The Forge of War

[Crothian]

No feats at all? Bummer.

It's a great thing. We have 5000 feats already

 

[Solarious]

Whoa, no feats or PrC? That's a bold move from WotC.

I approve.

Speaking of the burning of people by Thrane, I think it's believable. All the Five Nations had their good points, but they all have their faults as well. Cyre has it's decadance, Aundair has it's overdependence on magic, Breland is open to complete and utter corruption, Karnnath is... Karnnath, and Thrane has it's misguided zealots. I think there is a reason that Cardinal Krozen is the nominal secular ruler of Thrane.

Don't you agree?

 

[Glyfair]

Whoa, no feats or PrC? That's a bold move from WotC.

I approve.?

I don't. I don't disapprove either.

If feats and prestige classes are appropriate give them to me, don't avoid them just because "there so many already." On the other hand, don't give them to me when they aren't really needed.

At first thought, it seems to me that no feats should be fine. No prestige classes seems odd.

 

[Solarious]

I don't. I don't disapprove either.

If feats and prestige classes are appropriate give them to me, don't avoid them just because "there so many already." On the other hand, don't give them to me when they aren't really needed.

At first thought, it seems to me that no feats should be fine. No prestige classes seems odd.

It's more of a 'I approve of this innovative move, sacraficing crunch in order to inject more crunch into this fluff-deprived area of Eberron'.

I like PrCs as much as most optimizers, and they force up new character ideas all the time, but sometimes it's just better to describe a setting than make more mechanics for the sake of making more mechanics.

 

[Syltorian]

No, that is token ambiguity. Whose to say that in a moment of passion, burning individuals (who are not considered innocents at the time), isn't considered for the greater good? Sometimes lofty ideals combined with fear lead to bad acts. And sometimes people just outright break with their ideals. That is reality, i.e. human nature.

The problem is not that it is ambiguity. The problem is that it runs counter to the dogma of the faith. True, crusades and inquisition also run counter to the 'love thy neighbour' part of Christianity, but the Silver Flame goes a step further: it requires even the most evil of mortals to be given a chance to convert. The Silver Flame needs the souls of mortals to strengthen itself; killing those who do not qualify for joining it is not a radical interpretation of its will, it's actually weakening it.

Of course, as Keith has pointed out, the converts of the last years of the Plague were in it for the revenge and purifying fire, but those were not Thranes. So I'll have to go with Keith's interpretation that the carnage was committed by an influx of such Puritans. I'd see the lynching of foreigners in the streets to be more likely in virtually all of the other countries except Breland, and especially in Cyre (who were, after all, betrayed by everyone else).

Remember also that in the Lycanthropic purges of only a couple hundred years before the Last War, innocent Lycanthropes and Shifters were slain just as well as good ones. The Silver Flame has a demonic Rakshasa entertwined within its core, and occasionally whisperings of doing dark things for the greater good does get out amongst the zealous who don't think about it much. There's more than one reason that all sides wanted to stop the Last War, and I'm willing to bet that Thrane wanted to stop it to regain control of the more "zealous" elements set loose...

I like the last part of your argument, especially with regards to Keith's explanations where those elements come from. But regarding the Lycanthropic Purge, I'll have to disagree: Lycanthropes are the result of a supernatural curse (or disease); they are not humans, and the Silver Flame has a very clear hierarchy of evil. To compare a werebeast to a human infidel does not work; the human infidel can always be converted and turned to the path of the Flame; the werebeast, at least according to the dogma of that time, cannot.

To be fair, the criticism all stems from one or two small sections about the Silver Flame tucked away in the midst of Chapter One.

Or at least, all the criticism I've seen. If people have other problems, by all means, point me to them, and I'll be happy to address 'em.

There are other points which I have pointed out on the WotC boards, after reading the Course of War chapter. I don't know whether you have seen them there, as the boards are down again for their maintenance. In short, some other problems I have noticed are:

Thrane's supposed lack of discipline (whereas I have seen several times Hellcow referring to Thrane as second only to Karrnath in that matter, though I'm not sure whether I found it anywhere official); Thrane's sub-par archers (other sources state that they train with the bow all the time); Krozen being a hard-liner since the beginning (Five Nations disagrees), Thrane being allied with Breland against Cyre (Five Nations describes a battle where Cyre comes to the help of Thrane at that time), the Valenar continuing to serve with Cyre until the 980s (discrepancy mostly acknowledged in the book itself, but I don't quite understand how), Thrane's former capital, Daskara, according to the map being in Aundair at the start (error reprinted from PGtE). I believe there was one or two more, but I cannot remember at the moment. For the details, please check the WotC boards thread (if you haven't done so already; as I said, the boards are down again so I can't check...)

Disclaimer: Yes, many of those are minor, but they still rankle. Keith has addressed many of them at the WotC boards, and he has come up with some great solutions to many of them. But it shouldn't have been necessary. Beyond those errors, though, I agree: the chapter is well written, and has numerous great episodes that make a very good read.

I almost hate to ask, but does the book hint strongly as to the cause of the destruction of Cyre and the creation of the Mournlands? Or it's still left to the DM's discretion?

They mention that shortly before the Mourning, there were some omens and signs that pointed towards it. That's all that I have found so far; though I haven't gotten much past the first chapter. I'm not sure whether I am keen on these portents existing, but they could be explained away with most theories we have know (and perhaps they are simply things which happened many times, and which hindsight has simply linked to the Mourning afterwards).

 

[SecondTime]

The problem is not that it is ambiguity. The problem is that it runs counter to the dogma of the faith. True, crusades and inquisition also run counter to the 'love thy neighbour' part of Christianity, but the Silver Flame goes a step further: it requires even the most evil of mortals to be given a chance to convert. The Silver Flame needs the souls of mortals to strengthen itself; killing those who do not qualify for joining it is not a radical interpretation of its will, it's actually weakening it.

The 'dogma' of the faith is open to interpretation and has to be applied on a case by case basis. What if those committing the atrocities believed their neighbors to be the agents of supernatural evil? There are any number of rationalizations for reactions that spring from fear, a fear of both outsiders and fellow countrymen when the entire political structure of the state is collapsing.

Again, this is a silly argument that makes Thrane look like a caricature. Real societies rarely function strictly according to the precepts of their commonly accepted values, and any dogma can be twisted to bad actions. We are talking humans, not robots.

 

[Henry]

I like the last part of your argument, especially with regards to Keith's explanations where those elements come from. But regarding the Lycanthropic Purge, I'll have to disagree: Lycanthropes are the result of a supernatural curse (or disease); they are not humans, and the Silver Flame has a very clear hierarchy of evil. To compare a werebeast to a human infidel does not work; the human infidel can always be converted and turned to the path of the Flame; the werebeast, at least according to the dogma of that time, cannot.

However, not just Lycanthropes were massacred; shifters were, as well, and they aren't werebeasts, only in the most tenuous sense. And according to canon, as you say there was a good reason for the purges at the beginning, but it's also clear that there were lots of atrocities going on toward the end, too. Plus, as they later learn, not all werebeasts are evil, either, or demons in human form, or all that jazz. Heck, it's not canon, but I'm betting a few changelings were probably killed, too, if someone was using "detect shapeshifter" magic and got carried away. I'd say that the massacres toward the end of the Lycanthropic Purge had just as much in common as the "burn the indifels" incident mentioned; zealots of the faith saw red, and stepped over the line.

 

[Syltorian]

What if those committing the atrocities believed their neighbors to be the agents of supernatural evil?

Then it should say so. What the text mentions is that they attacked their neighbours because they were "impious". That's a step down from "heretics", which is a step down from actually dealing with supernatural forces. There is one single instance where the Silver Flame saw actual supernatural evil in anyone but Karrnath's undead (when Breland tried to traffic with a Marilith), and that reaction I accept. The rest of the atrocities are clearly pointed out to be because the victim is accused of simple impiety.

There are any number of rationalizations for reactions that spring from fear, a fear of both outsiders and fellow countrymen when the entire political structure of the state is collapsing.

For some people to go crazy? Sure. But for the state to condone, and, until fairly late, actively encourage such behaviour? And why only in Thrane? Karrnath, with its martial law and ideas of supremacy, is not recorded to have acted in this way. Neither is Cyre, though they were betrayed by everyone else. The thing is that, while very nation committed war-crimes, Thrane is the only one which consistently acts that way with full government support and encouragement.

Again, this is a silly argument that makes Thrane look like a caricature.

It's the way Thrane is presented at the moment that is a caricature.

A caricature of an evil theocracy pretending hypocritically to be good. There is hardly any of the cliche elements missing. They didn't do anything good at all: they just went over the top with inquisitions, crusades, massacres and generally running amok. Nothing balances it: Thrane is presented as pure and utter black, with no redeeming quality.

I don't think anyone would have a problem with Thrane occasionally committing war-time atrocities. I do not want a pure-white view of them. I accept there will have been isolated incidents, and some communities or generals being overzealous. Bombarding Rekkenmark? No problem with that, even if the Keeper hadn't apologised (the only time he did). Even the occasional, localised purge of foreigners would not be impossible. Such actions are reasonable, if regrettable, possibilities in the context.

But Thrane acts that way on a continuous basis. The only exception is when archons from Savarath get in the way. The presentation of Thrane is simply unbalanced. It's that of unadulterated theocracy-gone-crazy. It's pure darkness. If the fiend in the Flame had taken over, there would be no difference (except less hypocrisy). In other words, Thrane is already a caricature.

Real societies rarely function strictly according to the precepts of their commonly accepted values, and any dogma can be twisted to bad actions. We are talking humans, not robots.

They may not always strictly function according to such values, but they do not consistently go against them either. There is no sign at all of the commonly accepted values as generally associated with the Silver Flame, not a single recorded incident in 100 years, except when outside influence forces them to restrain themselves.

That's the point, really. Thrane's behaviour is consistent. It shows commonly accepted values which it follows strictly, by the reading of the text. And which apparently involve burning everyone who doesn't go to their Churches at least once a day.

Again, these things happening occasionally, under the stress of the war, in the power vacuum and uncertainty of a regime change? Sure. No problem with that. But that's not, unfortunately, how it is presented. Thrane, in the end (and read the description of the Thrane character in Five Nations, for instance), should be mostly good. Good people can make errors, and do terrible things. But not as what amounts to common practice.

All those of us who are angry at this treatment want is a balanced view of Thrane, like we get for all the other nations. The Thranes are not all-good. But they are not, in general, villains either.

 

[Syltorian]

Sorry for the double post. Yours got in while I was typing, so I saw it too late.

However, not just Lycanthropes were massacred; shifters were, as well, and they aren't werebeasts, only in the most tenuous sense.

It's also canon that the shifters were killed because Lycanthropes pointed the templars that way. "Clever lycanthropes fanned the puritans' paranoia toward the shifters, and these mistrustful folk massacred hundreds of shifters before someone could prove to them that shifters did not carry the curse." That is a direct quote from the Dragonshard on that subject. They were not that much misguided by their own beliefs, though they were inclined to be misguided by their enemies. That probably doesn't matter to the killed shifters, but most of the Templars would probably be horrified once they found out how they had been had.

And according to canon, as you say there was a good reason for the purges at the beginning, but it's also clear that there were lots of atrocities going on toward the end, too.

Committed not by Thranes, but by Aundairian converts out for revenge; at least, according to Keith's Baker. It's not quite official, unfortunately.

Plus, as they later learn, not all werebeasts are evil, either, or demons in human form, or all that jazz.

No, but they still carry a taint. Lycanthropy is a curse that changes the soul, for good or evil, but it taints the soul. An afflicted lycanthrope has her alignment and behaviour, thought patterns and feelings changed. The Church has now accepted that good lycanthropes should not be killed, but the situation has changed too: afflicted lycanthropes do not spread their curse anymore, and good lycanthropes do not fall into evil due to some unexplained, but undeniably existing cause.

Heck, it's not canon, but I'm betting a few changelings were probably killed, too, if someone was using "detect shapeshifter" magic and got carried away.

Possible, but it was not Church policy. And probably everyone who would have been caught doing that would be defrocked and/or asked to undergo penance or atonement. I also find it more likely that the changelings who were killed were murdered by frenzied and panicked peasants, rather than Silver Flame templars.

I'd say that the massacres toward the end of the Lycanthropic Purge had just as much in common as the "burn the indifels" incident mentioned; zealots of the faith saw red, and stepped over the line.

Not quite: while there are good lycanthropes, werecreatures still occupy a much higher position on the Silver Flame hierarchy of evil than humans do, and believing in a different god does not even make the scale, unless that god is evil.

By the doctrine of the time, the Lycanthrope's souls were tainted and de facto, however regrettably, barred from joining the Flame. Humans, however infidel, can be converted and, if they then go on to live a virtuous life, join the Flame after death.

So, killing the lycanthrope is not going to lose the Flame a soul, he cannot join it anyway. Killing a human, however, is similar as taking a virtuous templar's sword away. It weakens the position of the Flame, it weakens the defenses of the world against evil.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Then it should say so. What the text mentions is that they attacked their neighbours because they were "impious". That's a step down from "heretics", which is a step down from actually dealing with supernatural forces. There is one single instance where the Silver Flame saw actual supernatural evil in anyone but Karrnath's undead (when Breland tried to traffic with a Marilith), and that reaction I accept. The rest of the atrocities are clearly pointed out to be because the victim is accused of simple impiety.

I"m waiting for Forge of War to arrive, so I'm not sure how far the section goes, but it seems that you're accepting the current Silver Flame doctrine as if it's a universal truth. While now "convert or die" is not used, I don't find it unbelievable that at various points in the past, flare ups have occured based on all manner of human traits. Since it wasn't mentioned before doesn't mean it never happened, given there's lots of parts of history that go unexplored.