Dragon 365 - Backdrop: Cormyr

[Scribble]

Yeah, but why don't they mention that? It seems like a very "Cormyr-fan" (for I know they exist) way of writing things, just assuming you'd be keen to give more money to the Cormyrean government for the benefit of a shiny piece of paper (literally!).

It's personally signed by the king.

I'd say it's similar to why some people pay a couple of hundred dollars for a card signed by a sports figure...

Not worth it to me... but to someone it is.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I like Comyr in the Forgotten Realms because it is a monarchy with earnest citizens. It is a nice contrast to most of the other nations in FR, where everyone is a wise-cracking individualist. The unabashed British Toryism and medieval idealism is rather charming. The Cormyte's Boast is the type of song that wouldn't be sung anywhere else.

Besides, it is fun to have the ugliness under a pretty exterior. Scheming nobles, the Fire Knives, revolutionary sentiment, and war wizard secret police.

For full disclosure, I should note that without exception (afaik), every one of my FR PCs has been a Cormyrean noble, so apparently I don't hate the place that much.

I just hate it when it comes across quite so "ren-faire" (as with the quoted bit, peasants having rights hahaha, etc.). Medieval, it ain't. British Tory-ish, it is. I think the fact that it's always written as if we're automatically going to like Cormyr (2E was particularly egregious for this), plus the fact that the Obaskyrs, Purple Dragoons and War Wizards are always portrayed as incredibly competent (which seems unreal, even the best military forces balls-up from time to time) that really grinds my nuts. I also wonder if it isn't something that's more irritating to British people who actually have to put up with this kind of idiocy from certain politicians, rather than Americans.

It kind of reminds me of Thailand, oddly enough, with the psycho patriotism, the monarchy viewed with ridiculous positivity, and the intrigue.

 

[Wrox]

Finally!

 

[Wormwood]

It kind of reminds me of Thailand, oddly enough, with the psycho patriotism, the monarchy viewed with ridiculous positivity, and the intrigue.

Whoa. I think you just made Cormyr *really* interesting there.

 

[ferratus]

I just hate it when it comes across quite so "ren-faire" (as with the quoted bit, peasants having rights hahaha, etc.). Medieval, it ain't. British Tory-ish, it is.

You do realize of course that it is bad history to say that the peasants didn't have rights? In fact, in many ways they had more rights and say over how they governed than we do now. They also contributed a smaller share of their income to their government. The big rights they didn't have were based on freedom of movement, freedom to choose your own trade, and the right not to be tortured. All of these restrictions of rights on serfs are legacies of the edicts of the Roman Empire, particularly the Emperor Domitian.

This is of course speaking of English peasants in the high middle ages. They had greater or lesser rights depending on the time period and the country. We are talking 1000 years over an entire continent here. It would have been better if there had been agitation for rights, and the Suzail Writ was in response to it, like the Magna Carta or Bismark's reforms.

I think the fact that it's always written as if we're automatically going to like Cormyr (2E was particularly egregious for this), plus the fact that the Obaskyrs, Purple Dragoons and War Wizards are always portrayed as incredibly competent (which seems unreal, even the best military forces balls-up from time to time) that really grinds my nuts.

I'm not sure how you would have a benevolent monarchy and not have it be competent. A good government has to be exactly that. The shortcomings of the Obaskyrs, Purple Dragons and War Wizards has been shown in "Cormyr: A Novel" but it was never in contemporary times.

The part that ground my nuts was the part about Azoun V signing the Suzail Writ. It smacked of a condescending elite of foward thinkers bestowing rights on their lessers and moving forward the progress of history.

I also wonder if it isn't something that's more irritating to British people who actually have to put up with this kind of idiocy from certain politicians, rather than Americans.

I'm a Canadian and I love the monarchy and the constitution based on the westminster model. Not only is it cheaper than the presidential model, it keeps ideologies from appropriating the symbolism of the state. I don't fancy having my citizenship and patriotism questioned based on my political positions or moral values. Now, I wouldn't mind if Canada had its own King/Queen, and if the anti-catholic laws were removed to allow for the succession of a Catholic monarch but it is a quibble compared to the huge benefits of having a constitutional monarchy. Ensuring my citizenship merely by swearing fealty to the Queen keeps me from having to swear fealty to a set of values held by my enemies.

Of course, if ERII or her successors ever became something more than a figurehead and gained actual political power, we would have to revisit the issue.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Not only is it cheaper than the presidential model, it keeps ideologies from appropriating the symbolism of the state. I don't fancy having my citizenship and patriotism questioned based on my political positions or moral values.

Tangent: There are a few Canadians I know who would dispute that this doesn't happen in Canada all the time already. I mean I hear all the time how such and such is "unCanadian". I guess it's all in the perspective . . . if an ideology points at you or away from you.

 

[Merlin the Tuna]

It kind of reminds me of Thailand, oddly enough, with the psycho patriotism, the monarchy viewed with ridiculous positivity, and the intrigue.

I have to say, there's some grim amusement in seeing how modern politics has led to shock at the thought of actually liking the person in charge of the country.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Man, the formatting in the Luckbringer part was god awful.

Off hand - powers are presented out of order (should be 11th, 12th, 20th).

The color of the powers doesn't match up to the frequency. Based on the text, Luckbolt should be black (for dailies), Divine Tilt should be red (for encounter). However...

The attack powers don't match the levels they should. Divine Tilt, if it's 11th, should be an Encounter power, the text lists it as a Daily. Inauspicious Vulnerability, if it's 20th, should be a Daily, the text lists it as an Encounter. I have no clue if they're simply juxtaposed or completely borked. My guess is Divine Tilt is the 11th level Encounter power, as IV is much more powerful.

I'm not sure why Luckbolt (CB10) isn't Ranged 10, as it only targets one ally. Possibly because you can target yourself? Strange.

The Luckbringer doesn't have an Action Point ability - I'm not sure if this is a deliberate design decision or a gaffe. It's hard to tell given the quality in the article.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I have to say, there's some grim amusement in seeing how modern politics has led to shock at the thought of actually liking the person in charge of the country.

Well, I can see the peasants liking this king, given he supports their rights (less so the aristos), but the idea, that's been in every portrayal of the FR I've ever seen, including ones way back before any fancy rights for peasants, is that the Cormyreans really love their monarchy, in a slightly loopy way. Hence the Thailand comparison. Obviously it's not that surprising, because I easily found an example in the modern world, didn't I?

Politics has nothing/everything to do with it. In the modern world, democracy ensures much of the populace said "No" to any given leader, which is why it would be particularly surprising were he elected. That has no bearing on this situation, though. What's surprising is that entire royal family is and always has been loved in a pushy kind of "peasants will beat you up if you don't bow" sort of way (it pretty much says this in the article). It's not so much impossible to believe (it's not) as vaguely irritating because you know it's only that way because some hack author/writer decided it was, rather than because it made sense.

Ferratus - I do indeed. We all know what kind of rights are implied here, though, and cannot doubt that they go wildly beyond anything any medieval peasant (British or otherwise) dreamed of.

It's funny that you mention Domitian, because if you look around the world, many countries utterly untouched by the Roman Empire had either identical or far more severe restrictions on certain castes or social groups (which serfs, villeins, etc. most assuredly were). China and Japan come to mind. So you can't blame it all on the Romans. It's more like standard operating procedure.

Still, the main ren-faire-ish-ness all comes from idea that Nice Old Mr King gave them these lovely rights and they're all terribly polite and no-one oppresses anyone and just what...? I mean... Ugh... I think this is what you're saying, though.

I'm pretty sure the good people of Cormyr would be highly unpleasant to any Cormyrean they suspected of "un-Cormyrean activities". It strikes me as the sort of place where McCarthy and his ilk would have had a field day. Gosh, the more I think about it, the more Cormyr seems ripe for what it's creators would no doubt regard as "abuse" and my group would regard as "Excitement!" I like it more already!

LightPheonix - Judging from the D&D Compendium, I'd say it was an oversight, as there are at least some PPs missing their action point abilities there.

 

[Wrox]

The Luckbringer doesn't have an Action Point ability - I'm not sure if this is a deliberate design decision or a gaffe. It's hard to tell given the quality in the article.

Isn't Divine Fortune an action point ability?

Divine Fortune (16th level): As a free action,
you or an ally within 5 misses an attack roll, you can
spend an action point to allow the target to reroll that
attack with a +2 bonus.