose name was on top. Ah, ok, now I understand. Thankyou for clarifying. Apology gratefully accepted. Although I don’t understand where davethebrave says military = mercenary in that post either. However, Errant, reread my post again. Where does it say the merc ever gives up their right to refuse a job? Point out where exactly I said this. They may take the job, they may not. If it's opposed to their beliefs, they won't take it. But...if they are neutral..they will...and go to whoever is paying the most. Where does it say the merc gives up their right to refuse a job? Explicitly it doesn’t, no, but its implied in your unqualified definition of mercs. Lets go back: Now, clarify the term 'mercenary'. In D@D, it's someone who fights for hire. For gold. In a social aspect, it's someone who does things for the highest bidder. For a spellcaster, being a mercenary is considerably different from being military. As a merc, you get full value for your spellcasting services. You may be in a military role, but you now get the gold...because you aren't serving for belief. Your 'belief' is now that being a mercenary is the 'right thing'. It's YOUR CHOICE to be a merc...not military. Note the underscores. If you had said “it’s someone who fights for hire, for gold, IF the mission suits the merc’s own morals, goals and/or purposes” or “provided the missions on offer suit the merc’s personal beliefs he does things for the highest bidder”, I doubt you’d be getting any argument (on that point anyway). You state things in an absolute, unqualified manner and go on to draw the patron->gold->spells “arrow” and I think its pretty natural to perceive that you’re excluding any factor other than gold in a mercenary’s decision making processes. Now, if you accept that mercenaries can take other things into consideration, like their religion or personal beliefs for example, why do you still insist that druids (etc) working as mercenaries means they have to be doing so in violation of their religious duties? Or do we misunderstand still? Mercenary CAN mean money is someone’s primary concern, absolutely, but that doesn’t mean it is ALL MERCENARIES' primary concern. “Mercenary” can mean a whole range of dispositions linked only by a common requirement that gold change hands at some stage to get service. Greedy, cold-blooded sellswords at one end of the range and principled independents trying to make a living at the other end of the range. As for mixed Valenar warbands being more of a threat than just rangers with maybe one spellcaster – since when does multiclassing make your encounter level/challenge rating higher than single-classing (given same total levels)? I thought that was the whole point of the multiclassing rules in 3E – multiclass characters are supposed to be equal to their single class peers as long as the total levels are the same. For every advantage in flexibility you gain, you give up an advantage specialization would have given you.
Errant 12-19-05, 08:24 AM	Very interesting points about the Valenar warbands! We started one of our campaigns out of Valenar as a newly formed “warband” of eight members…This is probably not a “normal” warband if there is such a thing. The Chief just assembled us from the local warclan and the human was one of the locals…The druid was (is) a Lyrandar… Oh my! Non-elves in Valenar warbands?? What is the world coming to! ;) That opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. Did anyone else reading this thread factor in non-elves when imagining Valenar warbands? Hadn't even occured to me, but now you mention it Isran how wonderfully logical. No nation is made up entirely of one race, so of course warbands would include non-elves. That said though, I'd think its still pretty rare and a development coming out of the Tairnadal's growing assimilation of the subjects they gained when they claimed the current Valenar lands. For thousands of years the Tairnadal have had only themselves (& maybe the Aerenal, also elves) to rely upon. I think that would instill deep cultural resistance to outsiders being included in their core heirarchy. Resistance, but not complete opposition. Imagine the last decades of the Last War and the Day of Mourning, with raiders pushing into Valenar lands on the one hand and mass destruction on the other. You're almost guaranteed of a few instances where non-elves came to elves' aid in times of need. Aid that was no doubt met with varying degrees of disbelief and appreciation. I think officially (Valenar govt wise), non-elves generally wouldn't be recognised as full members of warbands. Not until they had proven themselves by distinguished service anyway. Lots of interesting RP opportunities there. Cool. If I interpreted Hellcow's earlier posts correctly [correct me here if I'm wrong please Keith], I gather warbands are founded independent of the warclan leader's command, but with significant input from the Keepers of the Past. As time goes past and warband members fall in battle (etc) new members are adopted to bring the warband back up to strength. Along the way warbands may be reassigned by the warclan leader ocasionally for a particular mission/campaign, but they would generally return to their original membership afterwards. That kind of development would easily lend itself to warbands taking names and their own markings I think, occasionally even becoming famous for their non-elf members. In fact I think you can guarantee it in my campaign from now on, thanks! :)
davethebrave371 12-19-05, 03:39 PM	Mercenary CAN mean money is someone’s primary concern, absolutely, but that doesn’t mean it is ALL MERCENARIES' primary concern. “Mercenary” can mean a whole range of dispositions linked only by a common requirement that gold change hands at some stage to get service. Greedy, cold-blooded sellswords at one end of the range and principled independents trying to make a living at the other end of the range. However, I was under the impression that mercenary was other people's interpretations of the Valenar, not how the Valenar thought of their activities. They aren't exactly sneaky enough in mindset to go gather intel on what targets to hit far away with a little warband. So they hire themselves out, not for money, but so that they don't lose their edge, so they can fight worthy foes, etc. The money is just required for upkeep, as it would be in a military, only their direct bosses are raiding Talenta, Karrnath, Breland and Darguun, so they can't exactly pay for it.
Errant 12-19-05, 06:30 PM	However, I was under the impression that mercenary was other people's interpretations of the Valenar, not how the Valenar thought of their activities. They aren't exactly sneaky enough in mindset to go gather intel on what targets to hit far away with a little warband. So they hire themselves out, not for money, but so that they don't lose their edge, so they can fight worthy foes, etc. The money is just required for upkeep, as it would be in a military, only their direct bosses are raiding Talenta, Karrnath, Breland and Darguun, so they can't exactly pay for it. I agree with most of that, but even though Valenar fall toward the picky end of the mercenaries spectrum if they do choose to work for you they (at least usually) still require money, hence the mercenary reputation. Is money their primary motivation? Generally not I'm sure, but it's a requirement often enough to maintain the reputation. There's probably a small percentage of Valenar warbands (mostly lacking divine spellcasters) who do rate the glory by its gp wage and therefore don't care about other considerations, there's probably a few who don't really care a wit if they get paid at all and will work for food, board and loot. I think most still require payment before agreeing to serve, even if they deem the mission worthy.
davethebrave371 12-19-05, 07:00 PM	There's probably a small percentage of Valenar warbands (mostly lacking divine spellcasters) who do rate the glory by its gp wage and therefore don't care about other considerations, there's probably a few who don't really care a wit if they get paid at all and will work for food, board and loot. I think most still require payment before agreeing to serve, even if they deem the mission worthy. And, given that much disparity and variance, I'd say it's hardly appropriate to call Valenar mercenary as a nation, or the Tairndal elves mercenary, or the Siyal Marrain mercenary.
Errant 12-19-05, 08:56 PM	And, given that much disparity and variance, I'd say it's hardly appropriate to call Valenar mercenary as a nation, or the Tairndal elves mercenary, or the Siyal Marrain mercenary. We could probably say the same about a lot of things in the ECS surely, that reputations may be common belief but not entirely true. Reputation can often be earned by what sets you apart from others as much as for what dominates your group/culture. There may only be a fraction of the Valenar nation's warbands out serving as mercenaries, but compared to other nations its more noticeable (especially since most other nations wouldn't field many 'elven' units), so it becomes a source of gossip and grows into a popular reputation. A lot of Valenar elves might be offended at being called a mercenary but many in other nations just don't know any better. There's another mercenary trait that doesn't seem to have been touched on yet too - their implied 'neutrality' of allegiance (between contracts at least). Part of the poor trust given to mercenaries comes from the knowledge that they have little if any loyalty to you, or your enemies, once their pay stops. They may be friendly, or hostile today, but next week they could be the opposite, so you always treat them with caution. This could be used to the Valenar's advantage. Something needs to be investigated outside Valenar? Send a warband "in search of a contract". Excluding the bordering nations subject to frequent Valenar raids, guards in most other nations would likely just wave the warband on, provided they're not actively causing trouble. If units from other nations are recognised they're noticed and have more explaining to do.
Euangelion 12-19-05, 09:17 PM	Keep in mind that there's a true mercenary band of Valenar for hire mentioned in S:CoT. They are mercenaries in the sense that they're not going to fight on your side for free and that they (as a whole) have no loyalty to your cause; they just want to fight. But their primary reason for being in the "fighting" business is not the money, though they enjoy it to be sure (better equipment and all), and they are willing to walk away from a deal without warning if it doesn't suit their primary goals (as they did with Cyre). Compare this to House Deneith, which depends on good relations with their clients in order to stay competitive. And "mercenary" cannot simply mean "someone who gets paid to fight," since few soldiers fight for free! (This may have been mentioned before, but the word "salary" comes from the Roman practice of paying their soldiers with salt!) There's another mercenary trait that doesn't seem to have been touched on yet too - their implied 'neutrality' of allegiance (between contracts at least). Part of the poor trust given to mercenaries comes from the knowledge that they have little if any loyalty to you, or your enemies, once their pay stops. They may be friendly, or hostile today, but next week they could be the opposite, so you always treat them with caution. But again, with any business, maintaining good customer relations is important. If a mercenary band gets the reputation that they will turn on you while under contract, then they're basically out of business since no one else is probably going to hire them. This is what makes the Valenar's turning on Cyre so traumatic, and which pretty much limits how much mercenary work they are likely to get at the present time (unless they have widely accepted excuse for their treachery.)
Errant 12-19-05, 10:12 PM	But again, with any business, maintaining good customer relations is important. If a mercenary band gets the reputation that they will turn on you while under contract, then they're basically out of business Which is why I included "between contracts at least", but regardless, I think some level of mistrust is pretty much guaranteed when dealing with mercs.
aelryinth 12-20-05, 04:01 AM	1. Where does it state this? Source. 2. You stated that "It's YOUR CHOICE to be a merc...not military.", so please answer this point, as it directly pertains to what you're talking about. 3. You stated that "It's YOUR CHOICE to be a merc...not military.", so please answer this point, as it directly pertains to what you're talking about. 4. You stated that "spellcasters don't serve as soldiers in an Army for the money. They never get compensated enough. They do it for belief." Show me where it says both a) that this is not the case for Valenar and b) is the case for clerics. 5. Yes, people everywhere often feel shorted on pay. And people everywhere feel they are paid too much. And everything in between. This is how this question pertains to your point. You make a generalized statement that can't be anything but overextended. Please make it concise, because otherwise this is what you are saying: "Clerics in a military are different because they aren't compensated enough." Ok, what if a merc says he isn't compensated enough? Now by your logic, he is a-ok financially, since he bemoans his financial state. Personally, I don't see that as a valid point. 6. You stated that a merc would not be serving for belief. You are saying that Valenar are mercenary. Ergo, you are saying they are not serving for belief. I was asking you to source. Let me make this clear, as you did. The implications go far beyond mere healing. They provide a direct arrow leading from patron (nation)->gold (military pay)->spells. And I can justify it all by saying I hired a mercenary (or military) divine caster to do it. How wonderful...and in line with setting history, and thus flavour, unless the history as recent as two years ago in game time is not in flavour. 1) Given all other variables are the same, do you work for the company paying you $10 an hour or $20 an hour? You work for $20. that's logical, no? 2) Let me be concise. Where exactly have I ever said you can't join a military by choice? 3) Repeat #2. 4) Valenar serve as mercs because they believe that being a merc is the way to go. They believe serving as military is the way to go when they go that way. These are NOT mutually contradictory...but when they serve as mercs, they are also saying that gold is now a prime consideration for their service. 5) If a merc wants to get paid more, he demands more pay. A cleric in the military wants more pay...well, he'd better go mercenary. Mercs always get paid more...it's part of why people go that route even today. 6) The Valenar are mercs because they believe that being a merc is the way to go...not because they believe in whatever cause they are fighting for at the moment. There is a critical deviation of purpose there central to the mindset covered very well above by others. If you want to make the connection that military pay = mercenary status, hey, that's your call. I'm not taking it that far. ==Aelryinth
davethebrave371 12-20-05, 04:49 AM	1) Given all other variables are the same, do you work for the company paying you $10 an hour or $20 an hour? You work for $20. that's logical, no? 2) Let me be concise. Where exactly have I ever said you can't join a military by choice? 3) Repeat #2. 4) Valenar serve as mercs because they believe that being a merc is the way to go. They believe serving as military is the way to go when they go that way. These are NOT mutually contradictory...but when they serve as mercs, they are also saying that gold is now a prime consideration for their service. 5) If a merc wants to get paid more, he demands more pay. A cleric in the military wants more pay...well, he'd better go mercenary. Mercs always get paid more...it's part of why people go that route even today. 6) The Valenar are mercs because they believe that being a merc is the way to go...not because they believe in whatever cause they are fighting for at the moment. There is a critical deviation of purpose there central to the mindset covered very well above by others. If you want to make the connection that military pay = mercenary status, hey, that's your call. I'm not taking it that far. ==Aelryinth 1) Okay. But where does it say Valenar do this? 2) You stated, "Now, clarify the term 'mercenary'. In D@D, it's someone who fights for hire. For gold. In a social aspect, it's someone who does things for the highest bidder. For a spellcaster, being a mercenary is considerably different from being military. As a merc, you get full value for your spellcasting services. You may be in a military role, but you now get the gold...because you aren't serving for belief. Your 'belief' is now that being a mercenary is the 'right thing'. It's YOUR CHOICE to be a merc...not military." 3) See #2...oh, actually...nevermind. I just noticed your intent. It just wasn't worded clearly. You meant it was your choice to be merc INSTEAD of military. Ok, to that point, I say that Valenar consider their work to be military work. Their nation's military attacks anyone and everyone, but they can't afford it, so they need outside pay. Since they have no preference over who to attack, really (although they'd be more inclined to attack Darguun and Karrnath than other targets, I'd imagine), it seems to me they'd follow the same pattern they did coming to Khorvaire: going to the first bidder, not the highest one. Higher bids are ignored, as they were with Cyre vs. other nations bids, unless there was a buyout by another nation to make them go rogue, but I don't imagine any one of the Five Nations would want them to be their own independant nation...maybe the Sarlonans? Anyway, that's not provable. I'd say that since no other bids from other nations were accepted, they don't go for highest pay, just first come first serve, which doesn't seem mercenary to me. Basically, it's military from a Valenar perspective, not mercenary. 4) Source this please. Where does it say that they believe that being a merc is the way to go. Also source where it says they are also saying that gold is now a prime consideration for their service. It says that nowhere in the ECS, RoE, 5N, or the Dragonshards. If I'm missing it, please direct me there. 5) Mercs always get paid more, yes. Valenar stay with the same employer, which invalidates your point. There is nothing stating that they switch allegiances for more pay. 6) Please source this. Where does it state what you just stated in #6. I think they definately do believe in what they are fighting for. You just don't agree with what they're fighting for. Just because an Aundairian disagrees with the Silver Flame propaganda for world conversion doesn't make that cleric a "mercenary". The Aundairian can say, "No, his reason isn't valid because I don't agree with it, so with a dismissive wave of my hand, his military pay becomes the top priority.", but he'd be ignoring the fact that belief is subjective, and so it's valid to the person believing it, which is all that matters with belief.
aelryinth 12-20-05, 05:49 AM	1) where does it say they don't? IF they are mercenaries, the implied meaning is they follow the gold. 2-3) No, its adhering to a contract, which is covered above. And what happened when they betrayed the contract? Their rep got hosed, but they got a homeland out of it. And the Valenar military is something quite dif from the merc warbands, although non-merc warbands are certainly part of the warbands. 4) Being mercenary itself implies gold is now a priority. Else they'd be called 'volunteers' or somesuch other name. 5) INvalidate? No, they follow a contract...and sometimes they shaft the contract too. Nowhere does it say Valenar don't switch employers...it's rather implied that in the current environment they'll fight for whoever pays them. It's just not a lot of people want to hire them. 6) IF you hire valenar to kill goblins, they go off and kill goblins...with enthusiasm, maybe. or Orcs, or manticores, or what have you. The thrill of the job is more the thing, Keith implies...not WHAT the job actually is, or who it's for. So they believe in being a merc because it gets them into fights, not because they really give a Bleep who they are fighting at any given time. You have to seperate out the merc mindset from the military/volunteer/loyalist. COmpletely different. Merc's loyalty is to the job and the contract and to their rep...not for whatever reasons a soldier would take the job. Better rep is more jobs and more gold. ==Aelryinth
Errant 12-20-05, 07:15 AM	If I can stick my nose in: I say that Valenar consider their work to be military work. Their nation's military attacks anyone and everyone, but they can't afford it, so they need outside pay. Since they have no preference over who to attack, really (although they'd be more inclined to attack Darguun and Karrnath than other targets, I'd imagine), it seems to me they'd follow the same pattern they did coming to Khorvaire: going to the first bidder, not the highest one. Higher bids are ignored, as they were with Cyre vs. other nations bids, unless there was a buyout by another nation to make them go rogue, but I don't imagine any one of the Five Nations would want them to be their own independent nation...maybe the Sarlonans? Anyway, that's not provable. I'd say that since no other bids from other nations were accepted, they don't go for highest pay, just first come first serve, which doesn't seem mercenary to me. Basically, it's military from a Valenar perspective, not mercenary. The ECS says "They fought for the love of battle and gold, not loyalty to Cyre" (p. 210), but I still believe it highly unlikely that the particular nation they chose to serve just happened to control the lands they had claimed ten thousand years earlier. It is entirely my own conjecture, but I think it fits the current pattern, they still fight for love of battle (and the opportunities it gives to emulate and honor their ancestors) and the gold they need to construct their fine weapons and delicate armor, their works of art. The gold allows them to pursue their higher priorities. Notice the "industries" listed for Valenar in the ECS: the art of war and breeding of horses, possibly supplemented by masterwork bows and fine densewood weapons (“possibly” because there's no mention of these being exported outside Valenar). Their primary export? The services of its warriors. I'm pretty sure every nation needs some sort of income to maintain itself (no doubt Aelryinth’s MBA will enable him to expand on that if he’s so inclined). If the services of valenar warriors is the backbone of the Valenar economy it suggests to me that serving as a mercenary is vital to the ongoing success and prosperity of the Valenar realm. If their services are their nation's primary export a big chunk of their pay must go into the national coffers. That suggests to me that those serving as mercenaries aren't necessarily doing so primarily for personal gain, which gives them a oddly patriotic aspect that sets them apart from more 'common' mercs. So, Valenar warriors serve as mercenaries across Khorvaire because their culture relies on the income it provides for them to pursue battle and the arts of war in emulation of their ancestors, the highest priorities of their society. Maybe for the Valenar you don't have to seperate out the merc mindset from the military/volunteer/loyalist, they're not completely different. A Valenar's loyalty is to the ancestor and nation, precisely the reasons a soldier would take a job (well maybe not ancestor for most nations in our world), then job and the contract and to their rep, because better rep means more jobs and more gold for the homeland.
Roxlimn 12-20-05, 08:15 AM	aelryinth: estimation confirmed...there IS a reason I don't bother to reply to Roxglimm. No postive contributions. The whole statement is a flame, and a troll...and wrong, to boot. 1. My handle is Roxlimn, not Roxglimm. G is nowhere near either x nor l on the qwerty keyboard. I bother to make the effort to spell your name correctly most of the time. I would appreciate the same courtesy, unless of course, you were referring to another poster by the handle of Roxglimm. 2. If you want to reply to me, it would help if you would actually reply to statements I refer to you, instead of butting in a reply that's addressed specifically to another poster or group of posters, on a matter that concerns us. 3. If you notice, you did notice my input where I put it in bold and in red, whereas you apparently completely missed my reply to you where I did not. Evidently, my point that you notice posts more where they are bolded and in red has merit, and I can quote entire lines from the Karrnath thread explicitly demonstrating the exact same occurence. I do not mean to flame you, aelryinth, and I'm only appealing to other posters to have more patience with you. Hopefully, this will allow the thread to go forward. I could make the same appeal to you, but I'm not entirely sure what effect that might have. 4. This series of exchanges serves to demonstrate exactly the veracity of my observations about your posting capabilities and limitations. Hopefully, the other posters will take notice and have more patience with you. Regarding your current arguments: 1) where does it say they don't? This one statement seems to reflect the spine and bulk of most of your arguments regarding how you regard Eberron material, and why the rest of us, including Hellcow, is "wrong." This is a classical Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. This is a classical Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. This is a classical Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. This is a classical Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. I would reply more to your arguments, but they have so little merit, I'm frankly surprised that anyone can take what you say seriously.
Isran_Imrador 12-20-05, 10:49 AM	Oh my! Non-elves in Valenar warbands?? What is the world coming to! ;) That opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. Did anyone else reading this thread factor in non-elves when imagining Valenar warbands? Hadn't even occured to me, but now you mention it Isran how wonderfully logical. No nation is made up entirely of one race, so of course warbands would include non-elves. That said though, I'd think its still pretty rare and a development coming out of the Tairnadal's growing assimilation of the subjects they gained when they claimed the current Valenar lands. For thousands of years the Tairnadal have had only themselves (& maybe the Aerenal, also elves) to rely upon. I think that would instill deep cultural resistance to outsiders being included in their core heirarchy. Resistance, but not complete opposition. Imagine the last decades of the Last War and the Day of Mourning, with raiders pushing into Valenar lands on the one hand and mass destruction on the other. You're almost guaranteed of a few instances where non-elves came to elves' aid in times of need. Aid that was no doubt met with varying degrees of disbelief and appreciation. I think officially (Valenar govt wise), non-elves generally wouldn't be recognised as full members of warbands. Not until they had proven themselves by distinguished service anyway. Lots of interesting RP opportunities there. Cool. Like i said i dont think our band is a good example but i can certainly see a few half-elfs & human in warbands in the aftermath of the Last War. Like you say the elfs of Valanar is only half or so of the population of Valenar so they are going to need the other half to do something to! Maybe some of the Warclan that have territory with more human in them is more human friendly, and adopt more humans but not many. ;) Half-elf could travel with the bands to try and gain the respet they think they earn. After all they might share the same ancestors as the elfs do. The could be a kind of diplomat within the band and serve as a herald for the warband..The Bard seems to be normal in Valenar and among the half elven houses. On the other end there could be clans that would NEVER allow other races, and feels this is a shame to the heroes of Xen`Drik. If I interpreted Hellcow's earlier posts correctly [correct me here if I'm wrong please Keith], I gather warbands are founded independent of the warclan leader's command, but with significant input from the Keepers of the Past. As time goes past and warband members fall in battle (etc) new members are adopted to bring the warband back up to strength. Along the way warbands may be reassigned by the warclan leader ocasionally for a particular mission/campaign, but they would generally return to their original membership afterwards. This is what i think would be great to know. How the Valenar powergroups work with each other or against each other. How are the KotP organized? Do they themself have an ancestor they revere? I got two ideas for Valenar / KotP rituals: 1: When a new elf (And maybe half-elf) child is born they get there name, but when they turn 12 weeks & 1 day there is a KotP six day ritual to find that childs patron. This is called something like Ancestors Calling or Path of the Patron. One the last day they have finally decided who the patron is the childs is given something linking him to the patron. (like the tools of his trade, a neckless or something symbolic... 2. When an elf truns into and adult there is a new ritual or sermony to figure out witch warband he belongs to. OR The various clans could have diffrent tests to find the elf with the skills they are looking for...Like the stalkers above would want a stealty elf. (even more stealty ;) ) But the High rider of clan.........would look for a good rider... What do you guys think? That kind of development would easily lend itself to warbands taking names and their own markings I think, occasionally even becoming famous for their non-elf members. In fact I think you can guarantee it in my campaign from now on, thanks! :) Your Welcome :D Isran ;) (Maybe we should rename this thread the Ultimate Valenar Thread) ;)
Errant 12-20-05, 01:44 PM	Like i said i dont think our band is a good example but i can certainly see a few half-elfs & human in warbands in the aftermath of the Last War. Like you say the elfs of Valanar is only half or so of the population of Valenar so they are going to need the other half to do something to! I don't think your band would be a typical example, but I think they're a good example of a (rare) possible warband encounter. I dare say most non-elves would only allowed strictly non-military roles, or secondary military roles like town-guard etc. But there's always the odd individual (ie PC) able to earn a bit of grudging respect and a position on the front line, and for Valenar the frontline means amongst the warbands I think. It might well be shameful for most warbands to consider taking a non-elf into their membership, and those that do adopt non-elves probably face a long road to earning their peers respect, but there are probably a few that feel differently. Who are inspired in some way and reminded of their ancestor's virtues by a particular non-elf's deeds. Maybe there are even a few patron ancestors around who were famed for adventuring with non-elves. By now there are probably a few Valenar half-elves around who literally share the same ancestors too. I hadn't thought too much about Valenar/KotP rituals beyond the idea that there would be some sort of competition/trials before a Valenar warrior is deemed an adult and worthy of a warband. After all, just because you're given a patron ancestor doesn't mean you're necessarily going to live up to his image (at cost of great shame if you fail of course). How you pass through those trials would demonstrate your abilities and progress to the KotP and to other Valenar, going a long way toward determing which warband you are most suited for skills-wise and toward earning your acceptance into the chosen warband.
davethebrave371 12-20-05, 03:24 PM	The ECS says "They fought for the love of battle and gold, not loyalty to Cyre" (p. 210), but I still believe it highly unlikely that the particular nation they chose to serve just happened to control the lands they had claimed ten thousand years earlier. It is entirely my own conjecture, but I think it fits the current pattern, they still fight for love of battle (and the opportunities it gives to emulate and honor their ancestors) and the gold they need to construct their fine weapons and delicate armor, their works of art. The gold allows them to pursue their higher priorities. Notice the "industries" listed for Valenar in the ECS: the art of war and breeding of horses, possibly supplemented by masterwork bows and fine densewood weapons (“possibly” because there's no mention of these being exported outside Valenar). Their primary export? The services of its warriors. I'm pretty sure every nation needs some sort of income to maintain itself (no doubt Aelryinth’s MBA will enable him to expand on that if he’s so inclined). If the services of valenar warriors is the backbone of the Valenar economy it suggests to me that serving as a mercenary is vital to the ongoing success and prosperity of the Valenar realm. If their services are their nation's primary export a big chunk of their pay must go into the national coffers. That suggests to me that those serving as mercenaries aren't necessarily doing so primarily for personal gain, which gives them a oddly patriotic aspect that sets them apart from more 'common' mercs. So, Valenar warriors serve as mercenaries across Khorvaire because their culture relies on the income it provides for them to pursue battle and the arts of war in emulation of their ancestors, the highest priorities of their society. Maybe for the Valenar you don't have to seperate out the merc mindset from the military/volunteer/loyalist, they're not completely different. A Valenar's loyalty is to the ancestor and nation, precisely the reasons a soldier would take a job (well maybe not ancestor for most nations in our world), then job and the contract and to their rep, because better rep means more jobs and more gold for the homeland. Okay, first off. THANK YOU FOR THE QUOTE I couldn't find that quote, and for 8 pages now Ael has refused to cough it up. In light of that quote Ael's arguments are starting to make more sense. 8 pages of argumens about essentially nothing could have been avoided if he'd just quoted that. I do agree with what you say above as regards motive, and how it seperates them from "common" mercs. However, that's House Ruling it, something I accused Ael of earlier, and something you're doing here. It's just inferrence and interpretation. There's really no proof, no concrete quotes from official source, so really, it's just how you and I are going to House Rule it. Which is fine. I know I'm going the same route in my game as you are. However, it looks like officially, Ael is correct on the fact that, besides glory, gold is the important thing. There still doesn't seem to be any official source that says they have in the past, or currently do, switch sides for better pay. I haven't seen that, and that would also be House Ruling and people's own interpretations. So, as it stands, I think it's just down to opinion here. Given their cultural precedents, you and I are probably right Errant. Given just that one quote with no influence from Valenar culture? Probably Ael. But both are just interpretations, so I guess I'm still not sure 8 pages was worth it to say essentially that, officially, nothing has changed drastically vis a vis this Dragonshard, unless you choose to change it in your game. I don't feel the time was wasted, however. I much enjoyed it, to be honest. And I like the stuff that's coming out now about mounts. Interesting debates!
aelryinth 12-20-05, 04:43 PM	Um, someone used that quote much earlier on the thread. :o ==Aelryinth
Euangelion 12-20-05, 05:16 PM	So, as it stands, I think it's just down to opinion here. Given their cultural precedents, you and I are probably right Errant. Given just that one quote with no influence from Valenar culture? Probably Ael. But both are just interpretations, so I guess I'm still not sure 8 pages was worth it to say essentially that, officially, nothing has changed drastically vis a vis this Dragonshard, unless you choose to change it in your game. I don't feel the time was wasted, however. I much enjoyed it, to be honest. And I like the stuff that's coming out now about mounts. Interesting debates! However, once again something must differentiate a mercenary from any soldier who receives a salary for them to be true mercenaries. Mercenaries do not fight because it's their patriotic duty to do so, unlike national soldiers who get paid. However, it can be said that the Valenar do fight because it is their patriotic duty to fight. When it's all said and done, that's why they fight. Do they love battle? Yes. Do they take the gold? Yes. But it's their patriotic duty to do so, in order to honor their ancestors as best as they can, which includes having the best equipment possible. Their patriotic duty does not lie with those that hire them of course, but to their national ancestors. You want basic mercenaries? Go to House Deneith or Tharashk. You want mercenaries who fight with religious fervor? That's asking something more. You contact the Valenar. Unlike other mercenaries, however, the Valenar could decide that it's their patriotic duty to give you the shaft (of their spears), and then that contract you signed with them is worth less than the paper it's scribed upon. That is something very unlikely to be a problem with other mercenaries (but still happens frequently in Eberron aparently, see under Darguun, which does seem slightly less plausible considering it was already done by the Valenar. Cyre and Breland really should have seen it coming! :D ) Um, someone used that quote much earlier on the thread. :o ==Aelryinth Sometimes it's hard to find single sentence posts among immense posts of several paragraphs, and while you had ample opportunity to use that quote yourself you never did so despite people begging you for quotes from sourcebooks to back up your positions. If that emoticon is meant to convey smugness, it is with little merit on your part.
Errant 12-20-05, 06:38 PM	I do agree with what you say above as regards motive, and how it seperates them from "common" mercs. However, that's House Ruling it, something I accused Ael of earlier, and something you're doing here. It's just inferrence and interpretation. There's really no proof, no concrete quotes from official source, so really, it's just how you and I are going to House Rule it... In this instance I took "They fought for love of battle and gold", plus "Heroic deeds and glory in battle are the two goals of the Valaes Tairn" and "A member of the Valaes Tairn values his horse and his patron ancestor above all things" and I tried to figure out how all three statements (all from ECS p.210) could be simultaneously true. The love of gold is only mentioned once and not as one of the two primary goals or the two things a Valaes Tairn values highest in life, so I ask how do their primary goals and highest values result in a love of gold? My previous post was the only answer I could come up with. If someone has another interpretation that is consistent with all three quotes I'm curious to see it.
Euangelion 12-20-05, 07:01 PM	In this instance I took "They fought for love of battle and gold", plus "Heroic deeds and glory in battle are the two goals of the Valaes Tairn" and "A member of the Valaes Tairn values his horse and his patron ancestor above all things" and I tried to figure out how all three statements (all from ECS p.210) could be simultaneously true. The love of gold is only mentioned once and not as one of the two primary goals or the two things a Valaes Tairn values highest in life, so I ask how do their primary goals and highest values result in a love of gold? My previous post was the only answer I could come up with. If someone has another interpretation that is consistent with all three quotes I'm curious to see it. Read the first quote this way: "They fought for gold and love of battle." Yes, they got paid. What of it? It was not the primary reason to fight. The gold is a means to an end, honoring their ancestors.
Good Agnostic 12-20-05, 07:01 PM	My DM took the Dragonshard article currently being analyzed and the Sharn Inquisitive article about the angry Valenar Ambassador and made quite an intresting side adventure. I think the "differing views of the Valenar" and what being amercenary means are all excellent subjects to be used in game. Why is it that the Sharn city council does not outlaw the sales of Valenar Warhorses. Some councilmembers see the Valenar as dirty swords fo rhire who betrayed Cyre and Khorvaire as a whole. Others see them as an ancient and powerful warrior race, one whose allegiance should be encouraged. Etc.
Hellcow 12-20-05, 07:08 PM	AHA! I see exactly where this has gone wrong. As the guy who wrote the sentence... and the whole Valenar write-up in the ECS... and the Valenar Dragonshard... and the Valenar material in the Player's Guide to Eberron... I feel I know a thing or two about the Valenar*. Now, people appear to be taking the sentence "They fought for the love of battle and gold, not for loyalty to Cyre" and reading the intent as something like: "The Valenar fought for love of battle and love of gold, and had no loyalty to Cyre." My intent was that the Valenar fought for the love of battle, and at the same time they fought for gold. They don't LOVE gold, but they did and do demand payment for their services. "Love of battle" and "gold"... two separate concepts. And while they felt no patriotism for Cyre, having accepted the contract, most were at least loyal to their word... until the falling out that caused Vadallia's rebellion (and some of the more honorable Valenar have turned against Vadallia as a result of that). So: Obviously the Valenar fought for gold. They were mercenaries. The want to get the best gear they can. They want to support their own war efforts. They had no reason to fight for a nation that wouldn't pay them. But they don't LOVE gold... they LOVE battle. The gold was a benefit, not the primary motivation. And, of course, if one goes back to the Dragonshard, the BIG motivating factor is that they'd sworn never to return to Khorvaire until someone asked them to come back. Cyre did. As it turns out, that was a mistake. Anyhow, the issue here is that the Valenar do want to be paid for their work, because they can always use money, whether for themselves or whether they send it back to Valenar to help the fledgling nation. And frankly, Valenar like pretty things. They like jewels and fancy clothes, they like mithral weapons: they want to look like heroes as well as fight like them. So sure, they want money. But love of battle and reverence for the patron ancestor are far more important than gold. If group A offers 10,000 gp to sit in a fort for a month and group B offers 5,000 gp to assault an heavily guarded enemy position, most Valenar would side with group B - and few would turn on group B just because the enemy offers them an extra thousand after the fact (unless, of course, Group B does something to offend them, as history has shown). ------- * Which is not, of course, to say that you can't choose to do your own thing with 'em, as always; just clarifying the original intent.
Hellcow 12-20-05, 07:11 PM	Read the first quote this way: "They fought for gold and love of battle." Yes, they got paid. What of it? Yes, that certainly would have made my intent more clear, wouldn't it? :banghead: And if I'd waited a few minutes and seen you post this, I could have saved the time of writing my long, rambling post, which at the end of the day simply says the same thing.
davethebrave371 12-20-05, 07:13 PM	1) where does it say they don't? IF they are mercenaries, the implied meaning is they follow the gold. The I suppose they aren't, since they follow their ancestors and their horse above gold, as per Errant's quote from the ECS.
Hellcow 12-20-05, 07:20 PM	Indeed. In this case, the meaning of mercenary as I intended it was not "They follow the gold" or "They are driven solely by love of gold" but simply that "They are an idependent force that requires payment (and a higher level of pay than that of the average soldier) for their services." They followed the battle, not the gold: but demanded and received gold for their services in battle.
Hellcow 12-20-05, 07:28 PM	Following up, having just checked on the literal definition of "mercenary": mer·ce·nar·y (műrs-nr) adj. 1. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain. 2. Hired for service in a foreign army. The "follows the money" approach is definition one; whereas I have always been using it in the sense of definition two. It's clear that they are hired for service in a foreign army. The issue is why they choose to sell their services in the first place... and the gold they receive is a secondary consideration. So in other words, they're clearly mercenaries (2)... but as mercenaries go, they aren't very mercenary (1).
Errant 12-20-05, 07:50 PM	Read the first quote this way: "They fought for gold and love of battle." Yes, they got paid. What of it? It was not the primary reason to fight. The gold is a means to an end, honoring their ancestors. Precisely what I was trying to say only I said it in a more rambling way because I felt the statement alone wouldn't satisfy some readers. And we now have more clarification from Hellcow (excellent!) which I think tells me I was on the right track. Maybe not 100% on target, since it wasn't "love of gold", but in the ball park. Cool. But I still think its a bit too much of a "coincidence" that the Valenar just happened to choose to come back to work for the one nation that included their original lands on Khorvaire. I can see how a promise of Valenar lands could have been too sensitive to make public knowledge, leading to it being a private clause agreed between Vadallia and whoever was leading Cyre at the relevant time (don't have my books handy for the name). A clause agreed on oath of secrecy to explain Vadallia not revealing it to her (his?) opponents. My house rule of course and something I don't need clarified, I'm happy to live with it as just my adjustment to the canon framework.
Euangelion 12-20-05, 08:09 PM	And if I'd waited a few minutes and seen you post this, I could have saved the time of writing my long, rambling post, which at the end of the day simply says the same thing. Perhaps, but anything by Hellcow is appreciated.
Roxlimn 12-20-05, 08:59 PM	Hellcow has been making exactly this statement and these kinds of clarifications for going on 12 pages now, and also hints at the same in at least one post I can remember in the Karrnathi thread. Even if you have some sort of personal interpretation for that line in the ECS, Hellcow's subsequent clarifications obviously carry more weight at least insofar as what he meant the Valenar to be. It makes no sense to argue with the creator of ECS about what he meant a concept to be as opposed to what you personally think it is. One is ECS official material clarification, the other is just your own personal opinion. This is logically inferrable from all of Hellcow's points on the matter, without him having to specifically clarify the grammatical sense of that one line. Given that at least some posters have (at last!) moved beyond this point, perhaps it's time to proceed to more interesting topics about the Valenar? Hellcow: As far as the definition of "mercenary" goes: From the Merriam-Webster dictionary site: Main Entry: 1mer·ce·nary Pronunciation: 'm&r-s&n-"er-E Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -nar·ies Etymology: Middle English, from Latin mercenarius, irregular from merced-, merces wages -- more at MERCY : one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service From the Encyclopedia Brittanica site: mercenary: Hired professional soldier who fights for any state or nation without regard to political principles. From the earliest days of organized warfare, governments supplemented their military forces with mercenaries. After the Hundred Years' War (1337–1453), Swiss soldiers were hired out all over Europe by their own cantonal governments and won a high reputation. ________________________________________ _________________________ The most famous mercnecaries, of course, in Western history being the Numidian Mercenaries used in and around the Roman period, and the Swiss Mercenaries used by the various European kingdoms around the High Middle Ages, although the term "mercenary" is by no means limited to those companies. It can be said with good basis that the negative connotations of the term "mercenary" can be traced to the various mercenary companies hired out during some portions of the Hundred Years' War. Certainly, whereas Roman Legions were by nature "mercenary" in that the legions fought because they were paid and subsidized, they are not usually thought of when you say "mercenary." While the Roman Legions protected the interests of the Roman Empire, the various mercenary companies of the Middle Ages only stood for their own interests, and frequently became bandits and brigands whenever they were short of a decent wage. They were also notoriously reluctant to engage in unnecessary and unprofitable battle, preferring to acheive their contract goals as efficiently and as minimally as possible. Even Swiss Mercenaries, though, and the various mercenary companies of the Middle Ages, from which we can derive the connotations of "mercenary" did not fight exclusively or solely for money, so perhaps the modern definition is somewhat at odds with historical precedent and certainly not what you usually expect from a Middle Ages kind of merc. Most mercenaries have principles like normal people, and even when they don't, they usually have underlying morals (like everyone) that limits what they'll hire themselves out for. Mercenaries are people, too. Many mercenary companies would understandably balk at mass civilian massacre, which made those companies who accepted these contracts all the more sinister. From the outset, as far as the term "mercenary" can be applied to Valenar warbands, it would have to comply with what we otherwise know about the Valenar. The Valenar, after all, are not defined by their being mercenaries any more than Goblinoid soldiers are. Deneith in contrast, are mercenaries by definition and nature, so I can accept a stricter alliance between their natures and the mercenary concept, but not so for Valenar and Darguun bands. Thus, a Valenar mercenary would only fight because he liked to fight anyway (as according to his nature) for reasons other than the gold. Presumably, he would then make a very poor example of a mercenary (and indeed, they are in some respects) as he almost never will fight solely or merely for wages. Perhaps the best interpretation that can be made of Valenar being mercenary is that they are willing to hire their services out for money if such services were in line with their desired goals anyway. In the sense that they are on the market at all, I think that is what is meant by the term "mercenary" as applied to them.
maollelujah 12-20-05, 10:49 PM	So, we established that the Valenar are mercenary, but love battle more than gold. My question is what kind of market is there for mercenary forces currently in Eberron? There must be a lull in the market, as there has been no major fighting for two years. They aren't going to take boring garrison jobs, and even hiring them as such wouldn't be fiscally prudent by any of the current countries. Plus most of the countries have their own standing military or militia system in place. So what kind of jobs do the Valenar take now?
Hellcow 12-20-05, 11:01 PM	My question is what kind of market is there for mercenary forces currently in Eberron? There must be a lull in the market, as there has been no major fighting for two years. Absolutely... especially since House Deneith IS around, and they are happy for the garrison work. I would think that Valenar mercenary units would typically be hired for the same sort of jobs as adventurers: go into the Mournlands and recover thing X; track down and eliminate a band of monsters that have been preying east of the Greywall Mountains; deal with a group of Darguul "brigands" that have proved too much for local forces. The fact that the Valenar are outsiders means that they can be used for jobs where national forces could cause political issues. However, these jobs would be far and few between - enough to keep a few warbands busy, but not dozens of them. Which is why most of the Valenar have turned to raiding: venturing into Darguun, Q'barra, the Mournlands, the Talenta Plains, and even Karrnath in search of battle. No one's paying them for it... but that's where we're back to the original point that they were being paid to do what they'd do anyway. Now no one's willing to pay... so they're doing it on their own dime. The issue is how much of this they can get away with in peacetime before ire really gets raised... though, of course, most of the people of the Five Nations are just as happy to have the elves fighting the goblins.
maollelujah 12-20-05, 11:26 PM	though, of course, most of the people of the Five Nations are just as happy to have the elves fighting the goblins. If they are raiding Darguun, isn't that a little beyond their range? That would mean that they would either be crossing the Mournlands or sailing there, which seems a rather extreme endevour for a raiding party. Would say that they are raiding for economical gain, because I can't see how attacking barely defended villages in Q'Barra or Karrnath would provide them with love of battle or honoring their ancestors.
Hellcow 12-21-05, 12:42 AM	If they are raiding Darguun, isn't that a little beyond their range? That would mean that they would either be crossing the Mournlands or sailing there, which seems a rather extreme endevour for a raiding party. It all depends on how you define "Raiding Party". In this case, I don't mean "Darting across the border and then darting back". With all those rangers (with excellent Survival skills), warbands are extremely self-sufficient. A Darguun "raid" could last for months, as the elves stay constantly on the move within Darguun. So yes, they'd cross through the Mournland and then roam around in Darguun until they decided it was time to come home. The same is true of the other targets - that commute between Karrnath and Valenar is pretty long, though there they'd probably stay right along the Talenta Border. (I'd also note that while they are said to be raiding into Karrnath, I would think those to be by far the rarest of the raids... simply because significant attacks on a regular basis would quickly generate a response, while all of the other targets are currently relatively safe from a political standpoint.) I can't see how attacking barely defended villages in Q'Barra or Karrnath would provide them with love of battle or honoring their ancestors. Neither can I... which means that's probably not what they're doing. In Karrnath, they're more likely to engage in a series of attacks against a convoy of undead troops than to slaughter farmers. In Q'barra, some might actually fight lizardfolk; there may be regions of Q'barra where the Valenar actually have a "Robin Hood" reputation as a result of this. Elsewhere in Q'barra you have villages run by bandits or deserters; these people have military skill, and the Valenar would seek to bring this to the fore. In the Talenta Plains, they'll be seeking to engage skilled hunters. They want a challenge, not simple butchery. With that said, Valenar do come in many flavors, and there may be a few warbands that do raid helpless villages for economic gain. But the bulk wouldn't - not because of concepts of honor or mercy, but because there is nothing to be gained from doing it. As the DM, it's up to you to say "What would fulfill their love of battle" - and to pick their targets accordingly. This is actually where the Wolves comes in, on the other thread: a powerful, cunning foe in the relatively neutral Talenta Plains is a dream come true for the Valenar, because it gives them an interesting opponent they can fight with few political ramifications; whereas attacking military units IN Karrnath would cause more trouble. With the Wolves around, those elves that would otherwise head to Karrnath have no need to go that far for a challenge.
maollelujah 12-21-05, 01:40 AM	... A Darguun "raid" could last for months, as the elves stay constantly on the move within Darguun... Of all the places I think Darguun would probably be the most satisfying for the Valenar to honor their ancestors, since even the Ghaal'dar goblins are worthy opponents, with the Dhakaani being almost on par with the Valenar, albeit they specialize in a different type of fight. With that, I just don't see the Valenar always getting the best of their battles with the goblins, as the Goblins have numbers and like the Valenar seem to be continously honeing their skills (with raids and fights amongst themselves), so the Valenar must be suffering some noticeable casualties due to their raiding policies (not just in Darguun). If they go on 500 sorties and suffer just one death in each, in a couple of years they have erroded their power. As for the Ghaal'dar, how do yo rate them against the Valenar? I put the Dhakaani as equals to the Valenar, but the Ghaal'dar slightly below.
Hellcow 12-21-05, 03:59 AM	Of all the places I think Darguun would probably be the most satisfying for the Valenar to honor their ancestors... It's certainly a good one, though the Mournland is certainly good too. No one complains if you kill living spells, and the monsters in the Mournland are about as close as you can get to giants. But variety is the spice of life. With that, I just don't see the Valenar always getting the best of their battles with the goblins... Neither do I; otherwise it wouldn't be a challenge. However, don't forget that these battles aren't always frontal assaults. Deep raiders are likely to favor commando tactics. So when they find an army of 40 hobgoblins, they won't just charge in and attack. They'll stalk them, pick them off one by one. It may take a week to finish the "raid"... but in their eyes it's still 10 against 40, and the strategic challenge of outthinking the foe can be as glorious as the actual thrill of battle. Obviously, this will vary by the warband; the cavalry champion may revel in the charge and hate skulking about. But a love of open battle will certainly carry a greater risk. (While it seems silly, I could potentially see the Valenar not using their full force against a weak foe, in the interests of making things challenging. 10 typical Ghaal'dar won't be a match for a typical warband... so perhaps they draw straws to decide which three elves get to go after the goblins. At the same time, one doesn't want to take this too far... they seek challenges, but they don't want to die.) Either way, the Valenar are certainly losing people in the process. On the other hand, they are also getting new soldiers from Aerenal (Tairnadal, not Aereni). They may be losing more than they gain - it takes a long time to produce an elf warrior - but it's not as if there are no new warriors out there. And if they are losing more than they gain... it's still worth it to them. It's why they are on Khorvaire. They'd rather live glorious lives and die glorious deaths than live safe lives and keep their population stable. In the long run, this might be the doom of Valenar as a nation, eventually forcing the reduced Tairnadal to retreat to Aerenal... but they are willing to take that risk. And again, this helps explain why the leaders of the Five Nations aren't taking swifter action; elves and goblins killing each other? sounds like a bargain. Maybe Darguun will declare war on Valenar, and save Karrnath the trouble. As for the Ghaal'dar, how do yo rate them against the Valenar? I put the Dhakaani as equals to the Valenar, but the Ghaal'dar slightly below. If you check the dragonshards, I said the typical Dhakaani hobgoblin was a 2nd-level fighter, compared to the 4th level Valenar ranger. So one on one, things still favor the Valenar. The Dhakaani have their elite squads, and a Dhakaani chainmaster may be able to wipe the walls with a few of those 4th level rangers... but taking the average soldier, the Valenar still have the edge. With that said, the strength of the Dhakaani is discipline and large-scale tactics, while the Valenar work better on the warband level. The Dhakaani primarily train for full assault, while the Valenar often employ stealth (fighter vs scout or ranger, though both cultures do use all three classes). Furthermore, whatever one says about the population numbers of the ECS, I think they are especially far off when it comes to the goblinoids; I think the census takers were eaten by something unpleasant when they went to Darguun. So *I* think that there are considerably more Dhakaani than Valenar, and more Ghaal'dar than Dhakaani. Of course, the Dhakaani are also occupied fighting one another, and not all of the clans have even returned to the surface. The Ghaal'dar? Skill-wise, I think they're on par with, oh, the Brelish army: mostly low-level warriors, with a few PC class levels among the elite. Certainly, they have their war-masters and elite soldiers, just as you'd find in human armies. And they have their racial advantages... which in the case of a bugbear, are quite significant. But as a nation, the Ghaal'dar aren't as skilled at the arts of war as, say, the Karrnathi. Since they are more or less on par with humans, you can certainly make the hobgoblin troop raiding the Brelish border an elite unit, if it serves the needs of the story. But in my mind, the Dhakaani stand out as being far superior to the Ghaal'dar - an unpleasant surprise for the adventurer who says "Come on, they're just goblins." (On consideration, I would say that one thing the Ghaal'dar do have over Breland is a far higher warrior-to-commoner ratio; the harsh lifestyle of the Ghaal'dar produces a LOT of warriors. However, the Ghaal'dar don't have any sort of strong magical tradition, and are not as disciplined as the Dhakaani... again, with a few rare exceptions, like the Lhesh.)
Euangelion 12-21-05, 09:57 AM	Neither do I; otherwise it wouldn't be a challenge. However, don't forget that these battles aren't always frontal assaults. Deep raiders are likely to favor commando tactics. So when they find an army of 40 hobgoblins, they won't just charge in and attack. They'll stalk them, pick them off one by one. It may take a week to finish the "raid"... but in their eyes it's still 10 against 40, and the strategic challenge of outthinking the foe can be as glorious as the actual thrill of battle. Obviously, this will vary by the warband; the cavalry champion may revel in the charge and hate skulking about. But a love of open battle will certainly carry a greater risk. This is where having a druid among the ranks makes a huge difference. Not only can they heal, by skill and by spell (surely even the Valenar have heard of goodberry wine by now!), but their spontaneous summoning ability will often mean the difference between a dead warrior and a wounded warrior. Then there's their ability to purify and create food and water, and so one 5th level druid can sustain an entire raiding party for weeks on end.
Hellcow 12-21-05, 01:30 PM	surely even the Valenar have heard of goodberry wine by now! Despite what's said in The Five Nations, I think it's extremely logical to say that the Valenar have their own tradition of goodberry wine; even aside from its value in the Mournland, the Valenar are a martial culture with a strong tradition of natural magic... it makes sense to me. Of course, as regards general healing, both rangers or bards can use wands of cure light wounds, and rangers have Heal as a class skill. A druid will be a big help, but there are certainly alternatives.
a_psh 12-21-05, 02:02 PM	Of course, as regards general healing, both rangers or bards can use wands of cure light wounds, and rangers have Heal as a class skill. A druid will be a big help, but there are certainly alternatives.Bards, too! And the Valenar's combat style works well with the fight-now/heal-later strategy, because they're generally not sticking around to get waled on, so a few rangers with CLW wands and a potion or two for mid-battle healing is probably sufficient for a warband.
Euangelion 12-21-05, 02:38 PM	Bards, too! And the Valenar's combat style works well with the fight-now/heal-later strategy, because they're generally not sticking around to get waled on, so a few rangers with CLW wands and a potion or two for mid-battle healing is probably sufficient for a warband. I'm specifically referring to a long-term raid, lasting a month or more, far from the resources of home and hearth. Having a druid greatly increases the warband's ability to stay in the field before depleting all of their resources, more than even a ranger (the druid's higher Wisdom scores will allow for better Survival and Heal checks, for instance) or bard. Of course, there's nothing preventing a warband from having both a bard and a druid for spellcasting support (with a ranger/bard perhaps even reaching the arcane archer PrC.) And as elves, there's probably someone with a level or two of wizard as well who could use a captured eternal wand of cure light wounds as well. Yes, the Valenar are well positioned for forrays deep in enemy territory for weeks on end (much as cavalry units during the American Civil War were sometimes given great leeway in where and for how long they conducted their raids, and they didn't have someone who could turn rotting roadkill into fresh meat with one 0-level spell.)
aelryinth 12-22-05, 05:23 AM	As for mercenary service supporting the homeland, that's rather unlikely to be needed. Remember that the Valenar control their own land...they ARE the government there, and that probably also means they collect the taxes and use them for the raw materials they need. However, their major trade partners are their own people, which comes down more to a swap of goods then payment, and they really don't need much of the food production since they are basically nomadic. If the area they took over supported itself back then, it's probably even more prosperous now...since there's no layer between the Valenar, who were getting paid by the old government, and the people. In short, the Valenar basically did away with a whole unproductive level of society...there's a good reason why they might actually be trade exporters and the Khorovar so interested in running the government...this is an ideal money-making machine! I expect the Valenar get by plenty well on taxes and living their ancestral ways, and the independent nature of the Warbands and the assorted ancestral quests leads them to make use of their own rewards as right and proper instead of passing them off for someone else. All those ancestor quests and the passion of the Valenar, and the fondness for small units and mutable loyalties, does tend to strike me as the average Valenar having distinct Chaotic tendencies, and I doubt many of them would do other then laugh at their kinfolk needing their charity to survive. ==Aelryinth
Hellcow 12-22-05, 03:00 PM	As for mercenary service supporting the homeland, that's rather unlikely to be needed. Certainly. But when the Valenar first began their mercenary service, they weren't lords of the land: they didn't have that as a source of income. Furthermore, there's a difference between having enough to get by, and having enough to pay for the expensive components your wizards require to build magic items for the army (especially if one presumes some use of power components that offset XP drain at an addition GP cost, which is a reasonably logical requirement if NPC magic item creators don't have a steady stream of XP). My main point is that a nation fielding a vast army can always use more gold: Cyre was willing to pay, so why not take the payment. But that doesn't mean that each soldier was driven by a personal lust for gold... and especially in the case of a character such as a druid, I could easily see them passing on their wages altogether. With that said, I do think that many Valenar like their fine trappings, and will certainly want to get the most powerful combat gear they can. They aren't all about charity, and in the modern day, most have no need to "tithe", for all the reasons you've stated; in any case, it's something I'd only expect of soldiers in active service to the crown. With all that said, we're back to the point that PC druids have no restrictions on wealth: it's entirely up to you as a druid to decide what you feel is an appropriate use of the gold that comes your way. The same holds true for a Valenar druid who acquires gold as part of his service. Does he use it to improve his combat gear, making him a more useful member of the group? Send it to the elders of the Siyal Marrain? Something else entirely? It's up to him, as best befits his beliefs and the situation... just as it would be up to you, as a PC druid who receives a share of a dragon's hoard. As a side note, I would expect that the Valenar would get most of their magical components and goods from the Aereni, who are both expert wizards and neutral as regards the events of the Last War... in case people are thinking "Isn't it possible the Five Nations would refuse to deal with them/raise prices because of the Cyre situation?" Although, of course, House Cannith is also a neutral force that's happy to deal with anyone.
Errant 12-22-05, 08:01 PM	It surprises me that the Valenar nation can be considered practically self sufficient (economically). Isn't the population of Valenar around 70,000? With 45 warclans of 200-500 elves each thats a standing army of (roughly) 9000-22500, or between 1/7th and 1/3rd of the total population. Even with nomadic druid supported traditions I would have thought that they'd need some sort of international trade just to keep the army fed, let alone equiped with a typical amount of magic items. Weren't the Valenar lands (which include a sizeable chunk of desert unless I'm mistaken) sparsely settled when they took over? They've had 40-odd years to build up their agricultural base, which is what, maybe two generations of human farmers? Did the Day of Mourning not see an influx of refugees into Valenar as well? I guess what I'm driving at is, with such a high percentage of the total population not helping with the food production they must have remarkably efficient farming and/or animal husbandry* skills just to feed their population if they don't need to buy food from outside sources. If they are that efficient, is that because the Valenar druids have taken an active hand in directing farming practices? If the farms aren't especially efficient, are there other resources that haven't been mentioned? Maybe a rich mine of some sort? Or is the population just taxed into the ground? I know economies have never been much of a priority in creating dnd settings, but these questions seem to mean everyday life under Valenar rule could be remarkably prosperous (enjoying the fruits of some of the best farming practices in Khorvaire) or struggling subsistence (taxed into the ground). *On the one hand I can imagine Valenar warbands hunting natural predators nearly into extinction so wild herd animals reproduce sufficiently to feed roaming warclans, but on the other hand that would seem to tilt the 'natural balance' too far to be acceptable to traditional druidic values.
maollelujah 12-22-05, 08:27 PM	Toss in that of that 70,000 about 19,000 live in the capital and the country also has a small city and a large town. There must not be more than 20,000 farmers. Maybe Lyrandar has some cutting-edge agricultural practices in effect?
Hellcow 12-22-05, 09:08 PM	Isn't the population of Valenar around 70,000? With 45 warclans of 200-500 elves each thats a standing army of (roughly) 9000-22500, or between 1/7th and 1/3rd of the total population. Even with nomadic druid supported traditions I would have thought that they'd need some sort of international trade just to keep the army fed, let alone equiped with a typical amount of magic items. Well, there's a number of factors here. The first is that D&D does not provide any means for judging the long-term impact of the use of the Survival skill. Does it use renewable resource, or will continued use of Survival strip-mine the land? In absence of evidence that Survival does deplete natural resources, I'm personally assuming that it does not. Then you move to the fact that the typical member of the army - let's say about 50% of the Valenar forces - is a ranger of 4th level or higher. That gives him the ability to have 7 ranks of Survival, which I consider an important skill for them (for just this reason). Taking ten on a Survival check allows that ranger to feed 8 people... so again, as long as they aren't in a hurry and can afford to take the time to forage, warbands can generally feed themselves, before you bring druids into the equation. At the moment, they have no reason to be in a hurry. If the job makes foraging impossible... well that's why you charge the client, right? Realistic? Perhaps not. But entirely within the D&D rules, and this is a fantasy game. Valenar soldiers are experts when it comes to living off the land - so most to the agriculture of the region would be supporting the civilians, not the soldiers. On that front, my suggestion (not yet official, but it may be in a dragonshard in the new year) is that the majority of the human "settlers" of the region have actually been there since before Galifar, and were essentially conquered by Galifar before being conquered by the Valenar. In any case, they've been there a long time, so they'd have their subsistence level going. While the Valenar have only been rulers for 42 years, they've had a presence in the region ever since the Cyrans called them over, and were using it as their beachhead for landing forces... so there's a basis for another few decades of facilities being established. And on that note, don't forget that the Valenar also do have resources in Aerenal; they are warriors of the Tairnadal, but the Tairnadal have cities and communities in Aerenal far older than human civilization. With all THAT said, I think agriculture in Aerenal probably HAS taken a big leap. As you say, you've got the warbands eagerly hunting predators that might prey on livestock. You've got druids (or potentially even rangers with Knowledge-nature) who may work with the people. And on top of that, you have Lyrandar having an interest in the region... and if you've got Lyrandar, that means the weather is on your side. Did the Day of Mourning not see an influx of refugees into Valenar as well? According to Five Nations, not so much. Many refugees were killed fleeing Cyre. I know economies have never been much of a priority in creating dnd settings, but these questions seem to mean everyday life under Valenar rule could be remarkably prosperous (enjoying the fruits of some of the best farming practices in Khorvaire) or struggling subsistence (taxed into the ground). In my opinion, and my opinion only, life has if anything improved for the non-elven inhabitants of Valenar. I say this because the Lyrandar and druidic aid could help improve people's lives, but more importantly because in all current descriptions of the people of Valenar we say that they are content under the rule of their new overlords; there's no mention of uprisings, people toiling in misery, or the like. Hence, my statement that the majority of the people of the land had no love for the Cyrans... because if they considered themselves to be Cyran, this relatively smooth transition would be hard to imagine. But like I said, keep an eye out for a possible "Humans and Khoravar of Valenar" dragonshard next year, if I can get it through the approval process. With that said, if you WANT Valenar to be a seething hotbed of human rebellion against Elf tyranny, go for it... but that's not how you'll see it in the official material. IMO, the people of Valenar don't love the elves... but the majority of them don't hate them either.
PoeticJustice 12-22-05, 11:05 PM	Dear Mr. Baker, Lately I've been on a Neil Gaiman trip since I discovered The Sandman at the beginning of my university's semester. I've just read the bit about Will Shakespeare and "A Midsummer Night's Dream". I am particularly intrigued by the monstrous depiction of Fey in contrast to the generally benevolent tone set by D&D, Eberron included. I've got two questions regarding the subject. 1) I'm looking for a villain like Puck, the sinister hobgoblin, but after thumbing through the Monster Manual and your PDF sourcebook (which I PMed you about some months ago) but still can't find the what I'm looking for. Can you make any recommendations? 2) Do you think Queen Morwel, who is Chaotic Good, would be an appropriate ruler of Lamannia given the place's somewhat eerie feel? As described in the ECS, Lamannia is almost word-for-word a copy of Faerie, so I figure the place should have a queen like Titania.
Hellcow 12-22-05, 11:42 PM	Lately I've been on a Neil Gaiman trip... An excellent trip to be on. I am particularly intrigued by the monstrous depiction of Fey in contrast to the generally benevolent tone set by D&D, Eberron included. I personally don't see the fey of Eberron as being remotely benevolent, but that may just be me. I see the fey as being unpredicatable: often chaotic, capable of extreme cruelty as well as kindness. If you're lost in the woods, the sheerie is more likely to lead you to your doom than to bring you back to civilization. Even the Greensingers are to my mind defined by their wild and unpredictable natures. Thelanis is a place of wonders, but also a place of great danger for mortals... something I'd like to explore more in the future. I'm looking for a villain like Puck, the sinister hobgoblin, but after thumbing through the Monster Manual and your PDF sourcebook (which I PMed you about some months ago) but still can't find the what I'm looking for. I can't give you an answer without thumbing through the MM myself, which I don't have time to do. Perhaps someone else here can. He doesn't really match the quiet folk... but the key I would say is that whatever you use as the base, you can always add class levels on top of it. Do you think Queen Morwel, who is Chaotic Good, would be an appropriate ruler of Lamannia given the place's somewhat eerie feel? Well, it's a subject I'd like to explore in more detail myself in the future. She'd certainly work... but personally, I'm not sure I'd give the realm a good leader. I'd be more inclined to go neutral, or perhaps equal powers of good and evil that may in fact be the same being. Like I said, Thelanis is a place of wonder, but also a place of terrible danger... "benevolent" is not the first word that comes to mind.
aelryinth 12-22-05, 11:50 PM	In reality, a population that keeps 10% of its people under military status is facing a massive economic strain (and by military, I mean doing little but being ready to fight). This is clearly not the case in Valenar, where essentially almost the entire elven population is ready to fight, even if this is peacetime. Perhaps some are crafting, some are not, but definitely the majority are not engaged in food production. That said, if we assume that Valenar don't like civilized places, that means they are staying away from agriculutural areas and supporting themselves in nomadic style as the Talenta halflings do. Remember the scale of the setting...Valenar is actually huge. No books handy, but I'm assuming it is larger then, say, the state of Michigan. Dispersing 30k elves across such an area isn't going to strain any sort of an ecology...especially skilled rangers. For the settled humans, you have the factor of potentially lower taxes/tithes, the Valenar druids getting involved in agriculture (especially with 'good harvest' spells), and the Khorovar administrators keeping the weather profitable to line their own pockets. One last thing is the existence of a LOT of horses. While I doubt the Valenar would stoop to using their own mounts to draw farm equipment, they have no use for the mounts they would capture as prizes, and its likely human-raised mounts are actually quite common among the civilian population, which allows more use of plows, faster and wider use of acreage, etc. Tack on the abscence of any sort of threat to the common folk due to bored Valenar wanting something to do, and actually you've got a very good basis for a peasant to like his society how it is. Their pride might be suffering still, but their bellies are fuller and their lords even less interested in brutalizing them, overall... Given the scarcity of 'official' information on Valenar, it would probably upset the rulers of the Five Nations that the lowest rung of Valenar lives better then their own peasantry do...and what that might lead to is interesting, indeed. ===Aelryinth
aelryinth 12-22-05, 11:57 PM	Has anyone thought of dropping a Guyver Unit in Eberron? What do you think REALLY killed the giants? But no, not that *I* know of. (However, rumor has it that House Cannith has a crack squad of artificers known as the "MacGuyver Unit." Those men are geniuses!) OMG this was so *^*&^ appropriate and funny I just HAD to crosspost it. ===Aelryinth
Hellcow 12-23-05, 12:26 AM	In reality, a population that keeps 10% of its people under military status is facing a massive economic strain (and by military, I mean doing little but being ready to fight)... That said, if we assume that Valenar don't like civilized places, that means they are staying away from agriculutural areas and supporting themselves in nomadic style as the Talenta halflings do. Given the scarcity of 'official' information on Valenar, it would probably upset the rulers of the Five Nations that the lowest rung of Valenar lives better then their own peasantry do...and what that might lead to is interesting, indeed. Excellent post. Pretty much sums up my view of things. And on that note, I'm going away to visit relatives for a while, and won't have email there, so I'm going to HAVE to pry myself away from the boards. Happy holidays, everyone, and thanks for being part of Eberron!
Roxlimn 12-23-05, 10:25 AM	Personally, I don't believe that too many rulers are that concerned about the well-being of their peasants in quite that fashion. They're only peasants, after all. King Boranel might pay half a mind to that, but Queen Aurala? Not seeing it. King Kaius? Even less. What about the Cardinals? Well, I'm thinking they'd be more concerned about spiritual wellbeing rather than physical. For that matter, I rather think that every nation would define "live better" in its own idiosyncratic way.
Isran_Imrador 12-23-05, 06:42 PM	In my opinion, and my opinion only, life has if anything improved for the non-elven inhabitants of Valenar. I say this because the Lyrandar and druidic aid could help improve people's lives, but more importantly because in all current descriptions of the people of Valenar we say that they are content under the rule of their new overlords; there's no mention of uprisings, people toiling in misery, or the like. Hence, my statement that the majority of the people of the land had no love for the Cyrans... because if they considered themselves to be Cyran, this relatively smooth transition would be hard to imagine. But like I said, keep an eye out for a possible "Humans and Khoravar of Valenar" dragonshard next year, if I can get it through the approval process. I am looking forward to that Dragonshard!
Errant 12-24-05, 05:38 AM	I can imagine the look on a Cyran Avenger's face when he tries to "rescue" a former Cyran farmer from Valenar and gets told" "What? Go back to praying for good weather and hoping we and our livestock don't get eaten by wolves? Are you crazy?!" :eek: