#forgotten_realms

[jatexsionksiamit]

Meet Ralik. A prestidigitator, gambler, and part-time Priest of Tymora. He's also a potential Harper, but he doesn't know it yet. It was a request, but I liked him so much that his owner gave him away to be torn apart, in case I wanted to do something else with him. o_O

[everyaccentthesame]

Alternate factions of the Realms: The Harpers

I’m not really a fan of moral incomplexity. I don’t think that any group of people, whether an organisation, species or community, should be completely evil, with no redeeming points or positive traits. ‘Pure evil’ doesn’t exist- people are just people, the products of their environment and genetics, and larger organisations and societies are made up of complex groups of people. Sure, from the outside we can look at one group and see that they seem far more amenable than another- you nan’s knitting society versus a drug cartel. But you’re going to find that the drug cartel sometimes does wonderful community work and provides livehoods to hundreds that would starve otherwise, and all of your nan’s mates are awful homophobes.

The point is, nothing is just ‘bad’. Shits complex. The same should go for good factions- some factions can pretty clearly have the moral high ground- the allies versus the axis in real life for example, but still do some messed up things. There’s a tendency in d&d 5th edition ‘mainstream’ products to make a faction fit into one of the 9 ‘alignments’ pretty clearly. This can be seen starkly in their flagship setting ‘The Forgotten Realms’. It has some good points- the Lords Alliance is an interesting concept for a morally grey organisation, but some factions just lack any nuance. The Cult of the Dragon is Evil with a capital E. So is the Kraken society, so are the Demon Lords, so are the Elemental cults. And of the factions that are meant to be on the players side? Only the Zhentarim is portrayed as having any complexity to its character, and even then its awfully neutered. None of the ‘good’ factions ever really acts as anything other. Moral complexity is thrown out with the bathwater in exchange for an easy, pg, one might dare say ‘lazy’ narrative.

But there’s one faction that, for me, really takes the cake. A faction that is always portrayed as a force for good in the realms, that always does the right thing, and seems to thrive as a force in the realms on little more than goodwill and luck. This faction is the Harpers. Those who harp. A collection of do-gooders that follow an almost offensively simple moral code:

One can never have too much information.

Too much power leads to corruption.

No one should be powerless.

Source: https://dnd.wizards.com/dungeons-and-dragons/story/faction/harpers

Of course, this moral code could be the set-up to some interesting moments- do the Lords alliance have too much power? What about the dwarven kings? What about the might Wizards of the realms, like Elminster (one of the founding members of the Harpers)? What about the High Harpers themselves, who often go on to become powerful leaders of many of Faerun’s cities and nations? Or does this rule only apply to Harpers?

That’s rarely explored. The Harpers are Good, and they fight Evil, and that’s as complex as we want it. To me, that lacks verisimilitude. When I play in or run a setting, I want complicated stories, with hard decisions and moral grey areas. I want the ‘bad’ guys to do good things from time to time, and the ‘good’ guys to do bad. So how do we make a more complicated Harper? We can start by looking at their code, and applying it rigidly.

One can never have too much information

Who is this ‘one’ referring to? The Harpers that says the phrase? All Harpers? All individuals? Harpers are hungry for secrets, even knowledge that is better left undisturbed. What will they do for knowledge? Or, more sinisterly, what wont they do?

Too much power leads to corruption

This is an interesting one. Who decides when someone has too much power? The Harpers? What does too much power look like? An Emperor? A king? A lord? A wealthy merchant? The Harpers are against the accumulation of power- what will they do to remove power from individuals.

No one should be powerless

What does this mean? Representative democracy doesn’t appear to exist in the Realms, and the Harpers don’t seem interested in implementing it. Does this mean the Harpers support the right of individuals to bear arms? Do they oppose Comryr’s restrictions on wielding weapons, then? Do they fund insurgencies against any oppressed groups?

Bringing it together

From what we can see here, the Harpers seem to be more or less an organisation of anarchists, spies and agitators. They would be opposed to the goals of many factions, not just more sinister organisations like the Cult of the Dragon and the power-hungry Zhentarim, but also the Lord’s Alliance, the Governments of Cormyr and Elturgard. Any organisation that collects too much power would, according to their philosophy, be a valid target for their activities.

This isn’t really how they’ve been used- in the Realms, none of the ‘good’ factions find themselves in conflict with any frequency. To me, that’s a bit boring. The agents of the Lord’s alliance and the Harpers should fight just as often as their goals align. Law and chaos, security versus liberty- the eternal war.

As Mordenkainen, the sanctimonious bastard, might say, it’s all part of the balance.

Using it in your game

Using conflict between opposing ideologies in your game can create interesting scenarios of moral complexity. You can give your players real indecision on who to support, or how to proceed. What happens when the Lord’s Alliance and the Harpers both want the players help to fight the other? What happens when the Harpers want the players to kill a good king simply because he’s become too powerful?

[justhanthalas]

Justhanthalas by Giums! 

[zoylyk]