Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Syltorian" data-source="post: 3597041" data-attributes="member: 17406">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. 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. 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. 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.</blockquote>

Verification