Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 MartianAlien Apr 14, 2013 0:37:00	I've had a base concept for an Eberron adventure for a while, but I keep getting stuck on one detail. Part of the hook involves a reunion of the surviving members of a unit from the Last War being targeted for revenge by the survivors (and/or their kin) of a unit from a nation that opposed them. While I could certainly use a generic Emerald Claw cell for the 'bad guys' I'd like to give them a bit more depth to give some specific details to help the PCs track down the mind(s) behind the attack, as well as possibly make them more sympathetic for the PCs. (I looked through Forge of War, but didn't see anything I found particularly helpful or a source of inspiration for this.) What I'm hoping you (collectively) can help with would be some basic outlines of: - Unit A, holding the reunion - Unit B, out for revenge (or justice, in their minds) - What Unit A did that Unit B is still angered about I'm hoping that some of you have come up with some units from the Last War that you could toss out to help me fill in that blank spot.
#2 Syltorian Apr 14, 2013 5:57:32	Considering the resentment stirred up during the Last War, there would be many possibilities. Cyran units could believe (not necessarily correctly) that another unit was responsible for the Mourning. Thrane units could seek revenge for Shadukar. Karrnathi units, especially highly trained Rekkenmark regiments, could target the Wyvern Riders who raided Rekkenmark. "Remember Shadukar!" and "Remember Rekkenmark!" yells would be all too common. Using Shadukar or Rekkenmark could also help you with the means of revenge. Both attacks involved fire. So it's only poetic justice to lock the doors to the reunion and put the building to the torch. Also, Rekkenmark was raided (without orders from High Command) in retaliation for Shadukar. Any unit could seek revenge against an enemy unit which raided their home region, even if that attack was too minor to be recorded in the canon sources. A lot of war crimes were committed by all sides, and propaganda will have invented even more: there are plenty of reasons to hate the enemy. It might even be a misunderstanding: perhaps Unit B returned to their home region to find it plundered and its inhabitants murdered in the most vicious ways; they located insignia of Unit A, not realising that these were deserters of Unit A, not the actual unit. It could be a matter of honour: Unit B was humiliated by Unit A, and got disbanded in dishonour as a result; in some cultures, that might be worse than actually being destroyed for a formerly prestigious regiment. Unit A's claim to honour is that they captured banners of Unit B, and the latter need to restore their honour (and get the banners back), except that their government has stopped the war, so there is no proper way to do it. This gets worse if Unit A used underhand tactics - ambush, night attack, hostages, human shields - denying Unit B a proper battle. Some units might also be targetted because they are held responsible for a major defeat, even if not engaged in combat proper. Unit A was a scout unit which spotted an ambush set up by Unit B, allowing the regular troops to get around. Look at the Third Battle of the Talenta Plains. Cyrans may still blame the halflings for telling the Karrns about their trench.  Such units need not even be officially enemies. Unit B was nearly destroyed when Unit A, who were supposed to reinforce them, arrived to late or decided not to move out of camp at all. Unit B either won the battle after high casualties, or had to surrender and fell into infamy, simply because their supposed friends left them in the lurch. Historically, examples would be Legio II Augusta not answering the call to fight Boudica, or the Heavy Brigade during the crimean war not supporting the Light Brigade as planned. There might also have been some confusion in the relaying of commands: in that case, neither unit would have acted cowardly, but a breakdown in communications would have sent Unit A to the wrong place and made them unable to help Unit B. In any case, Unit B regards Unit A as cowards and traitors who have yet to be punished. Unit A and B were part of the same army during a major action. Both fought well, but unit A managed to get all the rewards. Perhaps they had a better connection to the commander, perhaps Unit B were irregulars who were despised, or perhaps the commander simply had not payed enough attention. In actual history, a naval and a land-based unit nearly came to blows after the Siege of New Carthage (209 B.C.), when one member of each claimed to have been the first over the walls. The general only managed to prevent the fight by awarding the Mural Crown to both. Similarly, it would be possible that Unit B did the heavy fighting and soften up the enemy, but did not win until Unit A arrived. So Unit A got the credit, and Unit B the damage.  Unit A actually turned on Unit B during a battle. Perhaps they were bought off, charmed, or simply following orders as politics shifted. Perhaps Unit A has really betrayed their country, but Unit B cannot prove it, and are taking matters into their own hands.