This thread is inspired by Tyler Do'Urden’s post (I'm sick of saving the world. Let's conquer it) about playing a bad guy. Namely, why should someone bent of conquest and domination automatically be evil?
Caesar conquered Gaul, became dictator of Rome, broke a great many of the Roman laws along the way and is regarded as one of the greatest men in western history. His heir Augustus completed the dismembering of the Roman Republic, created the Empire and ruled for decades and he is also is regarded as one of the greatest men in western history.
Both of these men believed themselves to be helping their people, to be acting with honor, imposing order on a deeply chaotic world and thus to be doing good. The same is true for Charlemagne (and it is from him we get paladins), King David, the First Emperor of China and a many other “great” men in history.
Thus, why shouldn’t the player characters carve out, for themselves, a kingdom from the campaign setting? Why would that automatically be considered evil? Why not conquer some city-state or kingdom? A great many games and campaign are predicated on shoring up an existing city-state or kingdom – why not take it a step further and assume control of the government? Why should the player character bust their humps, to serve incompetent rulers who owe their status and power to an accident of birth, only to themselves remain mere peasants and mercenaries?
The only thing I can think of is ethical squeamishness on the part of the players and a recalcitrant attitude on part of the game master.
Generally game masters think it is their job – and Dungeon Masters Guide encourages this attitude – to torment the player through their characters, by denying them what they want and the infliction of random punishments. This is, really, the only way most game masters know they are doing their job.
But why not move past that and embark on a campaign of conquest? Why not follow in the footsteps of Caesar, Augustus, Charlemagne, King David, the First Emperor of China, among others?
Caesar conquered Gaul, became dictator of Rome, broke a great many of the Roman laws along the way and is regarded as one of the greatest men in western history. His heir Augustus completed the dismembering of the Roman Republic, created the Empire and ruled for decades and he is also is regarded as one of the greatest men in western history.
Both of these men believed themselves to be helping their people, to be acting with honor, imposing order on a deeply chaotic world and thus to be doing good. The same is true for Charlemagne (and it is from him we get paladins), King David, the First Emperor of China and a many other “great” men in history.
Thus, why shouldn’t the player characters carve out, for themselves, a kingdom from the campaign setting? Why would that automatically be considered evil? Why not conquer some city-state or kingdom? A great many games and campaign are predicated on shoring up an existing city-state or kingdom – why not take it a step further and assume control of the government? Why should the player character bust their humps, to serve incompetent rulers who owe their status and power to an accident of birth, only to themselves remain mere peasants and mercenaries?
The only thing I can think of is ethical squeamishness on the part of the players and a recalcitrant attitude on part of the game master.
Generally game masters think it is their job – and Dungeon Masters Guide encourages this attitude – to torment the player through their characters, by denying them what they want and the infliction of random punishments. This is, really, the only way most game masters know they are doing their job.
But why not move past that and embark on a campaign of conquest? Why not follow in the footsteps of Caesar, Augustus, Charlemagne, King David, the First Emperor of China, among others?
