However, problems arise beyond the support of a shieldlander assuming the throne of furyondy. (Sorry GVD pet peeve )
1) The Royal forces seem too large, granted troop levels vary greatly campaign to campaign but the previous canon references tell of a generally weak kingship compared to the might of the nobles causing social and political friction within Furyondy. In your article the Royal Army and Furyondian Guard comprise 10,000 men, percentage of Furyondy armed forces under King's direct control is 33%. Even with full mobilization it stands at 20%. Quite frankly, I can't see any Furyondian King squabbling with stubborn nobles, if 33% of the army was directly under his control plus the Knightly Orders.
2) The two "honour guard" forces are mercenary; one perrenlander and the other baklunish nomad cavalry while they no doubt provide a colorful military units even putting aside their origins. I can't see the proud warlike Furyondy culture allowing foreign mercenary units access to the King without it being taken as an insult to their own martial prowess unless convincing backstories can be provided such as the perrenlanders are a remnant of a loyal unit that refused to rebel against the imperial viceroy although after all this time "perrenlander" is more an honorific given the generations.
3) Powerful sophicated navy for furyondy, I will grant you regionally powerful given Iuz lack of naval power perhaps but sophicated belongs to the true naval powers of the flanaess which doesn't include furyondy.
4) Which bring to the overall tone of the article; everything is sunshine and flowers. All branches of the military are strong and powerful, recruits are eager, moral is resolute. Where is the weariness of war, the despair of a lost generation of young men?
Think post WWI, the emotional fatigue and bitterness of the nation, survivors guilt, the war weary old solider with dented equipment, the commander haunted by the horror of the reclaimed north?
No matter how encouraging the outcome of the Great Northern Crusade, Furyondy IMHO should be much bleaker then protrayed in the article.
I am struck by the continued deliberate contradictions of established canon.
First, apparently it seems forgotten that Furyondy lost the Greyhawk Wars. They won the rematch, but the peace for that war ceded territory to Iuz.
Second, the history of Furyondy clearly indicates it always maintained a very small army. It was because of that the Knights of Hart were established, to serve as a fast mobilization and response force.
Third, the history of the Greyhawk Wars is quite clear that Furyondy was not ready for the attack, and that they were easily tricked into looking at the wrong part of their border with Iuz.
Fourth, the statement about the navy is simply laughable. A riverine navy is never going to be as sophisticated as a full-blown ocean going navy. Nor would Furyondy have any reason, or more critically any access, to send armed vessels casually through the Domain of Greyhawk or the Duchy of Urnst to project a naval presence on the high seas. I'm sure their little river boats are quite effective, but they could hardly be compared to the naval strength of the true maritime powers.
Fifth, Furyondy was colonized by the Great Kingdom, but it was settled by people related to the Keoish. That is obvious from the clothing style notes. They are Sud-Visi-Oeridians, not Ostro-Oeridians.
Sixth, the Kozeki are inconsistent with history, both past and present, and politics. Ketite troops as the Furyondian Royal Guard? After they served as allies of Iuz during the Greyhawk Wars? And the Bisselites just casually let them pass through? Tiger Nomads serving alongside Perrenlanders? Perrenlanders serving their former colonial masters so eagerly? What a mess!
Seventh, the gratuitous anachronism of an armed peasantry in a feudal nation serving as a guarantor of liberty is even more absurd than the pretense of a super-navy. The idea that noble levies aren't the peasant militia is inconsistent with the use of the terms. And super-militia being the equal or better of regulars is even more bizarre. No militia like that was ever the equal, never mind the superior, of a trained army. As for the Keoish underestimating their value, apparently someone forgot Keoish experience with troops from the Yeomanry.
Finally, Furyondy as the pre-eminent military power in the Flanaess is simply not credible given their population and rebuilding needs.
As internal propoganda this is barely acceptable. As a serious analysis of Furyondy it is too inconsistent to be a reasonable evolution of their power in less than a century.
Your points are well taken . . . however . . . . . . I am imagining that I have been insufficiently clear concerning what my Furyondy series is and is not, which would not be the reader's difficulty but mine.
Let me be clear - my series of articles on Furyondy postulate a King Artur, ne King Arthur - intentionally, with all that implies. Arthur's Camelot is imagined as something of a Golden Age, at least until it deteriorates. So too then Artur's Furyondy.
Crag wrote:
Which bring to the overall tone of the article; everything is sunshine and flowers. All branches of the military are strong and powerful, recruits are eager, moral is resolute. Where is the weariness of war, the despair of a lost generation of young men?
This is exactly so and entirely intentional. I am not expounding upon canon. I am developing a theme: Arthurian, ne Arturian, Furyondy. Until it might be published (yeah, right ), Arturian Furyondy is not canon and makes no pretension of being canon. I am pleased you found it interesting, that was the hope.
Arthur was a mystical king (sword from stone, grail etc.), with the ability to make the land prosper. In Arthurian/Arturian Furyondy, King Artur is Arthur's gaming standin. Your points are good ones, drawing from canon, but miss the point of what I'm doing, as I am moving beyond canon to imagine Arthurian/Arturian Furyondy.
Think of it as a "what might be" not as a "what should be or what is." And consider the analogy that is being attempted - Arthurian myth for Greyhawk. So, for example, as Arthur's court had a pagan Saracen knight, I've added something similar to Artur's court (as well a an entire compliment lead by that knight). It makes sense on its own terms but those terms are Arthurian myth (as selected from the Arthurian myth cycle by me), not Greyhawk.
Interest is what I am after from readers, to provoke consideration of Arthurian themes in Greyhawk, which may not be to every taste. I do not seek agreement for there is nothing to agree with as I am not working with canon but with selected Arthurian motifs translated to Greyhawk.
I am pleased you found the treatment interesting. That was what I was after. _________________ GVD
Artur's support arises, at first, as a consequence of the need for someone capable of stopping Belvor and his military ability and success doing so. Artur's later support arises from both good propaganda, and good rule. The timeline extension is intentional but like any extension is ultimately speculative. Canon forms the foundation but not the larger superstructure that arises from that starting point.
Going back to an earlier note, I quote the following from the above link -
"But all is not as it seems.
Iuz is wounded but remains venomous and coiled to strike. Rumors of a renewed alliance with the Mother of Witches, Iggwilv, known to have escaped confinement in the Abyss, drift down from the Yatils and chill the hearts of Perrenlander and Furyondian alike.
As Iuz falters and attempts to stiffen, the Horned Society is resurgent. Nowhere and everywhere at the same time. The clucking of sages has proven true. The loss of their lands made the Horned Society more dangerous, not less. Each year their tendrils reach further into the hearts of men, most especially in the Duchy of Gold Country where avarice has always been held just good business.
Neither are the knightly orders are immune from a similar lusting after power and wealth. Whether it is by the actions of the Horned Society or some other dark agency is unknown. It is only known that knightly virtue is now the subject of widening suspicion as Courts of Chivalry are more frequently called.
Even among Knights of Fury, it is said, there is some dissension. The King is not old but he is worn beyond his years, if still vital. There is talk of a scandal among the Furious Knights that vexes the King. No details are known.
Furyondy has been reforged but the future is uncertain and opportunity for heroism and villainy abound."
The juxtaposition is between a "Camelot" and a rot that is beginning to sap its strength and vitality. While there is more than an appearance of light and power, there are also darker forces at work.
IMC, Arturian Furyondy has seen further developments that are only hinted at above. To date, I have not put those into submissions, as I felt that 10 years into Artur's reign or so was a good point to present as Artur's reign remains strong but is beginning to show the first signs of weakness - hopefully fertile ground for adventuring. If there is interest, I can certainly expand upon Artur's reign - particularly the challenges facing Furyondy and attempts to meet those challenges. _________________ GVD
I don't see how treachery by an Arthur analog could ever be used as the basis for an Arthurian themed setting.
Betraying your King to seize personal power is so far from anything Arthurian as to invalidate any comparison.
What next, Iuz as Mordred but he becomes Lawful Good?
Or do we have to wait for Artur to boff Iggwilv so Iuz's little brother can destroy Furyondy?
Well, there is the whole "betraying your king to shag the queen" thing...
I think there is a tendency to be too literal, here.
When putting something like this together, there are two steps:
1) Select those features from the literary cycle that you want to work with. In making your selection, you need not be literal or exact in every detail. So, for example, there need not be a Sir Kay or a Merlin type character etc. if such is not necessary to achieve the feel you are looking for. Individual tastes will, of course, vary, as will your audience that may need or desire more or less literalism, just depending. There is no right or wrong, just what works for you and your group.
2) Once you select the features you are looking for, you adapt them to the chosen setting, in this case Greyhawk. Again, the process need not be literal or exact in every detail. So, for example, Artur pulled no sword from a stone before becoming king of Furyondy. As opposed to simply replicating the inspirational source, you adapt it. Again, individual tastes will, of course, vary, as will your audience that may need or desire more or less literalism, just depending. There is no right or wrong, just what works for you and your group.
So - Select and Adapt without feeling a need to be literal, unless your audience needs that to get the feel you are looking for. Some folks are quicker on the uptake than others. The slow coaches will likely need more literalism. That what you create is not an exact duplicate of the original, however, is the whole idea. Variation, even deviation, is fine as exact duplication of the original is not the intent. This is particularly true where you may be working in other, completely unrelated threads into your campaign, at one and the same time. Also true where you need to , by some measure accomodate existing "canon." It is ultimately a flexible process not a rigid one.
IMC, I play with/tease the Lancelot/Guinivere thing but ultimately go another way to encompass Artur's doom. Artur is inspired by Arthur but he is not Arthur. _________________ GVD
So other than taking the 'h' out of Arthur, what is supposed to be here from the Arthurian legends?
A happy kingdom doomed to collapse?
If the basis for Artur betraying Belvor is to develop an Arthurian theme, but there are no Arthurian themes, that becomes untenable as justification. Rather than any sort of homage to anything, this is just mining Greyhawk for names.
My wife has tasked me with cleaning up the library, since I'm the one who routinely messes it up. In the process of dealing with the game section, I came across the following titles that will be of use to those looking to explore Arthurian themes in GH:
(Arthurian Adventures) Legends of Excalibur (d20) from RPG Objects
Relics & Rituals - Excalibur (d20) from Sword & Sorcery Studios
Slaine line of products (d20) from Mongoose Publishing
Celtic Age (d20) from Avalanche Press
Love & War (d20) from Atlas Games
Noble Knights (d20) from Avalanche Press
Knightly Steeds (d20) from Avalanche Press
And, of course, Chaosium's marvelous Pendragon RPG, even if it is not immediately d20 adaptable - rather it uses the d100 based Basic Roleplaying system, which converts to d20 without too much difficulty.
The first two noted titles are especially good for suggesting how to adapt Arthurian themes to the standard D&D melieu. I especially like Legends of Excalibur and if one wanted to get but one title for Arthurian use, this would be it, IMO. Although, I really, really like the Slaine series. _________________ GVD
The Slaine series is very good, if you want to use a Celtic background in your game.
With as much interest as there is in using real world myth and legend, I am surprised that more people do not play in an Ars Magica style campaign. Ars Magica is sometimes referred to as "Mythic Europe", and can be best described as follows:
An Ars Magica campaign is exactly like playing a game set in the historical middle ages(or dark ages, or whatever time period you want), except that all of those myths and legends that the common folk tell tales about are completely and utterly true!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
)
), Arturian Furyondy is not canon and makes no pretension of being canon. I am pleased you found it interesting, that was the hope.
