Mages of the Caribbean--story ideas

[Pielorinho]

Actually I meant tensions in the non-pirate crew: in the crew of the ship that the PCs are on. The PCs will spend 1.5 game sessions interacting with the crew of their ship. There's plenty of time to develop nuance for their own crew.

Interesting...I definitely want to have some sort of schism that can be exploited, but I'm planning to have an old crew vs. new crew on the pirate ship already, so I'm thinking something else. Maybe something similar, though: the captain has a handful of toughs that know it's a slaver ship and that he'll use for the treachery, whereas the remainder are just yer average no-good sailors. PCs may be able to recruit them, especially with mind magic. Also, the other academics aboard (non-mages) could be allies, and their fates when the pirates attack could be interesting.

Sure, but you want him to do something flashy when they first meet him, so they can thereafter worry about having a sneaky enemy. (There's no point in developing a sneaky enemy who is SO SNEAKY the players don't know he exists... I've made that mistake before.)

Heh--excellent point. On the other hand, I have some players who know me too well, so if there's something flashy that happens, I'll need to think of something with an explanation other than "secret enemy mage on pirate ship" to throw them off for a little bit until he can make his move.

One mistake I won't make is having him be a master of spirit or connections. My players, given my last campaign, really hate villains that escape in the final instant, and spirit and connections make that way too easy.

In your world, where history is playing out differently, who is to say that modern ideals about individuality -- which your players may unconsciously bring to the table -- are out of place?

Well, I am, unless one of the players really insists on being Teh First Abolitionist. One of the things I like about historical fiction is exploring different mindsets, and I plan to talk clearly with my players about how the game will be more fun if they can try to think like a 17th-century European (assuming that's what they choose to play) instead of like a 21st-century American. A discussion of the evils of slavery would take away from that feel for me, whereas a discussion of the righteousness of the church would add to it--as long as the players and PCs both understand that such a discussion would be very interesting if the Inquisition should hear about it.

 

[Nifft]

Interesting...I definitely want to have some sort of schism that can be exploited, but I'm planning to have an old crew vs. new crew on the pirate ship already, so I'm thinking something else. Maybe something similar, though: the captain has a handful of toughs that know it's a slaver ship and that he'll use for the treachery, whereas the remainder are just yer average no-good sailors. PCs may be able to recruit them, especially with mind magic. Also, the other academics aboard (non-mages) could be allies, and their fates when the pirates attack could be interesting.

I dunno. The "old crew / new crew" split only works with top-down hierarchies, like those found on merchant vessels. Pirates crews were far more democratic (which is probably part of why we idolize them) -- they literally voted on who will be captain, in many cases.

One mistake I won't make is having him be a master of spirit or connections. My players, given my last campaign, really hate villains that escape in the final instant, and spirit and connections make that way too easy.

Eh, you can even do that, just so long as he's only ever a lackey-tier scout. Don't make him the super-powered BBEG who always gets away, but there's nothing wrong with a very slippery scout guy (who's not very powerful or dangerous as a combat threat or leader).

Well, I am, unless one of the players really insists on being Teh First Abolitionist. One of the things I like about historical fiction is exploring different mindsets, and I plan to talk clearly with my players about how the game will be more fun if they can try to think like a 17th-century European (assuming that's what they choose to play) instead of like a 21st-century American. A discussion of the evils of slavery would take away from that feel for me, whereas a discussion of the righteousness of the church would add to it--as long as the players and PCs both understand that such a discussion would be very interesting if the Inquisition should hear about it.

Gotcha. If your players can change their mindsets, more power to all of you!

Regarding the Church and all its interpretations, isn't this the heyday of various oddball sects being encouraged to find a new home overseas? A shining city on the hill, and two chickens in every pot? You'd think there would be a lot of discussions going on around the docks. Not in Spanish perhaps...

Cheers, -- N

 

[Starfox]

One of the things I like about historical fiction is exploring different mindsets, and I plan to talk clearly with my players about how the game will be more fun if they can try to think like a 17th-century European (assuming that's what they choose to play) instead of like a 21st-century American. A discussion of the evils of slavery would take away from that feel for me, whereas a discussion of the righteousness of the church would add to it--as long as the players and PCs both understand that such a discussion would be very interesting if the Inquisition should hear about it.

I share the sentiment and like the method acting involved in absorbing the ideologies of different places and times, but I've had some spectacular failures along these lines; apply with caution. No plan (or campaign setup) survives contact with the players.

 

[Pielorinho]

I dunno. The "old crew / new crew" split only works with top-down hierarchies, like those found on merchant vessels. Pirates crews were far more democratic (which is probably part of why we idolize them) -- they literally voted on who will be captain, in many cases.

That was sometimes true, but not always. When you're dealing with a group of people known for robbing and murdering random merchants, it's a little dangerous to ascribe idealistic goals to them across the board. Some pirate crews were pretty democratic, but there are many, many historical instances of captains murdering dissidents, or alternately dissidents murdering captains. (I've been reading up on pirates for the game ). A story about a captain who went easy on captives, maybe even returning them their ship after plundering it, and who consequently got marooned for his troubles by a more bloodthirsty first mate, is practically stolen from the history books.

Regarding the Church and all its interpretations, isn't this the heyday of various oddball sects being encouraged to find a new home overseas? A shining city on the hill, and two chickens in every pot? You'd think there would be a lot of discussions going on around the docks. Not in Spanish perhaps...

That's a good point. I'm really wondering if I can work in a conversation between two people that would apply equally to the church schism and the mage schism....

Starfox,, that's definitely wise about not expecting the players to act how I want them to. I plan to give them the "think like a 17th-century Spaniard" speech in the beginning, with a few pointers on doing it, and then during the game giving them reminders if they start varying too wildly, and if they insist on varying too wildly, running with it.

I had a D&D campaign once with an atheist character in it. I explained to the player that being an atheist in this world was analogous to not believing in germs in our world, that people would think you were insane. She persisted, and that was fine: I just had people look at her funny a lot. Same thing here: if a PC persists in acting like an abolitionist, people will treat her the same way we'd treat someone advocating harsh laws against weeding your garden: as a potentially dangerous nutcase. Even slaves will be unlikely to see abolition as the solution, preferring the solution of "get me the heck out of slavery" followed by, ideally, the chance to own some slaves of their own.

 

[Nifft]

That was sometimes true, but not always. When you're dealing with a group of people known for robbing and murdering random merchants, it's a little dangerous to ascribe idealistic goals to them across the board. Some pirate crews were pretty democratic, but there are many, many historical instances of captains murdering dissidents, or alternately dissidents murdering captains. (I've been reading up on pirates for the game ). A story about a captain who went easy on captives, maybe even returning them their ship after plundering it, and who consequently got marooned for his troubles by a more bloodthirsty first mate, is practically stolen from the history books.

Of course you're right. I shouldn't make the mistake that just because most early democratic ships were pirates (or privateers), that therefore most pirate ships were early democracies.

That's a good point. I'm really wondering if I can work in a conversation between two people that would apply equally to the church schism and the mage schism....

The major schisms are always about the legitimacy of power. Always, always, always.

- Individual vs. Hierarchy: Can an individual's personal experience with the Divine exist outside of interactions with official Church sacraments? Or is that automatically heresy?

- New vs. Old: Can us modern people re-interpret doctrine? If so, who decides truth?

- Secular vs. Sacred: How involved should the Church be in temporal politics? How involved should kings & nations be in Church politics?

Take any banal power struggle and dress it up in the language of passive-aggressive legalistic golden calf paddies.

I plan to give them the "think like a 17th-century Spaniard" speech in the beginning

I would enjoy reading this, if you don't mind posting it here.

Thanks, -- N

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The major schisms are always about the legitimacy of power. Always, always, always.

- Individual vs. Hierarchy: Can an individual's personal experience with the Divine exist outside of interactions with official Church sacraments? Or is that automatically heresy?

- New vs. Old: Can us modern people re-interpret doctrine? If so, who decides truth?

- Secular vs. Sacred: How involved should the Church be in temporal politics? How involved should kings & nations be in Church politics?

FWIW, that goes for nearly any kind of schism, even purely secular ones. You'd be surprised how often things like this break up companies...especially family-owned ones.

 

[Nifft]

Bumping because I wish to hear more about what Pielorinho decides to do with this setting.

 

[Pielorinho]

I'll post more in a few days, after we do character stuff....