regarding the discussion that Sinestra and ghostwheel had:  You're both right and you're both wrong.  But don't feel bad about this because in real life historians argue about the distinction between piracy and privateering .  If experts can't agree, why would two roleplayers who haven't studied it know the difference?  This is further diluted by Hollywood and literature that romanticizes and villianizes characters and events.  So let me attempt to set the record straight as to what was real, what I know and believe, and the way it is in this FANTASY world where I get to chuck out the rulebook.<br/><br/><br/><span class="bbc_u"><strong>1. Real life situation.</strong></span><br/><br/>In real life ship captains were granted 'letters of marque' by their government to raid and attack the ships and towns of that nation's enemies.  This was known as privateering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer), though if your ship was getting boarded by blood thirsty killers, did you care about the legal defenition of who they were?  Wikipedia has a decent quote about it, note the sentence in bold:<br/><div class="quoteheader"><div class="topslice_quote">Quote</div></div><blockquote class="bbc_standard_quote">A privateer or "corsair" was a private person or ship authorized by a government by letters of marque to attack foreign vessels during wartime. Privateering was a way of mobilizing armed ships and sailors without having to spend treasury resources or commit naval officers. They were of great benefit to a smaller naval power or one facing an enemy dependent on trade: they disrupted commerce and pressured the enemy to deploy warships to protect merchant trade against commerce raiders. The cost was borne by investors hoping to profit from prize money earned from captured cargo and vessels. The proceeds would be distributed among the privateer's investors, officers, and crew.<br/><br/>Privateers were part of naval warfare from the 16th to the 19th centuries. Some privateers have been particularly influential in the annals of history. Sometimes the vessels would be commissioned into regular service as warships. The crew of a privateer might be treated as prisoners of war by the enemy country if captured.<br/><br/><strong>Historically, the distinction between a privateer and a pirate has been, practically speaking, vague, often depending on the source as to which label was correct in a particular circumstance.</strong> The actual work of a pirate and a privateer is generally the same (raiding and plundering ships); it is, therefore, the authorization and perceived legality of the actions that form the distinction. At various times, governments indiscriminately granted authorization for privateering to a variety of ships, so much so that would-be pirates could easily operate under a veil of legitimacy.</blockquote><div class="quotefooter"><div class="botslice_quote"></div></div><br/>Historically England was one of the first to practice privateering, and they did so with a white hot passion.  It's why most of the famous pirates of the Caribbean in our movies and literature that are well known are of English descent.  England had 'missed out' on the rush to colonize the new world in some ways, most notably in the 1600s, the only way that people thought mattered at the time.  Spain had claimed and conquored much of what we now think of as central america, the northern part of south america, and the southern bits of north america, though this last was hotly contested.  England on the otherhand had large claims of land of what is now thought of as the eastern Seaboard of the USA, their influence extending from north of florida up to around the great lakes.  France and England were contesting the area known as the upper USA, new england above  New york and what would become Canada.<br/><br/>So England missed out on the 'gold rush' that was central america and northern south america.  Spain was growing fat off the native americans by slaughter and theft of their gold and jewels, of which those areas had little.  BUT England did have one thing going for it in the americas...lumber.  It's hard to imagine now, but the area that is canada and the USA was essentially one great forest from georgia up to newfoundland, from the coast to the mountains that practically ran north south along the entire continent (Catskills, Adirondacks, etc).  aaaaaaaaaand what did you need to build a navy?  Yup, Lumber.<br/><br/>Throw into the mix Portugal, the Netherlands, and turkey fighting over scraps of islands in the caribbean, and the eastern and lower 2/3rds of south america, and the situation becomes very confusing and complicated.  To further confuse the situation, settlements popped up by countries in lands that had been 'claimed' ownership by a different country.  So now who owned that land?  The person who claimed it, or the person who was actually there?  Historians will argue with you and so will history, as some islands in the carribean now speak a garbage dialect language known as Patois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patois).<br/><br/>So, as you can see, the situation in the Caribbean was very muddled and confusing.  There were nations at war with each other, and the use of privateers or pirates was almost a sort of 'cold war' if you will.  (my analogy not histories)  Nations would support pirates to hurt their enemies navies.<br/><br/><br/><br/><span class="bbc_u"><strong>2. Fantasy game situation.</strong></span><br/><div class="floatright">(http://i.imgur.com/Vq3WWLD.jpg)</div><br/>Now that you have an understanding of the real life situation, don't worry about it, because this isn't real life.  In real life Edward Blackbeard Teach did not have a half orc first mate.   There were no female quartermasters who doled out shipboard justice with a magical whip.  There were no healer diplomats.  There were no magical windfinder mages.  There were no scoundrels who signed onto pirate ships to avoid the law.... oh wait... actually that happened all the time.  Good job Wintercat.  ~_^<br/><br/>Because this isn't a historical accuracy game.  It's a D&D Game based loosely on the fantasy world analog that is based on the real world.  In game terms the year is close to the real world analogy of 1600.  But that is only a loose comparison because Blackbeard wasn't even born till almost a hundred years later and would become the scourge of the Caribbean in early 1700s.  Furthermore, Wintercat may see some similarities between this game and our other 1:1 game "Master Tehr and the Elizabethian Court" as I may reuse noble houses and characters from that game.  HOWEVER please do not feel that the two games are actually connected.  Anything that happens in this game is not a request for it to happen in that game.<br/><br/>Further, I've thrown Italy into the mix as a major world player, backed by their strength as the seat of the catholic church (often referred to in game as just 'the church' or 'the church of the one god' or 'the church of the christ god') they became a player in my world that they never did in real life.  Why?  Because I'm 50% Italian heritage, also, fuck you I'm a cat, aka. I wanted to.  :)<br/><br/>Since this game is not historically accurate in detail, simply taking from the real world it's flavor, you throw out the worry about what really happened and worry about what the DM said.<br/><br/><br/><br/><span class="bbc_u"><strong>3.  Addressing the situation that came up.</strong></span><br/><br/>the DM's word is law and backstories have all been approved by me.  This means that YES, Arafel is essentially a spy / narc who was sent by Queen Elizabeth of England to keep an eye on blackbeard.  It is not a situation he likes, but one he currently (before our game starts) tolerates as necessary to keep his letter of marque.<br/><br/>HOWEVER, on a ship, the captain's word is law.  Sinestra is right that if Arafel even does so much as annoy Blackbeard, he'll have a ship full of pirates holding him to the deck, and he'll feel the quartermaster's whip.  Furthermore, depending on the situation he could very well get away with it also.  Because Arafel's main job is to make sure that Blackbeard is a. sending his share of profits back to investors in england (one of which is the crown) and b. not attacking english ships.   But Arafel holds no actual authority.  If he attempted to command the captain, he'd likely be finding himself swimming for land, hoping he got there before the sharks found him.  But the threat of losing the letter of marque would mean that Blackbeard is now a 'full pirate' and no longer welcome in british ports.  It's not an insignificant punishment, but it's also not an absolute.  Arafel knows that Blackbeard has a boat, where he only has a threat.  If Blackbeard threw him off the ship, he could write all the letters in the world, Blackbeard could sail to england or send his own emissary to Queen Elizabeth, and plead his own case.  Personal entreaty almost always beats pen and paper.<br/><br/>So, yes, Arafel is right, but he's a paper tiger and he's smart enough to know it.  Part of his character is that he's made himself very useful on the ship as a healer, supplemental navigator, and spellcaster, earning the respect of much of the crew, though likely not the captain.  At game start, there has been no reason that the captain has found to punish Arafel, so mistress Wynne has had no reason to scourge him.... yet.<br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/>I hope this sheds some light on the situation.