The latest Dragon magazine includes a Prestige Class called the Battleguard of Tempus. Here are two quotes: "Harsh drill sergeants and exacting taskmasters...", and "Alignment: Any nonlawful".
So, what we have are warriors dedicated to battle, known for their mashalling of armies, and exacting in the standard of drill in their units. Yet, at the same time, they cannot be lawful.
Now, before I rant about how these positions are internally inconsistent, allow me to point out that, while Dragon magazine is no longer owned by WotC, and while the author of the article is not a WotC employee, the material in Dragon is all "official" Dungeons & Dragons content, and should be acceptable for use in any game (or, at least, just as acceptable as any WotC sourcebook). Moreover, the Forgotten Realms is the flagship setting for D&D, in fact if not in name, and so one would expect a certain level of editorial control.
Still, the above is just an aside. Here's the problem with the two quotes above:
The very rationale for exacting standards of drill in massed units of troops is that men working together are expontentially more effective than the same number of men working independently. Massed cavalry charges are so devastating precisely because they hit the enemy en masse, and so can just keep on going. Legions carry short swords, not longswords, because they require less space to wield effectively, allowing you to pack the men more tightly (something that is also true of polearms, which are deadly in massed combat, but not in individual combat, something that no version of the massed combat rules that I've seen since 3rd Edition has taken into account).
But, the notion of men being most effective when working together is a strictly lawful ideal. The counter ideal, embodied by the berserker horde, is that men are most powerful fighting individually, that a horde of berserk warriors can each create their own field of terror, and reign death and destruction on it.
So, then, how can one state that the Battleguards of Tempus are "harsh drill sergeants", while at the same time mandating that they are strictly non-lawful? Surely these are inconsistent positions?
No comments:
Post a Comment