The Gorgon's Legions [Archive]

dalor

11-11-2006, 05:33 AM

Just that dwarves would make a better anchor in my
opinion...they are the less mobile of the forces and
have better armor generally because of their
technology level.

I say this primarily because I don`t recall Orogs
being all that disciplined in set piece battle (being
used to fighting mostly underground) and not very many
humans at all serving the Gorgon who aren`t
mercenaries or such as that.

Only thought I have.

Anthony Edwards

--- The Swordgaunt <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net
> message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
>
http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3163
>
> The Swordgaunt wrote:
> The description of the Anuirean culture says that
> it`s a mix of Ancient Rome and medieval Britain.
> This leads me to think that the armies of tha Andu
> would have been organized around a legion-model
> (granted, Haelyns weapon of choice is the longsword,
> but in a world that alowes true heroes, personal
> combat would have been emphasised). In the post
> empire Anuire, no Realm can field a true legion, so
> the medieval army-model is the obvious choice.
>
> The Gorgon, however, was present at Deismar, and
> would be intimately familiar with Roman-style
> warfare. To me, it seems unlikely that he would use
> ill-trained men-at-arms when he knows the eficiency
> of a legion.
>
> Now, I`ve given this some thought, and I believe a
> late-medieval legion would be equipped with
> platemail armor, large shields, long-spears and
> shortswords. I also think that such a force would be
> able to stop a mounted charge.
>
> Imagine the Legions of Evil. Goblin auxilliaries an
> masse, used to weaken the enemy. Auxilliaries of
> dwarves and men to form units of archers and
> cavalry. Finally, legions of Orogs (or men) to
> anchor the centre or deliver the chrushing blow to
> the enemy.
>
> Any thoughts?

__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com

The Swordgaunt

11-11-2006, 05:52 PM

Another thing I've been contemplating is the fortificaions in a fantasy setting. Normally, whenever a castle is described or depicted, it follows the real-world convention. Is this really plausible? The fortifications of medieval Europe were built to stop siege engines and medium sized soldiers, while a fantasy castle might have to deal with entirely different threats.

If we look at the forces mentioned so far in this thread, we have Dwarves whose sapper skills would shame most medieval engineers off the field. The Orogs are also exeptionally adept at tunnel-fights, and together this would form a dangerous force of sappers.

Then we have the Giants. What good is a ten meters high wall if the attackers can climb it as easily as a man climps a fence? Not to mention how fast a couple of Giants can move a battering ram up to the curtain wall.

Andrew Tall mentioned Wyverns, whitch brings an entirely new factor into the problem. No medieval castle I've ever heard of has any Anti-Air measures, in fact, they are totally defenceless against such opponents. Imagine a wizard mounted on a flying creature, raining fireballs and other area affecting spells down on defenceless defenders (no pun intended). Or worse, how would a castle defend itself against a dragon?

And then there is magic. Stone to mud can be really destructive to a castle wall, and the fireball can be equally effective from the ground. Granted, a wizard on the walls can be destructive for the attackers, but it's easy to conceal a spellcaster among your troops and have him clear a section of the wall long enough to get the ladders raised.

Some measures I can think of are thick, sloped walls, akin to those built after the introduction of cannons on the real-world battlefields. The ramparts and towers would also have to be protected by roofs covered with metal or wet hide to defend against spells and breath-weapons, as well as spikes to prevent flying creatures to land (like the spikes on ledges to stop pidgeons from roosting). A solid net could also stop these creatures from landing inside the walls. As for the Anti-Air, ballistae and wizards could do the job, but in the case of the former, they would have to be mounted on rigs alowing for swift and accurate aiming.

geeman

11-12-2006, 06:37 AM

At 06:47 AM 11/10/2006, The Swordgaunt wrote:

>The description of the Anuirean culture says that it`s a mix of
>Ancient Rome and medieval Britain. This leads me to think that the
>armies of tha Andu would have been organized around a legion-model
>(granted, Haelyns weapon of choice is the longsword, but in a world
>that alowes true heroes, personal combat would have been
>emphasised). In the post empire Anuire, no Realm can field a true
>legion, so the medieval army-model is the obvious choice.

I think the ancient Rome reference is more of a nod toward the
current Anuirean culture having a similar background to that of
medieval Britain rather than a more 50/50 mix. Medieval Britain had
a lot of Roman influences ranging from Hadrian`s Wall to the
vocabulary of empire. There is a school of thought, in fact, that
says one can`t really talk about any European culture without finding
a lot of Roman influence. In BR, even the Vos use terms (czar,
czarina, etc.) that are in the real world derived from the Roman empire.

If considered more carefully, though, I don`t think the Rome/Britain
comparison is really all that apt. Unless we`re talking about some
empire from Aduria about which we know nothing, the only empire in
the background of the BR setting is that of the Anuireans, and that
one is IMO more aptly compared to the Carolingians in terms of size,
culture, influence, etc. than ancient Rome. Charlemagne, of course,
had his Roman influences and ambitions, but if we picture the great
one without a Roman empire in his historical and geographical
proximity, we get what I think is a more accurate idea of what
Anuirean culture would be like.

>The Gorgon, however, was present at Deismar, and would be intimately
>familiar with Roman-style warfare. To me, it seems unlikely that he
>would use ill-trained men-at-arms when he knows the eficiency of a legion.

I`m with you on this one, if for slightly different reasons. While I
don`t think the Gorgon`s background is really Roman per se, he would
have memory of a much greater time in Anuirean military history when
troops fought in numbers equal to legions, and he is himself a rather
radical militant dictator, so he`d be involved in the training of his
troops in a way that is more thorough than nearly any other Cerilian
ruler (only one or two of the other awnsheghlien come to mind.) When
it boils down to it, there are a lot of things that might negatively
impact the morale of the Gorgon`s troops, but lack of training is
probably not one of them. The Gorgon would be the kind of task
master that`d make Patton look like a surfer dude. His troops would
be drilled constantly if for no other reason than as a tribute to his
titanic ego, and their discipline would likely be
unquestioning. Imagine if the general in command could kill with a
glance while troops were on parade? That`d certainly influence how
carefully individual soldiers marched in step.... As a commander,
though, the Gorgon does seem the type to delegate rather than be
involved personally (which is really something of a neutral factor
given when one adds up the plusses and minuses) so he his soldiers
would probably only experience the negative aspects of his attention,
like dropping dead from his stony glance.

>Now, I`ve given this some thought, and I believe a late-medieval
>legion would be equipped with platemail armor, large shields,
>long-spears and shortswords. I also think that such a force would be
>able to stop a mounted charge.

Pikes, pikes, pikes. Pikes are an issue in any system of large scale
combat, and we occasionally address them around here. When it comes
to specific equipment for the Gorgon`s troops, though, I don`t see
them as being all that well armored, except for the dwarves,
especially those meant to wield pikes. It`s hard enough to run
around with one of those things without being covered in metal plates.

As a sidenote: Historically, there are really four ways to deal
effectively with heavy cavalry of the type that appears to be the
ideal in Anuire before the appearance of firearms:

1. Pikes.
2. Missile weapons (usually longbows.)
3. Light cavalry with missile weapons.
4. Fortifications.

Arguably, #2 and #3 are the same, but I list them separately in order
to note that the tactics employed and equipment are really very
different. Archers are usually pretty static troops. They line up
and fire as a unit. Light cavalry is geared towards hit and run
tactics. The Mongols are the classic example of such units in
military history, but I always think of the horse culture of various
native American plain tribes as a purer reflection of the concept
because they relied more heavily on the tactic than did even the
Mongols who are so famous for that type of warfare. The Mongols,
after all, had wagon trains with siege weapons backing them up.

Of course, in a fantasy setting, we must add another category:

5. Magic.

Really, that`s the big one.... In BR, a unit of pikemen is probably
cheaper than hiring a wizard with a Wand of Fireballs, but since the
magic weapons are so much more effective than conventional ones the
general who ignores magic would do so at his peril.

>Imagine the Legions of Evil. Goblin auxilliaries an masse, used to
>weaken the enemy. Auxilliaries of dwarves and men to form units of
>archers and cavalry. Finally, legions of Orogs (or men) to anchor
>the centre or deliver the chrushing blow to the enemy.
>
>Any thoughts?

For some reason, I picture dwarves as point troops.... It`s not
really reflected by the rules, mind you, just an image in my head or
from my Tolkien fetish. "Run away!"

In the Gorgon`s army one should probably take into consideration that
the troops might be lined up not only in order of their effectiveness
but also according to their racial enmities. While they would
probably be very disciplined in normal circumstances like training
and review, once deployed on the battlefield troops like goblins
might turn on their dwarven "allies" in the midst of battle. The
same might be said of any combination of goblin or orog troops with
dwarven ones. Keeping human units between troops of those types
might be the default way of organizing them.... At least, it`s a
consideration that goes to their culture not just the military
tactics, which could be defined as the essence of role-playing at the
large scale combat level....

Gary

AndrewTall

11-12-2006, 02:19 PM

> 5. Magic.
> Really, that`s the big one.... In BR, a unit of pikemen is probably
> cheaper than hiring a wizard with a Wand of Fireballs, but since the
> magic weapons are so much more effective than conventional ones the
> general who ignores magic would do so at his peril.

It's worth remembering how rare magic is in Birthright, whereas a castle in the Forgotten Realms must be able to defend against the village archmage, in Birthright very few spell-casters exist who can cast L3 evocation spells such as fireball. Also good thick walls are still about the only defence against magic, the alternative is large numbers of small (and cheap) forts, which would be vulnerable to conventional troops.

Of course if one could hire a wizard with the legendary wand of fire then few fortifications would be safe - but a prudent ruler would keep such a rare and valuable resource to defend their own walls.

I would note finally that wizards tend to have relatively poor armour classes and respond badly to being pincushoned by a few dozen arrows, any wizard who gets close enough to the walls to cast passwall, stone to mud, etc is either certificable or suicidal. Given that only a Khinasi/elven regent might have more than one or two such wizards in their entire realm it is likely that the general who squanders his wizards in such a way would rapidly find himself without their assistance.

Defences against magic could include draft-proofing (stops gaseous foes), thicker walls (a wall to mud may make a small breach but not penetrate), water / sand bags for dealing with sudden fires, canopies over the walls for arial attacks (sloping to deflect such attacks outside the walls), internal walls to stop fireballs, etc expanding through the defences, etc.

> If we look at the forces mentioned so far in this thread, we have Dwarves > whose sapper skills would shame most medieval engineers off the field. The > Orogs are also exeptionally adept at tunnel-fights, and together this would > form a dangerous force of sappers.

One word, moats :) . Most castles will have water on at least three sides (a river bend for example is the classic European location for a town/castle, alongside local hillstops). Water is very effective at stopping tunneling (as long as you don't have aquatic dwarves). Also it should be noted that sapping takes a lot of time - even for dwarves, and if the tunnel entrance is too close the the castle it can be attacked - incidentally even dwarves would need a surface exit as the excavated earth/stone needs to go somewhere, not to mention ventilation requirements.

>then we have the Giants. What good is a ten meters high wall if the >attackers can climb it as easily as a man climps a fence? Not to mention >how fast a couple of Giants can move a battering ram up to the curtain wall.

True, but then at least the walls will slow the giant down and give defenders a chance to introduce them to the concept of boiling oil. Its worth remembering that giants would need fairly substantial hand/footholds to climb as well - cracks between castle wall blocks would be of as much use to them as the fine lines between bricks of a marble wall to human hands. Of course the giants can always stand on each other to get over walls too large just to hurdle.

>once deployed on the battlefield troops like goblins
>might turn on their dwarven "allies" in the midst of battle.

And vice versa, certainly if the Gorgon was elsewhere I can see the dwarves of Murkilad happily watching while their Markozor 'allies' are cut to ribbons, or even 'accidentally' carving their way through the goblins and orogs to get to their 'real' opponents. Certainly any goblin forces who made a 'tactical withdrawal' could expect little sympathy from the dwarves who would only be too happy to call the withdrawal desertion from the field of battle and punish the goblins on the Gorgon's behalf...

The limitation I see in aerial troops is the fact that they tend to be lightly armoured and vulnerable to archers/ballistae, and dropped rocks/etc are notoriously inaccurate when the bomber is fast moving unless they either slow down or get very close.

I don't think it is possible to build a castle that can defend against a dragon / archmage. But it should be realised that a ruler defends against known, common threats - a castle is great against conventional troops and makes a firm statement of power to the local population, not to mention the fact that a lord needs somewhere to live and that someehere must be quite secure.

kgauck

11-13-2006, 02:15 AM

Short version: If I can buff characters, why can't I buff my fortification?

Long version:
I'm not sure that a fireball does any damage at all to stone fortifications. If we look at real world stone, its already been subjected to greater heat and pressure than a fireball. Fireballs bother people because people don't like to be burned. Whether that damage is injury, exhaustion, or something else doesn't matter, the d20 damage systems take both into account without serious distinction. I can easily imagine that threat of dragons, flying wizards, or just catapults with buckets of burning oil, might be sufficient to eliminate wood as a fortification building material. So aside from wood, what would a castle look like? Anti-aircraft springs to mind, but generally I think its unneccesary. Unless you imagine that flying wizards or dragons have an unlimited loiter time and vast amounts of fire to fling, all a castle really needs is a "bomb shelter" handy for its defenders. Most places that actually experience aerial bombardment get by with just shelters. Anti-aircraft is generally reserved for places that expect sustained bombardment. But are fireballs so easy to come by that they can be analogized to artillery high explosives or air dropped bombs? I think that bombs and shells for an industrial society is measured by the ton.

If fireballs don't do terribly much damage to stone structures, and they are only available in single or double digits to an attacker, they don't seem terribly important. Or their import is how vulnerable the people standing outside the castle besieging it are to a fireball thrown from the walls.

Also, generally, we find in war that defense is pretty closely aligned to offense. At various times one or the other gets the upper hand for a generation before the other side figures out the counter-measures. If this can be expected to exist in BR (and why not?) then defenses to walls should basically counter all magical attacks of the same magnitude. If a castle has three mages prepare a castle by setting up triggered counter spells or dispells in such a way that they don't tie up spell slots for more than a day (their are enough ways to do this that detailing them all is a tactical analysis beyond my present purpose) and an attacking force has three comperable mages, they should find attack no easier than anyone else. As long as my three defending mages can apply defenses, we have a perpetual stalemate until the one side can alter the balance of mages on either side.

Before a siege, fighters will look over the fortification to determine where last minute repairs or additional defenses need to be undertaken. Likewise, mages will do the same thing just in the metaphysical realm (so to speak) while fighters deal with the physical realm.

If the focus in battle tactics are all physical, mundane and magical, and defenses are limited to the physical, mages and clerics will appear to be far more powerful than anyone else. Obviously the reverse would be true if we confine ourselves to magic back and forth in the magical realm and one spellcaster hires a peasant to walk over and hit the other guy in the head with a rock. Because we have intimate knowledge of the material world, we tend to make all kinds of assessments about how this or that effect it, but does it not make sense that if mages exist, their real enemies are other mages. Certainly a look at spells show that there are lots of spells that, like arcane lock and knock, presume spell vs spell. Scry and Obscure Object perhaps even more so, because fighters don't bust down anything. Desecrate and Sanctify, &c, &c.

Why not assume that defending spellcasters set up magical traps on the battlefield to warp the wood of siege engines, or assume that spellcasters have a Protection from Energyy version that can be cast on a building, section of wall, or object, rather than just people. The original is a 3rd level spell.

Perhaps the conventional view is that one guy Disintergrates a section of my fortress wall and I throw up a Wall of Stone to counter that. Another interpretaion would be that I could have enhanced the raw statistics (hardness, hp, &c) or the save bonus of my fortification. I don't see spells that are designed to protect buildings, but its only natural to assume they could exist by extrapolation for similar spells designed to buff characters.

RaspK_FOG

11-13-2006, 12:15 PM

I'm not sure that a fireball does any damage at all to stone fortifications. If we look at real world stone, its already been subjected to greater heat and pressure than a fireball. Fireballs bother people because people don't like to be burned. Whether that damage is injury, exhaustion, or something else doesn't matter, the d20 damage systems take both into account without serious distinction. I can easily imagine that threat of dragons, flying wizards, or just catapults with buckets of burning oil, might be sufficient to eliminate wood as a fortification building material.
Actually, that's wrong: stone had once been subjected to heat; it's current form is what it looks like after it cools down, and pressure is what packs it tight, whereas a fireball is pure heat, and extremely potent at that (enough to melt even stone, according to the theme behind the spell). In fact, I find it mistaken that people generally don't reduce wall and floor hit points whenever fireball is used: to common people, fireball is no less than hellfire unleashed! Remember, though: stone suffers only half damage from heat, does not catch on fire, and its durability is very decent (8 hardness, 15 hit points/inch [consider that exterior stone walls reached 2 feet of thickness, or 360 hit points for each 5'×5' section!]), which is, in the end, the main reason people don't take such damage into account.

So aside from wood, what would a castle look like? Anti-aircraft springs to mind, but generally I think its unneccesary. Unless you imagine that flying wizards or dragons have an unlimited loiter time and vast amounts of fire to fling, all a castle really needs is a "bomb shelter" handy for its defenders. Most places that actually experience aerial bombardment get by with just shelters. Anti-aircraft is generally reserved for places that expect sustained bombardment. But are fireballs so easy to come by that they can be analogized to artillery high explosives or air dropped bombs? I think that bombs and shells for an industrial society is measured by the ton.
I consider the average flying-by-and-still-fire-volleying wizard or dragon rare enough as not to be such a great matter of consideration in most castles, if any at all...

If fireballs don't do terribly much damage to stone structures, and they are only available in single or double digits to an attacker, they don't seem terribly important. Or their import is how vulnerable the people standing outside the castle besieging it are to a fireball thrown from the walls.
There are many things to consider; in the end, my above notes show that breaching a 5'×5' section is possible, yet fireball is not your best option. Higher level spells are great, but allow me to remind you that disintegrate is not normally allowed to be used with floor panes or wall sections (your DM may rule that you can affect 1 portion of it, but that would take way to much time).

Also, generally, we find in war that defense is pretty closely aligned to offense. At various times one or the other gets the upper hand for a generation before the other side figures out the counter-measures. If this can be expected to exist in BR (and why not?) then defenses to walls should basically counter all magical attacks of the same magnitude. If a castle has three mages prepare a castle by setting up triggered counter spells or dispells in such a way that they don't tie up spell slots for more than a day (their are enough ways to do this that detailing them all is a tactical analysis beyond my present purpose) and an attacking force has three comperable mages, they should find attack no easier than anyone else. As long as my three defending mages can apply defenses, we have a perpetual stalemate until the one side can alter the balance of mages on either side.

Before a siege, fighters will look over the fortification to determine where last minute repairs or additional defenses need to be undertaken. Likewise, mages will do the same thing just in the metaphysical realm (so to speak) while fighters deal with the physical realm.
Check out the rules on magically reinforced walls in the DMG.

kgauck

11-14-2006, 02:37 AM

stone had once been subjected to heat; it's current form is what it looks like after it cools down, and pressure is what packs it tight, whereas a fireball is pure heat, and extremely potent at that (enough to melt even stone, according to the theme behind the spell). In fact, I find it mistaken that people generally don't reduce wall and floor hit points whenever fireball is used: to common people, fireball is no less than hellfire unleashed!

The amount of damage neccesary to do damage to stone is measured in multiple hundreds of degrees Celsius and hours of exposure. The damage neccesary to do damage to flesh is much lower. If a fireball were actually hellfire unleashed it would do considerably more damage to people (such as reduce them to power) and we could seriously discuss for game purposes what a momentary blast of such heat could do to stone. But, if a fireball's heat does five to ten d6 to people, at best its the kind of heat that can do 3rd degree burns with a full round of exposure. Consider this burn chart for flesh damage.

155F (68.3C) 1 second
145F (62.9C) 3 seconds
135F (57.2C) 10 seconds
130F (54.4C) 30 seconds
125F (51.6C) 2 minutes
120F (48.8C) 5 minutes

Now consider that in terms of fire protection, steam at 100°C is considered cold. 540°C, for example, is considered the critical temperature for structural steel, above which, it is in jeopardy of losing its strength, leading to collapse. Six inches thick of most building stone is expected to last four hours of sustained heat at 1000°C (2000°F).

The difference between damaging people and damaging stone requires an increase in tempreture by an order magnitude or more, and a duration of 400 times longer. I have no doubt believing, based on my common knowledge of fire that a blast of intense heat could hurt people. The chart I provided identifies specifics, but that is not required to convince me that fireballs hurt people. Exact tempretures and durations are not required, its in the right ballpark. The tempreture required to damage stone used in construction is so much greater, that no window exists in which people could survive but stone is damaged. Either people can survive a fireball and stone is entirely undamaged, or people are a pile of ash and stone might get damaged.

I only bother to carry this real world data into such a discussion because the gap between damage to flesh and damage to stone by fire is so terribly great that even a casual observer can see ruins left by fires, cities sacked, or other damage and observe the stone that not only survives, but is suitable for re-building. If stone did not survive intense fires (such as the London fire of 1666) then the observable and describable landscape for PC's would be substantially different.

RaspK_FOG

11-15-2006, 07:53 AM

Uh-huh... yeah. Remind me to wear plate armour in your games against the first wizard or druid that is very well known for his habit of using electricity spells; in case you didn't know, there's this whole Faraday cage phenomenon that would make me completely immune to electricity damage, and, according to the rules, there's only electricity damage in the process, so I'm cool.

I see where you come from, but simple examples like the one above show why too much realism can be a pain in the character sheet. Would you rather strive for: "Magic should be able overcome some obstacles." or the whole: "Magic Structural Services, Ltd." thing?

And, in case you didn't chech it out, look up on dungeon stats in the DMG; my calculations were far from off, actually:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/dungeons.htm

"The most common kind of dungeon wall, masonry walls are usually at least 1 foot thick."

"Reinforced Walls
These are masonry walls with iron bars on one or both sides of the wall, or placed within the wall to strengthen it. The hardness of a reinforced wall remains the same, but its hit points are doubled and the Strength check DC to break through it is increased by 10."

"Magically Treated Walls
These walls are stronger than average, with a greater hardness, more hit points, and a higher break DC. Magic can usually double the hardness and hit points and can add up to 20 to the break DC. A magically treated wall also gains a saving throw against spells that could affect it, with the save bonus equaling 2 + one-half the caster level of the magic reinforcing the wall. Creating a magic wall requires the Craft Wondrous Item feat and the expenditure of 1,500 gp for each 10 foot-by-10-foot wall section."

The Swordgaunt

11-15-2006, 11:33 AM

Regarding fire damage to stone, I'd say that both points of view is equally right, and equally wrong. Fire has been used throughout the history of engineering to weaken stone. The navvies of the 19th century built large fires against the part of the mountain they were going to mine. It was a painstakingly slow technique, but way faster than working on structurally sound rock.

As for fortifications, most castle walls (in the medieval era) are at least three feet thick, and well defended from above. The fire and pick technique would be extremely dangerous.

I would fear a fireball aimed at the ramparts more, as this would probably kill every last defender on that section of the wall. Now, this could be said to be aqually devastating the other way around. Let me point to one of the golden rules of siegework. The atacker will generally need to outnumber the defender by seven to one. To quote King Henry Longshanks in Braveheart: We have reinforcements, they have not.

To return to the danger of flying creatures, I'll admit that in a BR scenario, this is not among the most common threat. Still, in some parts of the world (the Northern Marches, for instance) this would probably have to be adressed by the would be castellan. Although it's far from a smart-bomb carrying modern strike-fighter, it could still throw unprepared defenders off the wall, quite litterally.

Several problems come to mind when I try to picture medieval warfare in a fantasy setting, and from the responses so far, I'm not alone.

kgauck

11-15-2006, 03:25 PM

I don't apply the rules of science as they are known to the modern world to the game. Fire is not cumbustion, but raw phlogiston. Metal does not conduct electricity. Electricity is a fluid. And on and on.
My concern is that castle ruins either exist or they don't. Dungeons either exist or they were collapsed long ago by area effect spells. If its too easy to damage what would otherwise be permanent structures with magic, then magic is either vanishingly rare, or these structures are.
Magic should overcome some obstacles, but I'd rather it be obstacles not already handled by another class. Warfare, combat, and sieges are where fighters should shine. If fighters are standing around waiting for the wizard to do the important business so they can mop up, things are backwards.
Likewise no mundane inventions will ever be created to rival magical effects. No blackpower bombs, telescopes, or flying machines.
People have an understanding of the durability of stone, because of the ancient monuments, castles, and ruins that still exist in our own world. But that's also a world where fires in the Parthenon, or a given castle, or during a siege, don't do much against the stone. Change the effect of fire against stone walls to create a fantastic magical effect, and ruins should now show blast damage from fireballs, and any construction subjected to area effect spells is probabaly collapsed.

ploesch

11-15-2006, 06:11 PM

In one of the Spelljammer supplements they went into needed detail in building castles that could be defended from 3 dimension.

I will try to see if I can find which book, if anyone is interested. I know I have it, but I haven't cracked an SJ book in years.

Some of the structures were magical, others were simply covered yards and ramparts. Since in a BR campaign your not going to have to worry about 200 ton ships ramming your castle, covered yards and light ballistas would likely be enough.

Magical structures should be very rare in BR campaigns, as should powerful wizards.

Fizz

11-15-2006, 09:41 PM

Regarding fire damage to stone, i think we should look at the setting.

This is a world where magic does exist, as well as a lot of warfare. The whole point of castles is to resist and protect armies, people, whatever, from the enemy.

Thus, it would be pretty dumb for the people of the setting to build a castle out of stone, if the stone weren't capable of resisting a known destructive force, namely magic.

To me then, fireballs and other magic ought to be largely ineffective against castle walls. Now, if you can drop that fireball inside the castle walls, well...

-Fizz

Fizz

11-16-2006, 05:01 PM

That last statement holds so little water that I cannot even see how you found it valid enough: flaming arrows, a non-magical kind of ammunition, is able to bring down pallisade walls, which was a common type of defence for many centuries, and this is also true for Birthright; likewise, siege weapons are also effective against stone, and, as you are well aware of, catapults, ballistae, trebuchets and more are a major aspect in the battlefield. :P

But pallisade walls are primarily made out of wood. I'm specifically referring to castles made out of stone.

Of course some siege weapons can get through some walls, but not all. Frequently the best way to defeat a castle was to isolate it until supplies ran out.

I mean, there's a reason they kept building castles as defensive fortifications up until gunpowder started becoming commonplace.

-Fizz

RaspK_FOG

11-17-2006, 09:52 AM

And since when were fireball launching wizards and dragons commonplace in Birthright, since it seems I somehow am missing something here...

Fizz

11-17-2006, 03:26 PM

And since when were fireball launching wizards and dragons commonplace in Birthright, since it seems I somehow am missing something here...

Not common, but they would be a serious known threat. So i think they'd build their castles with that threat in mind, in addition to the more mundane threat of regular siege warfare.

-Fizz

irdeggman

11-17-2006, 08:46 PM

Not common, but they would be a serious known threat. So i think they'd build their castles with that threat in mind, in addition to the more mundane threat of regular siege warfare.

-Fizz

Let's see there are what 12 cerilian dragons total - and no one has seen an active one since around Deismaar IIRC. How many people would actually "remember" them at all, other than elves?

Which cultures would use fireballs?

Not the Rjurik nor Vos (they hate magic) - so any use there is pretty much non-existant.

Not the elves (unlikely school and fire descriptor to boot)

Not the dwarves (in 2nd ed they couldn't be wizards)

Not the halflings (same in 2nd ed)

Not the goblins (same in 2nd ed)

That leaves Anuirean, Brecht, Khinasi and half-elves.

That is still a decent cultural swath (3/5 of the "human" cultures).

What is the breakdown of those capable of casting true magic?

Less than 150 in all of Cerilia (assumption here is that is not counting elves).

That leaves the number at around 90 or so.

Not that many for so large an area, so how commonly "known" is this threat?

One could go with structures having some sort of natural magic resistance due to the mebhaighl of the land and that castles and similar semi-permanent structures made of pieces of the "land" might carry some of that with them.

AndrewTall

11-17-2006, 09:23 PM

I'm of the opinion that fireballs, etc could wipe a wall clear but only destroy it if the wall is fairly weak, i.e. if the stones are cladding over a wooden frame then the wall may collapse after being hit (but be relatively easy to rebuild). Similarly if the mortar is of low quality then the explosion might - if the wall was thin / poorly constructed - cause the wall to collapse - it depends a lot on how advanced the castle architects were.

Transmutation spells could be more effective against 'proper' walls - even the strongest wall needs foundations and rock to mud coupled with some catapult fire could be quite effective.

The point however is that knocking down the wall will still be very difficult with magic if the wall is a few feet of stone, and the alternatives - wooden walls, villages built in the treetops, etc are far less effective against mundane assault such as cavalry and infantry.

I think its far more likely that a magical assault on a castle would be subtle - charms to make the gatekeeper raise the portcullis, illusions to make invaders look like the overdue patrol, shadow-portals to allow small groups to infiltrate the castle, rains of ash to dishearten defenders / set fires, foul fogs and vapours to drive out defenders, poisons driven up from the earth, etc.

Quite apart from the actual 'physical' difficulty a powerful mage (such as the Magian) who starts walking up to hostile forts and lobbing fireballs is going to convince their enemies that they are more than just another ambitious lord - such power is rare, unobtainable for the local lords and therefore a common threat to them all.

I would note that in some campaigns where gods are jealous of competition priests are unlikely to approve of 'loud' displays of magic - illusions pose no threat as they are clear trickery but real power that is not from the gods? Heresy!

Its worth remembering that historically in BR the powerful mages encountered by, for example, the Anuireans are:
The elves during the gheallie sidhe
The lost, dread servants of Azrai
The Gorgon
The Spider
Rhoubhe Manslayer.
The wizard, mad chaos monger of the northern realms

Not exactly the sort of illustrious company to calm rumours that wizard's are in league with dark forces. Only high mage Aelies shines out as a powerful mage who defends Anuire, and being half elf he is both suspect, and unlikely to use evocation spells casually.

I can however see both Rjurik and Vos using magic - wizards in both are already outcasts, and if you can't make them love you then safety can be obtained through terror- and the louder the magic the better.

Goblins and awnshegh are the other prime candidates (although goblins were abysmal mages in 2e Tal-Quazzar was a mage and goblins are noted as more enlightened than the norm in the boxed set and BRCS). The Khinasi have the magical background but I see them as preferring more subtle magic’s.

I would note that I deeply suspect the 150 wizards number - by that measure half of all Cerillan mages are regents... Of course if a mage is avoiding notice then they would presumably by avoiding the blood and thunder magic’s.

btw. I would note that Faraday's cage notwithstanding, wearing 80 pounds of steel is not a sovereign protection to lightning, the armour may give a relatively clear route to ground for the lighting but some electricity will still arc through the wearer and it doesn't take much current to kill. (I'm sure that planes struck by lightning can suffer electrical damage to systems, and I vaguely recall comments of a battle between English and French knights during a storm that saw several knights were killed by actual lightning.)

Of course if anyone wants to test the Faraday's cage hypothesis please feel free to send the resulting video clip to you-tube / the Darwin awards as appropriate.

Andrew

Fizz

11-17-2006, 09:37 PM

I'm of the opinion that fireballs, etc could wipe a wall clear but only destroy it if the wall is fairly weak, i.e. if the stones are cladding over a wooden frame then the wall may collapse after being hit (but be relatively easy to rebuild). Similarly if the mortar is of low quality then the explosion might - if the wall was thin / poorly constructed - cause the wall to collapse - it depends a lot on how advanced the castle architects were.

Well, iirc, Fireball has no concussive force to it. It is just a ball of fire that does not exert pressure. In which case, the question is dependent solely on the nature of fire on stone.

Transmutation spells could be more effective against 'proper' walls - even the strongest wall needs foundations and rock to mud coupled with some catapult fire could be quite effective.

The point however is that knocking down the wall will still be very difficult with magic if the wall is a few feet of stone, and the alternatives - wooden walls, villages built in the treetops, etc are far less effective against mundane assault such as cavalry and infantry.

I agree on both points. Castles are huge, while normal spells have limited areas of effect.

I think its far more likely that a magical assault on a castle would be subtle - charms to make the gatekeeper raise the portcullis, illusions to make invaders look like the overdue patrol, shadow-portals to allow small groups to infiltrate the castle, rains of ash to dishearten defenders / set fires, foul fogs and vapours to drive out defenders, poisons driven up from the earth, etc.

Aw man... you just gave me SO many ideas... >:)

btw. I would note that Faraday's cage notwithstanding, wearing 80 pounds of steel is not a sovereign protection to lightning, the armour may give a relatively clear route to ground for the lighting but some electricity will still arc through the wearer and it doesn't take much current to kill. (I'm sure that planes struck by lightning can suffer electrical damage to systems, and I vaguely recall comments of a battle between English and French knights during a storm that saw several knights were killed by actual lightning.)

While the Faraday cage premise is correct, a lightnighing hit to an armored knight would probably still be lethal. A sword would make a good lightning rod, and while no electric field could exist inside the suit (assuming it's conductive enough, not all alloys are good conductors), but the heat generated from the bolt would severely burn a person, perhaps fatally.

Of course if anyone wants to test the Faraday's cage hypothesis please feel free to send the resulting video clip to you-tube / the Darwin awards as appropriate.

Andrew

You know, this sounds like a job for Mythbusters! :)

-Fizz

RaspK_FOG

11-17-2006, 10:56 PM

Apart from the whole thing about how common these threats are (thanks, irdeggman, my point exactly), let me tell you a couple of things on the Faraday thing:

A lightning bolt, as presented in the PHB, is an entirely electrical attack that does not, in the clear, physics-true sense, arc from one place to another: it's thrown from one's fingertips (without inflicting any sort of damage) towards its destination; there are various issues that make D&D unrealistic, much like how your armour takes no damage as an object from it if worn, unless you roll a 1 on your Reflex save... On the other hand, a thunder "falls" with such tremendous heat and voltage being the produced effect, that it's very unlikely that one can survive a direct hit (as would be the case when it comes to wearing a full plate harness during a rainstorm).

dalor

11-18-2006, 07:45 PM

To go along with this, the only structures I ever
thought would be resistant to magic were those created
by magic...such as the ones created by Realm Magic.

Anthony Edwards

--- irdeggman <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
>
>
> One could go with structures having some sort of
> natural magic resistance due to the mebhaighl of the
> land and that castles and similar semi-permanent
> structures made of pieces of the "land" might carry
> some of that with them.
>

geeman

11-19-2006, 02:31 PM

At 07:26 AM 11/17/2006, Fizz wrote:

>>And since when were fireball launching wizards and dragons
>>commonplace in Birthright, since it seems I somehow am missing
>>something here...
>
>Not common, but they would be a serious known threat. So i think
>they`d build their castles with that threat in mind, in addition to
>the more mundane threat of regular siege warfare.

Exactly. Since when were people who design fortifications preparing
them to defend against everything except things that are
uncommon? The whole point in developing fortifications is to be
thinking about threats in advance. Imagine the following
conversation between a megagaming castle architect (Terry) and his
chief foreman (Philip.)

P: "Sir, shouldn`t we have some sort of covering atop the battlements
to protect archers from aerial attack such as troops on flying mounts
or even dragons?"

T: "No, no. Those are relatively rare. Just leave them open to
defend against normal archers on foot."

P: "Oh, OK. What about magical fire and other arcane spells?"

T: "Oh, Philip, you adorable dreamer you. Wizards are just so
uncommon that we`ll not waste time worrying about them."

P: "Yes, Master Terry. Uhm... while not generally as destructive
don`t other spellcasters wield similar magics?"

T: "Now, Philip, let`s not concern ourselves with that relatively
small yet devastatingly powerful group of individuals. We are
building structures that reference a period of time in another world
that had a vastly different set of physical laws. Instead of
considering such matters, let us prepare against hoards of commoners
that are relatively easy to defend against, for if we prepare against
flying creatures, spells and such things our construction will look
very different. We will have to build our walls from a variety of
materials so that they cannot be destroyed by any one type of magical
attack. Gone will be our lovely battlements and open towers. In
fact, most of our work will be useless, for a closed, compact
construction is the most easily breached or turned against its
defenders by such methods. Instead, we would have to build broad,
open fortresses that are underground as much as above ground, like
the bastions of the mid to late Renaissance, for such broad
structures could be defensible while most directly combating
spellcasting by keeping the most important parts of the defense out
of the range of their spells. Fortifications would be comprised of
small, unsightly pill boxes (small fortified firing positions for
heavy weapons and our own spellcasters) to discourage both mass
assaults and attack from the skies. Our commanders would live in
windowless chambers to protect them from magical espionage and
assassination. Indeed, we would likely start to employ magical
methods of construction ourselves at considerable expense, so that a
fortification could be made more difficult to infiltrate by magical
creatures. Our whole construction process would likely look more
like the fortifications developed between the World Wars against
aerial, gas and artillery bombardment such as the Maginot Line for,
indeed, the destructive power of magic is more similar to that period
of real world history, but our people have not developed a highly
mobile armored force of armored vehicles with cannon to simply bypass
such fortresses--our magical technology having vastly outstripped our
conventional tech--so we would find such a position much more defensible.

P: What`s artillery?

T: Oh, nevermind. Just get back to your shovel.

geeman

11-19-2006, 03:22 PM

At 12:46 PM 11/17/2006, irdeggman wrote:

>Not that many for so large an area, so how commonly "known" is this threat?

How commonly known is the history of Earth? In this case, consider
that the real world effects of such things are still in existence and
living among the people and that there is generally assumed to be a
more educated populace in D&D settings than is the case amongst real
world peasantry. Consider also, that even in BR people live amongst
the extraordinary on a regular basis. Is one as likely to doubt or
be ignorant of the existence of dragons when one is confronted with
the awnsheghlien in the next province?

I think the problem here is that people keep suggesting that the
relatively rarity of BR magic when compared to standard D&D settings
would be more influential on the construction of fortifications than
the prevalence of magic in BR when compared to the real world, so
we`re getting a fallacious comparison: Magic is rarer than it is in
D&D worlds, so fortifications will not be changed much from how it
was done in the real world. See how those two things aren`t really
connected in any way? There is much more magic in BR than there was
in the real world`s medieval period, and that is the determining
factor. The issue of magic`s rarity is really a non-issue because it
fundamentally misses the point. Magic is only _relatively_ rare, and
its rarity in comparison to standard D&D has no real bearing on the
influence magic has on the setting itself.

The other consideration to take into account is that people do not
construct fortifications to deal with the least devastating attack
with which they might be faced. They do the exact
opposite. Fortifications are made to deal with the worst case
scenario. Nobody prepares for an invasion of goblin teenagers. It`s
the dragon one worries about. If you can defend against the dragon
one is more likely to be able to deal with the goblin
assault. Because this is a truth about the nature of defense in
general a real world comparison actually works for this aspect of the
situation. Billions have been spent to harden government buildings
against suicide bombings. In reality, suicide bombings are very rare
in most of the world, but that doesn`t prevent people from preparing
against them. That`s not to say all that time and money has been
wasted (though it probably could have been better spent elsewhere)
but as an analogy it works. Rulers would be more concerned with the
likelihood of a single spellcaster devastating his armies or
infiltrating his fortress and killing him or members of his immediate
circle than constructing something that looked like Neuschwanstein.

Gary

RaspK_FOG

11-19-2006, 05:56 PM

It seems that even the older members seem to be unable to grasp what I mentioned earlier...

First of all, will anyone please read up on the rules on magically enhanced fortifications? Otherwise, all we are doing is wade our way through text, claiming we bear the truth of the Universe (the cosmos of Birthright, in this case).

So, now that I am sufficiently ascertained that you have done so, reconsider the effects of fireballs and other like magics: true, they may be well known - and so are their properties of turning around corners, damaging EVEN stone (for pitty's sake, will anyone remember that the rules allow you to do so, even if the process would be slooooowww, since you deal half damage, then subtract hardness [8 points], then deal some damage to a structure with a base number of hit points that equals 180!?), and, finally, continue its destructive work should it be able to destroy the object in its path...

In other words, sure, there are ways to deal with fireballs: just make those battlements airtight! Won't that work, cause they won't serve any purpose? Tough luck...

AndrewTall

11-19-2006, 08:03 PM

Geeman: The other consideration to take into account is that people do not construct fortifications to deal with the least devastating attack with which they might be faced. They do the exact opposite. Fortifications are made to deal with the worst case scenario

Andrew: Not quite. You build a fortification to deal with the biggest threat possible given limitations on resources and alternative defences available.

The ideal defence against a wizard isn't to make huge changes to the castle it is either to get another wizard, a good archer, or better yet an assassin - far cheaper than hiring architects and stonemasons for years at a time.

I can see the opening shot of a birthright war where one side has a powerful mage being the assassination of the mage in question, indeed a failed assassination might delay the invasion.

Alternatives to assassination would include bribing/corrupting the mage, the use of intrigue to cause a falling out between the ruler and the mage (possibly quite easy when you realise that the mage wants nice empty provinces and everyone else wants the opposite), decoys and lures (who else but the court mage would be sent to deal with an undead menace? To recover the legendary Spellbook imperium?)

To be honest I don't think that there is any possible cost-effective fixed form of defence against dragons, or any other epic threat, that's why the ruler calls the legendary hero's of the realm when trouble calls and pays them a fortune to fix the problem.

It's worth remembering that building large castles can intimidate neighbours into considering invasion and infuriate the locals who are taxed into submission to pay for it. Far cheaper in the long run to build a modest castle and hire heroes as and when required. (More fun for the PC's too).

Andrew

RaspK_FOG

11-19-2006, 10:34 PM

Not to mention that, especially according to what I mentioned, stone fortifications can sustain a lot of punishment before the wizard is brought down (if you ae trying to fight off a Cerilian dragon that is storming your castle simply with better defences, you are deserving that defeat), which means that YOU DON'T HAVE TO COMPENSATE FOR 1 WIZARD/10^5 NORMAL HUMANS!!

The Swordgaunt

11-20-2006, 01:52 PM

I see that my relatively innocent question has sparked quite a debate. Perfect!

Another thing I've noticed is the focus on physics, demography and fireballs. I stand firmly in the camp of threat assessment. Magic exists, not only birds fly, and there are some true tales told by old wifes. That said, I find it difficult to believe that Diemed will have Anti-Magic castles with heavy Anti-Air. Their neighbors will have a conventional army, and the house sourcerer can counter the enemy's. I find it equally unreasonable to think that Mhoried will go for the standard medieval 20-30 feet walls with open towers and battlements. Why? Should Prince Raesene decide to give it a go, he will probably come their way, and goblin teenagers will be the least of their worries.

And given that a proper castle is not something thats built every generation, the extra precautions need not break the back of the honest, tax-paying peasantry. It will only take some extra time, and even in BR, the only constants are death and taxes. I say that the ruler who spends the extra dozens of bars on a proper fortification will be less of a fool than he who decides to use the "lowest bidder" strategy.

My rationale is that the medieval castles were the back-bone of the arms-race of its era. Behind those walls, you could toss livestock at your enemies while calling their fathers hamsters. In BR, magic and myth must be taken into consideration.

Hence my suggestions:
Sloped walls - allows for more height, and gives increased durability.
Covered towers - protects defenders from air-bursts and other bad ju-ju from above.
Covered battlements - same as above.
Ballistae - accurate long range weapon for ground and air defence.
Raised archery and artillery positions - defence and support for outer towers and curtain wall vs. giants and other nasties. Also, height gives longer range.
Spikes added to the top of walls and towers - thing really large scale barbed wires to stop really large things from climbing over.
Motes, deep motes - same as in RL, but even more important.

Of these measures, only the sloped walls will increase the cost considerably, as far as as I can see.

Lord Rahvin

11-20-2006, 09:22 PM

Their neighbors will have a conventional army? Diemed`s neighbors include a
priest and a true wizard, both of whom are are realm rulers and capable of
weilding realm magic. Both are "rebels" who have basically carved their
domains from land once belonging to Diemed and see Diemed as the greatest
threat on the Southern Coast. I imagine Diemed`s court to be well-prepared
(and perhaps paranoid) when it comes to matters such as anti-air, charms,
and illusions. Not to mention a giant spider that could probably climb
castle walls with no problem. That`s not to say they will necessarily have
developed adequite countermeasures, but there would certainly be an interest
in it.

The comments about being able to stop enemy spellcasters with assassinations
and intrigue (or your own sorcerers) don`t quite work, because these
justifications could be used against anything. Assassinating the enemy
regent or general works just as well as assassinating a wizard. And a good
enough sorcerer is always a good countermeasure against pretty much
anything. But why not have these techniques, plus a good castle?

-Lord Rahvin

On 11/20/06, The Swordgaunt <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
>
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at:
> http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3163
>
> The Swordgaunt wrote:
> I see that my relatively innocent question has sparked quite a debate.
> Perfect!
>
>
>
> Another thing I`ve noticed is the focus on physics, demography and
> fireballs. I stand firmly in the camp of threat assessment. Magic exists,
> not only birds fly, and there are some true tales told by old wifes. That
> said, I find it difficult to believe that Diemed will have Anti-Magic
> castles with heavy Anti-Air. Their neighbors will have a conventional army,
> and the house sourcerer can counter the enemy`s. I find it equally
> unreasonable to think that Mhoried will go for the standard medieval 20-30
> feet walls with open towers and battlements. Why? Should Prince Raesene
> decide to give it a go, he will probably come their way, and goblin
> teenagers will be the least of their worries.
>
>
>
> And given that a proper castle is not something thats built every
> generation, the extra precautions need not break the back of the honest,
> tax-paying peasantry. It will only take some extra time, and even in BR, the
> only constants are death and taxes. I say that the ruler who spends the
> extra dozens of bars on a proper fortification will be less of a fool than
> he who decides to use the "lowest bidder" strategy.
>
>
>
> My rationale is that the medieval castles were the back-bone of the
> arms-race of its era. Behind those walls, you could toss livestock at your
> enemies while calling their fathers hamsters. In BR, magic and myth must be
> taken into consideration.
>
>
>
> Hence my suggestions:
>
> Sloped walls - allows for more height, and gives increased durability.
>
> Covered towers - protects defenders from air-bursts and other bad ju-ju
> from above.
>
> Covered battlements - same as above.
>
> Ballistae - accurate long range weapon for ground and air defence.
>
> Raised archery and artillery positions - defence and support for outer
> towers and curtain wall vs. giants and other nasties. Also, height gives
> longer range.
>
> Spikes added to the top of walls and towers - thing really large scale
> barbed wires to stop really large things from climbing over.
>
> Motes, deep motes - same as in RL, but even more important.
>
>
>
> Of these measures, only the sloped walls will increase the cost
> considerably, as far as as I can see.
>
>
>
>
> Birthright-l Archives:
> http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
>
>
>

--
ROLL THE DICE: Dedicated to the exploration of ideas and concepts in Game
Design and Theory.
http://lordrahvin.wordpress.com

The Swordgaunt

11-20-2006, 09:22 PM

Just to follow up on the idea that spurred the first post in this thread, I've thought more along the Gorgon's Legions-line.

I believe his armies will be organized in an orderly fasion, with the centre held by structured squares of pikemen to break enemy cavalry. These are backed up by shock troops consisting of Dwarves and Orog to deal with enemy infantry.

He will probably use whatever missile units he can muster to decimate the opponent before closing with his main force. These will most likely be Dwarven and Orog crossbowmen, human (and elven, if can persuade any) archers as well as giants hurling boulders and trees.

His flanks will most likely be held by more pikes and Orog.

He will have relatively few mounted troops, but what he can rally might be led by Blackguards or the dreaded Knights of Kal'Saitarak. These will most likely be of an inferior number compared to the Realms of Anuire, and will be witheald to such a moment where they can do the most good (or evil, as case would have it).

The one numerous race I haven't mentioned yet is the Goblins. He will most likely field vast amounts of this rabble, and they might be used in lieu of cavalry to soften a section of the enemies formation. Not by strength or speed, but by sheer numbers ("send in the Goblins, arrows cost money, the dead cost nothing"). Imagine the Anuirean general who believes himself facing an army of Goblin rabble, and suddenly sees the fell Legions of the Crown take the field.

The Wolf Riders and other maneverable units will act as outriders and scirmishers.

The other humanoid races will bolster the ranks per ability and combat-worthiness, and there will needs be some nasty monsters either among the ranks or harrassing the opponent before, during and/or after the battle.

This makes for a relatively slow, but heavy army, one that can easily fight night-battles. Levies and green troops will be sweapt off the field or broken, Knights will be shatterd by pikes, and footmen cut down. At least in theory.

As for racial tension and outright hatered, I see this as less of a problem. I am confident that all who serve the Gorgon in the field are fully aware the penalty for breaking ranks. After fifteen odd centuries, he's bound to have concocted numerous intricate punisments for just such an occation. IMO, this does not become a problem before the occupation face of the war. This is often a problem for generals leading a culturally diverse army, take, for instance, the crusades. His main advantage is his own competance and the fact that few among his lieutenants will challenge his leadership.

To tie these two topics together, I'm sure Prince Raesene has mastery of sige-tactics like none seen in Anuire for a long time -if ever. Finally, a question, is Raizhadik, the Wyrm of Kal'Saitark merely a pet?

The Swordgaunt

11-20-2006, 09:29 PM

AndrewTall

11-20-2006, 11:00 PM

Assassination:
Lord Rahvin: The comments about being able to stop enemy spellcasters with assassinations and intrigue (or your own sorcerers) don`t quite work, because these justifications could be used against anything. Assassinating the enemy regent or general works just as well as assassinating a wizard. And a good enough sorcerer is always a good countermeasure against pretty much anything. But why not have these techniques, plus a good castle?

Andrew: Kill a general and it's promotions all round with low overall effect for a professional army (barring the loss of a tactical genius or someone with the battlewise ability). Any large realm will have a handful of competent generals who can mount a solid if not exceptional defence.

By contrast if you kill the spell-caster you have eliminated the magical threat almost entirely - given the relatively large number of 'gaps' in source holdings any strong mage can live the high life as #1 somewhere, so it is unlikely that two powerful wizards would share commonly a realm.

but yes, a good castle is the foundation of the defence. Assassination is simply a cheaper way of dealing with wizards than magical fortifications - the defender has to think of every assault that could work, the attacker only one.

The Castle:
Swordgaunt: Hence my suggestions:
Sloped walls - allows for more height, and gives increased durability.
Covered towers - protects defenders from air-bursts and other bad ju-ju from above.
Covered battlements - same as above.
Ballistae - accurate long range weapon for ground and air defence.
Raised archery and artillery positions - defence and support for outer towers and curtain wall vs. giants and other nasties. Also, height gives longer range.
Spikes added to the top of walls and towers - thing really large scale barbed wires to stop really large things from climbing over.
Motes, deep motes - same as in RL, but even more important.

Andrew:
The first few suggestions are relatively cheap modifications that require no serious architectural thought or magical 'buffing' so I would expect them to be standard.

Higher walls are the goal of any castle builder limited only by terrain, skill and cash. Low walls are generally intended to stop raiders from carrying loot off than actually stopping them crossing.

Spikes - an overhang would be as effective and allow attacks on climbers from secure positions, overhangs are also far less likely to snag ladders and grapples.

Moats: These are surprisingly expensive and have an alarming habit of undermining foundations. That said why not? Of course building on granite is always a good way to discourage sappers.

I would note that giants, flying nasties, etc breed slowly enough that you only get one good fight out of them, like battles with dwarves and elves the slow birthrate requires a cautious approach. Similarly battlemagic is a one-shot battle tactic and if both sides have readied 'dispel realm magic' not particularly useful.

The army:
Swordgaunt: He will probably use whatever missile units he can muster to decimate the opponent before closing with his main force. These will most likely be Dwarven and Orog crossbowmen, human (and elven, if can persuade any) archers as well as giants hurling boulders and trees.

Andrew: I would expect he has a lot of goblin archers. Dwarves actually aren't very good bowmen in isolation - they are slow and easily out maneuvered.

Swordgaunt: ("send in the Goblins, arrows cost money, the dead cost nothing").
Andrew: A man after my own heart. Since goblins breed quickly its also an effective way of culling the excess population. Darwin also indicates that eventually a race of goblins will emerge that is either a) good at hiding from press-gangs, b) very lucky, c) breed as soon as they leave diapers, or d) pummel ogres for breakfast.

Swordgaunt: As for racial tension and outright hatered, I see this as less of a problem. I am confident that all who serve the Gorgon in the field are fully aware the penalty for breaking ranks. After fifteen odd centuries, he's bound to have concocted numerous intricate punisments for just such an occation. IMO, this does not become a problem before the occupation face of the war. This is often a problem for generals leading a culturally diverse army, take, for instance, the crusades. His main advantage is his own competance and the fact that few among his lieutenants will challenge his leadership.

Andrew: The Gorgon is hampered here by the nature of the troops he commands. The dwarves admittedly have extreme discipline, but orogs some and goblins none. Even with a core of dwarves in his army - likely acting as enforcers to keep the goblins and general scum in line - the Gorgon drives his armies, he doesn't lead them.

Frankly most awnsheghlien, the Gorgon amongst them simply don't have the selfless (even in aspect only) personality to win real loyalty from troops, inspire strong independent captains, forge disciplined units who will focus on the goal - conquest, rather than on distractions such as looting, etc.

The awnsheghlien 'me first' approach to life encourages their followers to act the same way which is fatal to the esprit de corps required for a real army - the Gorgon can force people to fight for him, he can promise them blood and gold, but he cannot convince them to sacrifice themselves for him or their fellows.

His hobby of slaughtering generals who are either fail or are too successful is also unlikely to inspire a strong officer corps making him have to do everything and the surviving officers excessively cautious of failure or delivering bad news.

He is also hamstrung as regards punishment. Out of sight is out of mind for most goblins. In any case the reason why the humanoids tolerate an awnsheghlien master is because random excessive violence is so fundamental a part of their lives, reining in a goblin army is an excercise in futility, the Gorgon's problems have only just started if he captures a town as his troops natural inclination is to steal anything not nailed down and burn anything that is.

Brutal punishment can enforce discipline to a degree but must be focused on the guilty to be effective - can anyone see the Gorgon being able to tell two random goblins apart, or his enforcer's caring? Random punishment encourages dissent it doesn't prevent it.

The Gorgon is the bogeyman across Cerilla for good reasons, working for him is working for the thing that betrayed his family, his nation, his god and was twisted into a monstrosity for his crimes, if he could control his violence and win the loyalty of any but monsters and the wretched he would have been emperor a long time ago.

ploesch

11-20-2006, 11:02 PM

I agree that Mundane structures would be as well defended against Magical, or aerial attack as possible. However, I think cost would be a huge deterrant to having much magical defenses. especially in BirthRight. Castles are already incredibly expensive to build and maintain. Magical defenses cost far more than typical defenses, and you can double (or more) the cost according to sanctioned rules.

Look at the modern World. A nuclear strike is a real possibility, equivalent to a powerful wizard on the battle field. Yet military troops and bases around the world are poorly defended against such a threat. This isn't because of a lack of know how, but because of the cost of doing so.

My point is that defenses are created based on what you are financially capable of doing, not necessarily on what is the best defense. Afterall, the best defense is a strong offense. You build your defenses based on what the likliest threats are, then create special forces to take care of the unexpected. It would be much more financially viable to enlist the aid of a wizard as part of your court than to try and build defenses to protect against an onslaught from one. What would you rahter have, the level 2 castle that is defended against aerial, and magical assault, or the level 6 castle that is well enough protected against aerial assault, and a Wizard of your own to challenge any comers.

The Swordgaunt

11-20-2006, 11:58 PM

If considered more carefully, though, I don`t think the Rome/Britain
comparison is really all that apt. Unless we`re talking about some
empire from Aduria about which we know nothing, the only empire in
the background of the BR setting is that of the Anuireans, and that
one is IMO more aptly compared to the Carolingians in terms of size,
culture, influence, etc. than ancient Rome. Charlemagne, of course,
had his Roman influences and ambitions, but if we picture the great
one without a Roman empire in his historical and geographical
proximity, we get what I think is a more accurate idea of what
Anuirean culture would be like.

A bit overdue... I really like the Carolingan approach. Although a bit anachronistic, I can see Deismaar portrayed on Bayeux-like tapestries

[...] the Gorgon drives his armies, he doesn't lead them.

During WWII, Soviet troops stormed German lines without a rifle. They carried five rounds with them, and hoped that the guy in front would die so that they could pick up his weapon. The other option was a shot in the back of the head, and the deportation of the deceaseds family. It's a question of persuation.

His hobby of slaughtering generals who are either fail or are too successful is also unlikely to inspire a strong officer corps making him have to do everything and the surviving officers excessively cautious of failure or delivering bad news.

More WWII. Stalin emerged victorious after having killed off most of his officer corps. The advantage a general like Gorgy has over Komrade S is that a medieval general can lead the strategic movement (which province to attack) without a General Staff. Once the army is deployed, he has two choises. He either leads from the front, or he stays in the rear, trying to coordinate the battle. The latter is bound to be a bit haphazard, as conveying orders to a unit on the battlefield is made extremely difficult by the fog of war.

He is also hamstrung as regards punishment. Out of sight is out of mind for most goblins. In any case the reason why the humanoids tolerate an awnsheghlien master is because random excessive violence is so fundamental a part of their lives, reining in a goblin army is an excercise in futility, the Gorgon's problems have only just started if he captures a town as his troops natural inclination is to steal anything not nailed down and burn anything that is.

He doesen't really need individual punishment. Think like an evil overlord, Andrew. You only need to rember the unit that broke first, then put them to the stake, set them alight and use them as sentry lights. Granted, Goblins are not overly bright and more than a little prone to chaos, but they are not outright suicidal.

Look at the modern World. A nuclear strike is a real possibility, equivalent to a powerful wizard on the battle field. Yet military troops and bases around the world are poorly defended against such a threat. This isn't because of a lack of know how, but because of the cost of doing so.

Misunderstand me correctly, I'm not advocating the total remake of every fortress in Cerillia, but rater (like in the modern world), the strengthening of key strategical castles. Take the Krak des Chevalliers, for instance. It was the key fortress of the Hospitallers, and was never taken by force. Mount Chyenne could also be mentioned in this context. If you think you need it and can aford it, buy it.

kgauck

11-21-2006, 02:20 AM

Russia was a giant continental power with a third more industrial power than Germany and 164 million compared to 69 million people. Russia produced more planes, more tanks, and more war material of nearly every kind. Given these advantages, how could Soviet Russia fail to roll right over Nazi Germany? Why, rather, was her victory so slow and so costly? Did Stalin's purges help, or hurt his war effort? Did the brutality of the Soviet state enhance its war-making power? If so, why did Germany achieve a casualty ratio of 16:1 at the start of the war, 8:1 through most of the war, and even in the final weeks, still achieve a 4:1 casualty ratio, when the industrial, geographic, strategic, and demographic advantages lay entirely with Russia?

The answer is certainly not with the marvels of Stalin and his state terror.

A metaphore of the Gorgon to Stalin would clearly explain why, despite his personal power, the Gorgon cannot triumph. Stalin had tremendous population and indutrial advantages, and still nearly lost. The Gorgon starts with a smaller realm compared to the rest of Anuire, a much smaller population and resource base. The Gorgon to be successful has to be more like Germany, who simultaneously fought against three world powers (two continental powers and one oceanic power) and still performed so well despite being surrounded, isolated, and hugely outnumbered.

dalor

11-21-2006, 07:13 AM

I have only one thought about the idea that goblins in
Cerilia are so chaotic:

They aren`t.

The racial alignment of the Goblins is Lawful Evil.
They have a strict pecking order and would seem (to me
at least) to be a very organized and warlike race.
The Common Goblin is a natural coward, but the larger
Hobgoblins and Bugbears are true soldiers (with the
Hobgoblins being much more organized and worthy even
than the shock-trooper bugbears).

I see the Gorgon making much stronger use of spear
armed Hobgoblin troops than others are thinking. They
are a great deal stronger than the common Anuirean
Levy soldier and probably the equal of a common
man-at-arms.

If the goblins didn`t eat all the horses they can lay
their hands on, hobgoblin cavalry would be something
worthy of considering. Even so, goblin skirmishers
(or even "horde units") could easily equal Anuirean
Levies and the bugbears are just as stout as Orogs.

And the other danger that few are mentioning are the
ravenous bands of Gnolls that the Gorgon would no
doubt use to harass his enemies. Fast moving and sly,
they would make excellent and powerful skirmishers
that could attack lines of supply.

After giving it more thought I think the Gorgon would
use:

Hobgoblin Pike units (much more numerous than Orogs or
dwarves) to hold his center.

Goblin skirmishers with bows.

Bugbear shock troops for strikes between pike units to
mangle enemy lines.

Dwarven units would be an elite used as a reserve, or
in extremes as second line to push on the goblins; the
population of Mur-Kilad seems too small to support the
idea that the Gorgon could use them as a mainstay
force.

Orogs too are rarer than most think I believe. Rarely
coming to the surface in Anuirean lands, I think they
would be more akin to mercenaries for the Gorgon than
mainstay troops.

Trolls and Ogres would be rare shock troops; although
Stonecrown Ogres seem to be somewhat easy to come by I
suppose. Still, these units would be hard to keep in
the field simply because of their appetites...although
deserters could easily fill their pots. :-)

Human troops, mostly slave-soldier conscripts from
Kiergaard, could also make a strong center line; but
their morale is no doubt going to be very low. Most
human troops would make better garrison forces. I
don`t see the Gorgon having many human volunteers; and
those that were would be the slime of the earth
mercenaries...possibly even from the Vos.

I do see the most evil of humans following the Gorgon;
men who would even turn the stomach of such evil men
as Gavin of Ghoere. These men and women would be
individually powerful to dare go into the lands of the
Gorgon`s Crown to offer their services...and most
likely richly rewarded by "Prince" Raesene. A core of
powerful Dark Knights that are well geared to war.

Other cavalry would be hard for the Gorgon to come by.
Again perhaps the land of Kiergaard, vassal nation
that it is (however unwillingly) could provide some
horses and mounted men-at-arms; but the needed land
support for true knights wouldn`t be seen in the lands
of the Gorgon`s domain.

Wolf-riders are poor cavalry even against a mounted
man-at-arms...a horse can pound a wolf into the dirt
as easily as the goblin riding it; and that is after
the man-at-arms has had his turn first with his lance.

On the field of battle I never pictured the Gorgon
using many of his different races in true unity. I
pictured instead a center of Goblins as a seperate
army from the Dwarven Army reserve. A third army of
mercenaries would be used as needed; but rarely as
fodder...goblins are fodder...mercenaries are best
used as shock troops and to shore up faltering
lines...used even before the even more valuable
dwarven army reserve. Mercenaries include such races
as Orogs, Ogres, Trolls and what humans may be had. I
never saw the slave-soldier conscripts of Kiergaard as
anything other than garrison troops or at best as the
race used on the battle-field to fill in the gaps
between the different races to mollify racial hatreds
and prevent the goblins and dwarves from carving into
each other once the enemy was defeated.

The Gorgon`s "Personal" army would be filled by his
Dark Knights, an elite Dwarven force (especially
filling the role of siege troops), the most powerful
terror troops he could find (giants, ogres and
trolls), and lastly a strong contingent of human heavy
foot and horsemen equal to men-at-arms levied from
Kiergaard and actually trained and paid well by their
"Prince" (sarcasm intended). The Gorgon knows he is
no longer human; but his desire to rule the Anuirean
people would keep him in the habit of a strong
contingent of human troops.

All just my opinion.

Anthony Edwards

P.S. Raizhadik is not a pet...he is a prisoner of the
Gorgon. To let that beast go would most likely cause
more damage to the Gorgon`s Crown than ol` stone-butt
would care to think about.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Sponsored Link

$420k for $1,399/mo.
Think You Pay Too Much For Your Mortgage?
Find Out! www.LowerMyBills.com/lre

The Swordgaunt

11-21-2006, 02:03 PM

A metaphore of the Gorgon to Stalin would clearly explain why, despite his personal power, the Gorgon cannot triumph. Stalin had tremendous population and indutrial advantages, and still nearly lost. The Gorgon starts with a smaller realm compared to the rest of Anuire, a much smaller population and resource base. The Gorgon to be successful has to be more like Germany, who simultaneously fought against three world powers (two continental powers and one oceanic power) and still performed so well despite being surrounded, isolated, and hugely outnumbered.

Without derailing the debate, I'll just comment on the Gorgon's Crown/Soviet Russia issue.

It was not my intention to drag too many lines between the two, but merely to use this as an example as to why I don't see that killing lieutennants and having substandard troops equals inevitable defeat.

Early WWII Red Army was hampered by the officer purge. Stalin placed all divisions under his direct command (a bit like Hitler in the latter pert of the war), and most command posts were manned by young, inexperienced, loyal party members. This contributed in no small part to the total collapse of the front line units during Operation Barbarossa. He was eventually forced to bring deported generals back from Gulag to lead his army groups.

Gorgy doesn't have this problem. A medieval general were close to his troops, and the need to coordinate a multi-pronged attack involving several different armies was seldom a problem. That said, Peters Evil Overlord List (http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html) says:

17. When I employ people as advisors, I will occasionally listen to their advice.
[...]
37. If my trusted lieutenant tells me my Legions of Terror are losing a battle, I will believe him. After all, he's my trusted lieutenant.

Sage advice, I would believe. Then again, the guy is with little doubt the shrewdest strategical mind in Cerillia. Granted, he's not a charismatic leader, but history has shown us that sometimes terror can actually work. All he would need to drive his troops into battle together, is to make them fear him more than they hate eachother. But, as I said, I have few illusions as to the civil harmony of the Realm if/when he's conquered Anuire. His minnions will most likely be in eachoters troats, squabbling for loot, land and racial pride.

The matter of population is a bit more acute, but Gorgy is bound to have thought about this. It's been five and a half century since the last time. Long enough to make most humans regard the threat from Kal'Saitarak as someting more fit to scare children than to rule a Realm after.

In my campaign, his agents have been infiltrated in most of the larger ruling houses, playing their part in weakening the realms. The Archduke and the Prince have, not entirely unwilling, been brought to war with eachother. Others have been pushed into enmity by feeding the alredy bloated egos of the Scions. In fact, most of my campaign has been focused on the strife among neighbours (historians have alredy dubbed these times as the Age of Strife).

Further, the Gorgon is probably the most powerful magician alive, and by sezing the Sorce in the provinces he will attack, he can raze fortifications and strike the land with plague and other horrible acts of mass destruction.

Should the rulers of Cerillia cast all differences aside and ally, they will be the victors. The Gorgon is with little doubt aware af this, and he will work hard to hinder this as long as possible. Divided they will fall, united they will stand.

AndrewTall

11-21-2006, 10:30 PM

Re Swordgaunt:

Great list - I hadn't come across it.

On timing, I thought that the Gorgon's generational rivings were fairly regular (say once every sixty years with raids alternatively into Anuire, Khinasi and Rjurik), although these are not wars of conquest but harvesting of the stronger bloodlines.

On the multi-pronged co-ordination problem I think it's an inevitable part of a multi-racial force - I can't see goblins and dwarves taking orders from each other well - and the Gorgon probably wouldn't want this either - if a charismatic general can at most suborn their own race then the Gorgon will always be able to a) squash them and b) afford to lose them. I've always seen the Gorgon as someone who wants his armies to hate each other in order to make sure they never try to combine and turn on him.

Terror can of course work - it was the basis for most of the communist regimes and a number of religious ones, but it's very inefficient which is one reason why these systems collapsed or were overtaken by more innovative realms (although they can last a long time, security issues generally arise only when one generation hands to the next (not a problem for the Gorgon) or the regime decides to relax the terror (ditto)).

I have to admit I've never seen the Gorgon as a great magician - I saw the L16 in the boxed set write-up as a 'well he's supposed to be the best at everything so he should have this too' rather than real thought on the matter as everything else screams 'paramount fighter/general'. He gets a lot of RP from sources due to low population levels of course but any wizardry would be sufficient for that. Although his wizard levels survived into the BRCS I would note that dual/multiclasses combo's were far cheaper in AD&D than D20, maintaining his original power level would have probably cut him down to L5 or so mage, enough to hold sources, know the basics and tell if someone if bluffing but something he sees as an add-on not as a core strength.

A look at some elven and Khinasi realms shows a fair number of wizard's are higher level, not to mention the dragons and other lost. That said obviously realm magic is something he would make substantial use of, and as a powerful wizard he might value the land more than the inhabitants.

On leading from the front / rear it’s a toughie. Lead from the front and you are too involved in fighting to keep a good overview, lead from the rear and know that you could have held the line / broken the charge when your soldiers fail.

Punishment. Obviously the Gorgon can simply slaughter en masse, but even goblins need some time to breed so he can't go overboard too often. Fundamentally goblins may not be the brightest bunnies but they will only follow as long as think the alternative is worse, spend their lives like water for too long and the well will run dry.

I was thinking though more along lines that the goblins simply drift off and sneak home - something smaller goblins excel at, once home they are just another goblin and untraceable, of course he can divert troops to stop desertion - but that's a waste of troops he can trust and needs elsewhere.

Re: Dalor
On goblins, LE alignment noted, I had forgotten the range of goblins and fixed on the whiny end of the race (who can be chaotic without changing the overall alignment as they are dominated by the others).

Hobgoblin spearmen are cool would you be thinking pike or missile weapon-type spears? As pike they should be very effective.

Kiergard definitely as garrison troops, can you imagine using any of the cannibalistic races (included goblins per the novels)? Gnolls would make good infiltrators - they roam all over Cerilla even into the heartlands so they have to be good as passing without much notice.

Goblin worg-riders, I think worgs are supposed to be reasonably large and therefore not as trample-able as wolves, although I may just have watched LOTR too often.

I'm with the dark knights, but think that he could actually have real follower/worshippers not just mercenaries - the gorgon can after all grant spells to his followers, is immortal, etc - a king was godlike to many of his subjects (the divine right of kings) but the Gorgon makes them look like children. The knights could actually be far more honourable than he is - the head of a religion can easily get by with a 'do as I say not as I do approach'. As his strongest, most loyal troops they would then likely have far greater latitude in dealing with issues that arose. Of course he would need to show them at least some honour, etc in return.

Regarding Orogs I got the impression from Warlock of the Stonecrowns that they followed the Drake rather than the Gorgon, but that could have been after I modified the adventure...

Regarding Raizhadik I see him as the secret weapon - unleashed on an army he'll tear it apart regardless of who it is just out of fury at his imprisonment. Although if I was the gorgon I wouldn't want the other dragons to know that I'd kept one of their own as a slave... Half a dozen Cerillan dragons could make a mess of Kal-Saitharak in short order and it might be enough to rouse them - if only to send a message to the other awnsheghlien.

The Swordgaunt

11-21-2006, 11:15 PM

On timing, I thought that the Gorgon's generational rivings were fairly regular (say once every sixty years with raids alternatively into Anuire, Khinasi and Rjurik), although these are not wars of conquest but harvesting of the stronger bloodlines.

I've interpreted this as raids, not invasions. He has probably used smaller armies or even raiding parties composed of his minnions, and occationally taken the lead personally. This would, IMO, be seen as something very unfortunate that - may the gods be merciful - only happened to someone else (a bit like house fires and car crashes). And in Anuire (the main price), most of the larger Realms are too far from the Crown for this to happen very often, say five to six times since the fal of the Empire.

I have to admit I've never seen the Gorgon as a great magician - I saw the L16 in the boxed set write-up as a 'well he's supposed to be the best at everything so he should have this too' rather than real thought on the matter as everything else screams 'paramount fighter/general'.

You are probably absolutely right here. I'm at work these days, and my library is at home... - Besides, as stated erlyer, I really suck at rules lawyering.

Still, I like the thought of him being a jack of all traits. He has enough stacked against him, poor fellow, so why cant he be a kick ass Sourcerer? And he is the most feared creature know to creation.

On leading from the front / rear it’s a toughie. Lead from the front and you are too involved in fighting to keep a good overview, lead from the rear and know that you could have held the line / broken the charge when your soldiers fail.

This is in deed the problem of generals of this era. However, I started this thread partly to discuss the differences between real word medieval tactics and Birthright tactics. With this in mind, why can't he ride something like, say, an Nightmare steed? There's a norwegian saying that translates something like "You'll know a great man by his ride". A steed like this might allow him to reach the critical sector in a jiffy to rally, dicipline or lead his troops, and, of course, to put an opposing leader or hero to the sword. Bloodtheaft

On goblins, LE alignment noted, I had forgotten the range of goblins and fixed on the whiny end of the race (who can be chaotic without changing the overall alignment as they are dominated by the others).

I agree with this theory completely.

Hobgoblin spearmen are cool would you be thinking pike or missile weapon-type spears? As pike they should be very effective.

Pikes would be my choice. The knights of Anuire will outnumber his own to such a degree that unless he can deny them the field, he will be sendt back to his hole before the turn of the moon.

I'm with the dark knights, but think that he could actually have real follower/worshippers not just mercenaries - the gorgon can after all grant spells to his followers, is immortal, etc - a king was godlike to many of his subjects (the divine right of kings) but the Gorgon makes them look like children. The knights could actually be far more honourable than he is - the head of a religion can easily get by with a 'do as I say not as I do approach'. As his strongest, most loyal troops they would then likely have far greater latitude in dealing with issues that arose. Of course he would need to show them at least some honour, etc in return.

This is how I've set it up in my campaign. And to offer my thoughts as to why he can attract human followers, humans can be more cruel or greedy than any other race. Look at our own world for proof. As for reward, if he manages to ascend to world domination, there will be plenty of land for his loyal satraps to hold in his name. Men have followed mad rulers for this reason throughout history.

Regarding Raizhadik I see him as the secret weapon - unleashed on an army he'll tear it apart regardless of who it is just out of fury at his imprisonment. Although if I was the gorgon I wouldn't want the other dragons to know that I'd kept one of their own as a slave... Half a dozen Cerillan dragons could make a mess of Kal-Saitharak in short order and it might be enough to rouse them - if only to send a message to the other awnsheghlien.

I can see no other reason for why he's kept this awesome creature in his basement. of course, hybris might explain it, but it falls under several points from the Evil Overlord list. I don't believe that he would keep th edragon alive unless he had some sort of a plan with it.

More from my campaign: The heroes infiltrated the Crown to free Prince Filherane of Tuarhievel from captivity, and were helped by said dragon. Not out of the goodness of his heart, but as a petty revenge against his captor.

Lord Rahvin

11-22-2006, 12:00 AM

"This is how I`ve set it up in my campaign. And to offer my thoughts as to
why he can attract human followers, humans can be more cruel or greedy than
any other race. Look at our own world for proof."

That "proof" is hardly being fair, is it? There is no evidence in our own
world than humans are any more cruel or greedy than elves or halflings. I
imagine you would find an elven world with thousands of years of history
quite appalling.

"As for reward, if he manages to ascend to world domination, there will be
plenty of land for his loyal satraps to hold in his name. Men have followed
mad rulers for this reason throughout history."

I completely agree here, but this slightly alters your campaign world a
little because a vision of a post-gorgon world could be a very real and
concrete image in the minds of many, especially those that might consider a
Gorgon near deity-status. Those that believe that the Gorgon could
challenge the Gods themselves might even believe he can bring them back from
death or do all manner of direct things that the Gods would never do for
them. I could easily see many mad villains led by the powerful vision, of a
post-victory gorgon-ruled Anuire in which his most loyal servants are
rewarded with immortality and dukedom of their home provinces.

-Lord Rahvin

The Swordgaunt

11-22-2006, 12:28 AM

That "proof" is hardly being fair, is it? There is no evidence in our own world than humans are any more cruel or greedy than elves or halflings. I imagine you would find an elven world with thousands of years of history quite appalling.

To a certain extent I can agree, but the reason for the human domination is the adaptaility of man. This means that humans can adapt to any situation, and quite often exceed the older races in measured success.

A few comparisons of cruelty:
The Gheaillie Sidhe (sp?) can be compared to the banishment of jews from most christian lands, combined with the whitch-trials. Holocaust, however, is an unrivalled act of cruelty.

Goblins fighting a war might be compared to the huns or perhaps the Norse vikings. The fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, not to mention Fat Boy and Little Man, however, are unprecedented in the cost of civillian lives.

While both races might be able to accomplish acts similar to the genocide in Rwanda, it is hard to imagine any of them overdoing it.

The first two examples were aided by technology, but it proves, IMO, that the will is there.

As for your Cult of the Gorgon-theory, it makes a lot of sence. The gods of BR is more present in their world than God is in ours (no offence to believers, but they do grant spells to their clergy). The Gorgon is even more present - he can personally smite those wo oppose him.

dalor

11-22-2006, 06:34 AM

Thoughts in line below***

--- Andrew Tall <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

<snip of good post>
>
> Re: Dalor
> On goblins, LE alignment noted, I had forgotten the
> range of goblins and fixed on the whiny end of the
> race (who can be chaotic without changing the
> overall alignment as they are dominated by the
> others).

***Yeah, the runts are less ordered certainly. They
would be battle fodder even as far as other goblins
are concerned.***

>
> Hobgoblin spearmen are cool would you be thinking
> pike or missile weapon-type spears? As pike they
> should be very effective.

***History shows that hand propelled missle weapons
used prior to closing were good weapons...but the ammo
ran out much too quickly unless it was backed up by
something even worse to come (after the Roman army
Reformation as an example). I think Hobgoblins would
be most prone to being good Pike troops. Left to
their own devices they wouldn`t normally train many
troops of this type; but under the Gorgon`s banner I
can picture Pike units. Still, the Bugbears (or
simply the larger goblins) seem to be more like
hillmen in Birthright...more barbaric and more likely
to be shock troops or ambushers with perhaps even less
discipline than the lesser goblins. Still good for
shock value and hardiness though.***

>
> Kiergard definitely as garrison troops, can you
> imagine using any of the cannibalistic races
> (included goblins per the novels)? Gnolls would
> make good infiltrators - they roam all over Cerilla
> even into the heartlands so they have to be good as
> passing without much notice.

***As a regent I used Gnolls to good effect. We
tended to use the old Chainmail/Battlesystem rules for
our battles, and the Gnolls made excellent bow
armed/halberd bearing shock troops. 3.5 Gnolls are
suited to this type of work as well...especially since
the Race (at least in the Forgotten Realms) can take a
feat that allows them to have reach...reach with
Halberds is nasty shock value.***

>
> Goblin worg-riders, I think worgs are supposed to be
> reasonably large and therefore not as trample-able
> as wolves, although I may just have watched LOTR too
> often.

***Worgs are still Medium creatures...but yes, much
tougher than wolves. I mention wolves because I don`t
see room for too many Worgs in Birthright. Their
greater intellect would mean that they would hunt
areas out of food quickly and have to move on. Wolves
on the other hand are essentially big dogs (or could
be treated as such by Goblins) that the small goblins
could still ride on. They would make excellent hit
and run troops in the right terrain...but in the open
they would be cut to pieces by cavalry. I have had
the chance to test out Direwolf riding Hobgoblin
"Knights" though...these worked really well and are
more like the Worgs of Middle-Earth...and even more
powerful than non-Knight cavalry fielded by Anuirean
states.***

>
> I`m with the dark knights, but think that he could
> actually have real follower/worshippers not just
> mercenaries - the gorgon can after all grant spells
> to his followers, is immortal, etc - a king was
> godlike to many of his subjects (the divine right of
> kings) but the Gorgon makes them look like children.
> The knights could actually be far more honourable
> than he is - the head of a religion can easily get
> by with a `do as I say not as I do approach`. As
> his strongest, most loyal troops they would then
> likely have far greater latitude in dealing with
> issues that arose. Of course he would need to show
> them at least some honour, etc in return.

***Interestingly to me, Raesene often treats well with
humans in his presence. His mentality, after all, has
its entire origin as a human. I could go with him
having a "knightly" order...but I would still say that
the Gorgon`s Crown wouldn`t be able to support the
standard idea of a Knight`s demesne. Even within the
lands the Gorgon holds there is most likely constant
fighting between different groups. His "Knights"
would be more like household knights of a great ruler
who are landless and without their fief.

I wasn`t aware that the Gorgon could grant spells!
That is a serious change...and something I`ll have to
take into consideration on various topics.***

>
> Regarding Orogs I got the impression from Warlock of
> the Stonecrowns that they followed the Drake rather
> than the Gorgon, but that could have been after I
> modified the adventure...

***I only had the impression that the Drake had some
few units of Orogs that followed him...again more akin
to mercenaries than whole clans that declared him
their liege. I can`t remember the details of the
Orogs that worked for him. As for the Gorgon, such a
powerful being would no doubt attract Orogs to his
service; but these would be more prone to want to kill
the dwarves than are the Goblins. I don`t see them
having settlements upon the surface of the Gorgon`s
crown; but since the land is no doubt mineral rich it
is possible they would be attracted.***

>
> Regarding Raizhadik I see him as the secret weapon -
> unleashed on an army he`ll tear it apart regardless
> of who it is just out of fury at his imprisonment.
> Although if I was the gorgon I wouldn`t want the
> other dragons to know that I`d kept one of their own
> as a slave... Half a dozen Cerillan dragons could
> make a mess of Kal-Saitharak in short order and it
> might be enough to rouse them - if only to send a
> message to the other awnsheghlien.

***The Gorgon`s Dragon is something I don`t think the
Gorgon is quite sure how to use. He makes one heck of
a guard dog...but more like Cerebus: not a guard dog
you want to break its chain!***

Anthony Edwards

__________________________________________________ __________________________________
Sponsored Link

Compare mortgage rates for today.
Get up to 5 free quotes. www2.nextag.com

irdeggman

11-22-2006, 10:27 AM

I have to admit I've never seen the Gorgon as a great magician - I saw the L16 in the boxed set write-up as a 'well he's supposed to be the best at everything so he should have this too' rather than real thought on the matter as everything else screams 'paramount fighter/general'. He gets a lot of RP from sources due to low population levels of course but any wizardry would be sufficient for that. Although his wizard levels survived into the BRCS I would note that dual/multiclasses combo's were far cheaper in AD&D than D20, maintaining his original power level would have probably cut him down to L5 or so mage, enough to hold sources, know the basics and tell if someone if bluffing but something he sees as an add-on not as a core strength.

What do you mean by "cheaper"?

It was much harder to dual class in AD&D than it is in 3.5.

A human (the only race that could dual class) had to have a 17 in the ability score of the subsequent class and then had a painful progression in order to fully gain the abilities of both classes.

IMO multiclassing and especially dual classing was more "expensive" in AD&D than it is in 3.5. In that it took longer (for dual classers) and multiclassing had a lot of restrictions for demi-humans (allowed classes, limits on classes, etc.) that do not exist in 3.5.

geeman

11-22-2006, 04:20 PM

At 02:27 AM 11/22/2006, irdeggman wrote:

>A human (the only race that could dual class) had to have a 17 in
>the ability score of the subsequent class and then had a painful
>progression in order to fully gain the abilities of both classes.
>
>IMO multiclassing and especially dual classing was more "expensive"
>in AD&D than it is in 3.5. In that it took longer (for dual
>classers) and multiclassing had a lot of restrictions for
>demi-humans (allowed classes, limits on classes, etc.) that do not
>exist in 3.5.

I`m not sure what the original poster meant by "cheaper" but I would
guess that where you`re focusing on the requirements and penalties,
the original poster was talking about XP and the ultimate
payoff. Because the XP tables were, at that time, rooted to class
rather than total level, dual classed character gained levels in his
new class pretty quickly. A dual classed character couldn`t use
_most_ of his original abilities, but he retained all the equipment,
hp, etc. of their original class, so they could take on threats that
earned them XP beyond what a normal PC of that level could deal with,
so gaining the XP required to use both classes was really not as hard
as all that--depending, of course, on how many levels the character
had in his original class. Nonetheless, the payoff was pretty
substantial. My experience was that dual classing was the best
munchkinny bargain of the system--not counting the inevitable trove
of magic items, that is. Imagine the dual class system being ported
into 3e. Since there was no XP penalty to pay for dual classing, the
levels gained were so easy, etc. it`d make for pretty amazingly
powerful characters. The ability score requirements made the system
accessible to relatively few characters, but the "cost" of the system
for those characters was pretty mild, really.

Let`s not even get into the crazy situation that resulted in playing
the dual-classed introduction to the 1e bard....

Gary

irdeggman

11-22-2006, 04:35 PM

In one of our groups we had a player who tried to play PCs with as many classs as possible.

Because he refused to accept the no xp gained for using previous class' abilities penalty, everyone else in the party died.

So, while there was a quantum step increase in power once the previous class' level was exceeded - up until that point it was pretty limited. Prestige class also didn't exist and a PC could only have 1 class from each group (eithe rcleric or druid, either fighter, ranger or paladin, etc.). So it is not uncommon on 3.5 to have a multiclass characer, where it was much rarer in 2nd ed (at least humans with more than one class) and in 3.5 it is not at all uncommon for characters to have 4 or 5 classes (counting prestige classes).

This, of course only applied to humans and dual classing. Metahumans on the other hand had a lot more restrictions on their mutliclassing and I cannot see how it was "cheaper" in 2nd ed.

In my 1st ed group we actually had a player run a character that made it to "bard". {man I love the 3.5 bards so much more themeatically}.

geeman

11-22-2006, 05:15 PM

At 08:35 AM 11/22/2006, irdeggman wrote:

>...I cannot see how it was "cheaper" in 2nd ed.

It is a vague term as it was used.... Having played a few dual
classed characters back in the day, though, if one managed to have
the discipline not to void XP awards by violating the rule about not
using any previous class abilities until one matched that old class
level then the period where one was back at the top of those XP
tables was pretty sweet. Even as a (new) wizard, which had the
highest XP requirements, the progression was pretty fast. And the
payoff? A spellcaster with gobs of hp and a THAC0 in the low single
digits. Crazy.

The other thing about the dual class system is that it wound up
making wizards much more survivable. Just a couple of fighter
levels (or several other classes) meant that character would run
around with substantially more hp than the norm, and at low levels
that was a particularly big deal. The cost really turned out to be a
few thousand XP, which was not as much of a problem as it is in
3e. The issue was most influential for dual-classed wizards, of
course, but it worked very similarly for other classes. All one
really needed was a 15 and a 17 in ability scores for access to the
system. I did that several times as a player and for NPCs when I
DMed. It still required a bit of discipline (as a player) but not as
much because the character was simply more likely to survive in the
first place.

>In my 1st ed group we actually had a player run a character that
>made it to "bard". {man I love the 3.5 bards so much more themeatically}.

I played two really insane dual-classed characters. The first was a
bard, and as soon as new rules for that class came out he got
redefined. In fact, the character was reworked at least four times
as "improved" versions of that class became available. However,
during that period when he was the built using the 1e rules he was
pretty much unstoppable. The other was a cleric/wizard and that
resulted a munchkinny character that make the most outlandish
spike-chain-wielding paladin/monk in 3e look like a kobold.... It
was fun at the time, but I wouldn`t want to play using such rules
now. It`s more sensible to just go with a superhero system if one
wants to play characters with such levels of power.

Gary

AndrewTall

11-22-2006, 09:42 PM

On the side-trek: I used cheaper purely in terms of xp.

A multi-class priest mage of L5/L5 had comparable xp to a single class mage of L6 say (I don't have the tables to hand but the double xp requirements every level to 9 often hit this way). In D20 to be a L5 mage/L5 priest you need the same xp as a L10 mage. D20 has some other impacts, hp aren't split for example, but the main class powers dwarfed issues like these for spellcasters. This worked until L9 and the ending of the double xp rule.

Similarly a L7 fighter who dual classed and adventured with the same group would be a L8 mage/priest etc just a level or two behind his single class comrades. OK you need the ability points to switch but it’s a serious munchkin - unless the DM drastically scaled the xp for the dual class pc down (hard if they are still doing a lot on the story side of the game) the dual class would bounce up a level or two each session. The start as a fighter-route worked well for pretty much every other class.

Thus the Gorgon Fighter 20, Wizard 16 was the same xp wise as a fighter in the mid 20's - not the mid 30's as he would be in D20. Of course Gorgon didn't gain xp if he used his fighter abilities in AD&D (high thac0, armour, multiple attacks) as he started as a fighter, whereas in D20 he does - if he can find something with a high enough CR.

The choice to make the class ability increase system in D20 non-reversible is a pain but otherwise it's substantially improved. (By reversible I mean that a L1 rogue, L1 fighter is not identical to a L1 fighter, L1 rogue, similarly the character is not the same if they boost int at L4 and cha at L8 as they would be if they boosted cha at L4 and int at L8. This makes creation a pain for me particularly with saves - give the +2 bonus more than once and encourage multiclassing, or create L0 humans to get rid of the +2 save / *4 skill issue and avoid the problem but create yet more house rules which impact every character beyond vanilla's.)

When converting characters I generally take any below L9 and drop both classes by 1/3 or drop one by 1/2. (It doesn't work as well with fighters but spellcasters do well). Above L9 a lower drop is needed, Gorgon would have been F20/Wiz 5 for example - which means he probably needs a wizard side-kick.

Sidetreks, if you knew where you were going there would be no point to the trip.

AndrewTall

11-22-2006, 10:44 PM

OK, back to topic.

Dalor posted:
Interestingly to me, Raesene often treats well with humans in his presence. His mentality, after all, has its entire origin as a human. I could go with him having a "knightly" order...but I would still say that the Gorgon’s Crown wouldn’t be able to support the standard idea of a Knight’s demesne. Even within the lands the Gorgon holds there is most likely constant fighting between different groups. His "Knights" would be more like household knights of a great ruler who are landless and without their fief.

Andrew:
Agreed - I was thinking a religious order rather than landed order (obvious the two did mix a lot) but the king's champions approach also works well.

In terms of the human approach I do find it interesting that the gorgons crown has no guild holdings and only a few temples whereas Markazor and mur-kilad have substantial holdings and both dwarves and goblins have substantial underground realms - did the Gorgon just smash the main doors in and rage through the halls without actually going into the deeps? A human could well see the surface part of the kingdom as the only important part...

Dalor:
I wasn’t aware that the Gorgon could grant spells! That is a serious change...and something I`ll have to take into consideration on various topics.

Andrew:
BRCS p35 notes it as a rumour, I'm sure I saw it somewhere else in stronger terms as well.

The original box noted that the Serpent's followers were granted spells.

I took the view that it was a 'true' bloodline ability representing the godlike status of the awnshegh in question similar to Rhoubhe's awareness of his realm.

Not relevant in my campaign as I don’t use priests but still good for flavour.

Dalor:
I only had the impression that the Drake had some few units of Orogs that followed him...again more akin to mercenaries than whole clans that declared him their liege. I can’t remember the details of the Orogs that worked for him. As for the Gorgon, such a powerful being would no doubt attract Orogs to his service; but these would be more prone to want to kill the dwarves than are the Goblins. I don’t see them having settlements upon the surface of the Gorgon`s crown; but since the land is no doubt mineral rich it is possible they would be attracted.

Andrew:
The Codex of the Crowning Wyrm is described as written by one of his priests. In my adaptation I used the Drake as the reason why the orogs were increasing in numbers - he's a strong enough mage (L12) to cast continual light by the bucket load and similarly could slowly carve small realms out of natural cavern systems. I had him creating ‘gardens’ for the orogs to grow food in allowing their population to grow rapidly, he in turn became their secret deity. Of course realm magic could probably do the same thing on a larger scale but at the cost of continual RP bleed.

Noted on the wolves and worgs. Don't orogs have some sort of lizard as a horse equivalent?

Swordgaunt:
Goblins fighting a war might be compared to the Huns or perhaps the Norse vikings. The fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, not to mention Fat Boy and Little Man, however, are unprecedented in the cost of civilian lives.

That depends if you are counting one engagement or not - WWII had a number of genocidal activities, I won't go into comparisons (nanking, coventry anyone?) but Rwanda is measured by the millions and Stalin/Mao probably wiped out tens of millions of their own (although in percentage terms the Khmer rouge would storm ahead.)

If my recollections of Vikings is correct, they often didn't kill that many when raiding - if the villages fled for example (many did) the Vikings would simply loot and go, they didn't attack for the joy of slaughter so much as for wealth. Other human 'barbarians' have been far worse, the Aztecs annihilated some of their enemies, the Japanese in WWII used brutality as a strategy, the Romans would deal with repeat offenders with extreme brutality - the Geneva conventions were all about preventing a total war situation and restricted casualties to military-types because of just how bad the position could otherwise be.

In Europe we were somewhat isolated from the really bad wars in medieval times - the nobility was dislocated from the peasantry and wars were really about just swapping the guys at the top with both sides seeing the peasants as a valuable resource, in other continents with tribal wars genocide was a very successful tactic.

I see the goblins as devastating to captured populations - conquest is their one chance to be the tough guys and they make sure that all the pain they have suffered is passed on ten fold. Goblins may live poor wretched lives because of their society, but that doesn't mean they think that the wealthier humans are blameless of oppressing them - it is certainly human nature to blame those wealthier for their wealth than accept that the poverty is self inflicted in many cultures.

The low populations in Anuire could as a result be due to the invasions (isn't it time KGauck and Ryancaverny has an argument about populations?), although I agree with the post about raids as opposed to wars. Possibly a risk type strategy of 'towers' of troops moving around enemy territory without any expectation of keeping what is taken...

On the location front I see him as leading from the front, but with a spell / magic item / blood ability allowing him to tap into the overview as required, if you expand the animal affinity list (give Azrai ravens/crows as well for example) The Gorgon could snatch looks at the battlefield from the circling crows - he is smart and experienced enough to see the way the battle is moving from glimpses as long as the troops are visually distinct.

On human domination I would point out that humans aren't actually competing with elves/dwarves - neither breeds quickly enough to have a prayer in a war that drags out, humans are competing against goblins - and the superior discipline, lack of infighting, better magic etc tip the balance the human’s way. (I know that BR tends to say that it was human priests who won the wars against the elves, I note that the priests wrote the histories and are unlikely to say 'we lost twenty men for every slain elf, excellent, we breed a hundred for each one of theirs'.)

geeman

11-22-2006, 11:35 PM

At 02:44 PM 11/22/2006, Andrew Tall wrote:

>Noted on the wolves and worgs. Don`t orogs have some sort of lizard
>as a horse equivalent?

There are giant lizards amongst them here and there in BR
products. The leap between keeping them in pens and riding them
isn`t terribly far. It is a little debatable how well a low-bodied,
strangely gaited, difficult to train mount would work in battle, but
if anyone could make it work on a regular basis it`d be orogs.

A sidenote about the cruelty of humanity versus that of other
races. Yes, human have been extraordinarly cruel in real world
history, and in comparison to the cruelty exibited by the various
races in BR humans look pretty bad. However, it should be noted that
the races of BR (including humans) have a somewhat idealized and
sanitized history. Slaughter from time to time, but not the same
level of abject horror we see in the real world on such an alarming
basis. My point is that such a comparison is essentially inapt not
because the facts are incorrect, but because in the fictionalized
world to which it is being compared things have been purposefully toned down.

Gary

The Swordgaunt

11-30-2006, 12:12 PM

That depends if you are counting one engagement or not - WWII had a number of genocidal activities, I won't go into comparisons (nanking, coventry anyone?) but Rwanda is measured by the millions and Stalin/Mao probably wiped out tens of millions of their own (although in percentage terms the Khmer rouge would storm ahead.)

I only wanted to give proof of the human ability to be evil. I see no reason for why the Gorgon can't have human followers.

If my recollections of Vikings is correct, they often didn't kill that many when raiding - if the villages fled for example (many did) the Vikings would simply loot and go, they didn't attack for the joy of slaughter so much as for wealth.

I agree that my use of the vikings was a rather poor example. They were in fact more merchants than barbarians, who mainly raided poorly defended settlements and monastaries close to the waterways, and often engaged in commerce. However, they were not strangers to a bit of random rape and murder. They are actually credited for at least pert of the reason for the development of the feudal system - the Saxons and Franks needed a mobile rapid deployment force to counter these warriors who appeared and dissapeared almost like ghosts.

I see the goblins as devastating to captured populations - conquest is their one chance to be the tough guys and they make sure that all the pain they have suffered is passed on ten fold. Goblins may live poor wretched lives because of their society, but that doesn't mean they think that the wealthier humans are blameless of oppressing them - it is certainly human nature to blame those wealthier for their wealth than accept that the poverty is self inflicted in many cultures.

The low populations in Anuire could as a result be due to the invasions (isn't it time KGauck and Ryancaverny has an argument about populations?), although I agree with the post about raids as opposed to wars. Possibly a risk type strategy of 'towers' of troops moving around enemy territory without any expectation of keeping what is taken...

I believe we are on the same page here. Mistrust and envy makes for a much better rationale for racial hatered and -fear. I find the clasical "they're evil, we're good" approach a bit naive. Of course, the rethorics doesn't need to be more advanced, but there has to be a reason behind it.

I see goblin raids and wars as one of two options; either as political and commercial raids, where the goal is to prove ones worth as a ruler while bringing back goods and slaves. Or, as population control measures, happening every other generation or so, whenever the numbers of goblins have reached a too high level for the realm. -Every once and again, these two may be compined for a Great Horde-invasion.

Your Risk-analogy is briliant.

On human domination I would point out that humans aren't actually competing with elves/dwarves - neither breeds quickly enough to have a prayer in a war that drags out, humans are competing against goblins - and the superior discipline, lack of infighting, better magic etc tip the balance the human’s way. (I know that BR tends to say that it was human priests who won the wars against the elves, I note that the priests wrote the histories and are unlikely to say 'we lost twenty men for every slain elf, excellent, we breed a hundred for each one of theirs'.)

Kudos for historical relativism.

A sidenote about the cruelty of humanity versus that of other
races. Yes, human have been extraordinarly cruel in real world
history, and in comparison to the cruelty exibited by the various
races in BR humans look pretty bad. However, it should be noted that
the races of BR (including humans) have a somewhat idealized and
sanitized history. Slaughter from time to time, but not the same
level of abject horror we see in the real world on such an alarming
basis. My point is that such a comparison is essentially inapt not
because the facts are incorrect, but because in the fictionalized
world to which it is being compared things have been purposefully toned down.

True. But if your palette consists of only black and white, it makes for an unnuanzed painting. Even Tolkien had humans among the most evil creatures in that story he wrote. Ringwraiths, anyone?