Breakdaddy
First Post
Steverooo said:
I LOVE it when the whores and pimps are integral to a rebellion! Its a party waiting to happen!
Paladin as adversary in a good campaign?
- Thread starter NewJeffCT
- Start date
I LOVE it when the whores and pimps are integral to a rebellion! Its a party waiting to happen!
Lord Pendragon
First Post
Kemrain said:
"You're right, Sir Kemrain! We'd better make certain things are on the up-and-up! Father Vargas! Father Vargas!"
"Yes, sir?"
"Set up a meeting with Pelor. We need to know if Paladin Bob is to be trusted. Kemrain here believes he might be a fiend or an incubus."
"Yes, sir." *Casts Commune* "Oh great Pelor, is Paladin Bob a fiend?"
NO.
"Is Paladin Bob a vile incubus sent ot reap the souls of those foolish enough not to stand and oppose him?"
NO.
"Is Paladin Bob a good and righteous man, a man of pure heart who seeks to rule only to stop the constant wars plaguing our land?"
YES.
"Well, there you have it."
The Amazing Dingo
First Post
I do agree with Pendragon...the use of Divinations really does answer a lot of questions concerning a person's intent.
The next question, on my list, would be: "Oh High Pelor, should I allow Paladin Bob to rule our kingdom?"
Gotta wonder what the answer would be then. Of course, this takes for granted that the PCs are righteous and god-fearing/god-loving people who would ask and then follow such an answer. What would they do if he did say yes and they ended up tilling fields for the rest of their lives instead of living in the laps of luxury?
I think I got off the point someplace...
The next question, on my list, would be: "Oh High Pelor, should I allow Paladin Bob to rule our kingdom?"
Gotta wonder what the answer would be then. Of course, this takes for granted that the PCs are righteous and god-fearing/god-loving people who would ask and then follow such an answer. What would they do if he did say yes and they ended up tilling fields for the rest of their lives instead of living in the laps of luxury?
I think I got off the point someplace...
Shadowmist
First Post
In Arcanis this would not even be unusual. Paladins in Arcanis (where the only requirement is being Good btw) can cross each other in matters of diety, nationality, or even Secret Society. A Paladin serving General Meneis in trying to lift the curse off the Val-Tensen bloodline by conquering his old homelands may cross swords with a Milandeisan Paladin who is intent on keeping his lands free from a foreign invader.
In short even if both Paladins are lawful, good, and being absolutely faithful to their alignments, political intrique is one of the easiest reasons that they may wind up meeting each other across swords.
In short even if both Paladins are lawful, good, and being absolutely faithful to their alignments, political intrique is one of the easiest reasons that they may wind up meeting each other across swords.
Something to consider is that the general populace will be suspicious of any information they hear. With so many years of war, they probably have nearly seen or heard of it all such as betrayals, doppelgangers, and charming magic to name a few. Even if clerics did cast commune to find out that Paladin Bob is in fact a paladin and not a demon in disguise, how does one spread the word and convince all the suspicious peasants and townsfolk in the kingdom. Anyone preaching “Paladin Bob is a good guy!” is met with harshness and sometimes hostility since he “could be a spy”.
And don’t forget that there are always the far left and far right wing extremists causing problems “because they’re right and you’re wrong” no matter how black and white an issue is.
And the fact that 100% of the population will not agree so there will always be someone in the middle trying to take advantage of the citation.
If you want to throw some diplomatic adventures/quests your player’s way, have the first kingdom that peacefully “gives up” have a peasant revolt. The peasants, fearing the reason for the king to give up peacefully was because:
a) he is/has become incompetent through old age or disease – “we can’t have a king who has gone crazy. Let’s kill him before more damage is done.”
b) enemy spellcaster’s magic has taken control of him – “beat the magic out of him.”
c) an imposter has taken his place - “The REAL king wouldn’t have given up without a fight”
d) or any other reason you think would be good.
The king of another kingdom was also considering peacefully “giving up” but after seeing the result of kingdom X, will not because he is afraid of his peasants revolting and killing him and his family and burning down the castle. He would rather have his peasants fight the other kingdoms than fight with the royal family.
Maybe a third kingdom takes advantage of the chaos of the first kingdom to give up. They waited until the king was slain (at best as they know from their informants) and many of the loyal soldiers were killed before sweeping into the kingdom.
The [first] kingdom needs a new leader badly and the peasants are confused and regretful that they “released the flood gates”.
Food for thought.
And don’t forget that there are always the far left and far right wing extremists causing problems “because they’re right and you’re wrong” no matter how black and white an issue is.
And the fact that 100% of the population will not agree so there will always be someone in the middle trying to take advantage of the citation.
If you want to throw some diplomatic adventures/quests your player’s way, have the first kingdom that peacefully “gives up” have a peasant revolt. The peasants, fearing the reason for the king to give up peacefully was because:
a) he is/has become incompetent through old age or disease – “we can’t have a king who has gone crazy. Let’s kill him before more damage is done.”
b) enemy spellcaster’s magic has taken control of him – “beat the magic out of him.”
c) an imposter has taken his place - “The REAL king wouldn’t have given up without a fight”
d) or any other reason you think would be good.
The king of another kingdom was also considering peacefully “giving up” but after seeing the result of kingdom X, will not because he is afraid of his peasants revolting and killing him and his family and burning down the castle. He would rather have his peasants fight the other kingdoms than fight with the royal family.
Maybe a third kingdom takes advantage of the chaos of the first kingdom to give up. They waited until the king was slain (at best as they know from their informants) and many of the loyal soldiers were killed before sweeping into the kingdom.
The [first] kingdom needs a new leader badly and the peasants are confused and regretful that they “released the flood gates”.
Food for thought.
Last edited:
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
NewJeffCT said:
Not on the scale you're going for, but sure!
A PC in my game is (effectively) a paladin. Problem is, some bad guys back in his homeland have labelled him a heretic and teams of paladins (called inquisitions) have been dispatched to bring him to justice, and authorised to use any amount of force necessary.
The first encounter with an inquisition team demonstrated how important a paladins mount can be in a fight (like it's a huge force multiplier as a class feature).
The inquisitions were harrying him from about 7th level to about 12th level when he was able to take one of the leaders of the inquisition as a cohort (neat roleplaying and leadership feat synergy)
Cheers
Good points Realm…
Yes, Paladin Bob may be a good man with great intentions – but, is there not an old cliché saying that “good intentions pave the way to hell”?
Like I said in one of my replies earlier, I cannot imagine Americans laying down their sovereignty at the thought of being ruled by China, Russia, the EU or whomever – even if it meant long lasting peace and even if we could prove the intentions of the other nation was good via divination spells.
Also, as you state, do not forget that over the 100+ years of on and off war and continual dislike or outright hatred, a lot of prejudices will likely have been built up: “Can you believe in the Kingdom of B, they actually sell their children into slavery?” or “In the Kingdom of D, women are considered chattel to be owned by men.”
And, my original thought was actually this, which I did not post in my original... There is a greater evil lurking. The 5 kingdoms are somewhat sheltered by the Great River & marshes and not many know about the Evil Empire on their border being so concerned with one another. Consequently, the Evil Empire of F has never really taken notice of the 5 fairly small kingdoms on the other side of the Great River & marshes. The farmland of the 5 kingdoms is nothing special and there are no major deposits of gems or iron within the kingdom’s borders that make it worth the military force it would take to conquer the 5 kingdoms. None of the 5 individually posed any sort of threat to the Empire’s great military might, and they were more concerned with conquest in the other direction. F could be hobgoblins, orcs or just humans under an evil leader.
However, if the 5 kingdoms are united, the Evil Empire may be forced to take another look at the United Kingdoms on its border. 5 kingdoms with 1,000 soldiers each is not much of a threat. However, a united kingdom with 5,000 soldiers and a new 10,000 man fanatical peasant militia looks threatening. So, it is possible that Paladin Bob’s good intentions could pave the way to a greater evil.
Yes, Paladin Bob may be a good man with great intentions – but, is there not an old cliché saying that “good intentions pave the way to hell”?
Like I said in one of my replies earlier, I cannot imagine Americans laying down their sovereignty at the thought of being ruled by China, Russia, the EU or whomever – even if it meant long lasting peace and even if we could prove the intentions of the other nation was good via divination spells.
Also, as you state, do not forget that over the 100+ years of on and off war and continual dislike or outright hatred, a lot of prejudices will likely have been built up: “Can you believe in the Kingdom of B, they actually sell their children into slavery?” or “In the Kingdom of D, women are considered chattel to be owned by men.”
And, my original thought was actually this, which I did not post in my original... There is a greater evil lurking. The 5 kingdoms are somewhat sheltered by the Great River & marshes and not many know about the Evil Empire on their border being so concerned with one another. Consequently, the Evil Empire of F has never really taken notice of the 5 fairly small kingdoms on the other side of the Great River & marshes. The farmland of the 5 kingdoms is nothing special and there are no major deposits of gems or iron within the kingdom’s borders that make it worth the military force it would take to conquer the 5 kingdoms. None of the 5 individually posed any sort of threat to the Empire’s great military might, and they were more concerned with conquest in the other direction. F could be hobgoblins, orcs or just humans under an evil leader.
However, if the 5 kingdoms are united, the Evil Empire may be forced to take another look at the United Kingdoms on its border. 5 kingdoms with 1,000 soldiers each is not much of a threat. However, a united kingdom with 5,000 soldiers and a new 10,000 man fanatical peasant militia looks threatening. So, it is possible that Paladin Bob’s good intentions could pave the way to a greater evil.
diaglo
Adventurer
if i'm in Kingdom A. and i think about renouncing my claim and joining Paladin Bob. a few questions would need to be answered before i would go in good conscience.
what do you want of my former Kingdom?
must we join your war against the remaining Kingdoms?
who will pay for the costs in arms and men?
are you going to pillage our store of grains and resources to feed your army?
and what will the continued costs be to future generations of my former kingdom? must they also pay or become second class citizens/ indentured servants/ slaves even?
what do you want of my former Kingdom?
must we join your war against the remaining Kingdoms?
who will pay for the costs in arms and men?
are you going to pillage our store of grains and resources to feed your army?
and what will the continued costs be to future generations of my former kingdom? must they also pay or become second class citizens/ indentured servants/ slaves even?
Turanil
First Post
How the PCs' lives are going to be changed with this? If they don't lose anything, don't pay more taxes, or whatnot, why should they bother? I mean: if the land is filled with evil landlords as occured with the Norman invasion of England (Xth century), or with the English invasion of Scotland (XIIIth century), of course people would revolt. However, if the population hardly notices the change of government, then pay less taxes and live in peace, why should they oppose.NewJeffCT said:
What about a confederacy? Like Europe, like the United States of America? It would solve the problem without surrendering sovereignty. Now the PCs could try to convince the paladin bob (not a great name for a paladin and king
) going that way would be easier and cost less casualties of war.
Last edited:
Something to consider is people want consistency. Even if the current situation is not ideal, if they are used to it, they generally don't want to change it - even if it would be for their better. How is a country of people that have been involved in fighting and distrust for 150 years going to be convinced that this for their better? They at least have the peace of mind in knowing what their leader's expectations are and how to deal with the punishments when they fail. The new guys might come in and, with their new found power and status, become corrupt with greed and demand even more money making the people work harder than with the first bad leader.
Similar Threads
