Ideas for a corrupt but liked ruler

[Dandu]

Why should that stop the tax collectors from trying?

Well, it's a waste of government resources. They should give him welfare money... which they then tax.

 

[religon]

History is full of such examples.

Three that came to mind with me are Castro (idealistic revolutionary turned deluded oppressor), Stalin (Kindly grandfather to the world, but we know the truth) or Cromwell (zealot whose correction of a wrong perhaps exceeded the original wrong).

Another example might be a truly good and admirable man with a tragic weakness... substance abuse, thrall of another, insanity, etc. The flaw can't be corrected by PC action. In the end the PC's have to choose whether to help dethrone a friend whose flaw will destroy the nation or trust they can continue to compensate for his shortcomings.

 

[The Yellow Pill]

Here's an easy one: s/he wins. Football coaches have gotten away with punching kids in the face, getting promoted to athletic director because the community is so behind him that even the local paper gets jumped for posting negative facts about him. Same with Caesar, and do you know how popular Putin is in Russia? Winners are popular, even if the game they're winning is horrific.

 

[Jessica]

Maybe adventurers are a class of people that are easily maligned by politicians and members of the public. Maybe they are seen as a violent threat to your average every day commoner. Maybe they are one of those at times necessary evils that people wish they didn't have to keep around like some kind of mercenary special forces. Maybe legally cracking down on/heavily taxing the s*** out of professional murder hobos is just good business. The common person would be on the side of the antagonist because...you know.... murderhobos; and PCs would want to overthrow them because a 90% tax on dragon hoards, bans on openly carrying weapons, and riot acts preventing the assembly of more than a couple of adventurers in a given place happen to piss off a very small but very powerful demographic.

 

[The Yellow Pill]

Maybe adventurers are a class of people that are easily maligned by politicians and members of the public. Maybe they are seen as a violent threat to your average every day commoner. Maybe they are one of those at times necessary evils that people wish they didn't have to keep around like some kind of mercenary special forces. Maybe legally cracking down on/heavily taxing the s*** out of professional murder hobos is just good business. The common person would be on the side of the antagonist because...you know.... murderhobos; and PCs would want to overthrow them because a 90% tax on dragon hoards, bans on openly carrying weapons, and riot acts preventing the assembly of more than a couple of adventurers in a given place happen to piss off a very small but very powerful demographic.

This is a dynamic I often play with heavily. Adventuring is something an aristocrat would simply never do. It's dangerous and dirty work. Nor is treasure hunting the kind of thing an honest laborer would even consider. I often make adventurers kind of social outcasts, although they could just as easily become defenders of the common people.

 

[Legatus Legionis]

.

 

[Dandu]

Here's an easy one: s/he wins. Football coaches have gotten away with punching kids in the face, getting promoted to athletic director because the community is so behind him that even the local paper gets jumped for posting negative facts about him. Same with Caesar, and do you know how popular Putin is in Russia? Winners are popular, even if the game they're winning is horrific.

 

[haakon1]

Well, it's a waste of government resources. They should give him welfare money... which they then tax.

Under the George Bush the Elder, unemployment payments became taxable income for the first time. I remember scratching my head about that one.

 

[haakon1]

Maybe legally cracking down on/heavily taxing the s*** out of professional murder hobos is just good business ... PCs would want to overthrow them because a 90% tax on dragon hoards, bans on openly carrying weapons, and riot acts preventing the assembly of more than a couple of adventurers in a given place happen to piss off a very small but very powerful demographic.

I like this a LOT, because of the earlier threads about "my PC is awesome, he should be able to boss around the king and be treated as a king; the highest level person should rule!". I've always taken the view that political power and level aren't directly related.

 

[haakon1]

The ruler has usurped the throne from a mad-king (whom was loved before he got manipulated to become insane and do horrible things to the people), and the PCs want to restore the royal family.

The ruler is really just a puppet for a hostile foreign kingdom, having lowered taxes, disbanded border patrols/outposts and its military (as the hostile kingdom is pretending to be peaceful - but planning an invasion) and the PCs want to prevent this happening.

Both brilliant ideas!