Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Glupinickname 09-13-06, 01:30 PM	So, if Kaius is so tough, how come he didn't already rased Crimson Monastery to the ground? He could have easily imprisoned the clergy and charge them with conspiracy and treason. If there are no evidence (and there should be, 'cause, after all, they really do want to overthrow him), he could easily fabricate some. Karrnath's martial law would support Kaius' decisive and drastic action and Sovereign Host knows he's not above dirtying his hands if it will help his rule. As for the reasons to do that, Atur is one of few large cities in Karrnath. Second, it's one of two or maybe three cities in Karrnath which ships can actually sail to and therefore important for shipping and receiving of merchandise. And then there's the fact that Vol wants to destroy Kaius for good. Last thing he needs is a nest of rebels within a bowshot of his harem in Nighthome. The reason why I'm asking this is cause I've been thinking about campaign in Karrnath for the last two weeks or so. This is one of the totally obvious questions I would expect players would ask me, sooner or later. Beside, it's purely personal curiosity.
Kreistor1 09-13-06, 01:42 PM	Karrnath's martial law would support Kaius' decisive and drastic action and Sovereign Host knows he's not above dirtying his hands if it will help his rule. Those who rule do so at the whim of the people, regardless of their martial or political prowess. He doesn't move on the Church because too many Karrnathi still worship it. Declaring the BoV no longer the official church doesn't mean he can just go and destroy the Churches. If the people want them, then Kaius had best not move without their will. In order to actually move on the Church, Kaius needs evidence of the lies inherent in the church -- lies the people aren't aware of. He needs to demonstrate that the BoV is using its worshippers for greed, and that's not easy to do when the population is fanatically aligned to disbelieve such a thing. After 100 years of war and the propaganda surrounding demonization of other nations, the people will not be so accepting of falsified evidence, and being caught out would see Kaius dethroned. So, Kaius needs real proof. And that's what adventures are made of...
Recovering_Blackguard 09-13-06, 02:02 PM	I'm guessing he would still hesitate to make a strong move against the BoV even if he did have evidence -- not only because it remains popular among his subjects, but because Vol could expose him as a vampire.
Glupinickname 09-13-06, 02:05 PM	Those who rule do so at the whim of the people, regardless of their martial or political prowess. Just to play devil's advocate: monarchy is not based upon the willingness of subjects to accept the ruler but on his divine right. In theory, opinion of common people is basically irrelevant. In practice though, Karrns do have divided opinions about their new ruler. But! They also appriciate decisive, strong and even cruel leadership. Storming the Crimson Monastery could show them that Kaius indeed hase some backbone and doesn't suffer fools gladly. Even more so, Kaius wouldn't have to necesary destroy all of the temples of Vol. He'll just need to strike at the Crimson Monastery and leave other churches alone. He could accuse Malevanor for some viscious conspiracy, arrest him and a bunch of other priests in the temple and execute them. No, even better! Instead of killing them and thus making them martyrs, Kaius could send leaders of Crimson Monastery to Dreadhold and spread the smaller fish around various prisons in Karrnath. In order to actually move on the Church, Kaius needs evidence of the lies inherent in the church -- lies the people aren't aware of. He needs to demonstrate that the BoV is using its worshippers for greed, and that's not easy to do when the population is fanatically aligned to disbelieve such a thing. After 100 years of war and the propaganda surrounding demonization of other nations, the people will not be so accepting of falsified evidence, and being caught out would see Kaius dethroned. So, Kaius needs real proof. And that's what adventures are made of... Hell yeah! Now, you're talking! I got two adventure ideas just from these two or three posts. :)
Glupinickname 09-13-06, 02:09 PM	I'm guessing he would still hesitate to make a strong move against the BoV even if he did have evidence -- not only because it remains popular among his subjects, but because Vol could expose him as a vampire. That's a very good argument: in one stroke Kaius would loose footing among other leaders of Khorvaire and Thrane would get so raving mad that it would immidiately proclaim crusade against Karrnath to rid them of abomination of a king. But, unfortunately, that's not the argument I could use in game without immidiately exposing Kaius' true nature to the PCs. :(
maollelujah 09-13-06, 02:21 PM	The reason why I'm asking this is cause I've been thinking about campaign in Karrnath for the last two weeks or so. This is one of the totally obvious questions I would expect players would ask me, sooner or later. Beside, it's purely personal curiosity. I think this is something that he would ideally like to do. I think the only reason why he hasn't moved is that he isn't ready to take on the Church and its hidden benefactor. But I am sure he is slowly wittling away at the powerful supporters of the Church, by putting them in no win situations that gives him a reason to get rid of them. Something as simple as visiting the noble's house for an extended period of time, can send the fortunes of the family tumbling. Those who rule do so at the whim of the people, regardless of their martial or political prowess. The Iron Fist does wonders for the whim of the people. He doesn't move on the Church because too many Karrnathi still worship it. Declaring the BoV no longer the official church doesn't mean he can just go and destroy the Churches. If the people want them, then Kaius had best not move without their will. It worked for Henry VIII, Philip I, and the Catholic Church in numerous occasions.
Glupinickname 09-13-06, 02:35 PM	It worked for Henry VIII, Philip I, and the Catholic Church in numerous occasions. Well, I don't know about Philip I, but didn't Henry's decision to established Anglican Church started the period of intensive conflicts between Catholic North and Anglican South? I can imagine similar war between Western Karrnath - where Sovereign Host is dominant religion - and rural wastelands and gigantic forrests of North and East where villagers probably mostly follow Blood of Vol. Years of agonising guerrila war would follow. I think that Kaius would hardly want to risk such a religious civil war. Boy, those Karrns would sure turn out stupid. I can already see outside kingdoms commenting how "when Karrns are left without wars to fight, they kill each other." Valenar Elves would use this war to mow Karrns down and maybe even Thrane would choose to do some crusading again.
jay 09-13-06, 03:40 PM	That's a very good argument: in one stroke Kaius would loose footing among other leaders of Khorvaire and Thrane would get so raving mad that it would immidiately proclaim crusade against Karrnath to rid them of abomination of a king. But, unfortunately, that's not the argument I could use in game without immidiately exposing Kaius' true nature to the PCs. :( Why would you need to use it as an argument? If you decide that this is the main reason why Kaius doesn't move against the Blood, you have a reason. But that reason doesn't necessarily need to be obvious to the PCs or the players. If they're really into it, they can find it out in-game. Player: "Why doesn't Kaius strike against the Blood of Vol?" DM: "See, he's a vampire, so Vol could compromise his position by revealing that to everyone and his dog." Not good. Player: "Why doesn't Kaius strike against the Blood of Vol?" DM: "No apparent reason. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?" Player: <does a bit of investigation, divining, information gathering and contact making> "... ah! So Kaius is a Vampire and Vol could compromise his position by revealing that to everyone and his dog." Better, no? :)
Glupinickname 09-13-06, 04:08 PM	Player: "Why doesn't Kaius strike against the Blood of Vol?" DM: "No apparent reason. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?" Player: <does a bit of investigation, divining, information gathering and contact making> "... ah! So Kaius is a Vampire and Vol could compromise his position by revealing that to everyone and his dog." Better, no? :) Much better, yes. :)
Kreistor1 09-13-06, 05:02 PM	Just to play devil's advocate: monarchy is not based upon the willingness of subjects to accept the ruler but on his divine right. In theory, opinion of common people is basically irrelevant. Counter references: Oliver Cromwell The Death of Julius Caesar The deaths of many following Caesars who failed the public interest French Revolution 1789 American Revolution October Revolution (Bolshevik) Need more? Divine right is a creation of the dictator to justify his position. The public begs to disagree. Only a fool sits on the throne and trusts divine right to keep him there.
Kreistor1 09-13-06, 05:19 PM	It worked for Henry VIII, Philip I, and the Catholic Church in numerous occasions. The English were never happy under the Pope. Henry VIII knew that and when he created the Anglican Church, there were many ready to jump ship with him. So, yes, he did so with the blessing of the people. I don't see your parallel with Philip I. He divorced and married illegally, but he didn't go up against the will of the people, just the will of the pope. I don't know public opinion towards the Pope at that point in time, but such has ebbed and flowed depending on the excesses of those in the position, so it isn't obvious that the people would care a whit. Also not sure what your mention of the Cahtolic Church is intended to prove. We're talking about people trying to retain power against an uprising. The RC's didn't have much luck preventing the Protestant Revolution (considering more than 1/2 of Christians are now not RC).
DarkPawn 09-13-06, 05:27 PM	The English were never happy under the Pope. Henry VIII knew that and when he created the Anglican Church, there were many ready to jump ship with him. So, yes, he did so with the blessing of the people. Um...Henry VIII was upset with the Roman Catholic Church because they would not void his last marriage. He wanted to marry his mistress. Because of this he got angry and decided to start the Anglican Church of England, with him as the leader. This got his last marriage voided and he remarried. You kind of made it sound like Henry VIII started the church because his subjects were unhappy with the Pope. This may have been true on some level but lets not kid ourselves, this isn't why he formed his own church.
Kreistor1 09-13-06, 05:39 PM	That was Henry's personal reason to do so, but no one would go to the Anglican Church if the people weren't already in a position to want to reject the Roman Catholic Church. As I said, the English were never very RC. Some elements were, and those continued to fight that battle for a couple centuries, but the majority of the people wanted England ruled by the English, not an Italian Pope, so they went for it.
DarkPawn 09-13-06, 05:46 PM	Whoa, first double post! Go me!!
DarkPawn 09-13-06, 05:47 PM	That was Henry's personal reason to do so, but no one would go to the Anglican Church if the people weren't already in a position to want to reject the Roman Catholic Church. As I said, the English were never very RC. Some elements were, and those continued to fight that battle for a couple centuries, but the majority of the people wanted England ruled by the English, not an Italian Pope, so they went for it. ...and in all honesty, if you didn't agree with the King you died. I don't think Henry VIII would have cared one way or another if the people agreed with him or not. He would have made them agree with him one way or another. For all we know he could have fueled the anti-Italy resentment himself. Who knows? There are many events in history that would be cool if placed in an Eberron Campaign! :)
Kreistor1 09-13-06, 06:05 PM	Who knows? Uhm... historians? He would have made them agree with him one way or another. There is no recorded bloodbath. The point is that he didn't need one, nor the threat of one. Henry was a very popular leader, and the people supported him. For all we know he could have fueled the anti-Italy resentment himself. Actually, such things have been recorded. I don't have an online resource to quote, but no, he didn't need to. Martin Luthor's 95 Theses predated Henry's rejection of the Pope by ~18 years, so the stage had already been set for a rejection of the Church. And, if you believe some historians, it wasn't Henry that was behind it all anyway... Wikipedia, Anglicanism The English Reformation was initially driven by the dynastic goals of Henry VIII, who, in his quest for a consort who would bear him a male heir, found it expedient to replace papal supremacy with the supremacy of the English crown. A close reading of the early legislation, limiting itself as it does to questions of temporal and spiritual supremacy, suggest that it was not Henry's intention to found a new church. He was well-informed enough about history to know that the powers he was claiming were those which had been exercised by European monarchs over the church in their dominions since the time of Constantine the Great, and that what had changed since then had been the growth of papal power. The original Acts sought to reverse this by placing Henry at the head of the church. Subsequent legislation put a decidedly Protestant spin on Henry's agenda, however. The introduction of the Great Bible in 1538 brought a vernacular translation of the Scriptures into churches, and the Dissolution of the Monasteries by 1540 brought huge amounts of church land and property under the jurisdiction of the Crown, and ultimately into the hands of the English nobility. This created vested interests which made a powerful material incentive to support a separate Christian church in England under the rule of the Crown. So, according to this, Henry set the stage for others to decide that breaking from the Church was a very profitable exercise, and so they placed the Church of England in his hands, he didn't steal it from them. [snipped a sentence about the Bishop of England I can't support] It wasn't a spiritual or political reason that drove the creation of the Anglican church. It was finanacial. :)
DarkPawn 09-14-06, 01:01 AM	Actually, such things have been recorded. I don't have an online resource to quote, but no, he didn't need to. Martin Luthor's 95 Theses predated Henry's rejection of the Pope by ~18 years, so the stage had already been set for a rejection of the Church. Yeah Martin Luther did open the floodgates...just wanted to point out that Henry VIII did it just because he wanted to get married again. Dirty old geezer. ;)
maollelujah 09-15-06, 08:50 AM	The English were never happy under the Pope. Henry VIII knew that and when he created the Anglican Church, there were many ready to jump ship with him. So, yes, he did so with the blessing of the people. I don't see your parallel with Philip I. He divorced and married illegally, but he didn't go up against the will of the people, just the will of the pope. I don't know public opinion towards the Pope at that point in time, but such has ebbed and flowed depending on the excesses of those in the position, so it isn't obvious that the people would care a whit. Also not sure what your mention of the Cahtolic Church is intended to prove. We're talking about people trying to retain power against an uprising. The RC's didn't have much luck preventing the Protestant Revolution (considering more than 1/2 of Christians are now not RC). At the time of the English Reformation the English were very Roman Catholic. The church wasn't in decline and there was no strong protestant movement to counter it. It was done at the whim of the King who wanted to get his way. Turning England Protestant was mostly the work of Thomas Seymour and Thomas Cranmer the Archbishop of Cantebury: who was behind the first Common Prayer book and publishing the Bible in English. Henry is said to have called him "the greatest heretic in Kent." The Dissolution of the Monasteries was mostly done by Cromwell as a means to fill the coffers. The interesting thing is that Henry most likely always considered himself Catholic, and the rituals during his reign remained Roman. I got my Philips wrong, I meant Philip IV of France who crushed the Templars in one blow through force and lies. As for the Catholic Church, they have a long history of crushing people they disagree with (or trying to crush them), with no care about the whim of the people. Plus they did do a pretty good job of curbing the Protestant movement at the time. If France didn't side with the Protestants during the 30 years war, they might've whipped Protestants out of Germany too. King Kaius' move to get rid of the Blood of Vol, would make for a good campaign.
eehamburg 09-15-06, 09:55 AM	On a different theme ... or maybe the original theme ... couldn't a reason that Kaius doesn't take any action because with a large portion of his populace supporting the BoV, that it would eventually change into a civil war if he did anything at all?
Kreistor1 09-15-06, 10:18 AM	Philip IV of France who crushed the Templars Again, what does that have to do with the opinion of the people? The Templars were a very secretive and sequestered order, with no clear symapthies from teh people before the attack. Remember, I am not talking about attacking the church, I am talking about Kings doing things contrary to the will of the people and expecting to get away with it. At the time of the English Reformation the English were very Roman Catholic. That just does not match everything I've ever read or seen on this subject. Every book, documentary, or source I have seen claims the English were increasingly frustrated with the RC's. That had something to do with the vast majority of Popes being Italian, and very few English ones. I don't deny that there was a strong RC resistance, and they did even try to kill the Queen (Elizabeth), but they were a minority, not majority.
Syltorian 09-15-06, 11:01 AM	That just does not match everything I've ever read or seen on this subject. Every book, documentary, or source I have seen claims the English were increasingly frustrated with the RC's. That had something to do with the vast majority of Popes being Italian, and very few English ones. I don't deny that there was a strong RC resistance, and they did even try to kill the Queen (Elizabeth), but they were a minority, not majority. Perhaps the brief return to Roman Catolicism under Queen Mary might fit the image of a monarch going against the will of the (majority of the) people better?
Kreistor1 09-15-06, 11:46 AM	Perhaps the brief return to Roman Catolicism under Queen Mary might fit the image of a monarch going against the will of the (majority of the) people better? The issue was not resolved during her reign. Would the people have risen up against her purges in time? No one can say. It didn't happen during her short reign, but given her tendency to ignore the will of the people, Lady Jane's removal as Queen could have been executed on her successor just as easily. Lady Jane demonstrates that Kingship is the will of the people: she was declared Queen, but the people's will was for Mary, so Mary they got. What Henry started lasted through Edward's, Lady Jane Grey's, and Elizabeth's reigns. The people were clearly divided on this issue, so we can't expect this to be a sample of violating the people's will. Her persecution of Prot's violated the will of some people and was the will of others. It might have lead to another civil war, but that is speculation: her reign was only a few years, and her persecutions stayed at a high social level, rarely touching on the common people. Mary did come crashing down in public opinion, due to her marriage to Phillip of Spain. This would have been the cause of civil war, not her treatment of the Prot's. Had that marriage produced issue, Mary's end may have been far bloodier and swifter, but she died childless. But clearly her persecution of the Prot's did not stop the extremely Prot Elizabeth from ascending. Killing and murdering Prot's did nothing to stop the inevitable. That's something of a demonstration of what I mean. Killing people does not sway their religious and spiritual convictions: it only inspires them to mask them. Once the opportunity arises, they will show their true face. Mary tried to kill her way to a RC England. That effort failed completely.
aelryinth 09-15-06, 06:39 PM	To the IP: FOr the record, it's why hasn't he RAZED the monastary to the ground. :) Spellchecking doesn't catch everything! ===Aelryinth
maollelujah 09-16-06, 01:01 AM	Philip IV of France who crushed the Templars Again, what does that have to do with the opinion of the people? The Templars were a very secretive and sequestered order, with no clear symapthies from teh people before the attack. Remember, I am not talking about attacking the church, I am talking about Kings doing things contrary to the will of the people and expecting to get away with it. Philip's move against the Templars is a perfect example of a King moving against a popular organization. The Templars were very popular, evidence by the vast wealth bequeathed to them by everyone. They didn't find it in a cave. The show trial, the fabricated evidence, and the propaganda espoused by the King is all evidence that he was actually trying to sway the people. That just does not match everything I've ever read or seen on this subject. Every book, documentary, or source I have seen claims the English were increasingly frustrated with the RC's. That had something to do with the vast majority of Popes being Italian, and very few English ones. I don't deny that there was a strong RC resistance, and they did even try to kill the Queen (Elizabeth), but they were a minority, not majority. There was only one English Pope ever, so I don't see why that has anything to do with their frustration. There might've been some dissatisfaction with the sales of indulgences and the Peter's Pence, but there was no strong protestant feeling in the country at the time. As I said before the church rites and rituals didn't even change (except for the English Bible) and England remained generally a Pope-less 'Catholic' nation. I am not saying that Henry didn't open the flood gates, because his appointments of Thomas Cranmer and Cromwell were a boon to the growth of Protestantism. The real change doesn't come until the Minority of Edward the VI (with Cranmer and Seymour having a hand in most of it) when the nature of the Church starts to become more Protestant. With the nation split into two polarized minorities and a large undecided majority, it is conceivable that if Mary remained Queen the England would've swung back to true Catholicism. But again that is just speculation. Now Queen Elizabeth is an example of the Queen going against the will of the people. Everyone wanted her to get married, but she never did. On a different theme ... or maybe the original theme ... couldn't a reason that Kaius doesn't take any action because with a large portion of his populace supporting the BoV, that it would eventually change into a civil war if he did anything at all? It might be the case. It would depend on how significant the size of the BoV is, how consolidated their power base is, and how ready they were to act if the Kaius made his move.
Syltorian 09-16-06, 05:52 AM	To the IP: FOr the record, it's why hasn't he RAZED the monastary to the ground. :) Spellchecking doesn't catch everything! ===Aelryinth That's maybe because, according to the Oxford English Dictionary: rase, v.1 5. To demolish, to level with the ground; to RAZE. Now rare. Both spellings seem to be accepted. ;)
aelryinth 09-16-06, 03:23 PM	Well, is 'rased' a proper word? I confess to never having seen it. Very Old English, as it were. I suppose its the core of 'erase', looking at it... ==Aelryinth
Syltorian 09-16-06, 03:48 PM	Well, is 'rased' a proper word? I confess to never having seen it. Very Old English, as it were. I suppose its the core of 'erase', looking at it... ==Aelryinth At first I thought it was a British-English vs. American-English spelling, as is sometimes the case with "s" vs. "z", though mostly in "-isation" endings, but that does not seem to be the case here. My tendency (but I am not a native English speaker) would have been to write "raised" which is another way to write rase/raze, although that one is apparently really obsolete. Notwithstanding that "raising" a building can mean building it up as well as pulling it down, apparently... Anyway, the latest quote of the OED for "rased" is from 1867. Then again, the latest for "razed" in this context is 1870, so not sure how much that tells us. As for "raised", it's 1645. And indeed, "erase" comes from this. :) Uhm... okay. I return you back to the actual topic know... :P
Kreistor1 09-17-06, 01:14 AM	Philip's move against the Templars is a perfect example of a King moving against a popular organization. The Templars were very popular, evidence by the vast wealth bequeathed to them by everyone. They didn't find it in a cave. The show trial, the fabricated evidence, and the propaganda espoused by the King is all evidence that he was actually trying to sway the people. "Bequeathed"? Uh, very much, not bequeathed. Earned. The Templars were the first international banking system. A man could deposit money wiht teh Templars in London, take a writ that identified and described him to Rome, and then withdraw the money from teh Templar facility there. For a percentage, of course. They started that service to help people invest in Crusader lands, that area being too dangerous to expect any cash not heavily protected to get through. With all the banditry of the day, it was an extremely popular service and made the Templars very rich. The Templar themselves had become very much out of favour in the public eye, not in favour as you suggest. Their tendency towards secrecy and their clear evidence of wealth led to jealousy in much the same way we see jealousy towards the gnomes of Zurich, or certain other jealous prejudices I choose not to name. The Templars were very much not popular at the time of Phillip's betrayal, and it was very easy for him to propagandize their richness since they were so secret.
Glupinickname 09-17-06, 11:01 AM	<Falls asleep because of the abyssmally boring and off-topic thread>
Esgay 09-18-06, 07:30 AM	It may be that kaius is keeping his friends close and his enemies closer, he could easily have all the temples and shrines of the blood of vol destroyed but then the religion would just go underground, best to keep it out in the open where he can easily monitor its movements. Also in keeping the cult exposed kaius is quite likely looking to go straight for the head of the organization; Vol herself and if all the priests of the cult are in hiding it'll be a lot harder to get leads to track her down.