Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sinuhe" data-source="post: 214718" data-attributes="member: 3295">Beorth and the woman in chainsAs the player of Beorth, I would like to respond to Masterof Heaven's post of earlier.  I think that having a player speak about the situation probably would clarify the "why, the "what" and the exact reasons why we did not mount an all out assault upon the Druids of the Thorn.  In fact, as a group, we did no more than "go along" with the Druids and some people might call into question the actions (and lack thereof) of Beorth, who is a lawful good paladin.  This post serves as a defense of Nemmerle's approach and also of the actions of Beorth while there.  Though in many ways, a "public defense" of how I play my character should not be required.First and foremost, I would like to applaud Nemmerle's take on the Circle of the Thorn.  I think that they are a very interesting group of characters and also a VERY welcome twist on traditional druid.  Nemm's druids are not a "throwback" to the 2nd edition, but I would say an advancement and an innovation on the sylvan druids that are more typically found in various campaigns.  In fact, I would say that they are definitely in line with the "new and improved" 3rd edition---  the people at Wizards of the Coast claim how they reinvented and upgraded many of the old classes to make them more interesting and fun to play.  And it seems to me that the Circle of the Thorn is just such a group.Of course, I DO NOT know the original source for the Circle (though I know some of the readers of the story hour do) so I DO NOT know how much of the original is Nemmerle's.  I know quite simply that the Circle was a remarkable bit of DMingThe Circle of the Thorn was definitely a test of the morals of our group and was a challenge to handle for all of us  (I think, on that issue, everyone in the group would agree.)MasterofHeaven, I think that more information about the campaign world (Aquerra) and the deities involved would probably lead to a better understanding of why our characters behaved the way they did.  My character, I believe, as a devout believer in the pantheon of Ra and a follower of Anubis has a certain level of understanding of the issues at work here.  As a player, however, my understanding (and thus Beorth's take on it)comes strictly from the Aquerra Player's Handbook.  Osiris functions in 2 main ways.  He is the God of Nature and also the Judge of the Dead.  He and his followers are responsible for the "continuation of the cycle of nature" and ensuring the "balance of the universe" (i.e. the interplay of good vs. evil) He is also the diety that judges the spirits of the dead after they leave Anubis' realm.  As an extension of this role, the Circle of the Thorn may sit in judgement on other characters (living characters, I mean) and metes out the "punishment" for actions taken.  It is part of their duty to balance wrong doing with the proper punishment.  In addition they uphold very strictly, the idea of "give and take."  To receive in their world, one must "give" something in return.  To receive help from the Circle, the players were required to "give" a fingernail.  They were required to sacrifice something to receive something.  It is a very interesting example of "balance."   Grisly and grotesque, but definitely interesting. Beorth cut off his finger as a protest.  By taking it one step beyond, he was not performing an act of "stupidity;" he was being subtley critical of the whole idea.As far as the "woman in chains" that we failed to release, it is also a known fact (by Beorth and by others), that some individuals convicted of crimes ASK to be given over to the Druids to be sacrificed to Osiris.  I quote from the Aquerra guide:  "This is done in hope of one of two things.  The first is that the druids (who are not overly concerned with human law) will let the criminal go free through negligence.  The second is the hope of the criminal that by sacrificing himself Osiris will judge him more mercifully."  (APH 26)  Beorth and Ratchis both knew of this (religion rolls were required) and THAT is why they did not charge in to save her and demand her release.  The prisoner committed a crime and she chose to be taken into the Circle as a prisoner.  She could have chosen to die by other means.All of these arguments aside, I think what this comes down to is the fact that as a group we were NOT given a choice.  It was required that we perform the task set by Osiris and the task would NOT have been completed had the group behaved in any other way.  As terrible and purportedly "evil" the  races and the attitude of the Circle were, these creatures represent a very important figure in the Aquerran Pantheon, a figure that we were sworn to work for.  In the interest of "balance" Osiris "gave" Jeremy his life back (at the behest of the group) and in return he set these 4 tasks to be completed by the party. Since leaving Verdun, Beorth has learned that piety is not a simple and clear path.  He owes allegiance to Anubis, but also to the other Gods as well.  And he must accept and understand the way that their sects act and behave--- even if their actions are questionable on the surface.  Only an idiot would choose to disobey a God of Osiris' nature and standing---  he is second in line in the power structure of the pantheon, after all.Now for the disclaimer.  I hope that I didn't misrepresent Aquerra in this post.  I am writing as a player and not the DM of Aquerra.  I don't know if my interpretations are correct and I am sure that Nemmerle can respond directly (and will) to any mistakes and false assumtions that I made.  Also I would urge anyone to visit the Aquerra boards for more info about the world that we play in.  It may clarify the story hour for those of you unfamiliar.</blockquote>

Verification