Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gru 09-13-07, 10:58 AM	Just a question: If you're a Harper and decide not to be one anymore - is that possible without the rest of the organization thinking of you as a liability (and maybe becoming hostile towards you)? I've read the Harper code, but I can't remember what (and if) it says about the matter.
Suin Bahhar 09-13-07, 11:01 AM	Maybe after being subject to a mindwipe....
MerrikCale 09-13-07, 03:02 PM	It can be interesting. At one point, one of our group was a harper. The harpers were concerned that other "non-harpers" were getting too much info and sent a spy, which was a PC for an adventure. When the party discovered the duplicity, all hell broke loose including a battle with several harpers.
MarkusTay63 09-13-07, 03:41 PM	I don't think you can just quit, but you can retire (no more adventuring). I think that if you were to continue adventuring but no longer wanted to be a Harper, they would have to assume you wanted to do 'bad' things. After all, its not like they really tell their agents what to do most of the time, so quitting would seem 'suspect'. Then again, Khelben did it, so they can always say they are joining the Moonstars. ;)
Calmar 09-15-07, 07:55 PM	Maybe you could describe this situation with more details? As far as I'd see it, you either continue your adventuring business *and* do your bit of work for the harpers, or you betray them and don't bother telling you quit. At least in the former case you should not have much to loose (no more than you did when joining the organization in the first place, after all). Also, I think you can still be a harper without actually solving dangerous missions. When you settle down you could still keep an eye on the things that happen in the area and you can offer support to harper agents in duty.
The WarOverlord 09-18-07, 03:20 AM	Just a question: If you're a Harper and decide not to be one anymore - is that possible without the rest of the organization thinking of you as a liability (and maybe becoming hostile towards you)? I've read the Harper code, but I can't remember what (and if) it says about the matter. A Haper can "retire" in the sence of not doing active duty. Betraying the Harpers via seeking personal power and abandoning the code such is a death sentence Also, being seen as a "threat" whether a Harper or not and on the Harper "hitlist" can be problemsome at best. Remember playing Baulder's Gate for the PC and sincemy PC was a "Baahl spwan" some idiot Harper and his friends trying to get some glory out of my PC's hide with an ambush.....guess that if my PC didn't slaughter all of them in 10 seconds flat, in self defence of course, that there might have been an Inquiry (catually the Harper NOC in my PC party did go off for one I think)
capnvan 09-18-07, 07:08 AM	From FOR4 Code of the Harpers, p.10: "Harpers police their own... Traitors must die, for freedom to live... They also punish those who subvert Harper work (as opposed to merely failing, or resigning because of some weakness, change in heart, disaster, or prior calling..." [emphasis added] The point being, I suppose, as someone else in the thread mentioned, it matters a lot why someone wants to no longer be a Harper. If the character's intends to take what he's learned and seek great personal power, then he's got trouble. If, on the other hand, she didn't enjoy working for the Harpers, "Well, OK, sorry things didn't work out, obviously everything you've been a part of has to remain secret, but we wish you well, sorry to see you leave, we may have need for your services again, etc."
The_Shaman 09-18-07, 07:27 AM	I think that if the character was privy to some very sensitive info, they may want to do a modify memory on him, though. Trust is trust, but some things shouldn't be left to fate.
capnvan 09-18-07, 10:52 AM	I think that if the character was privy to some very sensitive info, they may want to do a modify memory on him, though. Trust is trust, but some things shouldn't be left to fate. Except that the Harpers are, broadly speaking, good. And modifying someone's memories against her will is evil. Which means that the person or group performing that act is evil. Which would mean that they're not acting in accordance with the Harper code.
Meldread 09-18-07, 03:19 PM	The Harper's are also a chaotic organization. It is only evil if they do it with some type of evil intention. They would do it to protect themselves - not a good aligned act, certainly. However, it isn't evil either. Nor is it lawful. Don't forget the Harper's are quite literally a terrorist organization. Even though they more often than not work toward the "greater good" they still seek to subvert governments, lawful rulers, and any others who stand in their way. Including their own.
The_Shaman 09-19-07, 02:54 PM	Except that the Harpers are, broadly speaking, good. And modifying someone's memories against her will is evil. Which means that the person or group performing that act is evil. Which would mean that they're not acting in accordance with the Harper code. It wouldn't be for every little thing. However, if the character had been involved with something that would literally doom the organization (not a very often-occurring circumstance, given their fractal nature), they might have to use a spell. I doubt that it would be "against their will" - unless the character broke up with them on very bad terms, they would probably agree to it. And as you can guess, individual harpers do sometimes do evil acts. Just as any single good act doesn't necessarily change a CE to CG, a non-evil character may commit an evil act without immediately changing alignment.
Bonzai 09-19-07, 03:45 PM	Without giving away any spoilers, one of the characters in Kemps novels renounced his affiliation with the Harpers, due to them being inactive in the face of a serious threat. They didn't mind wipe him, geas him, or threaten him. Their attitude cooled towards him, and he was expected to stay away from them.
capnvan 09-20-07, 07:26 AM	Just as any single good act doesn't necessarily change a CE to CG, a non-evil character may commit an evil act without immediately changing alignment. Pardon the double post, but there are two different points to be made. Here: Um, I disagree, completely. First off, I'd say it's the DM's decision. Second, it would depend on the character and the act. And, to some extent, the alignment. It's harder to play "good," yes. For example, if your CG ranger decides to mutilate a little girl for the fun of it, guess what? As a DM, yeah, I'm telling you that you've changed alignment for that one act. Don't care why you did it, under what circumstances; it's a patently evil act and incompatible with "goodness." That may be harsh, and you may not be "evil," but you're no longer "good."
capnvan 09-20-07, 07:49 AM	It is only evil if they do it with some type of evil intention. They would do it to protect themselves - not a good aligned act, certainly. However, it isn't evil either. Nor is it lawful. I'm really not sure where you get that interpretation, and frankly, it's a little concerning, because it suggests that you're willing to put forward a definition of good and evil that has absolutely no basis in any ethical system that I'm familiar with. First off, while many different philosophies would argue that intention is, indeed, important in determining whether a particular act can be considered ethical, harming another in the interest of potentially helping, at some level, one's one self-preservation, would not be considered ethical under any of them. What you're suggesting here is akin to saying (in the U.S.), "Well, thanks for working for the CIA for the last 25 years, here's your pension, and since we don't have the ability to remove your memories, and you might tell someone something you shouldn't, even though you haven't yet, or someone might grab you and torture you into telling them some piece of potentially harmful information, I'm afraid we have to shoot you to be sure." In short, it's ludicrous. It is unethical (not "good"), regardless of the reason, to cause harm to another when there is no imminent danger that that person is going to harm you or a third party. Therefore, it is unethical (not "good") to mindwipe someone because they are a potential source of information for someone else with ill intentions. That person's being dragged off by cackling Zhentarim, there are 100 vampires between you and her, she's begging for you to kill her before they torture her? OK, then we can talk about justifiable. Don't forget the Harper's are quite literally a terrorist organization. Even though they more often than not work toward the "greater good" they still seek to subvert governments, lawful rulers, and any others who stand in their way. Including their own. OK, see here's a problem with definitions. Because the Harpers are not a terrorist organization. A terrorist organization, among other things, wants you to know who is responsible for an act, and why. The best work the Harpers do can't be traced back to them. Secondly, a terrorist attempts to cause panic and fear among the general population in order to further his political goals. A Harper does not attempt to make the general population afraid. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Harpers may attempt to make the enemy (as in the Zhentarim, etc.) terrified of what they will do. That's called psychological warfare. When a Zhent rides into town, murders a few people, and strings their bodies up with a sign telling the rest to leave town, that's terrorism. When a Harper kills that Zhent and deposits his head in the bed of Manshoon, that's psychological warfare.
Meldread 09-20-07, 11:29 AM	Capnvan- The my comments on mindwiping someone is predicated upon the fact that if they have good intentions when leaving the organization, they would submit to the mindwipe. When they joined they knew the risks involved, and in order to part on good terms they also likely knew that something like this may be necessary. Depending on what you wipe and what you do to them it is not necessarily an evil act. Take the following scenario as an example. You have an individual who disagrees with your actions. He is on his way to meet with a Lord who is diametrically opposed to the Harpers, and this individual - who has left the organization in a dispute - is going to go and warn that Lord of the Harper's activities. However, on the way he stops at an Inn to rest for the night. The Innkeeper, a Harper Agent, ensures that his food is drugged so that when he goes to sleep he remains that way for some time. During that period several other Harper Agents show up, and mindwipe the ex-agent erasing his memories of the Harper Organization and his activities. They do not cause him undo harm or stress, they do not tamper with other memories, they simply erase the thoughts which could be damaging to their cause. Then they leave him alone to live his life in peace. A chaotic act? Yes, certainly. However, the Harpers are a chaotic organization. The alternative is to kill him. The act, in and of itself, is no more evil than say - slaughtering a small tribe of goblins who happen to have taken up residence nearby a village. In slaughtering their warriors, you doom their women and children to starve, to die to outside threats, or to be enslaved by stronger creatures. That is something quite common - the act of wholesale slaughter - but it is given little thought. I suppose we just have different ways of looking at things. I reward people who try and find ways around killing their enemies. For example, working out a deal with a relatively peaceful goblin tribe to relocate or to assist the village rather than slaughtering them is viewed more favorably. In the same way, dealing with a rogue ex-harper agent in a non-violent way is also viewed more favorably than killing him. When a Zhent rides into town, murders a few people, and strings their bodies up with a sign telling the rest to leave town, that's terrorism. When a Harper kills that Zhent and deposits his head in the bed of Manshoon, that's psychological warfare. No, that's splitting hairs. Terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." I would say that more or less characterizes the Harpers pretty well.
capnvan 09-21-07, 04:17 AM	My comments on mindwiping someone is predicated upon the fact that if they have good intentions when leaving the organization, they would submit to the mindwipe. When they joined they knew the risks involved, and in order to part on good terms they also likely knew that something like this may be necessary. Can you name me one canon source where this occurs? Throughout the Realms sourcebooks' prestige classes, you see ex-Harper Scouts, ex-Moonstar agents, etc. They are said to "gain a reputation" among their respective groups, and they can no longer progress in those prestige classes. In the Harper novels (and it's been a good long while, so forgive me and instruct me if I'm wrong), there are people who have fallen out with the Harpers, and they have not been "mindwiped." I might be willing to concede a point if you can find anything that would suggest that what you're saying is consistent with actual canon. Depending on what you wipe and what you do to them it is not necessarily an evil act. "A Harper always tries to narrow the gap between good intentions and good results." FOR4, p.8. For the Harpers, it's not enough to have good intentions. "All beings should walk free of fear, with the right to live their lives as they wish." ibid., p.9 Take the following scenario as an example. You have an individual who disagrees with your actions. He is on his way to meet with a Lord who is diametrically opposed to the Harpers, and this individual - who has left the organization in a dispute - is going to go and warn that Lord of the Harper's activities. However, on the way he stops at an Inn to rest for the night. The Innkeeper, a Harper Agent, ensures that his food is drugged so that when he goes to sleep he remains that way for some time. During that period several other Harper Agents show up, and mindwipe the ex-agent erasing his memories of the Harper Organization and his activities. They do not cause him undo harm or stress, they do not tamper with other memories, they simply erase the thoughts which could be damaging to their cause. Then they leave him alone to live his life in peace. Um, wrong. They have done him harm. Period. They have done something to him without his consent - they drugged him. If you slip an innocent LSD without their knowledge, you're doing them harm. They took something from him that wasn't theirs to take - his thoughts and memories. It doesn't matter if it was, in your opinion, a minor thing. Stealing 5 cents is the same as stealing a million dollars, in that sense. You're still stealing. It's still evil. Drugging someone who has hasn't yet done anything wrong isn't good, it's evil. "Harpers work against villainy and wickedness wherever they find it - but they work ever mindful of the consequences of what they do." ibid. How about, they don't drug him, they confront him and explain that they can't let him continue on his course of action? If he insists on continuing this traitorous course of action, he'll be marked for death. Does he really want to do this? Then they let him go. He has been warned of the consequences. If he continues on his course of action, then he has no one to blame but himself. That's not an evil course of action. If he continues on his path, he has betrayed his oaths to the Harpers, and can be legitimately punished for it. If he reconsiders and stops his actions, then there is no need for punishment. A chaotic act? Yes, certainly. However, the Harpers are a chaotic organization. The alternative is to kill him. "Harpers aren't anarchists." ibid. And, as I pointed out, there are plenty of alternatives. More pertinently, in any secret society, an individual is never made aware of information that he doesn't need. It's called compartmentalization. The amount of damage that any one ex-Harper could do to the organization is extremely limited, for expressly the situation that you are positing. Most pertinently, look at Khelben - if anyone had enough information to threaten the Harpers, it was him. Did you see relentless Harper assassination attempts? And, finally, I won't be getting into a debate on what constitutes terrorism. For the Harpers, slaughtering innocents is evil. Scaring the perpertrators (or their masters) of those crimes silly is not.
The_Shaman 09-21-07, 07:44 AM	Ok, just to clarify: most members won't get anything more than "goodbye" when they leave. The mindwipe might might apply only to members who have truly crucial knowledge, say of Elminster's hidden weakness or the location of a cache of world-destorying artefacts, especially if the character is notorious/famous enough that other groups might be interested in capturing him/her anyway. It would be a truly rare event, but I do consider it possible.
Meldread 09-21-07, 03:38 PM	The Shaman pretty much said what needed to be said. It isn't something that would happen in 98% of the cases put before them. However, in certain cases it might be possible and it is likely that they would request the individual leaving to WILLINGLY submit to a mindwipe rather than force it upon them. The only way anyone would be forced to undergo a mindwipe is if they leave on bad terms and clearly have ill intentions toward the organization. (Meaning that they have openly stated that they are going to do the Harper's harm and have taken steps to carry out the threat.) How about, they don't drug him, they confront him and explain that they can't let him continue on his course of action? If he insists on continuing this traitorous course of action, he'll be marked for death. Does he really want to do this? Then they let him go. He has been warned of the consequences. If he continues on his course of action, then he has no one to blame but himself. That's not an evil course of action. If he continues on his path, he has betrayed his oaths to the Harpers, and can be legitimately punished for it. If he reconsiders and stops his actions, then there is no need for punishment. Well I guess you and I have really different perceptions of good and evil. To me it is far less evil to simply mindwipe an individual who is setting out to do expressly what you just stated. If they clearly are working against the organization then killing them for their betrayal is far worse than simply removing their memories of the events that could bring the organization harm. It becomes more about punishment for a crime than actually preventing harm. I think most rational people would submit to the mindwipe. After all, let's say you've just witnessed a bank robbery. The robber holds a gun to your head and says, "I don't want you going to the police so I'm going to give you a choice. You either let me erase your memories of this event or I'm going to blow your brains out, which do you choose?" Most rational people will submit to having their memories of the event erased because they would prefer to live. Of course, all of this just underscores the flaws in the D&D alignment system and why I dislike it so much. And, finally, I won't be getting into a debate on what constitutes terrorism. For the Harpers, slaughtering innocents is evil. Scaring the perpertrators (or their masters) of those crimes silly is not. That is because you view terrorism as inherently evil / bad. It is not. Terrorism is nothing more than a tactic used against your enemies, and Harpers are a terrorist organization in every way imaginable. They work in cells. They work to overthrow lawful rulers. They have a political and social agenda that they try and impose. They act in ways that should instill fear into their enemies. They compartmentalize as you pointed out. So on and so forth. The reason I point it out is because through understanding how terrorists work and operate, you can better understand how the Harpers work and operate. There is a similar mind set that flows throughout all such organizations.
capnvan 09-21-07, 06:10 PM	Ok, just to clarify: most members won't get anything more than "goodbye" when they leave. The mindwipe might might apply only to members who have truly crucial knowledge, say of Elminster's hidden weakness or the location of a cache of world-destorying artefacts, especially if the character is notorious/famous enough that other groups might be interested in capturing him/her anyway. It would be a truly rare event, but I do consider it possible. I'm glad that you consider it possible. That's nice. In your campaign, if you'd like to run the Harpers that way, by all means, go right ahead. However, when someone asks a question here, and you reply with, "This is the way it would work," without the preface, "In my campaign, albeit not in canon," then you're misleading people, in this case, the OP. Again, if you can find anything that would indicate that this is the way the Harpers operate in the canon Realms, I invite you to post it so we can actually debate it. Your idle speculations about what might be possible, in the face of otherwise contradictory information (e.g. what's actually printed in the sourcebooks and novels), aren't particularly helpful otherwise. Otherwise, I think it would be best if the answer we offer up to the OP comes from the actual sources, in particular, FOR4, where much of the Harper lore is laid out.
capnvan 09-21-07, 06:17 PM	Well I guess you and I have really different perceptions of good and evil. This is certainly true. I'd go into more detail, but there's really no point. As far as the rest of your post goes, see my post above. The simple answer here is, it's not about what you, or anyone else, thinks. The answer has been written down. It's there in the canon lore. If you'd prefer to run the Harpers differently, go right ahead. But please don't suggest that that is the manner in which the canon Harpers go about their business, because it is clear that it is not.
Meldread 09-21-07, 09:23 PM	Capnvan- Wow, hostile much? ;) Right, well let's be blunt. Every situation is unique, and the OP (Gru) asked if it were "possible" (his word) if someone could leave the organization without them being thought of as a liability. The answer to that question was answered correctly: 'Yes, but it may depend upon the circumstance.' A debate then was waged over what type of circumstances would cause the Harpers to react negatively and would force them to take some action against the ex-member. Now, all of this comes down to "is it possible"? I believe - and others believe - that the answer is yes. Now, you may disagree. That's fine. Your Harpers happen to be assassins who will kill any who work against them - that is also fine. It is even conceivably possible. However, that is not how my Harper's work for the following reasons: 1. Killing someone draws attention indirectly to the organization. A body raises questions and attracts the lawful authorities - something that the Harpers are not. Even if they have a higher-ranking Harper who can make it "go away" that still only arises suspicion. 2. I would consider murdering someone in order to keep them silent an evil act. The Harpers - at least not my Harpers - are not inherently an evil organization. They are an organization that strives to the best of their ability to work toward the 'greater good' and sometimes uses questionable means to do it. Now, having said that killing the individual is certainly possible although I do not think it would be a common thing. Killing the individual would simply be a way to send a message to other members who think about leaving and betraying the organization - "You see this guy? This is what happens to traitors." It certainly aligns with terroristic thoughts and actions, although I am not sure if it connects well with the theme of the Harpers who seem to have more subtle and care in their methods.
capnvan 09-22-07, 05:16 PM	Capnvan- Wow, hostile much? Nope, just bored with people who seem unable to actually reason out an argument. Or bring facts to the table. Or do anything except repeat themselves, again, and again, and again. I'm done now. But then I expect everyone else is, too.
Voran 12-03-07, 02:21 AM	Largely, the Harpers benefit the power of writing. Under 'normal world' circumstances, yes the Harpers would be considered terrorists. Maybe not mass destruction terrorists, but definitely a step above radical eco-terrorists. However in the FR setting, they're 'good' largely because they've been written to be 'good'. Consequently all their actions, are seen in a different point of view, than if they were 'bad'. In context of the game though, I think quitting the harpers largely depends on 1)what you know 2)how you cover yourself. If you're aware of secret information, naturally the Harpers would be interested in keeping that secret, possibly by any means necessary. So, how you rank in area 2, determines how much they can screw with you. I could see an almost blackmail kinda situation of an ex-harper occuring to the affiliation. Someone wants to leave, they 'know where the bodies are buried' but then they go "Yeah, and if anything happens to me, guess what happens to you guys." Its not perfect. I mean, the only other guy to pull it off was what...an archmage? :)
Stigger 12-03-07, 02:36 AM	I would think that the Harpers would find a Geas type spell, commanding the subject not to speak or otherwise communicate certain information they know, far more preferable than a mind-wipe sort of spell. Just strikes me as being more the style of the Harpers than a mind-wipe. As to the terrorist/not-terrorist arguement, applying modern definitions to the Realms doesn't quite work, as they probably don't even have the word 'terrorist' in their vocabulary in anything even remotely approaching the same context as the modern world does.