JohnSnow said:
Emphasis mine.
The problem here isn't actually that you have a player who thinks this hook is illogical. The problem is that YOU think this hook is illogical. So fine, don't use it. There are plenty of perfectly logical explanations for this hook, except that you have arbitrarily decided that they don't fit with YOUR conception of how the Points of Light setting works.
Actually it's how both I and my players would feel about it (I know my players). I'm not sure which "perfectly logical explanations" you're referring to, but yes, there are ways to make it work better. Note that I'm *NOT* debating that such rites have historically existed. Yet my players would want to know *why* this rite exists. Does it have any historical, cultural or religious signifigance? I guess that in most groups it's fine if the DM just says: "You have do it because the whole village pressures you to take part in this tradition. Um, it has existed for so long that nobody really remembers why it's such an important tradition in Greenbrier. Alright, no more questions!" Wouldn't work for my players -- they'd just say that I had been sloppy with my pre-play prep work.
As for your arguments on the points I highlighted from the article -- like I've said before, you can draw parallels to Real World societies or historical eras, but it's not really an accurate assessment to say that "It should work like this since Old West worked like this and Ancient Greece had this and yet Arthurian Myths mention this etcetera etcetera". It's even less credible if you cite different sources and eras for different points. While it's far too early to yet tell how "dark" or "gritty" the "official" 'Points of Light' will be, I really believe that they literally meant all those things mentioned in the articles, because in 4E *everything* seems to be about the heroes preventing the world (or their immediate surroundings) from falling into the Darkness. I haven't yet seen any direct references to Ancient Greece or the Iron Age Ireland (unless you consider Faerie and the Fey as such).
You say that "The weak aren't needed by any society", yet here's the thing: a small farming community which can no longer rely very much on hunting or gathering (due to the monsters and the burning of the forest) either needs *ALL* of its members to survive or has to have trading partners to import more tools, livestock and food. In a farming community even the "weakest" members can participate in some activities that are beneficial for his/her family. In a self-sufficient community that mostly relies on farming for its food, at least 90% of the population have to be farmers. This has been the same in many warrior cultures as well -- even the Mighty Sparta relied on its serfs (that comprised about 95% of the population, IIRC) who farmed the land and provided the food for the upper warrior class (i.e. nobility). And if we think about Africa, yes, their most tribes *had* to weed out the weak because they had to rely on strong hunters. Warrior societies that had slaves or serfs to take care of producing food could *afford* to weed out the weak (they wanted to produce strong *warriors*, after all). Yet in a society that consists primarily of *farmers*, it'd be a foolish thing to sent them out to kill lions to prove their worth, right? So where's the logic behind such a rite?
Also note that a small and (more or less) isolated community quickly falls to inbreeding (i.e. marriages between cousins) which may result in even more "weak" members if you start "weeding out the weak". A town of, say, 2000 people is a completely another matter, and I could understand why they'd want to get rid of the "weakest links" among the population.
I think it's important to consider these things as you're designing the setting. I liked how James mentions the dwarven merchants and caravans which trade with Greenbrier in his first Dungeoncraft installment. This explains how the PCs can get their hands on weapons, armour, adventuring gear and tools. It also presents them with an opportunity to sell loot (which would otherwise be pretty much impossible in small village) and buy masterwork or magical stuff, too. And new PCs may arrive with these caravans into the village, no matter how dangerous the roads become.
What I would have added to the village would be some "mentor-type" NPCs (a wizard, at least) who could have trained the PCs, and probably a contingent of King's or local Duke's soldiers. Maybe these soldiers sent some scouts to explore the Chasm but they never returned? And perhaps the weary captain ask the PCs to later explore the ruins of the Tower Watch so that he could establish it as a proper military base? This may even be the original reason why the soldiers were sent to the village, but they are too weak to take on the ruins themselves.
I know very well that if I DMed for less inquisitive players who love to pay attention to (and ask about) a gazillion little detail in the setting (economy, religions, local customs, architecture, etc.), I'd probably get off far easier. However, I also love world-building, so I actually take pride in seeing my players really caring deeply about the setting and immersing themselves in it. The downside to this is that they *expect* me to spend a lot of time in fleshing out a lot of details and NPCs.
