| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Knight of the Gate |
Posted - 26 Jan 2011 : 08:35:34
As I was enjoying a re-read of GHotR tonight, a question occurred to me: Where do the Harpers get funds for running operations, maintaining safehouses, paying informants, bribing officials, equipping agents, etc.? I'm certain that some large chunk of their resources is in the form of well-to-do members who are openhanded with their wealth, but do the Harpers engage in any sort of revenue-generation? I know that certain businesses are Harper fronts, and I would guess that those fronts are expected to turn a profit, which accounts for some income.
Apart from those two pretty obvious sources, does anyone have any info on where the organization's money comes from? I would not be shocked to find out that they own rental properties, or maybe even run a thieves' guild or two in cities which have a particularly uneven distribution of wealth.
(I'm guessing that some of this might be in the Harper splatbook, which I currently do not own.) |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 28 Nov 2020 : 05:33:39
Great Reader Karsus and Great Reader Ayrik,
Isn't that the truth.
I think the other issue though that makes points of interest such as what I've brought up with ethics in roleplay, is that gaming has really been put under the microscope in so many ways over the last (10) years. In a variety of ways. I just started looking at things with the array of issues coming up and decided the time was right to strike by putting out my thoughts. Some have liked it, some have not, but either way it is very interesting having the debates, discussions, etc.
Best regards,
|
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 27 Nov 2020 : 23:37:42
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I must comment that I'm a little amused by this scroll.
When I first offered my anti-Harper criticisms one decade ago they were met with polite silence and dismissal. The deeds and legends (and methods) of the Harpers were nigh-unassailable.
Now, after the passage of years, the scribes of Candlekeep seem eager to embrace notions of unwelcome and unsavoury Harper activities. Willing to see the tarnished dirt layered upon (and under) the surface of the Harpers' silvered reputation.
-It's been a crazy ten years. A global recessions, worldwide revolution, a pandemic now, and we're all sick of the bullshit. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 27 Nov 2020 : 08:09:36
Senior Scribe Delnyn,
Great point regarding the difference in cultures and attitudes towards the Harper's. I can see some places dealing ok with the subterfuge, etc., and other places being extremely frustrated with it. For example, in Cormyr, I can imagine that the Wyvernspur family likely had some pretty harsh things to say once they found out what happened to Finder, which was way over the top.
Best regards,
|
| George Krashos |
Posted - 27 Nov 2020 : 00:27:26
Erin Evans portrays the intricacies of the Harper network really well in her Brimstone Angels novels.
-- George Krashos |
| Demzer |
Posted - 26 Nov 2020 : 13:40:35
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I must comment that I'm a little amused by this scroll.
When I first offered my anti-Harper criticisms one decade ago they were met with polite silence and dismissal. The deeds and legends (and methods) of the Harpers were nigh-unassailable.
Now, after the passage of years, the scribes of Candlekeep seem eager to embrace notions of unwelcome and unsavoury Harper activities. Willing to see the tarnished dirt layered upon (and under) the surface of the Harpers' silvered reputation.
Didn't check the dates of the original discussion but for me, looking at it from the Lands of Intrigue, the Harpers are just a good-ish spy network, with bigger backers than most other cloak societies. Actually all the backing that they have most of the times lessens their achivements if compared with those of other clandestine or semi-clandestine groups.
The novel The Alabaster Staff, if I remember correctly, has a very realistic portrayal of what an hardcore Harper Agent might look like to someone that's not been steeped in the Harpers propaganda of the North and the Dalelands.
I think it's quite logic to call into question some of their methods but always keep in mind that at the end of the day, the best way to stop the big bad evil from destroying the town/nation/world is to stab it until it stops moving (and then some more). And that's what Harpers do, which makes them clearly do-gooders in my book. Clandestine, disagreeable, smug, entitled and with questionable practices from time to time, but do-gooders nonetheless. |
| Delnyn |
Posted - 26 Nov 2020 : 13:13:23
Do not be too surprised if the Harper's reputation with Faerun's citizens was never so sterling in the first place.  After all, Toril is not Earth, and its people have a different daily experience with Harpers...and one that is often far more personal and direct.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I must comment that I'm a little amused by this scroll.
When I first offered my anti-Harper criticisms one decade ago they were met with polite silence and dismissal. The deeds and legends (and methods) of the Harpers were nigh-unassailable.
Now, after the passage of years, the scribes of Candlekeep seem eager to embrace notions of unwelcome and unsavoury Harper activities. Willing to see the tarnished dirt layered upon (and under) the surface of the Harpers' silvered reputation.
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 26 Nov 2020 : 08:26:53
Great Reader Ayrik,
Well, if I had been on here when you made that initial post, I would have been all over it. However, I joined in 2013.
To be clear, I think the Harper's are compelling as an organization. They are, however, even more interesting with all of the stuff that's been discussed herein because it suspends disbelief, at least for me. :)
It even possibly sets up a great redemption story. ;)
Best regards,
|
| Brimstone |
Posted - 26 Nov 2020 : 07:09:38
I've been wanting to run a Zhent/Cult of The Dragon/other group of nasty bad's has been secretly infiltrating the Harpers for years, to bring them down from the inside plot. Kinda like Hydra and Shield in the MCU. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 26 Nov 2020 : 06:28:13
I must comment that I'm a little amused by this scroll.
When I first offered my anti-Harper criticisms one decade ago they were met with polite silence and dismissal. The deeds and legends (and methods) of the Harpers were nigh-unassailable.
Now, after the passage of years, the scribes of Candlekeep seem eager to embrace notions of unwelcome and unsavoury Harper activities. Willing to see the tarnished dirt layered upon (and under) the surface of the Harpers' silvered reputation. |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 25 Nov 2020 : 15:57:27
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
Back to the original topic about funding, I concur the lion's share of funding comes through members' contributions, whether from commercial enterprises or outright donations. The Harpers are definitely not some standing army, so members have to be self-sufficient to some extent.
There are likely a fair number of businesses and such owned by retired Harpers or Harper allies, to help with the funding.
One of the things suggested earlier was Harpers taking over enterprises run by bad guys, just to exploit them as a funding source -- allowing whatever the bad guys were doing to keep happening. While I very strongly disagree with this idea, I'm sure that more than a few businesses once owned/operated by various bad guys wound up in Harper hands once those bad guys were discovered and dealt with. Not, as stated earlier, to let the operation continue whilst milking it dry -- instead, being more of a corporate takeover, where the legitimate business continues as before, and the unseen activities are either stopped or entirely re directed.So a business that ran as a front for slavers would continue its legitimate operations, but the slave operations would end. It might become a stop on an underground railroad, or it might just become a legit business and nothing else.
Just to throw out there, they might also keep those businesses running, in hopes of "catching a bigger fish". We see this in a lot of cop movies where they allow low level illegal businesses to function, sometimes even aiding these operations, in order to catch the people above them. Not sure how often it might occur or how profitable it might be, but its definitely a possibility. That being said, I see this MORE as something that Khelben's Moonstars would do, and a discussion around this kind of thing might be a good way to differentiate the two groups better.
There are several references of Harpers infiltrating thieves' guilds before they take them out so this may be a standard practice. Within reason since I could see the Harpers interfering with assassinations right off the bat. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 25 Nov 2020 : 15:19:06
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
Back to the original topic about funding, I concur the lion's share of funding comes through members' contributions, whether from commercial enterprises or outright donations. The Harpers are definitely not some standing army, so members have to be self-sufficient to some extent.
There are likely a fair number of businesses and such owned by retired Harpers or Harper allies, to help with the funding.
One of the things suggested earlier was Harpers taking over enterprises run by bad guys, just to exploit them as a funding source -- allowing whatever the bad guys were doing to keep happening. While I very strongly disagree with this idea, I'm sure that more than a few businesses once owned/operated by various bad guys wound up in Harper hands once those bad guys were discovered and dealt with. Not, as stated earlier, to let the operation continue whilst milking it dry -- instead, being more of a corporate takeover, where the legitimate business continues as before, and the unseen activities are either stopped or entirely re directed.So a business that ran as a front for slavers would continue its legitimate operations, but the slave operations would end. It might become a stop on an underground railroad, or it might just become a legit business and nothing else.
Just to throw out there, they might also keep those businesses running, in hopes of "catching a bigger fish". We see this in a lot of cop movies where they allow low level illegal businesses to function, sometimes even aiding these operations, in order to catch the people above them. Not sure how often it might occur or how profitable it might be, but its definitely a possibility. That being said, I see this MORE as something that Khelben's Moonstars would do, and a discussion around this kind of thing might be a good way to differentiate the two groups better. |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 25 Nov 2020 : 14:35:53
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
Back to the original topic about funding, I concur the lion's share of funding comes through members' contributions, whether from commercial enterprises or outright donations. The Harpers are definitely not some standing army, so members have to be self-sufficient to some extent.
There are likely a fair number of businesses and such owned by retired Harpers or Harper allies, to help with the funding.
One of the things suggested earlier was Harpers taking over enterprises run by bad guys, just to exploit them as a funding source -- allowing whatever the bad guys were doing to keep happening. While I very strongly disagree with this idea, I'm sure that more than a few businesses once owned/operated by various bad guys wound up in Harper hands once those bad guys were discovered and dealt with. Not, as stated earlier, to let the operation continue whilst milking it dry -- instead, being more of a corporate takeover, where the legitimate business continues as before, and the unseen activities are either stopped or entirely re directed.So a business that ran as a front for slavers would continue its legitimate operations, but the slave operations would end. It might become a stop on an underground railroad, or it might just become a legit business and nothing else.
If the Harper agents tend to work on their own or in small groups, what about just self funding for those in the field? "Go take out the group of bandits terrorizing this area. You can keep any loot you get." If there is any shortfall, they can just head to the nearest temple of one of the supporting gods for some help.
Station chiefs (the guys that direct agents or groups of agents) very likely have a cover so that could be used to support themselves with the occasional influx of cash from the higher ups when needed. they would also be the ones that would run the newly "clean" operations.
People higher up in the organization who are too busy to have a "normal job/persona" would need their daily needs supported by the organization. That sounds like the people that would be helped by the investments and other sources of income. They would also be the ones to foot the bill for any large expenditures and would likely just be the ones to reimburse any temple that had to make a large outlay to agents (say for bribes). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 25 Nov 2020 : 14:33:41
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
Back to the original topic about funding, I concur the lion's share of funding comes through members' contributions, whether from commercial enterprises or outright donations. The Harpers are definitely not some standing army, so members have to be self-sufficient to some extent.
The penchant for secrecy and manipulation discourages violence except as a last resort. Therefore, I expect the "kill the enemies and grab their stuff" is at best an incidental form of funding.
Now About Recruitment
As far as recruitment is concerned, my understanding is prospective members go through often unknown surveillance and probation -easily for months - before being approached by a Harper. The Harpers come to you, not the other way around.
This surveillance should be kept in mind should a new member decide to do some freelance recruiting or assigning missions. After all, the new member must wonder how long has he or she been watched, and more importantly, does monitoring stop when a member is inducted. *Insert canned laugh track* It is possible to deceive the senior Harpers, but it sure is expensive in terms of time, effort and money to do so.
You assume here that everyone "follows the rules". I can guarantee you, for instance, that the places where I work say things like "you cannot use the web for personal business"... and they even do it in writing... and I guarantee there's not a single person working there, even the ones that wrote that policy, that follow it. There are even tools out there tracking where everyone goes into logs, but there's not the manpower to actually review them in 99.9% of businesses unless a problem arises. Similarly, there are always individuals in any industry who know how to "walk the walk" enough that people THINK they're doing the right thing. Meanwhile, on the side they're pulling shenanigans. I wouldn't be surprised if the methods of recruitment SAY that they will spend lots of time reviewing things, but in reality, we have to question if the harpers would actually have the resources to be watching all these villains AND hunting down people and thoroughly vetting them. I honestly can't see it happening. They are much too disorganized for that level of cohesion. Especially when you get down to the lower echelons, the scrutiny upon them is going to be next to nil because there quite simply are always more "indians" than "chiefs". Sure, handfuls may get caught, and when they do, they probably propagandize it to put the fear of harper leadership into folks.... but unless for every low level agent they've got fives times as many people watching said low level agent... its not going to work.... and if all they're doing is watching each other, then you've got basically Germany during the time when the wall was up going on... and that's not what the harpers are portrayed as. I would sooner buy that they're not quite as vigilant as they portray themselves, but generally good hearted, versus believing that they're THAT paranoid and watchful of one another that they'll catch someone who steps out of line. |
| TheIriaeban |
Posted - 25 Nov 2020 : 14:21:59
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yeah, but if these fake Harpers are not telling people that they're Harpers, then what's the point? They can't tell real Harpers and they aren't telling non-Harpers, so there's no benefit.
Besides, I'm sure there's certain requirements, within the group, for who can and can't recruit people.
And with it being canon that false Harpers are hunted down, then it's clear that not only is membership tracked, but that they also keep their ears to the ground... This is especially easy given the heavy presence of bards in the group.
I guess I'm not explaining it well. This is the idea I was thinking of for the fake harpers. The "fake harpers" that are doing the good deeds don't realize they're "fake harpers". They have someone above them that's pointing at targets and saying "yeah, that's a bad person, go get them and bring back their goods". Essentially, they believe that they are harpers, they hide who they are because they're told to do so, and they take out targets and return money to a person or persons that they fully believe is the harper leadership. The benefit is that this fake leadership has got dupes running around taking out targets for them and stealing their goods, and these "do-gooders" are also not inclined to reveal who is leading them out of misguided loyalty if they're caught.
On the second scenario of someone actually within the harpers misusing their role, they can recruit people and not tell the people above them. This is a little harder to do, since this leadership will be watched more. At the same time, the secrecy within the harpers themselves lends them to this exact kind of subterfuge. If they don't have a defined structure, it becomes very hard to do what is said to be done when it come to tracking their membership. Its a thing where one of their strengths (flexibility) is also one of their weaknesses as a result. When they DO find someone abusing their power, it seems like they go overboard to punish them (like what was done to Finder), but I'm not convinced that they actually have a good internal policing force.
BTW, on the second scenario... the idea that "only certain people in the harpers will be allowed to recruit" is very hard to control given their methods of recruitment. Literally what they do is find someone, hand them a pin, and then tell them "you can be a harper, but don't talk to anyone but me until I feel you've learned enough and I'll introduce you to others". The harper leadership can't control who is handing out pins, and the average person isn't going to know if they don't have a real harper pin. So if a brand new person is recruited into the harpers, they could in theory start recruiting people under them without telling anyone by just handing out pins. This can get really interesting if other groups like the twisted rune or knights of the shield start infiltrating the harpers.
To use terms from espionage, the first instance is called a false flag recruitment. The second one COULD be termed a mole since that would be a deep cover operation. Now, that person could either syphon those funds for himself (which would be more of a rogue agent) or for some other organization (a textbook mole). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 25 Nov 2020 : 13:50:02
quote:
Originally posted by Delnyn
Back to the original topic about funding, I concur the lion's share of funding comes through members' contributions, whether from commercial enterprises or outright donations. The Harpers are definitely not some standing army, so members have to be self-sufficient to some extent.
There are likely a fair number of businesses and such owned by retired Harpers or Harper allies, to help with the funding.
One of the things suggested earlier was Harpers taking over enterprises run by bad guys, just to exploit them as a funding source -- allowing whatever the bad guys were doing to keep happening. While I very strongly disagree with this idea, I'm sure that more than a few businesses once owned/operated by various bad guys wound up in Harper hands once those bad guys were discovered and dealt with. Not, as stated earlier, to let the operation continue whilst milking it dry -- instead, being more of a corporate takeover, where the legitimate business continues as before, and the unseen activities are either stopped or entirely re directed.So a business that ran as a front for slavers would continue its legitimate operations, but the slave operations would end. It might become a stop on an underground railroad, or it might just become a legit business and nothing else. |
| Delnyn |
Posted - 25 Nov 2020 : 11:49:03
Back to the original topic about funding, I concur the lion's share of funding comes through members' contributions, whether from commercial enterprises or outright donations. The Harpers are definitely not some standing army, so members have to be self-sufficient to some extent.
The penchant for secrecy and manipulation discourages violence except as a last resort. Therefore, I expect the "kill the enemies and grab their stuff" is at best an incidental form of funding.
Now About Recruitment
As far as recruitment is concerned, my understanding is prospective members go through often unknown surveillance and probation -easily for months - before being approached by a Harper. The Harpers come to you, not the other way around.
This surveillance should be kept in mind should a new member decide to do some freelance recruiting or assigning missions. After all, the new member must wonder how long has he or she been watched, and more importantly, does monitoring stop when a member is inducted. *Insert canned laugh track* It is possible to deceive the senior Harpers, but it sure is expensive in terms of time, effort and money to do so.
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 18:28:52
Great Reader Karsus,
quote:
-Khelben is "Lawful Neutral" and by the D&D definition, that means he follows his own personal code, yada, yada, yada. As evidenced by cpthero2, he can stay true to those personal convictions by carrying out terrible actions; he might be the very definition of "the ends justify the means". Labeling him evil might maybe be a stretch, since in D&D the concept of evil is a lot more...tangible than it is in actual life and is far less subjective and relative and that muddles things a bit, but he is definitely not a good person or paragon of morality (and he probably would be the first to admit that).
I agree with the idea that Khelben is an "ends justify the means", or in ethics, what is called a consequentialist.
I do get your point about the "stretching" on the evil label. My point has always been that it depends on the scale being used, whether someones actions are evil or not. Now, your point regarding the "D&D concept of evil is a lot more...tangible..." is accurate. Though I have been using Khelben as the fulcrum for my argument about ethics and morals in the Realms, it really is the conceptual failure of alignment that is at the ground floor of the argument. It was an oversimplified tool (alignment) that was meant to bring a quick solution to right and wrong in the game. That made sense when it was Chainmail, OB D&D, and even 1st and 2nd edition. Though, with the advent of the internet, all of the knowledge that came, different forms of writing, rules systems, and more, the veil came back pretty hard I argue. The Emperor (the alignment system in this case) had no Clothes.
Any good story (in my opinion at least, haha) has those ethical and moral quandaries that come about. The "hero" has to make "that" decision. Will they make the decision the way I want to, some may ask? Others want to see the other. The fact that people see the choices a "hero" may make in such different ways, is what makes it obvious that ethics and morality are not uniform. I think Khelben (who is a fantastically cool character, regardless of my ethical analysis of him) is so well written as a character, that we can actually dig into the consistency of his actions in novels, accessories, etc., and try to figure out what makes this guy tick, in a really detailed way. I personally think that is super cool. I want to know what makes a mage of his caliber, power, influence, and age, make the decisions he does. I totally know that he can go melt pretty much anyone's face off if he chooses to do so. I am interested in why or why not that face melting is going to happen. What informs that ultimate consequence?
quote:
Honestly, that makes him one of the more interesting characters that get big chunks of spotlight in the setting. He's willing to get his hands dirty, he's willing to do things other people might not, he has a vision of what needs to be done in order to ensure a safe and free world (his version of that, anyway) and he's gonna do what he has to do in order to make sure that vision happens.
I agree. He's like a super Charles Bronson with other awesome characters mixed in with that. He will totally go get his killing on. For me though, as I mentioned above, what is so interesting about it is: what leads him to make those choices? I mean, who is preposterously powerful and old. He is older than most Elves have ever lived at over 1,000 years old. The affect of that kind of life on the human psyche, must be impossible to understand, which is why I want to understand it. I really wonder if someone is still really "human" after his life, to that point. Everything he has done has transcended human potential. He's done things that cannot be matched, or experienced by but maybe a handful of people, such as Halaster, Elminster, the Simbul, etc. It's so disconnected from the experiences of Realms humans (even super powerful ones), it is mind boggling.
Anyhow, great post. I appreciate it! :)
Best regards,
|
| Brimstone |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 10:52:05
Holy wall of text Bat-Man!
I've always figured Mystra's Chosen were the real villain's in the Realms. They just run around as a bunch of pesky do-gooders to hide their true evil... |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 07:41:06
Great Reader Ayrik, formerly the Bumbling Enthusiastic Young Neophyte and Junior Apprentice Quill Sharpener,
Good morning good sir!
I love the original title. Things were clearly a little bit different back then here at the 'Keep! ;)
Ah, so it's just the Gnomes this time around, eh? ;) I've run across some Gnomes inland that are trustworthy, but those Lantanese Gnomes...they, you cannot trust! ;)
Best regards,
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 05:54:11
quote:
Though, please, don't take only my word for it.. Let's revisit what Great Reader Ayrik said about this very topic, (9) years ago:
Well, let us also remember that the one you address as "Great Reader Ayrik" today started off in Candlekeep as "Bumbling Enthusiastic Young Neophyte (and Junior Apprentice Quill Sharpener) Arik" some nine years ago.
[Edit]
I do still maintain my illuminati-conspiracy suspicions about those deviously greedy banking gnomes. Never trust a gnome! |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 03:24:20
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yeah, but if these fake Harpers are not telling people that they're Harpers, then what's the point? They can't tell real Harpers and they aren't telling non-Harpers, so there's no benefit.
Besides, I'm sure there's certain requirements, within the group, for who can and can't recruit people.
And with it being canon that false Harpers are hunted down, then it's clear that not only is membership tracked, but that they also keep their ears to the ground... This is especially easy given the heavy presence of bards in the group.
I guess I'm not explaining it well. This is the idea I was thinking of for the fake harpers. The "fake harpers" that are doing the good deeds don't realize they're "fake harpers". They have someone above them that's pointing at targets and saying "yeah, that's a bad person, go get them and bring back their goods". Essentially, they believe that they are harpers, they hide who they are because they're told to do so, and they take out targets and return money to a person or persons that they fully believe is the harper leadership. The benefit is that this fake leadership has got dupes running around taking out targets for them and stealing their goods, and these "do-gooders" are also not inclined to reveal who is leading them out of misguided loyalty if they're caught.
On the second scenario of someone actually within the harpers misusing their role, they can recruit people and not tell the people above them. This is a little harder to do, since this leadership will be watched more. At the same time, the secrecy within the harpers themselves lends them to this exact kind of subterfuge. If they don't have a defined structure, it becomes very hard to do what is said to be done when it come to tracking their membership. Its a thing where one of their strengths (flexibility) is also one of their weaknesses as a result. When they DO find someone abusing their power, it seems like they go overboard to punish them (like what was done to Finder), but I'm not convinced that they actually have a good internal policing force.
BTW, on the second scenario... the idea that "only certain people in the harpers will be allowed to recruit" is very hard to control given their methods of recruitment. Literally what they do is find someone, hand them a pin, and then tell them "you can be a harper, but don't talk to anyone but me until I feel you've learned enough and I'll introduce you to others". The harper leadership can't control who is handing out pins, and the average person isn't going to know if they don't have a real harper pin. So if a brand new person is recruited into the harpers, they could in theory start recruiting people under them without telling anyone by just handing out pins. This can get really interesting if other groups like the twisted rune or knights of the shield start infiltrating the harpers.
Okay, I see where you're coming from, now. I shall object no further.  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 03:23:33
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus
-Khelben is "Lawful Neutral" and by the D&D definition, that means he follows his own personal code, yada, yada, yada. As evidenced by cpthero2, he can stay true to those personal convictions by carrying out terrible actions; he might be the very definition of "the ends justify the means". Labeling him evil might maybe be a stretch, since in D&D the concept of evil is a lot more...tangible than it is in actual life and is far less subjective and relative and that muddles things a bit, but he is definitely not a good person or paragon of morality (and he probably would be the first to admit that). Honestly, that makes him one of the more interesting characters that get big chunks of spotlight in the setting. He's willing to get his hands dirty, he's willing to do things other people might not, he has a vision of what needs to be done in order to ensure a safe and free world (his version of that, anyway) and he's gonna do what he has to do in order to make sure that vision happens.
Khelben is very interesting to me because of the way he operates. He has generally worked for the common good, but yeah, he'll get his hands dirty to do it.
I readily acknowledge this.
My objection is to cpthero2's stance, repeated ad nauseam, that since Khelben did something questionable once that a bad guy took advantage of, then it makes Khelben himself evil. Centuries of working for the benefit of others, including nearly getting ripped in half, and none of that matters because one time Khelben gave Fzoul a tool. 
Khelben is one of my favorite characters of the Realms. As annoying as it is to see him so badly mischaracterized, it's even more annoying that it keeps get brought up at the drop of a hat. |
| Lord Karsus |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 01:50:28
-Khelben is "Lawful Neutral" and by the D&D definition, that means he follows his own personal code, yada, yada, yada. As evidenced by cpthero2, he can stay true to those personal convictions by carrying out terrible actions; he might be the very definition of "the ends justify the means". Labeling him evil might maybe be a stretch, since in D&D the concept of evil is a lot more...tangible than it is in actual life and is far less subjective and relative and that muddles things a bit, but he is definitely not a good person or paragon of morality (and he probably would be the first to admit that). Honestly, that makes him one of the more interesting characters that get big chunks of spotlight in the setting. He's willing to get his hands dirty, he's willing to do things other people might not, he has a vision of what needs to be done in order to ensure a safe and free world (his version of that, anyway) and he's gonna do what he has to do in order to make sure that vision happens. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 01:48:23
Kill them all and let the gods sort them out. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 24 Nov 2020 : 01:33:29
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Yeah, but if these fake Harpers are not telling people that they're Harpers, then what's the point? They can't tell real Harpers and they aren't telling non-Harpers, so there's no benefit.
Besides, I'm sure there's certain requirements, within the group, for who can and can't recruit people.
And with it being canon that false Harpers are hunted down, then it's clear that not only is membership tracked, but that they also keep their ears to the ground... This is especially easy given the heavy presence of bards in the group.
I guess I'm not explaining it well. This is the idea I was thinking of for the fake harpers. The "fake harpers" that are doing the good deeds don't realize they're "fake harpers". They have someone above them that's pointing at targets and saying "yeah, that's a bad person, go get them and bring back their goods". Essentially, they believe that they are harpers, they hide who they are because they're told to do so, and they take out targets and return money to a person or persons that they fully believe is the harper leadership. The benefit is that this fake leadership has got dupes running around taking out targets for them and stealing their goods, and these "do-gooders" are also not inclined to reveal who is leading them out of misguided loyalty if they're caught.
On the second scenario of someone actually within the harpers misusing their role, they can recruit people and not tell the people above them. This is a little harder to do, since this leadership will be watched more. At the same time, the secrecy within the harpers themselves lends them to this exact kind of subterfuge. If they don't have a defined structure, it becomes very hard to do what is said to be done when it come to tracking their membership. Its a thing where one of their strengths (flexibility) is also one of their weaknesses as a result. When they DO find someone abusing their power, it seems like they go overboard to punish them (like what was done to Finder), but I'm not convinced that they actually have a good internal policing force.
BTW, on the second scenario... the idea that "only certain people in the harpers will be allowed to recruit" is very hard to control given their methods of recruitment. Literally what they do is find someone, hand them a pin, and then tell them "you can be a harper, but don't talk to anyone but me until I feel you've learned enough and I'll introduce you to others". The harper leadership can't control who is handing out pins, and the average person isn't going to know if they don't have a real harper pin. So if a brand new person is recruited into the harpers, they could in theory start recruiting people under them without telling anyone by just handing out pins. This can get really interesting if other groups like the twisted rune or knights of the shield start infiltrating the harpers. |
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 23:53:07
Great Reader Dallison,
quote:
Now this is my kind of thread. Since reading Song of the Saurials I've been mulling over how far the corruption of moander might have spread in the organisation (and cyrylia dragonbreast got ill with an incurable and undiagnosable disease very suddenly).
Nice! I'm glad you like it as well. :) I never even thought of Moander in that regard, but dang, you are right about that! That is a great idea. :) I could see some serious associating with Talona as well in that regard.
quote:
Actual evil infiltration aside though, every organisation should have the overly zealous type evil, the morally dubious but highly skilled type evil, the naive and ignorant type of evil. None of these believe themselves to be evil but are found everywhere and either commit evil themselves in the name of righteousness or allow it to be committed through inaction.
I mean, power usually does corrupt. I think your idea about having that one or more super zealous people causing issues, is just a fact. Someone, somewhere, is just not happy with the status quo and has to have an extra helping of dinner and dessert. ;)
quote:
As for money. The Harpers have many people killed and break up many evil organisations all over faerun, why not steal their assets.
Why not deliberately infiltrate evil organisations and funnel their riches away towards the Harpers, allowing the Harpers to get info and grow rich from the infiltrated evil, only destroying it when it is poor and of no more use.
Well, the Harper's were already loaded due to investments loosely discussed in the Code of the Harper's. So, as to the orgs that have been broken up already by the Harper's I would imagine their coffers have gotten quite deep.
To be honest, I am stunned that the Herald's have not tried to slow down or stop the Harper's since they left in the early 900's.
Best regards,
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 23:16:01
Great Reader sleyvas,
quote:
It's a good idea. Basically, throwing in some corruption into the harpers makes a lot of sense given that it is so fluid for leadership. Its natural that some people would set themselves up in positions of power possibly without even really questioning their own motives and making excuses.
If we throw much more in there, I think it could go critical and they could very well find themselves polymorphing into the Zhentarim! Ok, clearly the Harper's are not as bad as the Zhentarim, overall, but they have issues of significance.
quote:
I wouldn't go so far as to make it an entirely criminal organization from the top, but the idea that the founders like Elminster, Storm, etc... might be getting the wool pulled over their eyes while they're looking in on some other issue.
Well, that happened when Rundorl Moonsklan was doing this thing while everyone of power was away during the Harpstar Wars.
quote:
It doesn't even need to be outright evil. It can be a misunderstanding where some leadership in say the north considers cheating Calishites "ok" because "all of those Calishite traders are criminals anyway". One need only look at our own world to find similar situations where one group feels that they need to "guide" things because "other groups don't know what's right", and they use their own self-righteous belief in themselves to qualify that what they think is correct.
And that is really where I think it is. The organization is so poorly managed, and there are so many competing interests with different ethics, that it makes it practically impossible for them to do the "right" thing (whatever that means).
quote:
Or to put it more succinctly and broadly (and therefore less specific as well).... the harpers as presented are meant for a play style that's less believable and geared towards a simpler game where a DM just points and say "these are the good guys", and if one were to include more realism in the game the way that its currently setup is ripe for corruptive influence. Neither style of play is necessarily bad, but from a story perspective, I'd find the one with more realism much more interesting.
Agreed, however, if any degree of RP comes into the equation and someone starts to ask questions (I had a player for his character do this who was a Harper at the table), it's hard to provide cover for that organization. haha
quote:
Along these same lines, so many things in the game are of a similar bent. Elves are presented as "good", but then later people started questioning this and putting in elitist elves who focus on their own race's needs before others. There's other examples I could throw up, but I also don't want to light a stick of dynamite around here, and I think I made my point... I agree, the harper's lack of definition and "broad" goals make them a bit unbelievable and open for corruption.... but they do have good propagandists and sometimes that is an extremely effective tool.
I agree there too. I mean, the Crown Wars had some unbelievable justifications for the Elves behavior at times. I mean, wow........the murder hobo action was preposterous. I find them analysis of such groups/organizations, etc. to be interesting and the compelling reason behind who, what, why, when, where they are who they are.
Best regards,
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 23:01:26
Great Reader Ayrik,
quote:
I think my statements here (from ten years ago) were meant to provoke some skepticism. A sarcastic tone to emphasize/ridicule parts of the operations which aren't normally visible, to make readers ask themselves whether what they've read about Harpers is truly objective or if it's basically biased in-setting marketing/propaganda. To make readers question exactly how "unreliable" the "unreliable narrator" might be.
Well, I think your points were well made, and I really enjoyed the sarcasm, haha. There is so much more to the Harper's upon initially reading about them.
To be clear, as an organization in the Realms, they are [u]extremely interesting[/i] to me. I think they are a really cool organization. I'm just attempting to call out what is a thin layer of "good guy'ism", thinly veiling a much seedier, darker, underbelly. I think that is what makes them so interesting, and why I feel your sarcastic (and very entertaining) points were well made.
Best regards,
|
| cpthero2 |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 22:57:18
Great Reader Darden,
A good afternoon to you!
quote:
All that convoluted drivel...and I still don't see evidence of KHELBEN being evil. Where is the CANON reference...not the supposition. Where?
I standby what I've presented, though you remain unconvinced. People must not always agree, and that is seemingly the position we're in at this moment. I certainly can appreciate that, and respect your different opinion. I find the notion of agreeing to disagree to be quite palatable as an alternative in such situations. :)
quote:
You use "evidence" of the Harpers having been corrupted IN THE PAST as your proof of it being so TODAY. Sheesh.
That depends on what you consider "today." Since I never went beyond 1385DR, that narrows the scale of time much closer to when Khelben stole the scepter, gave it to Fzoul, had his trial, and left to create the Moonstar's. All of which were extremely bad, of course. Now, if someone is looking at things through a longer lens of history, by being in the late 1400's, I can understand a bit more your point there. Then again, there isn't much lore to go off of from a post-Spellplague perspective, so what is there is largely meant to foster adventures (I feel) mildly, not to really give deep, meaningful lore to the Realms, post-Spellplague.
The other point though regarding past offenses and issues the Harper's have had, is that they never seem to escape it. It appears to be a common issue within their ranks, which is unsurprising when the leadership of the organization is so questionable.
quote:
I have literally mostly kept away from Candlekeep because of your pedantry; because it is seriously a pain in the ass. Being "long winded" is not proof at all.
Well, I am glad to see you having returned to the keep good sir!
Best regards,
|
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 23 Nov 2020 : 22:39:38
All that convoluted drivel...and I still don't see evidence of KHELBEN being evil. Where is the CANON reference...not the supposition. Where?
You use "evidence" of the Harpers having been corrupted IN THE PAST as your proof of it being so TODAY. Sheesh.
I have literally mostly kept away from Candlekeep because of your pedantry; because it is seriously a pain in the ass. Being "long winded" is not proof at all. |
|
|
