Remember, remember,
The Fifth of November,
Gunpowder treason and plot;
For I see no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.
Rather than trying to summarize this myself, I'll just quote from the Wikipedia article, in part because it keeps all the links:
The Gunpowder Plot of 1605, in earlier centuries often called the Gunpowder Treason Plot or the Jesuit Treason, was an unsuccessful attempted regicide against King James VI of Scotland and I of England by a group of English Roman Catholics, led by Robert Catesby, who considered their actions attempted tyrannicide and who sought regime change in England after decades of religious persecution.
The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of Parliament on 5 November 1605,[a] as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which King James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the new head of state. Catesby is suspected by historians to have embarked on the scheme after hopes of greater religious tolerance under King James I had faded, leaving many English Catholics disappointed. His fellow conspirators were John and Christopher Wright, Robert and Thomas Wintour, Thomas Percy, Guy Fawkes, Robert Keyes, Thomas Bates, John Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, Sir Everard Digby and Francis Tresham. Fawkes, who had 10 years of military experience fighting in the Spanish Netherlands in the failed suppression of the Dutch Revolt, was given charge of the explosives.
On 26 October 1605 an anonymous letter of warning was sent to William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle,
a Catholic member of Parliament, who immediately showed it to the
authorities. During a search of the House of Lords on the evening of 4
November 1605, Fawkes was discovered guarding 36 barrels of gunpowder—enough
to reduce the House of Lords to rubble—and arrested. Hearing that the
plot had been discovered, most of the conspirators fled from London
while trying to enlist support along the way. Several made a last stand against the pursuing Sheriff of Worcester and a posse of his men at Holbeche House;
in the ensuing gunfight Catesby was one of those shot and killed. At
their trial on 27 January 1606, eight of the surviving conspirators,
including Fawkes, were convicted and sentenced to be hanged, drawn and quartered.
How is this interesting for gaming? I'm glad you asked:
- This could be the setup for a great game. Smuggling the explosive casks in would be a great Blades in the Dark heist, but would also be great as the start of a D&D campaign or campaign arc. It would be trivial to portray one side as good and the other as evil, but it would be a far more interesting, if less beer-and-pretzels friendly campaign set up. To go further:
- This set up could be particularly interesting for those with multiple player groups buying into it, since you could have a party on each side, working to thwart the other side's actions.
- You could do it with multiple fantasy religions, or multiple schisms of the same religion, and have it go from there. This would certainly allow exploring the relationships between priests and clerics, and between those following the "original" religion and those following a heretical schism of that religion.
- The original setting certainly implies room for primitive fire arms, which appeals to some groups. That could be rolled back to renaissance weaponry, or could have steam engine elements or their fantasy equivalents added in.
- Play as common people caught up in these events, with the party mostly committed to one side or the other.
- If you did want to take it in more of a beer-and-pretzels direction, this could make a great adventure path campaign. The religious details could be downplayed or ignored, and the king could be made more of a caricature. It could be broken up into an arc along these lines:
- The getaway after the failed initial plot, evading capture and meeting contacts, followed by
- The rally to get allies aligned and involved, and possibly recruiting mercenaries or factions which are on the fence, especially when time is limited.
- The return to King James, to get him dethroned, and his daughter installed in his place.
This also allows an exploration of social class: the protestant Church of England set up by Henry VIII was in part to allow him to get a divorce. Changing an entire country's religion just to get a divorce can be seen as the ultimate example of privilege. His successor Queen Elizabeth I, furthered the religious schism when the Elizabethan Religious Settlement was enacted. It required "anyone appointed to a public or church office to swear allegiance to the monarch as head of the Church and state." [Wikipedia]. Yes, this is political, yes it's class warfare, and yes, that's the nature of D&D worlds at the upper class, er, "level", and at higher class level, at least before third edition.
Just to emphasize this, the common people who didn't embrace the Church of England could not gain higher office without swearing earthly and holy allegiance to the monarch. This mainly would have oppressed the truly faithful, limiting their ability to advance, while also reinforcing the monarch's power in this society. Perfect setup for a rebellion, or at least social strife.
Even if you're not going to explicitly run a campaign about a revolution--from either side--a setting on the verge of a revolution like this would be interesting. Those supporting the crown and head of church would have relatively easy access to resources that those opposed to it would have to struggle to match, but potentially at the cost of their conscience.
For the rest of this article, I'm going to focus on the thing pivotal to this particular division: what a religious schism means in a fantasy context.
The Impact of Religious Schisms on Religion-based Old School Fantasy Characters
Religiously, avowed Catholics would at best live under suspicion, and at worst (as was the case of Jesuit monks in this setting) would be condemned to death if caught. People that had previously been friendly or civil would likely cross the street to avoid being seen with characters "on the wrong side" or "practicing the wrong religion". Those openly expressing their faith might have difficulties with bureaucracy and law enforcement, either actively (harassment and obstruction) or passively (failure to extend their services, or dragging their feet in doing so).
Where this could get very interesting is for divine spell casters: do casters of either side have more access to spells or other divine benefits?
- If followers of the original religion have easier access to divine gifts than those of the schismatic branch, in this environment, this would cast doubt on the monarch as a legitimate head of church.
- Contrariwise, if the schismatic branch has easier access to divine gifts, this would suggest the legitimacy of the monarch as the head of the church.
Of course, one side (most likely the schismatic side) might instead get their divine gifts from another source: a competing deity, a devil, or some other corrupting influence looking to perpetuate the division.
Another possibility, if you're partial to supernatural schisms, is that the deity in question splits into two: one on the side of the original religion, the other supportive and reflective of the schismatic branch.
Most dramatically, if part of a country's official clergy just switch loyalty overnight what impact does that have? Here are the options as I see them:
- Nothing. The god in question doesn't care about the details too much, as long as everyone still prays to them. The deity openly shares that this is the case with their senior mortal servants, and lets them deal with it as long as they don't lose a significant number of worshipers. This deity would probably get involved in a civil war by driving it to a quick and definite conclusion to minimize the disruption of their own power.
- A Personality Split. The deity develops two faces or aspects, possibly without being aware of it. Each side gains their divine benefits as expected. The senior mortal servants of each side believe they are correct in part because that is what their deity told them.
- A Divine Conflict in One God. The god splits into two gods, almost identical at first glance, but with some key differences reflecting the side they represent. As with a personality split, the senior mortal servants of each side believe they are correct in part because that is what their deity told them.
- A Divine Grift. Another deity or supernatural entity intercedes for one side or the other (most likely the schismatic branch, but the "original" faith could be set up as the bamboozled side, with a well set up situation. Yet again, the senior mortal servants of each side believe they are correct in part because that is what their deity told them.
Old School Spells In This Context
Most old school spells would probably function the same as they currently do. If you wanted to make things interesting, though, these changes could stir things up:
Detect evil: This shouldn't change significantly, but if the two schisms are truly separate religions opposed to each other, high level divine beneficiaries (such as clerics, paladins) of the opposing branch should probably detect as evil in the same way opposing supernatural entities might. This might also include angels aligned with the wrong religion.
Another take might be that they don't detect as evil, which opens up the interesting possibility that supporting them might still lead to offending the deity you are committed to, but that they are part of the same religion.
Dispel evil:This should align with Detect Evil in dealing with supernatural servants of the other religion.
There might also be room for some interesting spells a deity would supply to clerics for this use:
Detect heretics (cleric 1): This would work like detect evil, but would instead positively identify followers of the wrong religion, sect, or branch of the religion, if they were at least third level, and truly faithful to that heretical (to the caster of the spell) following.
Detect arcane magic user (cleric 3): This works like detect evil, but instead identifies those currently capable of casting arcane spells.
Heretical fire (cleric 2): Target one intelligent mortal creature within 30 ft. If that creature practices the faith of the heretical branch (to the caster of the spell), they take 1d6 fire damage.
Impacts on Magic Users
Magic users are break into two cases. Either they're stereotyped as non-religious free thinkers, but in other settings they are children of the wealthy, who are pillars of the religious community.
Free Thinkers Magic Users
Magic users and their guilds in a free-thinker based setting would probably be viewed with suspicion by both sides, but might also be courted, unless one side or the other also had affiliated arcane members or guilds. If that's the case, that side will be similar to the second case.
Religiously Affiliated Magic Users
Magic users are predominantly affiliated with their church. They carry holy symbols, and wear some type of uniform to indicate this. Anyone not wearing the church's uniform and performing magic is an enemy of the church and--in this case--the state, and must be brought to justice. Since they're so dangerous, those that magically resist confirm their guilt and may be killed outright as self-defense.
Impacts on the Non-Spell Casting Classes
Exceptional fighters will be pressured to demonstrate allegiance to one faith or the other, because whether they want to or not, they are leaders of a sort. Either they have men following them, or they have other people aspiring to be just like them.
Well-known thieves will be treated like fighters (possibly because they are confused with fighters). More subtle thieves, those not known to the general populace, will be less directly pressured, and will probably have far more clients from the oppressed side, looking to get particular supplies, as well as requests for information about particular people from both sides.
Conclusions
Let me know if you have any other takes on how this could conceivably work in an RPG campaign, or if you want to expand any of the areas already discussed.
Happy Gunpowder Treason Day!
Comments
Post a Comment