Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Syltorian 07-22-07, 06:46 AM	I was thinking a bit about the Ashbound lately, and the question what their position during the Lycanthropic Purge was popped in to my mind. First, how would they see normal lycanthropes? My personal opinion is that they would be more than fine with them, and actually have a few of the surviving lycanthropes as their members. The werecreatueres hate civilisation (by now, and possibly with the exception of were-rats), and they are in their own way a force of nature, a way of nature to overcome the evil of civilisation by returning those it afflicts back to its roots. Second, how would they have seen the changed lycanthropes of the times of the Purge? The ones where the curse was changed, so that afflicted lycanthropes could pass it on, and which drew many of them towards evil? My personal assumption is again that they welcome it and saw the lycanthropic attacks that preceded and called in the Purge as something of a fulfilment of their dreams. Nature coming back with a vengeance. This would, of course, have put them in the way of the Templars and their allies, and would have made the initial war even harder for the Silver Flame. But I am not that sure on the matter. They might consider it as an affliction, since there are signs and rumours that it is connected to Lamannia. That's a natural plane, but still not the material one, so I assume the Ashbound would not be happy about that part. Overall, I tend to think that the Ashbound welcomed the Purge, though, and might actually be working at making the lycanthropic attacks happen again on the same scale and pattern. But I'd like to see what other people's opinions are, as I am really not very sure about this.
The Dreaming Duck 07-22-07, 12:30 PM	Second, how would they have seen the changed lycanthropes of the times of the Purge? The ones where the curse was changed, so that afflicted lycanthropes could pass it on, and which drew many of them towards evil? My personal assumption is again that they welcome it and saw the lycanthropic attacks that preceded and called in the Purge as something of a fulfilment of their dreams. My personal assumption is quite different. If anyone welcomed the wave of evil lycanthropy, it would be the Children of Winter. Because what was going on with lycanthropes at that time wasn't natural. It was nothing less than the possible destruction of Khorvaire as we know it. It's the Children of Winter who favor this kind of cataclysm, saying that only the strong shall survive the disaster that lies ahead. The Ashbound don't hate humanity. They don't believe that people should DIE. They believe that people need to learn to live in harmony with nature, that they need to abandon the destructive path of arcane magic and find their way back to the true path. The most modertate among them aren't even opposed to arcane magic if it is used carefully and wisely. They are willing to use violence to accomplish their ends, but they don't advocate MASSACRES... and that's all that the pre-purge attacks were. Further, I don't see why they would consider lycanthropes - especially EVIL lycanthropes - to be especially natural or desireable. Lycanthropy isn't natural; it's a curse that affects the mind of the victim. Especially at the time of the Purge. It's a magical affliction... which right there suggests that the Ashbound would oppose it. Perhaps they don't mind good or neutral lycanthropes. But EVIL lycanthropes will kill their own families and former friends. Anyone who embraces evil lycanthropes as friends and allies is walking a dangerous line. The Ashbound aren't evil. They don't want to see innocents die; even in their acts of violence, they usually seek to leave the PEOPLE alive so they can learn. They want to protect the world from unnatural influences. If this takes force - tough love - they'll use it. But the pre-purge spread of lycanthropy was sheer horror. There was nothing natural about it. The Children of Winter might see it as the coming of Winter, the prophesied doom of civilization paving the way for the new spring to come. But I can't see the Ashbound embracing such a bloody and unnatural sequence of events.
mahavira 07-22-07, 01:38 PM	The Ashbound aren't evil. They don't want to see innocents die; even in their acts of violence, they usually seek to leave the PEOPLE alive so they can learn. They want to protect the world from unnatural influences. If this takes force - tough love - they'll use it. But the pre-purge spread of lycanthropy was sheer horror. There was nothing natural about it. The Children of Winter might see it as the coming of Winter, the prophesied doom of civilization paving the way for the new spring to come. But I can't see the Ashbound embracing such a bloody and unnatural sequence of events. According to Faiths of Eberron they view cultivation of crops as an offense against the earth (p92) and that the Ashbound are "united in their opposition to arcane magic, unnatural beings such as fiends and abberrations, and the ravages of civilization" (also p92). Without agriculture, the current population of Khorvaire cannot possibly be maintained, so if they don't want to kill people directly, they at least wilfully ignore the massive deaths that will inevitably follow their triumph. As to the Purge, and the change in the nature of lycanthropy that caused it, the Ashbound have no central hierarchy and what groups consider to be unnatural varies from one small group to another (ibid.). The groups that consider lycanthropy to be unnatural welcomed the purge, those that don't consider lycanthropy unnatural probably split between those who viewed the change in the nature of lycanthropy to be unnatural and those who felt it was nature's revenge for the scourge of arcane magic and civilization. There were probably Ashbound on either side of the conflict, and others who were neutral because they felt the two unnatural forces should be left to duke it out so long as neither threatened nature while they were at it (practically this probably means that any intervention such a group made would be on the side of the lycanthropes because burning out areas of forest and killing perfectly natural wolves etc. seem like common mistakes among the templars et al).
Alex_ 07-22-07, 04:07 PM	According to Faiths of Eberron they view cultivation of crops as an offense against the earth (p92) and that the Ashbound are "united in their opposition to arcane magic, unnatural beings such as fiends and abberrations, and the ravages of civilization" (also p92). Without agriculture, the current population of Khorvaire cannot possibly be maintained, so if they don't want to kill people directly, they at least wilfully ignore the massive deaths that will inevitably follow their triumph. I would imagine that many don't believe that. They think (however innacurately) that the current populations can be sustainable without modern agriculture and industrial practices, and through living more in harmony with nature. Others simply think that half the population dying off sooner as a result of the collapse of civilization is better than everyone dying off later because of the unavoidable consequences of civilization. They're not trying to punish those that disagree with them, they're trying to save them from an ultimately horrible fate. Think of them as militant peace protesters, people radically against globzalization, or eco-terrorists.
mahavira 07-22-07, 04:32 PM	I would imagine that many don't believe that. They think (however innacurately) that the current populations can be sustainable without modern agriculture and industrial practices, and through living more in harmony with nature. Others simply think that half the population dying off sooner as a result of the collapse of civilization is better than everyone dying off later because of the unavoidable consequences of civilization. They're not trying to punish those that disagree with them, they're trying to save them from an ultimately horrible fate. Think of them as militant peace protesters, people radically against globzalization, or eco-terrorists. Their goal is to turn us all into ooking cave dwellers (maybe worse, because cavemen at least used tools). I confess my interest in the difference between them wanting to punish us or 'save' us is quite limited. I also wonder what they want to do with sorcerers, people who don't have a choice about using arcane magic.
Syltorian 07-22-07, 04:50 PM	If anyone welcomed the wave of evil lycanthropy, it would be the Children of Winter. Because what was going on with lycanthropes at that time wasn't natural. It was nothing less than the possible destruction of Khorvaire as we know it. Good point about the Children of Winter, especially if one considers lycanthropy as a disease. I would agree that they would have welcomed the pre-Purge events, but they might also have been unconcerned about it being beaten down. The lycanthropes were not strong enough to survive. However, who says that the events that led to the Purge were not natural? A nightmare, yes, and absolute horror, true. But unnatural? That is what the Silver Flame and the Aundairian and Reacher farmers, woodcutters and other despoilers of nature say. But what do they understand about nature, from the Ashbound point of view? Lycanthropy could be an arcane taint, a divine creation, or a fiendish curse. But nobody has found out what created the lycanthropes, or the change that led to the Purge. There are many theories, and some point towards a natural origin: the manifest zones of Lamannia (the plane of nature, though I do not know whether the Ashbound would accept that), or ancient druids, according to the Dragonshard (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20050404a) on the Purge. The shifters themselves seem to believe them to be a natural phenomenon, guardians of nature created by spirits of nature. Again, the Ashbound might be ambivalent about these spirits, but it might be far more natural than it seems. Besides, shifters have deep links to lycanthropes, and make up a large part of the Ashbound. Thus I doubt that they consider them unnatural; rather, the shifters embrace their non-human side by joining the Ashbound. Some theories, admittedly, attribute the curse to the Daelkyr, and the growth of its power to planes, fiends, or moons. But all such theories (except for the one tied to the moons) come from Aundairian scholars and from Arcanix, people who themselves are top of the list of 'unnatural', as far as anything not an outsider goes, and subject to Ashbound attacks. And I assume the moons are natural. Unless the Ashbound believe that tides are not natural, either (though they might have more problems with the moons as spirits). The 'Curse', which might not be a word that everyone outside the destroyed communities would use, changes the mind. True. But it makes people go back to nature, even if it is a feral, savage and destructive nature. Even evil werecreatures hunt in packs, as far as I am aware. They do attack their former kin and friends, but perhaps only because they channel the vengeance of nature against those who have defiled it. Good lycanthropes, as Keith Baker explained somewhere else, tend to leave their cities behind and feel the urge to return to nature - that was part of what lead me to ask this question. It seems to me to be exactly what the Ashbound want. Leave the cities, those of your family and friend who do not wish to come along. Return to nature. The Ashbound believe it is foolish to balance nature and progress (FoE, p.92). That is what the standard druids and especially the Wardens of the Wood are doing: guiding people to use nature without abusing it. But the Ashbound, as Mahavira says, see basic agriculture as an evil that needs to be eradicated, although at times other things matter more (such as aberrations or fiends). It looks like our opinions of the Ashbound are radically different. I tend to see the members of the Ashbound as fairly fanatical to begin with, even those that are moderate by their standards. If they were moderate by anyone else's standards, they would be Wardens. Sure, they do not hate humanity, and unlike the Children of Winter do not seek to create some kind of master-race that can weather the coming Winter, and to destroy nature and humanity indiscriminately to make the bits that survive stronger. But they loathe civilisation at its most basic. They want to go back to hunting-and-gathering, with no spun garments either, and are ready to attack Eldeen farms and Brelish industry over this. I cannot see anywhere where it says they do not want to see innocents die, although I'll want to point out here that a farmer or a craftsman is not an innocent in the eyes of the Ashbound. They are despoilers of nature. Do they want people to learn? Probably, but not necessarily the same people they attack. The survivors in the village next door, those who eventually hear of the massacre of a lumber camp, those are the people who may learn. The sect as such is not evil. They think they act for the good of the world, of course, except that they do not think of the artificial, of civilisation, as part of the world.
Alex_ 07-22-07, 06:44 PM	Their goal is to turn us all into ooking cave dwellers (maybe worse, because cavemen at least used tools). Not "ooking" cave dwellers. They want you to be more like they, the Halflings of the Talenta Plains, Gatekeeper Druids, are (sans a few more conveniences). The culture of those people, despite being far harsher and perhaps uncomfortable compared to what most people in Khorvaire are used to, are far more than "ooking cave dwellers". Their societies don't rely as much on any kind of centralized government, arcane/clerical magic, or steel weapons. I confess my interest in the difference between them wanting to punish us or 'save' us is quite limited. The difference is they think you either have the above option, or everyone on the planet is going to die. They believe that given the choice between a less cushy life in harmony with nature and one that leads to the destruction of nature (and ultimately everything else), that the former is preferable to the latter. That's how they would probably differentiate it. I also wonder what they want to do with sorcerers, people who don't have a choice about using arcane magic. Try to explain to those individuals that just because you have the power to do something doesn't mean you should use it. If that doesn't work, I would imagine they'd go through any number of disciplinary actions up to and including killing them (probably in relation to the perceived weight of the offense).
mahavira 07-22-07, 07:27 PM	Not "ooking" cave dwellers. They want you to be more like they, the Halflings of the Talenta Plains, Gatekeeper Druids, are (sans a few more conveniences). The culture of those people, despite being far harsher and perhaps uncomfortable compared to what most people in Khorvaire are used to, are far more than "ooking cave dwellers". Their societies don't rely as much on any kind of centralized government, arcane/clerical magic, or steel weapons. The difference is they think you either have the above option, or everyone on the planet is going to die. They believe that given the choice between a less cushy life in harmony with nature and one that leads to the destruction of nature (and ultimately everything else), that the former is preferable to the latter. That is not at all the impression given by Faiths of Eberron. Woven cloth, worked leather, weapons, armor, all denounced as civilized crutches. Even dyeing their hides and furs is unacceptable. Attempts to balance nature and civilization are considered foolish. "most do not hesitate to destroy anything they view as unnatural". The talenta halflings wear armor (leather or hide), use weapons, and the like. Gatekeeper druids use steel scimitars, or even Byesk (tell me how a culture that doesn't mine is going to have the metallurgy to even INJURE most abberations). Faiths of Eberron makes it perfectly clear that these are fanatics that even other druids view as extremists. What you describe is more likely a conservative Warden of the Wood than even a liberal Ashbound. FoE p92: this sect is small in numbers (around 1700 members) but compensates in its sheer fanaticism. FoE p93: some, though, advocate a more reasonable approach that advises and instructs people in how to minimize their 'footprint' on the world. The sect tolerates this to a degree, but the Ashbound shun those who are overly indulgent towards civilization. Such a person's followers desert her for another group, and she is barred from attending conclaves. The measured approach you describe would probably get you run out of the organization. If you run a more moderate sect in your campaign, more power to you, but the official materials make it clear these people are the fanatical enemies of everything that makes humanoids other than ooking cavedwellers.
Alex_ 07-22-07, 08:32 PM	That is not at all the impression given by Faiths of Eberron. Woven cloth, worked leather, weapons, armor, all denounced as civilized crutches. Even dyeing their hides and furs is unacceptable. Attempts to balance nature and civilization are considered foolish. "most do not hesitate to destroy anything they view as unnatural". The talenta halflings wear armor (leather or hide), use weapons, and the like. Gatekeeper druids use steel scimitars, or even Byesk (tell me how a culture that doesn't mine is going to have the metallurgy to even INJURE most abberations). Their livelihoods aren't as dependent upon these things though. Having less technology hasn't made them less "human", sapient, intelligent, or personally capable. As for how to survive against Abberations when you lack large caches Bysek weapons- remember that only Daelkyr and couple of other Abberations in the ECS have damage reduction/Bysek, and that ultimately, they were defeated through the druidic magic of the Gatekeepers, not the continent spanning civilization of Dhakaan. Faiths of Eberron makes it perfectly clear that these are fanatics that even other druids view as extremists. What you describe is more likely a conservative Warden of the Wood than even a liberal Ashbound. FoE p92: this sect is small in numbers (around 1700 members) but compensates in its sheer fanaticism. FoE p93: some, though, advocate a more reasonable approach that advises and instructs people in how to minimize their 'footprint' on the world. The sect tolerates this to a degree, but the Ashbound shun those who are overly indulgent towards civilization. Such a person's followers desert her for another group, and she is barred from attending conclaves. I didn't say that they weren't extremists. However, an extremist is not necessarily a violent individual, even if the term has come to describe more violent individuals. It also suggests idealism, often to the point where it's impractical on a large scale practice (whether or not the believer believes it). For example, Vegans would be on the extreme end of the Animal Rights spectrum, but that doesn't mean they're violent and desire to hurt everyone. Anarchy is an extremist view of government, but that doesn't mean it's violent in general or that it ultimately aims to hurt people. Druids are more extreme than the other civilizations since they authorize things like agriculture and and governments, but wouldn't support something like Sharn or the use of metal armor and weapons other than the scimitar, under the idea that it hurts or conflicts with nature. The Ashbound take that basic ideal to an even greater level. This is all in reference to the Ashbound in general. It's mentioned that under their current leadership, they have become more aggressive than in times past, and that he is currently being challenged by others. The measured approach you describe would probably get you run out of the organization. If you run a more moderate sect in your campaign, more power to you, but the official materials make it clear these people are the fanatical enemies of everything that makes humanoids other than ooking cavedwellers. My Ashbound are just as naked (or fur covered), unarmored, and reliant on sticks, rocks, slings, as others. However, the majority don't consider the rest of the civilized world unworthy of life (unless they repeatedly command arcane magic). Some may sabotage and destroy specific objects and individuals, but they aren't mass murderers, and they most certainly aren't all ooking cave dwellers. They still have music(mostly singing), art (mostly poetry, dancing, acting), and are capable of love, compassion, and trade (you help me and I help you). They also have a higher percentage of druids than any other sect, indicating that they're plenty capable of handling and communicating complex concepts and ideas and obviously have no problems with spoken languages. They're very different, but not "ooking cavedwellers". All of that is a view that is perfectly agreeable with the published material, and also more agreeable with Eberron's view that things are not black and white, and every side has their version story, and redeeming elements in regards to the mortal races.
mahavira 07-23-07, 12:51 AM	Their livelihoods aren't as dependent upon these things though. Having less technology hasn't made them less "human", sapient, intelligent, or personally capable. As for how to survive against Abberations when you lack large caches Bysek weapons- remember that only Daelkyr and couple of other Abberations in the ECS have damage reduction/Bysek, and that ultimately, they were defeated through the druidic magic of the Gatekeepers, not the continent spanning civilization of Dhakaan. I didn't say that they weren't extremists. However, an extremist is not necessarily a violent individual, even if the term has come to describe more violent individuals. It also suggests idealism, often to the point where it's impractical on a large scale practice (whether or not the believer believes it). For example, Vegans would be on the extreme end of the Animal Rights spectrum, but that doesn't mean they're violent and desire to hurt everyone. Anarchy is an extremist view of government, but that doesn't mean it's violent in general or that it ultimately aims to hurt people. Druids are more extreme than the other civilizations since they authorize things like agriculture and and governments, but wouldn't support something like Sharn or the use of metal armor and weapons other than the scimitar, under the idea that it hurts or conflicts with nature. The Ashbound take that basic ideal to an even greater level. This is all in reference to the Ashbound in general. It's mentioned that under their current leadership, they have become more aggressive than in times past, and that he is currently being challenged by others. My Ashbound are just as naked (or fur covered), unarmored, and reliant on sticks, rocks, slings, as others. However, the majority don't consider the rest of the civilized world unworthy of life (unless they repeatedly command arcane magic). Some may sabotage and destroy specific objects and individuals, but they aren't mass murderers, and they most certainly aren't all ooking cave dwellers. They still have music(mostly singing), art (mostly poetry, dancing, acting), and are capable of love, compassion, and trade (you help me and I help you). They also have a higher percentage of druids than any other sect, indicating that they're plenty capable of handling and communicating complex concepts and ideas and obviously have no problems with spoken languages. They're very different, but not "ooking cavedwellers". All of that is a view that is perfectly agreeable with the published material, and also more agreeable with Eberron's view that things are not black and white, and every side has their version story, and redeeming elements in regards to the mortal races. 1. Dolgrims have /byesk damage reduction, and are probably the most common abberations in the world. Dolgaunts have magic or byesk, and I grant that there's no reason a druid can't make a magic bone club or cast magic fang, but that still leaves the grunt footsoldiers causing a real headache. I also question whether the Daelkir could have been defeated without the Dahakani empire as well as the druids (just as I have no doubt that without the druids the Dahakani would have fallen just like every other world the Daelkir set their sights on). And amusingly, the first druids were taught by dragons, users of arcane magic. 2. Back to FoE, p92 "most do not hesitate to destroy anything they perceive as unnatural", and cultivation of plants is generally considered unnatural by the sect. I'm sure the farmers appreciate that the druids only ruined their crops without killing them, but that doesn't make their family starve any slower that winter. 3. If they don't make anything, what do they trade? I'm not sure I see the point (maybe herbal medicines?). In any case, while druids, barbarians and rangers can live all right in such a society, for everone else, life is nasty, brutish and short. The ashbound themselves are most likely as you describe. The society they would inflict on everyone else would probably not be because most people can't be anything more than a commoner, adept(rare), expert or warrior, and would have a sufficiently hard time surviving that I doubt things would be as idyllic as the Ashbound think, or that as much of the better elements of human nature would survive as they might think. 4. As you say, most things are not black and white in Eberron (though the Emerald Claw and probably the Children of Winter are supposed to represent the pure black 'pulp' villains). I'm sure the ashbound don't maneuvre among themselves for power or do many other things one expects of evil people. Someone captured by Ashbound might come to have considerable sympathy for them. That said, their beliefs are irreconcilably in conflict with most PC groups and indeed most people in the setting. It would probably be good, tense role playing to work out an alliance between Ashbound and a town threatened by Abberations. That Ashbound most likely isn't an innately evil person. That Karrnathi soldier most likely isn't an innately evil person. If my country's at war with Karrnath I'll fight and kill that Karrnathi soldier, and if the Ashbound attempt to destroy my crops, my neighbor's blacksmith shop, or my son in law the wizard, I'll hunt and kill or drive off the Ashbound (to be fair, I'm probably more hostile to the Ashbound because the Karnns just want to change who my taxes go to, the Ashbound want to wipe out my way of life and replace it with something that is only appealing if you believe in Rousseau's noble savage idea, which I don't).
Hellcow 07-23-07, 04:41 AM	I'll just point out that a lot of attention is being paid to FoE. I didn't write that, so I can't speak to it. But I can speak to what came before it,and what should therefore have been its foundation - The Eberron Campaign Setting and the Player's Guide to Eberron. As the person who wrote the Ashbound material in both books and came up with the idea in the first place, I think I have some concept of what they're about. To begin with, lets start with the core, original description of the Ashbound: This fanatical sect takes the traditional beliefs of the druids to dangerous extremes. Its members seek to protect the wilds and preserve the natural order, using a very broad definition of "unnatural" to determine their actions. They consider arcane and divine magic to be unnatural, for example, and go out of their way to strike at farms or ranches that attempt to confine or cultivate nature. The Ashbound prefer to avoid killing; their goal is to convince their targets to abandon their unnatural ways and embrace the harmony of nature. Now, the Ashbound are known for their violent behavior. Most will certainly make bloody examples of the people they see as willfully harming the world. But they are not indiscriminate killers. They prefer to spare the lives of "innocents" - people who have, perhaps, never realized the error of their city-dwelling ways. Beyond this, the original concept behind them said nothing about ooking savages. It says that they consider arcane and divine magic to be unnatural, and that they seek to preserve the natural order. It's not that they'll automatically kill you because you have an everbright lantern - but they'll smash the lantern. In dealing with wizards you have a spectrum. On one end you have the Ashbound who will kill the wizard outright before he can do more harm. In the middle you see the Ashbound who will burn your books and break your fingers or cut out your tongue - sparing your life, but preventing you from doing more harm. And then you have the extreme minority who use words instead of force; who will try to convince you not to use magic, to realize the harm you do every time you cast a spell. If you won't listen, they'll move up the spectrum of violence until you come to an understanding. Looking to the question of the sorcerer, the sorcerer DOESN'T innately use magic. Something often ignored is that sorcerers require the same components for their spells that wizards do. They use incantations, gestures that can be recognized with Spellcraft, the same material components (unless they get Eschew Materials). They may have the innate POTENTIAL to use magic, but I doubt the idea to fling a ball of bat guano while making a series of gestures complex enough to be inhibited by armor and shouting words of power which can be recognized by other wizards comes in a dream. Even if it DOES come in a dream, it's using the same TRAPPINGS as a wizard. But people have different ideas about sorcerers, and that's fine. Warlocks do just blast people without throwing balls of bat guano, so the question certainly is valid, whatever spontaneous class you settle on. The violent Ashbound will treat you like any other caster (or aberration, which is essentially how they see you) - killing you, or if they're feeling generous, crippling you in a way to limit spellcasting. The most moderate Ashbound will say "You have a terrible gift. You are a vessel for dark powers. You will be tempted to use these powers, but they are destructive and harmful to the world." Some moderate Ashbound will say "YOU MUST NEVER USE THEM!" and threaten to fight the character if necessary to stop him. Another could say "Consider your actions. Consider that every spell you cast may bring us a step closer to another Mourning. Is it worth that risk?" Such an Ashbound COULD travel with a sorcerer, if that sorcerer only used his powers to fight things that truly and clearly were a far greater threat to nature. I've ran games for parties with Ashbound druids and other casters in them, and it was the intent from the start that this be possible... for all that these are the moderate fringe. And again, let me emphasize that this is the FRINGE; most Ashbound aren't known for their tolerant behavior. In PGTE, I attempted to expand on MY ideas of what they wanted to stop. They belive that nondruid magic, large-scale agriculture,urbanization, and domestication of animals violate the natural order. Key words: large-scale agriculture. This is echoed in the main text, where it's referred to as "structured agriculture". In response to the point that with no agriculture whatsoever, people would starve, they have no problem with various forms of SMALL scale agriculture. What they don't like is the creation of cities and villages that can't support themselves, and of massive farms created in turn to support those cities and villages. They feel that people should live in small, self-sufficient communities - in harmony with nature. Personally, I even see this as being true with "domestication". I don't think they'll wring your neck for having a few free-ranging chickens in the yard. You can use your Handle Animal skill without automatically being a criminal; Ashbound druids have animal companions, and I don't force the Ashbound PC to complain if his party are riding on horses, as long as they treat their mounts well. But large-scale, organized subjugation of animals - battery hens, slaughterhouses, Vadalis magebreeding - these are abominations. If you're doing it yourself, for yourself, and treating the subject with respect and compassion, then it's probably OK. Is all of this truly possible with the population levels at the rate they are? Well, actually, as many people have noted, currently Khorvaire has a ridiculously low population density, so it might be. But even if you reduce the scale of the maps or increase the population, I'd argue that the Ashbound have no real concept of the population of Khorvaire or the impact their policies would have, if enacted. They are a small group of fanatics who don't exactly tour Khorvaire doing censuses and considering treatises. THEY can survive in harmony with nature, therefore they believe it is possible for everyone to do so. In defending them, I'm NOT saying that their beliefs are logical or attainable. But I'm saying that they do believe that they serve the greater good, and that it is possible for a moderate Ashbound character to work with an adventuring party. Looking again to page 58 of the PGTE: The Ashbound are infamous for their use of violence, and they fight with the fury of the wild. However, moderates among them seek to convince others of their misdeeds through discussion instead of destruction. These Ashbound believe that people can be shown the error of their ways and encouraged to slowly change over time. As an Ashbound, you can travel in the company of a wizard - as long as you warn your companion of the dangers of his art and make certain he does not harm innocents. If you seek out the greatest threats, you set an example to others through your actions. The Ashbound might despise wizards and hate cities, but undead and aberrations are just as unnatural, and must be dealt with. I'll also note that according to the PGtE, while they shun armor (and an unfortunate drop from the PGtE was an Ashbound feat that helped to compensate for this loss), they are willing to use forged weapons in pursuit of their cause. They AREN'T ooking cavemen. They have a vision of an ideal world and they are willing to use violence to reach it. But as a whole, they aren't evil - though many farmers and ranchers consider their actions to be so. They will make ruthless examples of those they consider true enemies of nature, but they seek to avoid true massacres and the deaths of innocents. As such: I think that Ashbound are likely ambivalent-to-friendly towards good lycanthropes. I do think some would be leery of the "enforced personality change" aspect of lycanthropic affliction, even if they think the traits are positive. However, I think it's possible that some groups within the sect would embrace good lycanthropes as champions of the wild, though the good lycanthropes might not be interested in joining the fight. However, they would certainly oppose the pre-purge situation. Again, the majority of them are against murder, especially the murder of "civilians" - people not using magic and not engaged in large-scale, disrespectful acts. And the lycanthropes themselves couldn't explain what was going on. It might not have destroyed Khorvaire, but it certainly could have resulted in the end of the humanoid races - and what would happen then? After the last humanoid had been killed or afflicted, the evil 'thropes would still be driven by the murderous impulses - the joy in the slaughter of intelligent creatures. Most likely they'd first turn on the other breeds - boar vs. bear, tiger vs. wolf. Then you might get pack versus pack. However it ended up, this isn't "harmony with nature", because the evil lycanthrope doesn't try to live in harmony. He is the embodiment of our fears of the predator - the Big Bad Wolf. He takes joy in slaughter, something very few natural animals do. So I don't see Ashbound having much love for evil lycanthropes - on the contrary, I could see them considering good lycanthropes to be admireable, and evil lycanthropes to be the tainted unnatural corruption of that pure being - something that must be hunted down and destroyed. Regarding FoE: I didn't write it, and honestly, I haven't sat down and read that section closely for a while. It sounds to me as if they have taken things farther than I intended when I created the sect, or how it was presented in the ECS/PGtE. If you like the presentation, great. If you prefer the PGtE version, then consider the FoE version to be the extremist fringe. But personally, I don't see the Ashbound having a problem with people dying their cloths, if they're using natural dyes. I don't even see them having a problem with thorps or hamlets, as long as they are self-suficient. As I said before, if you're doing it by yourself, for yourself, and acting with respect, understanding, and compassion for the natural world, you're probably OK. Honestly, the Wardens would prefer this too. It's how the Wardens LIVE their lives. The difference is that the Wardens believe that there can be a balance between nature and civilization; the Ashbound believe that they must smash your city and bring you into the fold before it's too late. The sects have a lot of circular overlap. The Ashbound and the Wardens share some beliefs but vary wildly in methodology. Likewise, the Ashbound's fear that civilization could bring about destruction is some ways a mirror of the Children of Winter; the difference is that the CoW believe that this apocalypse will bring renewal and is thus desireable, while the Ashbound believe that it will be the end of all and must be stopped. (NOTE: This edited for clarity.)
Syltorian 07-23-07, 06:41 AM	Thanks for that insight, Hellcow. First of all, Dreaming Duck, my apologies. I had not realised that the extract from the ECS quotes that they prefer not to kill people. I had always seen the Ashbound as much more dangerous than what is presented in your analysis, Hellcow. I did not see them necessarily as 'ooking savages', a description which seems to lack a certain idealism, but I did see them as fanatics ready to kill offenders against nature as an example to others. I always thought of them as the kind of people who come up with such curious penalties for avenging nature as the Historical (old Germanic, I believe) penalty for stripping the bark of trees. It's somewhat disgusting, so I'll spoiler mark it: One end of the offender's intestines were nailed to the tree, and then he was chased around it until they covered the places where the bark had been stripped off. Something like that just seemed very appropriate for the Ashbound, too me, and I somehow like the image of the PC finding an abandonned logger camp with the people massacred and displayed in what the druids thought was poetic justice. It is clear that they believe it is for the greater good. As elsewhere in Eberron people can do terrible things for actual or at least perceived good. The Children of Winter themselves believe their work is necessary to survive the Winter, and they may actually regret their actions. And maybe the Ashbound fanatics are right, maybe the world is being harmed not only by magic but by magebreeding and large-scale agriculture. Civilisation has definetly led to a 100 year war and lots of death and misery that would not have happened with the natural world of the Ashbound (though that world would have had different problems). Now that I learn that the ECS and the creator itself contradict their massacring offenders against nature, I guess I will have to limit that part to the extreme faction of an already extreme sect. But I do think that it somehow lessens the impact of the Ashbound. With only 1700 members(by both the PGtE and FoE), they are already fairly small; so I wonder how much room for a wide range of attitudes and degrees of fanaticism there is, especially if they are really feared in the Reaches and the adjoining parts of Aundair. Though I assume that a very small number of small bands who do go in for massacre and graphic punishment will be enough of an impact on people's imagination that they associate all Ashbound with such ways. Regarding the lycanthropes: Thanks for that insight too. The good lycanthropes do not seem to be a major problem, then, and I assume the neutrals won't be a great hindrance either. I agree that the good ones won't be very likely to join the Ashbound rather than, say, the Wardens, and it is a good point that the evil lycanthrope does not want to live in harmony with anything. I assume that rules out the evil werewolf Ashbound as a villain, seeking to turn people to nature by affecting them, or are the different ways of 'evil' for lycanthropes (essentially, a neutral werewolf as far as impulses are concerned, but evil in his methods?). Looks like the Ashbound would have been caught between the fronts in the Purge, though. If they tried to hunt down the evil lycanthropes, they must have been equally shocked by the Aundairian and Silver-Flame countermeasures, once these got the upper hand. Would they have changed sides at that point? Fought both sides? Or simply sat back and watched, planning to take on the weakened survivor? I do assume that many shifters who narrowly escaped the Templars and their former fellows in the Eldeen villages mistaking them for werewolves joined the Ashbound. Again, thanks a lot for that lenghty bit of insight. I know you have a lot of work to do, and really appreciate you getting involved with the community despite all that.
mahavira 07-23-07, 10:16 AM	To Hellcow, I don't personally own the Players Guide to Eberron, and Faiths seemed likely to be the most detailed material on the subject. It's interesting that the Ashbound, like the Silver Flame, appear to have deviated substantially from your intent when they fell into the hands of other writers. That said, I confess I have difficulty reconciling "infamous for their violence" and "not killing people, especially innocents". Perfectly normal criminal gangs kill people, even innocents, all the time without being infamous for their violence. "infamous for their violence" suggests to me al Qaeda, right wing death squads in latin america, and certain african rebel groups whose calling card is cutting the arms and legs off 5 year olds, not freeing someone's cows and burning his barn down, but that's me. I have even more difficulty with the idea of an Ashbound travelling with a wizard, watching him prepare and cast spells every day if they have such a problem with arcane magic that 'knocking you around and burning your books' (your example) is a perfectly normal way to deal with wizards. In any case, my campaigns tend to be set in cities or dungeons, so the attitudes of NPC druids are rarely an issue, and my campaign has more use for dangerous fanatics out to destroy civilization than some scolding wild man who keeps telling the wizard 'don't do that, really, I mean it'. Oh, and one last thing: what do the Ashbound think about the Gatekeepers magically engineering Horrid Animals? What makes a horrid ape whose paws secrete acid more natural and acceptable than a slightly stronger, faster and smarter magebred horse?
Alex_ 07-23-07, 12:39 PM	1. Dolgrims have /byesk damage reduction, and are probably the most common abberations in the world. Dolgaunts have magic or byesk, and I grant that there's no reason a druid can't make a magic bone club or cast magic fang, but that still leaves the grunt footsoldiers causing a real headache. I also question whether the Daelkir could have been defeated without the Dahakani empire as well as the druids (just as I have no doubt that without the druids the Dahakani would have fallen just like every other world the Daelkir set their sights on). And amusingly, the first druids were taught by dragons, users of arcane magic. It's not implied that Dolgrim are the most common Abberations. Also, the Ashbound don't necesarilly have any interaction with Dragons, and wouldn't know they were arcane spellcasters I wouldn't imagine they'd like that fact. 3. If they don't make anything, what do they trade? I'm not sure I see the point (maybe herbal medicines?). If one managed to kill or gather something, and another group didn't, I'm sure they could work out some exchange. One can always exchange services (which I used as an example). If a particular individual or group of Ashbound helps another, they are owed a favor to be paid at a later date in some way. Also, although they don't make woven cloths, and worked or painted hides, that does't mean they always go naked. They can still wear furs, hides, feathers etc. In any case, while druids, barbarians and rangers can live all right in such a society, for everone else, life is nasty, brutish and short. The ashbound themselves are most likely as you describe. The society they would inflict on everyone else would probably not be because most people can't be anything more than a commoner, adept(rare), expert or warrior, and would have a sufficiently hard time surviving that I doubt things would be as idyllic as the Ashbound think, or that as much of the better elements of human nature would survive as they might think. I doubt that before the rise of civilization amongst the common races, every individual was a PC class. Commoners are not that incompetent, adepts, experts, and warriors certainly aren't. The population in general wouldn't be as large, but it's not impossible. It's idylic to the Ashbound when they think it's the only way to keep society from killing us all with arcane magic and destruction of the natural would. It's like they know the end of the world is coming, and they know exactly who is causing it, but nobody listens to them. Violence and destruction stemming from feelings of desperation and are acts of desperation to do what little they can do to hold off the ultimate destruction of the whole world. 4. As you say, most things are not black and white in Eberron (though the Emerald Claw and probably the Children of Winter are supposed to represent the pure black 'pulp' villains). I'm sure the ashbound don't maneuvre among themselves for power or do many other things one expects of evil people. Someone captured by Ashbound might come to have considerable sympathy for them. That said, their beliefs are irreconcilably in conflict with most PC groups and indeed most people in the setting. It would probably be good, tense role playing to work out an alliance between Ashbound and a town threatened by Abberations. That Ashbound most likely isn't an innately evil person. That Karrnathi soldier most likely isn't an innately evil person. If my country's at war with Karrnath I'll fight and kill that Karrnathi soldier, and if the Ashbound attempt to destroy my crops, my neighbor's blacksmith shop, or my son in law the wizard, I'll hunt and kill or drive off the Ashbound (to be fair, Absolutely. I never meant to imply that the Ashbound were not intended as antagonists, or would not come into conflict with my players. I probably would make the beliefs and dedication of the Ashbound in general too much for them to knowingly ally with most adventuring parties, which usually have 1 or 2 characters that openly practice arcane/cleric magic, and more trappings of civilizations. However, their general beliefs alone are enough to make this happen. They don't need to be crouching down all the time, waving sticks, acting simple mindedly, and hooting to be opponents. the Ashbound want to wipe out my way of life and replace it with something that is only appealing if you believe in Rousseau's noble savage idea, which I don't). Neither do I, but the Ashbound do. Pretty much all of the Druidic sects and many tribal cultures in Eberron believe in the concept of the noble savage to a degree, or else they would have made more effort to modernize and would have resisted outside influence less. That said, I confess I have difficulty reconciling "infamous for their violence" and "not killing people, especially innocents". Perfectly normal criminal gangs kill people, even innocents, all the time without being infamous for their violence. Where I come from, criminal gangs are infamous for their violence. Parents don't want their children as part of them, schools and other social institutions don't want them around, and the government doesn't seem to take a liking to them either. One of the main reasons (aside from obvious drugs and vandalism) is violence. Also, I think Ashbound (and Children of Winter) are explicitly described as being violent because compared to the other Druidic setc, they are the most violent. The other sects are much larger, but rarely come to conflicts in view with the others in the Reaches that anything would lead to violence. The Ashbound, however, considering their smaller size are more inclined to extreme actions of all kinds (including violence), which singles them out of an otherwise largely peaceful series of movements, even if they don't actively pursue violence or hold it in high regard.
Hellcow 07-23-07, 01:11 PM	A few points. Most likely I overstated things. The "We'd rather talk than fight" Ashbound ARE a minority within the sect. Saying that the AVERAGE Ashbound will stop and chat with every wizard they encounter and try to convince them of the error of their ways is a mistake; most will assume that the wizard is iredeemable and a threat, and will act accordingly. The moderates feel differently, and it's the moderates who will try to convince the wizard to change his ways. But there you're talking abount a small percentage - perhaps 10%, if that - of the active Ashbound population. I'll also say that I don't entirely agree with the numbers assigned to the sects. I consider those to reflect the number of active, skilled participants in the sect. In saying there's 1,700 Ashbound, we're likely saying 1,700 who possess at least one level of druid, ranger, or barbarian - members of the sect who engage in dangerous activities on behalf of the sect. However, looking to the population of the Eldeen Reaches - 500,000 - I believe that there are a considerable number of people who follow the lifestyle espoused by the Ashbound and who consider themselves followers of the Ashbound faith who are NOT avengers of the wild. These are the villages that produced the 1,700, the champions who venture forth to do Eberron's work and fight the good fight. But there are, in my opinion, thousands of commoners living in small thorps scattered throughout the Towering Woods who believe in the creed of the Ashbound and admire those 1,700. These commoners live peaceful lives. They aren't ooking cavemen; again, I see nothing wrong with them dying their clothes or keeping a few chickens. But they represent what the Ashbound want the world to be like. Now, going back to violence. When I say that the Ashbound aren't murderers and that death isn't their goal, there's a number of aspects to this. First, as I said, I likely overstated their willingness to deal with wizards and the like. SOME are. But the majority of the 1,700 are more likely to take some more dramatic action. Some will kill the wizard on sight. Others would simply cut out his tongue; that'll keep him from casting spells and hopefully he'll learn the error of his ways in the meantime. A few will try to convince the wizard of the error of his ways, but these moderates are minority. I don't believe that they are SHUNNED by other members of the sect; however, the more violent members will certainly argue that the methods of the moderates are ineffective and fail to consider the magnitude of the threat. The Mourning is certainly something that has galvanized the Ashbound to even greater action, because it is proof of everything they've been saying for years - devastion undoubtedly (in their minds) caused by the use of magic in this foolish war. Second, the fact that killing isn't their goal doesn't mean that they will sacrifice their goal in order to avoid it. Let's say a group of typical Ashbound strike a Vadalis magebreeding ranch. First, they are quite likely to kill anyone they can identify as being actual magebreeders, and the owner of the ranch, likely doing something with them to try and make an object lesson to others - "This is what happens when you seek to pervert nature." Second, they will destroy the ranch. If a guard tries to stop them, they will use full force to bring down that guard. They won't try to subdue him or anything like that. They won't waste healing spells to keep him from dying. But neither will they stop to perform a coup de grace if he's dropped but not dead. He's just a hired hand, and perhaps when he sees the magebreeders strangeled by thorns he will realize the error of his ways. They WILL destroy the ranch with fire - but they'll let the commoners flee, to spread the tale, and to learn from the experience. It comes back to the fact that they are nature's avengers. They have no need to kill anyone who doesn't personally threaten the natural world. A wizard does. A magebreeder does. Someone who has made it his business to run a slaughterhouse does. Someone who works in the slaughterhouse... honestly, I don't see them getting too much sympathy either, but again, I don't see them being killed if dropped out of the way. This is another case where a life might be spared but a harsh punishment (maiming, etc) imposed. But the commoner who lives next to the slaughterhouse? The farmhand who works in the fields of a massive farm? These people aren't dangerous. The farmhand hasn't yet done permanent harm; he's simply misguided. He needs to be terrified onto the right path. And that's the key. The Ashbound are, ultimately, about terror. They don't want to KILL all the people who use magic or live in cities; they want to convince them to abandon their dangerous lifestyles and to follow the true path. But they believe that fear is their greatest weapon in accomplishing that. The Wardens do actually send druidic advisors to villages to peacefully show them how they can work more closely with nature. The Ashbound believe that burning down the magebreeding ranch and pinning the baron on a wall of thorns will convince his servants not to work at another magebreeding ranch. But the point is that they still want to convince the commoner, not kill him. They WANT him to learn from what they have done. But they are perfectly willing to terrify him onto the righteous path, and to use fire and fear to spread their message. And they are willing to assassinate those who present a great threat to the natural world; PGtE mentions Tasia, who actively hunts and kills wizards in Aundair. So as I said, I likely mispoke. The bulk of the Ashbound - at least the 1,700 champions of the faith - do embrace violence as the foremost method of accomplishing their goals. The moderates who seek slow change are a minority among them - but do make it POSSIBLE to have an Ashbound PC. Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is they prefer to avoid the murder of innocents, and simple LIVING in a city or even working on a farmer doesn't mean that you deserve to die. If you are an architect of cities, a magebreeder, and so on - that's another story. But the point is that your death should serve as an example to others. Given their small numbers, the Ashbound don't have any delusions that they could, for example, kill all the city-dwellers of Aundair. But they believe that their actions will draw attention to the dangers of unnatural life and hopefully convince the city-dwellers to change their ways, even in places the Ashbound will never reach. Of course, the odds of the people of Fairhaven (let alone Sharn) deciding to leave their city because of an Ashbound attack somewhere are astronomically low - but that's where the Ashbound have faith. Likewise, the Ashbound don't travel the world doing censuses - but that's not to say that they don't travel the world. They ARE interested in the Mourning, discovering if it is the disaster they fear and if it can be proven to be caused by magic. THIS is the work of the moderates; while their violent cousins smash and burn, they seek the proof that will show others that they MUST turn to the Ashbound path. On the violent side, a group of Ashbound could certainly travel to Sharn or Arcanix if they come up with a way to strike a powerful symbolic blow against one of these symbols of magic or urbanization. But in general, they do dislike moving so far from the blessed Eldeen Reaches. So, to summarize: The 1,700 active avengers of the Ashbound are not, in my mind, the only people who follow the beliefs of the sect; they are the active, skilled, and aggressive champions of the faith. There are others in the Eldeen Reaches who live the peaceful lives the Ashbound hold up as an ideal. The Ashbound believe that fear is their greatest weapon, and use violence as a means of spreading fear. They want the deaths of those they kill to have meaning, so they seek to kill those who DO clearly threaten nature. They want the commoner to say "What a fool that magebreeder was! I'd best stop before I end up pinned to the thorns" rather than simply razing a village down to the last person. They believe (perhaps unwisely) that people WILL hear their message and learn from it. However, just because they don't WANT to kill innocents doesn't mean that they will compromise the goals of a mission to avoid it. If you stand against them when they arrive to burn down the Vadalis facility, they will use full force against you. And if you're one of the people in charge, they'll make an example of you. The exception to this are the moderates who seek slow, peaceful change - but they ARE the exceptions, and make up a small percentage of the active population.
Hellcow 07-23-07, 01:37 PM	That said, I confess I have difficulty reconciling "infamous for their violence" and "not killing people, especially innocents". I think I've made this clear in my previous posts. In their case, violence is largely structural. They wish to destroy the institutions of civilization, along with the people who pose the greatest threat (the magebreeder, the wizard, etc). They want this violence to serve as instruction to others. They WILL kill innocents who oppose them in these actions. They won't necessarily risk their lives to save people trapped in that magebreeding ranch they've set aflame. But they also won't kill the fleeing farmhands - because one point of burning down the ranch was to frighten the farmhand into following a new path. The Ashbound do have a lot in common with terrorist organizations seen throughout our history. But many such groups engage in violence because it is the only method they believe that they have for affecting change on a large scale. The Ashbound want you to listen and learn, and they believe that fear will make you do that. Simply killing everyone who opposes them will not. "infamous for their violence" suggests to me al Qaeda, right wing death squads in latin america, and certain african rebel groups whose calling card is cutting the arms and legs off 5 year olds I don't want to get into a discussion of real-world politics (I believe the code of conduct has rules about this, but I'd note that those three examples are, to the best of my knowledge, very different. Throw in some other groups, like the IRA, PLO, or terrorist organizations in Japan. We can look at all of these and say "They're violent groups" - but their intentions, reasons for violence, and the nature of the people that they target are all very different. "not freeing someone's cows and burning his barn down... As I said, I understated that. We'll probably kill the guy who owns the farm and make a gruesome example of him. But the farmhands are the people we want to learn from the example. Of course, if they try to stop us or put out the fire? Casualties of war. Again, just because we don't WANT to kill innocents doesn't mean that we'll never do it. I have even more difficulty with the idea of an Ashbound travelling with a wizard, watching him prepare and cast spells every day if they have such a problem with arcane magic that 'knocking you around and burning your books' (your example) is a perfectly normal way to deal with wizards. The Ashbound who would be willing to travel with the wizard and watch him prepare spells is a completely different person from the one who would cut out his tongue and burn his books. As I said, he represents a moderate fringe who believe that there's a better - if slower - way than violence. Looking back to the modern world, there are a number of terrorist organizations that also have political arms (which are often treated with disdain by the more violent extremist). The goal of the Ashbound is not the death of all civilized people. It is the creation of a better world, a world aligned with nature. They want to bring you to the light. The majority believe that fear and violence is the way to accomplsih this. But others are willing to seek peaceful paths to the same goal. With that said, the moderate Ashbound may be willing to watch the wizard PREPARE spells every day. That doesn't mean that he's willing to watch the wizard USE spells every day, especially for trivial things. The point of the moderates is that they are willing to see magic used in rare cases when it combats an even greater threat to nature. Meanwhile, they'll try to make the wizard see the danger of his actions, look at the Mourning, etc. If he ignores them and just uses magic all over the place, then I'd expect either more aggressive action or a parting of the ways. But that Ashbound willing to travel with the wizard is quite a different person from Tasia, who hunts and kills wizards. Oh, and one last thing: what do the Ashbound think about the Gatekeepers magically engineering Horrid Animals? What makes a horrid ape whose paws secrete acid more natural and acceptable than a slightly stronger, faster and smarter magebred horse? Lots of answers to this one. What makes you think the Gatekeepers engineered horrid animals? Have you seen one do it recently? Is there a ritual or spell presented for making horrid animals? Perhaps you've read it in a book somewhere, but that doesn't mean that an Ashbound is going to believe such a ridiculous story. Assume they DO believe your ridculous story. Why is it better than magebreeding? Because it's druidic magic - the gift of Eberron. Therefore, it is inherently part of nature's plan. Furthermore, it was an act taken to protect the world from a plague of aberrations. The fact that it's NOT still practiced on a regular basis indicates that it was an act of desperation and not something considered ideal or normal. Meanwhile, magebreeding is done with arcane tools, and why is it done? Commercial gain. It is the intentional corruption of nature for profit, not in order to protect nature. As for paws secreting acid - there are natural creatures capable of producing venom, acid, or electricty. If the myth is accepted, then these creatures were created with natural magic, to defend the natural world from unnatural forces. It may seem strange to US to have an acid-spewing rat. But is that truly stranger than a poison-spewing snake? If it was produced by nature, the Ashbound may say no. With all THAT said, if the Gatekeepers suddenly started mass-producing horrid animals again for no good reason? The Ashbound probably WOULD oppose them. Generally, Gatekeepers and Ashbound get along OK because they both hate aberrations. But there's nothing stopping druid sects from fighting one another if a clear need arises. Wardens and Ashbound have clashed on numerous occasions.
mahavira 07-23-07, 01:38 PM	It's not implied that Dolgrim are the most common Abberations. I rather got the impression they were the footsoldiers of the Daelkir, myself. I also tend to presume that there are more low CR monsters in the world than high CR, and dolgrims are about as weak as abberations get. Also, the Ashbound don't necesarilly have any interaction with Dragons, and wouldn't know they were arcane spellcasters I wouldn't imagine they'd like that fact. I look forward to seeing some ashbound's face when he hears that the dragon who taught the first gatekeepers druidism was itself an arcane caster. If one managed to kill or gather something, and another group didn't, I'm sure they could work out some exchange. One can always exchange services (which I used as an example). If a particular individual or group of Ashbound helps another, they are owed a favor to be paid at a later date in some way. Also, although they don't make woven cloths, and worked or painted hides, that does't mean they always go naked. They can still wear furs, hides, feathers etc. If the climate is such that you need warm furs, they're probably to be found on the local animals. If they're capable of surviving the environment at all, they're probably more or less self sufficient (given the lower population). I doubt that before the rise of civilization amongst the common races, every individual was a PC class. Commoners are not that incompetent, adepts, experts, and warriors certainly aren't. The population in general wouldn't be as large, but it's not impossible. I didn't say it would be impossible, I said it would be nasty, brutish and short, just like it was for our ancestors (probably more so, because our ancestors didn't have cockatrices and the like to deal with). It's like they know the end of the world is coming, and they know exactly who is causing it, but nobody listens to them. Violence and destruction stemming from feelings of desperation and are acts of desperation to do what little they can do to hold off the ultimate destruction of the whole world. I'm aware of their general motivation, I just disagree with it and view the society they would violently impose on others as undesirable in the extreme. However, their general beliefs alone are enough to make this happen. They don't need to be crouching down all the time, waving sticks, acting simple mindedly, and hooting to be opponents. Ah, I have been unclear. I wasn't trying to say that's what the ashbound of today are, though I might have one or two groups like that, I was trying to say that's what humanity would be like within a couple of hundred years of their 'victory'. People who can wild shape and cast druid spells have the luxury of living 'naturally' and not having the bare needs of survival dominate their entire life. People who don't have those powers and are denied the use of many of the tools which allow humans to effectively compete with other species have a lot on their plate (oh wait, not allowed plates...). Perhaps not owning the PGtE and using FoE has lead me to overestimate the degree to which the Ashbound want to restrict technology, but the materials I own and have read led me to believe Neanderthals are about what they're aiming for. Where I come from, criminal gangs are infamous for their violence. Parents don't want their children as part of them, schools and other social institutions don't want them around, and the government doesn't seem to take a liking to them either. One of the main reasons (aside from obvious drugs and vandalism) is violence. Matter of degree, I guess. I consider that sort of thing as perfectly normal for criminals. Criminals often are violent, but I wouldn't consider a person or group 'infamous' for their violence unless it was above the norm. Also, I think Ashbound (and Children of Winter) are explicitly described as being violent because compared to the other Druidic setc, they are the most violent. The other sects are much larger, but rarely come to conflicts in view with the others in the Reaches that anything would lead to violence. The Ashbound, however, considering their smaller size are more inclined to extreme actions of all kinds (including violence), which singles them out of an otherwise largely peaceful series of movements, even if they don't actively pursue violence or hold it in high regard. I think the government of Aundair might have opinions about how violent the Wardens of the Wood are, but certainly as long as you're not IN their wood they probably don't make any trouble for you. Gatekeepers are militant, but direct it at socially acceptable groups (I think you'd have to really search to find someone who objects to killing mind flayers, and it's most likely a cultist of the dragon below who's next on the hitlist anyway). The Ashbound and Children of Winter go out LOOKING for trouble with normal people. If all the Ashbound got up to was stealing and freeing livestock, burning down farms, and roughing up blacksmiths, I would expect them to be described as criminals and a nuisance rather then infamous for their violence and 'terrorists' (an appellation not explicitly given to the Wardens, despite their leading role in the Eldeen Rebellion). That said, we have word from the setting creator that the language surrounding the Ashbound appears to have gone astray of his original vision.
Hellcow 07-23-07, 02:29 PM	Dolgrims have /byesk damage reduction, and are probably the most common abberations in the world. Maybe, maybe not on the commonality. However, this is one reason the PGtE notes that they are willing to use forged weapons. I also question whether the Daelkir could have been defeated without the Dahakani empire as well as the druids (just as I have no doubt that without the druids the Dahakani would have fallen just like every other world the Daelkir set their sights on). And you're right to do so. If the Dhakaani hadn't put up such long and bitter resistance, the Gatekeepers would never have time to develop and use the seals. And amusingly, the first druids were taught by dragons, users of arcane magic. "Dragon", actually... and Dragons of Eberron will address this point in more detail. And here again, the Ashbound druid is likely to dismiss this as myth and legend. Yes, the druids learned their magic from a dragon - the dragon Eberron, the spirit of the world itself. Again, the people of Eberron don't have access to the ECS - and even if they did, that doesn't mean that they'd believe it. though the Emerald Claw and probably the Children of Winter are supposed to represent the pure black 'pulp' villains... Well, by and large the Ashbound are pretty straightforward. If you meet one who IS willing to talk, great. But when they show up to burn down the magebreeding ranch, odds are that you're on one side or the other. The fact that they believe that they have a moral justification for doing it and that they won't hunt down and kill all of the farmhands won't cause you to say "Maybe we should let them do it, and watch as they torture the baron to death with thorny vines." But it doesn't change the fact that in THEIR eyes they are doing the right thing, that there are those among them who are more rational, and that those same people who destroyed the Vadalis ranch might be your only hope when you need to stop the Order of the Emerald Claw from building a Necrotic Resonator in the Reaches. Still, they are intended to, most frequently, be a violent and dangerous force - if not entirely black and white, you usually know where you stand. Meanwhile, I personally see the Children of Winter as actually having their own shades of gray. Those who seek to spread plagues and bring down the Winter are clearly forces you need to oppose. But some among THEM believe that the elders have misread the signs, that the Winter is not yet nigh, and that their actions are misguided. When they aren't actively trying to spread the Winter (which not all are), they AREN'T worshippers of death; they simple believe that it is part of the natural cycle, and something that we shouldn't fear. Beyond this, they believe that the coming of Winter IS a good thing; they believe that it will cleanse this sickened world and bring about a vibrant new spring. Yeah, when they're talking about the death of millions to reach it, not really something most people are going to say "Cool! Let's do it!" about... but still, THEY believe that their actions serve the greater good, and that it is those who fear death who have moved away from the path of nature. Looking back at the PGtE: Many outside observers believe the sect worships death and decay, and that it's members hope to destroy the world. Little could be further from the truth. The Children do not worship death, but simply embrace it as part of the natural order. They believe that disease, storm, and blght all play a vital role in the cycle of life, weeding out the weak and infirm. The Children of Winter say that civilization has drawn people away from this cycle, allowing the weak to survive, and that nature will not allow this to continue... Winter is harsh but necessary, and the strong shall survive and prosper. So again, they don't believe that EVERYONE should die - only those without the strength to survive in the natural world. Now, like the Ashbound, you're usually going to have an easy time deciding if you're going to oppose them or not; if they're spreading a terrible plague through Sharn, you probably won't say "Hmm, perhaps Sharn IS overpopulated, and we should let this run its course." But in their own eyes, they are doing noble work. I've run games with CoW PCs too - again, following the minority view of their sect, in this case that it's not yet time for the Winter. But the other aspects of the sect's beliefs can certainly make for interesting roleplaying. That said, (the Ashbound's) beliefs are irreconcilably in conflict with most PC groups and indeed most people in the setting. It would probably be good, tense role playing to work out an alliance between Ashbound and a town threatened by Abberations. That Ashbound most likely isn't an innately evil person. That Karrnathi soldier most likely isn't an innately evil person. If my country's at war with Karrnath I'll fight and kill that Karrnathi soldier, and if the Ashbound attempt to destroy my crops, my neighbor's blacksmith shop, or my son in law the wizard, I'll hunt and kill or drive off the Ashbound... Certainly. My point that the Ashbound hope to leave you alive and change your ways doesn't change the fact that they'll do it by burning down your neighbor's blackmith shop and possibly smashing his hands with his own hammer, and that if you get in their way they WILL fight you. And the fact that there are SOME Ashbound who will try to use peaceful methods doesn't change the fact that it's violence that largely defines the sect (at least, the actions of those 1,700 active members). Again, just because they'd oppose the pure slaughter of the pre-purge terror or because they'd avoid such methods themselves doesn't change the fact that they do embrace violence and fear as their tools of change, and that most people will choose to oppose them.
Hellcow 07-23-07, 02:30 PM	If they don't make anything, what do they trade? As I said earlier, the concept that they don't make ANYTHING is in my opinion extreme. However, in their ideal world communities are self-sufficient, so you don't need a lot of trading. Meanwhile, I certainly hold to the point that the commoner is a more effective class than many people assume. A 1st-level human commoner with an Intelligence and Wisdom of 10 and one of his two feats placed in Skill Focus can have his primary Craft or Profession at +7, which is quite good - along with four ranks in two back up skills. The Ashbound don't mind dealing with animals on a small scale, and if you have Int 10 and Cha 10, Skill Focus, and Animal Affinity as your second feat, you can get Handle Animal up to +9, with a decent Ride to back you up. Heal is a cross-class skill for commoners, which certainly hurts an all-commoner community; however, if you put your two feats into Self-Sufficient and Skill Focus (Heal), you can still get it up to +7. All this assumes that you're just using the core books, and doesn't take into account that using the standard array, you'll have a stat at 12 and another at 13... meaning you may get a fourth skill (if you go for the 12 Int) or a +1 to any of the skills I've mentioned above. And if you DON'T use both feats on skills, you can put one into Toughness to give you better odds of surviving. In any case, a community of people with Profession, Craft, Heal, and Handle Animal skills in the +7-+10 range can certainly do OK for themselves, especially if there are a few barbarians, rangers, or druids looking out for them. If they are forced to use limited agriculture and relatively primitive tools (note that I didn't give anyone a +2 for a masterwork tool!), they may not make much PROGRESS. They won't have much in the way of luxury or leisure time. But they can survive... and unlike our world, there WILL be traveling druids who may choose to help them with things like diseases and other things that plague the simple communities of our world. It's a lifestyle the people of Fairhaven would consider to be utter misery. But that doesn't make it untenable. I doubt things would be as idyllic as the Ashbound think, or that as much of the better elements of human nature would survive as they might think. I'd argue that their idea of "idyllic" is probably quite different from yours. They expect life to be hard. The natural world is a dangerous place. The comfortable life of the people of Skyway is, in their opinion, deeply unnatural for all that THOSE people might consider it "idyllic". The Ashbound would say that living closer to nature IS its own reward – that it is a hard path, but a true one. They aren't promising a world of milk and honey. Of course, they're ALSO saying that if you don't listen to them, there might be no world at all, and they point to the Mourning as the first warning of this. What's better – spending all morning churning your own butter, or being one of the last lonely survivors trying to outrun a living spell in the ruins of Sharn?
Hellcow 07-23-07, 02:49 PM	I look forward to seeing some ashbound's face when he hears that the dragon who taught the first gatekeepers druidism was itself an arcane caster. Well, like I said, the Ashbound don't necessarily accept that their traditions evolved from those of the Gatekeepers. Besides which, you're making the assumption that Vvaraak was "an arcane caster", which may not be a safe one. After all, she did teach the first druids. But perhaps this will be resolved in the near future. Perhaps not owning the PGtE and using FoE has lead me to overestimate the degree to which the Ashbound want to restrict technology, but the materials I own and have read led me to believe Neanderthals are about what they're aiming for. It sounds that way to me. I see them as seeking to have as low an impact as is reasonably possible, but I wouldn't go nearly that far. PGtE suggests that they're willing to use forged weapons (though I'd certainly see them as PREFERING to avoid this). Honestly, the "won't wear armor" thing is a little overstated, in part because I'd presented them with a ritual alternative; while I think it would be very rare, I can see a few wearing, for example, leaveweave. I have no problem with things like butter churns or tools for small-scale agriculture... provided you're capable of making these within your own small community. That in and of itself WILL limit the complexity of tools. But I've always seen them as a far cry from Neanderthals. There's a difference between living in harmony with nature and actually being an animal. The Ashbound are willing to use tools - they just draw the line when we turn those tools against the earth and threaten to destroy the natural world. If all the Ashbound got up to was stealing and freeing livestock, burning down farms, and roughing up blacksmiths, I would expect them to be described as criminals and a nuisance rather then infamous for their violence and 'terrorists' (an appellation not explicitly given to the Wardens, despite their leading role in the Eldeen Rebellion). Really? You think burning down farms is a "nuisance"? If they were a state, I'd think it would be considered an act of war... especially when these actions are taken against a nation where large-scale agriculture is one of the prime industries (and after agriculture, arcane magic is ALSO high on Aundair's list of key features - again, setting the two in clear and direct opposition). Now, looking to the Wardens, the issue is that despite their actions in the Eldeen Rebellion, they don't engage in continuing violence against Aundair. The Wardens seek to protect nature from civilization and civilization from nature. If a pack of horrid wolves threatens an Eldeen village, the Wardens will deal with the wolves, not drive the villagers out of their "unnatural settlement". On the other hand, if the villagers seek to expand into the territory of the wolves, the Wardens may arrive to stop the expansion - but there, again, they will like approach things diplomatically as opposed to violently. THAT'S why the Ashbound are so "infamous" for their violence - because in comparison to the Wardens, they are wild and dangerous, appearing out of nowhere to destroy structures, kill or injure people who get in their way, and then disappear into the night. The Wardens will negotiate. The Ashbound are nature's avengers; the Wardens are its ambassadors. In the Eldeen rebellion, they took action to protect the people of what is now the Reaches, and with the popular support of those people. It wasn't conquest; it was coming to the assistance of people abandoned by their own government. The people of AUNDAIR - especially the government - do by and large consider the Wardens to be no better than the Ashbound. But the people of the Reaches themselves consider the Wardens to be a positive, reasonable, and by and large peaceful force - a force of protection - while the Ashbound are dangerous and unpredictable.
mahavira 07-23-07, 03:39 PM	Really? You think burning down farms is a "nuisance"? If they were a state, I'd think it would be considered an act of war... especially when these actions are taken against a nation where large-scale agriculture is one of the prime industries (and after agriculture, arcane magic is ALSO high on Aundair's list of key features - again, setting the two in clear and direct opposition). Perfectly normal bandits, who are just criminals rather than 'infamous for their violence' and 'terrorists' burn down farms, rape every woman they can get their hands on and kill many of the men. Compared to that, just burning the buildings, ruining the crops and freeing the domestic animals is just a nuisance. The language used to describe the ashbound just sounds stronger to me than destruction of property and beating people up. Now, looking to the Wardens, the issue is that despite their actions in the Eldeen Rebellion, they don't engage in continuing violence against Aundair. The Wardens seek to protect nature from civilization and civilization from nature. If a pack of horrid wolves threatens an Eldeen village, the Wardens will deal with the wolves, not drive the villagers out of their "unnatural settlement". On the other hand, if the villagers seek to expand into the territory of the wolves, the Wardens may arrive to stop the expansion - but there, again, they will like approach things diplomatically as opposed to violently. That would be completely in line with my impression of them, and probably why they aren't explicitly described as terrorists anywhere, even though there's a major faction of the Aundairan government that would like to go back to war with them. THAT'S why the Ashbound are so "infamous" for their violence - because in comparison to the Wardens, they are wild and dangerous, appearing out of nowhere to destroy structures, kill or injure people who get in their way, and then disappear into the night. I think this simply comes down to what one expects from a group that is labelled 'infamous'. I see a country that has endured a hundred years of warfare, with normal bandits, deserters turned bandit, and whole armies led by war criminals over that period, and think that 'infamous for their violence' must mean something above and beyond what you describe. Maybe I've just read too many books about how nasty midieval and ancient warfare was as a matter of course. Of course, as the setting designer, if you say that's not what you meant, that's not what you meant.
Hellcow 07-23-07, 04:10 PM	One last thought... I do want to clarify that, again, the 1,700 active Ashbound cover a wide range. The common image of the Ashbound is of the ash-daubed druid accompanied by wolves, relying on barkskin and his thorn-covered staff to do his work. And by and large this is accurate... though as I'd said, I'd originally included a feat which essentially allowed them to gain armor protection from their ashes, not unlike the warforged armor feats. As long as they didn't wear other armor and fought for their cause, they gained an armor bonus; hence they weren't simply abandoning armor for the sake of it, but rather relying on natural magic and dedication in place of it. Now, that's not out there - but it's something you could certainly consider. Anyhow, the image of the feral Ashbound relying on the fury of nature is largely accurate. The fact that I've said that they will used forged weapons, and that they will accept small thorps using limited tools, doesn't mean that they LIKE using these things. They are the champions of nature. They are symbols. Especially in the case of the druids, nature has given them gifts of magic, and they should rely on those gifts. So when you want the band of purely feral, savage druids, the Ashbound are still there for you. (It helps that many Ashbound are shifters, allowing them to temporarily enhance AC or attack power.) The point is that they aren't all that extreme. There are Ashbound who will use forged weapons; when fighting Dolgrims, they will use byeshk, and if fighting evil lycanthropes, they'll use silver. They feel that excessive reliance on such thems drives them from nature. Just because they may be willing to use a scimitar forged in a thorp in the Towering Woods doesn't mean that they'll overlook a Cannith Forgehold - again, a place produccing tools it does not need, acting for profit as opposed to necessity, and using magic to accomplish these tasks instead of honest muscle. But you can expect the magehunter Tasia to be using magical weapons and equipment to help her overcome her prey - though equipment created solely with natural magic. So while the Ashbound can fill the role of "wild men", they can also use tools - and even at their wildest, it's important to remember that they DO possess natural magic, which they do use for the benefit of their thorps as well as in battle. A side note is that the ORIGINAL version of the Ashbound presumed the existence of an NPC class that used natural magic - a druidic equivalent of the magewright and adept. I've since put out a variation of this here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/gk7uKJeF296jRcx1NJw.html), along with more utilitarian druidic spells. This is the sort of "druidic advisor" I'd expect to see the Wardens sending to villages, and the path that the Ashbound believe we should follow. Turn away from your reliance on tools and cities, and look to Eberron itself to make your harvests bountiful. You don't need massive irrigation systems if you can ask the rain to fall for you. So even where they DO move away from sophisticated tools, that doesn't make life among the Ashbound as primitive as Neanderthal life, because they have natural magic to make life less ugly and hard. They don't have Jorasco healing houses, but your gleaner may have a supply of goodberries for when you're injured. The gleaner spell list does include mending and a number of spells that do help to sow, grow, and harvest plants. These spells could be very useful if applied to large-scale agriculture; the point is that the Ashbound would use them to support the small community, and to reduce their need for sophisticated tools. Personally, I'd see gleaners taking the place of adepts and magewrights in any community following the traditions of the Ashbound (and likely the Wardnes) - so rare, but present. I'd also give an Ashbound thorp the same chance (5%) of having a high-level gleaner that the DMG gives thorps for rangers or druids; meanwhile, I'd probably reduce that suggested bonus to, say, +4-5 for rangers or druids (the DMG suggests +10, but this could on the outside give you a 16th level druid just hanging around some village). Anyhow, the (1,700) Ashbound are supposed to as a rule represent the fury of the wild. Encountering the diplomatic Ashbound should surprise people - "I thought you guys were always burning things down" - but they are out there. Likewise, the Ashbound ranger with his longbow and twin scimitars - one silvered, one byeshk - could also be out there. You have the wild men covered in vines of the stories, but there are other Ashbound as well. And when you go into the woods themselves, you can find the peaceful folk who simply live according to the Ashbound way of life.
Hellcow 07-23-07, 04:49 PM	Perfectly normal bandits, who are just criminals rather than 'infamous for their violence' and 'terrorists' burn down farms, rape every woman they can get their hands on and kill many of the men. Compared to that, just burning the buildings, ruining the crops and freeing the domestic animals is just a nuisance. The language used to describe the ashbound just sounds stronger to me than destruction of property and beating people up. Personally, I don't see them beating people up if they stay out of their way and don't need to be made an example of. When it comes to making an example of people, they will do just that, and you can expect it to be gruesome. But the point is that the Ashbound AREN'T bandits. They aren't in it for rape, gold, or murder. In fact, it's the predation of bandits and deserters that CAUSED the Eldeen rebellion in the first place. What I see in the case of the Ashbound is the systematic destruction of the institutions of civilization. Let's say you have a city. Bandits may raid it, burn down some buildings, take the gold, rape who they came. But will they destroy the entire city? Will they stick around to make SURE those buildings they set afire are burning? Why? Bandits are by and large interested in profit (and in the case of rape immediate gratification and humiliation of the enemy). Utterly destroying the economic base of a possible source of future income is simply stupid. Kill their militia, certainly. Set buildings ablaze so they have to stop and try and save the city instead of fighting you, certainly. But if you're truly a bandit - someone just plaguing the area, not an enemy soldier, not someone planning to grab what you can and travel far away (IE Mongol raiders, who DON'T plan to return to the same village for a decade), why be so thorough? The Ashbound, on the other hand, are thorough. If they come to the Vadalis ranch, they will ensuring that it is utterly razed. Most, as I have said, will make an example of the magebreeders that they feel will discourage others. But they won't rape. They won't kill those who seek to flee rather than fight (except for those who they view as being most responsible for the abomination - and who would continue this activity if allowed to live). We're not talking about "Letting your animals go and hitting you on the head" - we're talking about serious destruction. And if you get in their way? They will use force and natural magic to put you down. They won't stop to say "Pardon, could we interest you in changing your ways?" They may not stop and slit your throat once you're down, but neither will they stop to heal you or drag you from the burning building. If you choose to oppose them, you will suffer the consequences. So: Yes, I consider the Ashbound to be infamous for their violence. Compared to the other sects, they are EXTREMELY violent. The Gatekeepers focus on aberrations and similar threats. The Greensingers are tricksters who prefer to avoid direct conflict. The Children of Winter have RECENTLY become dangerous, but are more likely to poison your well than come in and beat you. The Wardens focus their efforts of the balance - protecting wild and civilization from each other. Straight from the ECS - in theory, the foundation for ALL Eberron material - the Ashbound prefer not to kill if it's not necessary. But they will utterly destroy institutions, use brutal force against anyone who tries to stop them, and make harsh examples of the people they consider the prime offenders. One of the best reasons to call the Ashbound terrorists is that they do seek to inspire terror; they believe that fear is the weapon that will force people to the right path. At the end of the day, you may say "OK, they destroyed a ranch, released the animals, killed ten guys who worked there, and let forty run free. What's the big deal? They could have killed them all and they didn't. They could have raped them and they didn't. It doesn't seem so bad." But the manner of the attack will be calculated to terrify the forty they let escape. And the deaths or maiming of those ten will be calculated to serve as an example to others. Despite what is in the end a relatively low BODY count, they are infamous because the methods they use inspire fear and terror - and because they are brutally thorough in their acts of destruction. Likewise, compared to a random group of bandits, they aren't a flash in the pan. They aren't going to be wiped out tomorrow - and even if they were, new Ashbound would arise from among their peaceful villagers to follow in their footsteps. They are bogeyman of the region; who can say if tomorrow they WILL find a way to bring the towers of Arcanix tumbling down? Anyhow, I'm spending too much time here. If this doesn't seem enough to make them infamous in your eyes, you can certainly do worse with them. But the point to me is that they AREN'T bandits (again, the actions of bandits, deserters, and opportunistic soldiers were one of the major triggers of the original rebellion), which is also one reason you don't have MORE fighting between the Wardens and the Ashbound. Last thought: 'criminal' vs. 'terrorist'. If I call the Ashbound terrorists rather than criminals, it's because their acts of terror are carried out to serve an idealogical goal, with the intention of changing the behavior of a larger group of people. When I think of 'criminals', I think of people who breaks the law for personal gain (or for the personal gain of his organization). The bandits who come to town, rape all the woman, kill all the men, and take the gold are doing it to gain wealth, personal gratification, and/or to ensure that they maintain their dominace of the region. The Ashbound believe that they are HELPING the people of the region. Their acts of terror are performed in the hopes of producing ideological change. In point of fact, they ARE criminal acts; it's the methodology (the desire to maximize fear) and the long-term goal that could qualify them as terrorists as opposed to mere criminals (not that I believe the term is used in any Eberron sourcebook).
mahavira 07-23-07, 06:39 PM	I'm sure I speak for everyone in thanking you for your input. Setting us right and meeting deadlines must be a difficult juggling act. The incomprehensible (to most people) destruction of wealth rather than stealing it certainly would pull them out of the pack of ordinary bandits, even with lower than average body counts.
The Dreaming Duck 07-23-07, 07:57 PM	Besides which, you're making the assumption that Vvaraak was "an arcane caster", which may not be a safe one. Really? That's interesting. So it seems like the net result of this is that there are true savages at one end of the spectrum, those who seek peaceful change at the other, while the bulk use violence as a tool for change, will kill those who oppose them, torture or maim the worst offenders to make an example, but prefer not to kill "civilians". These "average" Ashbound are willing to allow minimal tool use when required, up to and including the forging of weapons and limited agriculture, but believe that people should pursue the use of natural magic instead of relying on sophisticated tools; they also believe that people shouldn't form communities so large that they can't be self-supporting. So assuming it is possible to learn natural magic - that these little communities would have one or more NPC-class druid types to provide the benefits of natural magic - it wouldn't be a completely primitive society as we think of it, but it would be very different from modern Khorvaire, and it would be a harder life than the average citizen has today. The DM who wants the blind pulp villains can use the full feral savages who will kill you for dying your shirt. The player who wants a PC Ashbound can use one of the extreme moderates. And for the other situations you have the group in the middle - who take actions that pose a threat to anyone who values civilization, but who could also be allies against dangerous spellcasters, undead, aberrant forces, or the like. Going back to the original post, the concept of Ashbound working with good lycanthropes while hunting evil ones is an interesting one to me - especially if a Silver Flame group encounters an Ashbound group, and have to find some way to work together to face the unexpected power of their mutal target. Meanwhile, on the subject of infamy... skimming through a few dictionaries, a common definition I've found is "evil fame or reputation". In my mind, that's the heart of the issue. The Ashbound may not be as cruel as some group of bandits (though I have to say, I like the idea of cutting out spellcaster's tongues). They don't rape, massacre innocents, whatever. You don't find a big pile of dead babies outside the village the Ashbound burnt. But they are violent. Breaking a glass is violent, and the Ashbound burn fields, destroy Vadalis facilities, and from the sound of it, may even try to destroy entire cities. They aren't infamous for cruelty, for their body count, for torturing people - they are infamous for their violence. And part of this will relate to their numbers, the extended scope of their operation (how long have they been at this? Have they been doing this for centuries?), and the fact that they are in essence playing to the cameras. When you say "The Ashbound", anyone in Aundair knows who you're talking about - those crazy farm-burning tree-huggers. Why doesn't Aurala hunt them down and burn them out? Meanwhile, Ilido "The Black Wyvern" Cantar may be a far crueler man, and may have performed acts of torture far more horrific than those of any Ashbound. If you happen to live within a fifty mile radius of his territory, you'll know all about this monster. But in Fairhaven? Only the Royal Eyes know about him. He's only been around for a year, he's only hit three villages, and his fame simply hasn't spread. The Ashbound are unquestionably violent, whether or not their violence is more extreme or horrific than others out there. The infamy (IMO) comes from the length of time they've been at it, the stories spread by the survivors, etc - the fact that the tales have had time to spread across the Five Nations. WHAT they do may not be that bad, by and large; but any bard in Aundair knows the story of the Vadalis heir found with thorns running through every vein, the druid who called on the city to shake itself apart, the hunters of Arcanix who kill any wizard who walks alone, the Vadalis farmer eaten by his own cattle, and so on. It may be that the actions of the Ashbound aren't as horrific as the bandits - but they've spent decades (or centuries?) making examples of their worst enemies, and leaving others alive to spread those tales. So, it's thouse tales that now make them infamous. Of course, I just made all those stories up, but it's how I see it.
mahavira 07-23-07, 10:13 PM	Meanwhile, on the subject of infamy... skimming through a few dictionaries, a common definition I've found is "evil fame or reputation". In my mind, that's the heart of the issue. The Ashbound may not be as cruel as some group of bandits (though I have to say, I like the idea of cutting out spellcaster's tongues). That idea is beautiful for it's double use. One adventure, the PCs fight an ashbound who cuts out the tongues of wizards. Several sessions later, they have to fight a wizard who survived having his tongue cut out, has silent spell, and murders druids indiscriminantly (calculating CR would be tricky, as his available spells and magic items are limited somewhat, but interesting nonetheless. Oh, and just for tradition, I'd say the Vadalis farmer was eaten by his magebred warhorses (in Greek myth, Geryon had man eating horses, and both training animals to be war steeds and magebreeding them are both likely to attract Ashbound attention).