| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Baptor
Seeker
USA
93 Posts |
 Posted - 01 Mar 2017 : 03:55:14
|
Scribes,
In the Code of the Harpers (and elsewhere) it says that a Harper who chooses to consolidate political power can no longer "hear the sweet song of the Harp."
I've got a character who is a Harper who recently was bequeathed some land, a keep, and a title by the local Queen. If he accepts these things, does that mean the Harpers would kick him out?
It seems like other Harpers I've read about have property and titles and are still Harpers - like some of the Chosen. So I am confused.
What do you all think?
(I know I've been asking a lot of Harper questions, but I am having trouble understanding them. What I read tends to contradict itself.)
|
Jesus said, "I am the Ressurection and the Life. Anyone who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and those who live and believe in Me will never die. Do you believe this?" |
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2017 : 04:16:25
|
Because being a 'part of a government' is contrary to many of their goals, they would probably just lower his status to 'Harper Friend'.
The Chosen are a special case - they break LOTS of rules.
On the other hand, its depends on how much you read into that - 'consolidate political power' sounds like someone who is trying to create their own 'litte empire', so if this is something that he/she just 'stumbled into', and didn't go looking for (nor plans to 'build upon by acquiring even more lands and power'), then he may be able to stay a full Harper - its your call. I'd expect them to keep on eye on him, though. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 01 Mar 2017 04:17:00 |
 |
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 01 Mar 2017 : 07:39:53
|
I wouldn't like to think this is a clear cut case of just casting the character out of the Harpers simply because he's now a respected member of the community.
Afterall, there is some value -- whether through political capital [depending on his governmental clout with the Queen] or financial [through working the land and making some money], perhaps even societal [having more influence in the community] -- to having a now landed personage still remaining among the Harpers. Especially if we're talking about a town or city that is a well-known flashpoint between the Harpers and the assorted evil factions wishing to control, pillage, or destroy this location.
I've chosen to read the "consolidate political power" 'clause,' I suppose you'd call it, rather loosely. Meaning, if the Harper were to consolidate power for his or her own use, and purely to the detriment of the local community, or even the Harpers' collective interests, then, yes, I'd imagine being thrown out of the organisation would be the most appropriate course. This character has now become a threat to the Harpers, as such. However, if he were to consolidate political power through legal and justified means, which ultimately leads to the curtailing of evil influences in the city, or perhaps eliminating them outright through subtle political influence with the Queen, then there is justification for the character to remain a Harper.
Really, I'd say it depends on what course of character development you wish to follow for this. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 02 Mar 2017 : 00:09:47
|
| The watchword in question reads (FOR4 p. 10): "Harpers police their own. A Harper who hears the call of personal power can no longer hear the sweet song of the harp. A Harper who seizes power, and holds it above all else, is a traitor to the harp. Traitors must die, for freedom to live." This doesn't mean that no Harper should have any kind of political power -- much of what they do is accomplished through political power of one sort or another -- but that those who seek personal power for its own sake betray the principles of Those Who Harp. Accepting an award of land and title risks the character's independence from rulers and loyalty to the Harpers, but it might be acceptable if the ruler is judged relatively just or if the character would be able to use the new position to further Harper aims. Different senior Harpers, being the heterogeneous lot they are, might take different views. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Sweet song of the Harp?
