Page 1 of 1

Gaz I errata: (Deceased?) Pave Haakon Aramsen

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 3:00 am
by cure
Haakon Aramsen is described as being the leader of the Hazlani Church of the Lawgiver (Ravenloft Gazetteer Volume I, p53).

But Pave Stavroz Vatsisk is described as being the Pave of Hazlan not once but twice:

first in ''Authority Figures'' insert for Toyalis (Ravenloft Gazetteer Volume I, p60);

and second several years later in the ''Hierarchy and Terminology'' section for the Church of the Lawgiver (Ravenloft Gazetteer Volume V, p127).

So to resolve this, we could rule that when S wrote her first report Haakon was indeed pave. But that changed.

He is described as being of advanced age and having the will and strength to stand up to Hazlik, being also and not incidentally a Clr15.

He does not sound like someone that Stavroz (Clr12) could hope to displace from office. Rather he might have himself been a threat to the Himmelsk Naeve.

Death then, is the most likely option, followed distantly by retirement.

Natural death, or at least death that looks natural, is again to be preferred, as Hazlik openly acting against the Pave of Hazlan would have been significant enough to have warrented mention.

So how about this? The Church of the Lawgiver declares publically that Haakon Aramsen died of natural causes while whipping his slaves. The year would be, I think, 757.

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:13 am
by Mangrum
"Haakon Aramsen" was an editorial oversight.

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:10 am
by Rotipher of the FoS
Maybe each Pave takes an ecclesiastic name when he attains the office, like the IRL Popes do? The same character could have two names that way.

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:39 pm
by cure
Rotipher of the FoS wrote:Maybe each Pave takes an ecclesiastic name when he attains the office, like the IRL Popes do? The same character could have two names that way.
Well, he gained or lost three levels in the process and had a personality change too. :-)

Given that it is an editorial error, is it standard procedure to try and 'save the appearecnces,' rather than rule that either one or the other never existed? And that would be to say that each was Pave ... successively. Death sounds good to me. But more minimally and more mysteriously, it could be errated as the Pave having disappeared without a trace.