Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Yair" data-source="post: 3365202" data-attributes="member: 10913">I like Midnight, but I must agree that there are some elements therein that really don't make much sense. Not having rain in the forest for 10 years is a good example. I don't think the work needed to &quot;convert&quot; the setting to your liking is that great, however. I basically find it's a very inspiritng setting, and don't find it difficult to imagine a slightly different - and for me, more realistic - Midnight.I must agree that the Dark Ages, just post the fall of Rome, are an excellent comparison to the setting as I see it. And yes, there IS trade. The gnomes on the river, for example, are great traders - and not very loyal. Why? Why doesn't the Shadow replace them or destroy them? In my version of Midnight - because it knows the continent-wide trade they supply is very much needed, and that attempting to replace them with less skilled traders may cost it more than the damage their disloyalty breeds.Overall, I see the setting as one where a feudal king conquered the lands and is taxing it as high as it can bear. In places he taxed too much, and they became desolate (ruined cities, lost halfling communities...). Some places rebelled or refused to capitulate, leading him to commit genocide - clearing the northern reaches and importing his own people, the Orcs, in. But for the most part that people aren't really any worse than if they were under the reign of a particularly harsh king - complete with local barons taxing river crossings, robber barons driven to become outlaws by the king's demands, tax audits and raids, disallowing them the commoners to own weapons or warhorses, disallowing the lowly vassals to travel from their lord's lands, and so on. The picture isn't really much different from that of the harsher side of Dark Age feudalism.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Yair, post: 3365202, member: 10913"] I like Midnight, but I must agree that there are some elements therein that really don't make much sense. Not having rain in the forest for 10 years is a good example. I don't think the work needed to "convert" the setting to your liking is that great, however. I basically find it's a very inspiritng setting, and don't find it difficult to imagine a slightly different - and for me, more realistic - Midnight. I must agree that the Dark Ages, just post the fall of Rome, are an excellent comparison to the setting as I see it. And yes, there IS trade. The gnomes on the river, for example, are great traders - and not very loyal. Why? Why doesn't the Shadow replace them or destroy them? In my version of Midnight - because it knows the continent-wide trade they supply is very much needed, and that attempting to replace them with less skilled traders may cost it more than the damage their disloyalty breeds. Overall, I see the setting as one where a feudal king conquered the lands and is taxing it as high as it can bear. In places he taxed too much, and they became desolate (ruined cities, lost halfling communities...). Some places rebelled or refused to capitulate, leading him to commit genocide - clearing the northern reaches and importing his own people, the Orcs, in. But for the most part that people aren't really any worse than if they were under the reign of a particularly harsh king - complete with local barons taxing river crossings, robber barons driven to become outlaws by the king's demands, tax audits and raids, disallowing them the commoners to own weapons or warhorses, disallowing the lowly vassals to travel from their lord's lands, and so on. The picture isn't really much different from that of the harsher side of Dark Age feudalism. [/QUOTE]

Verification