Power and Responsibility

[Jürgen Hubert]

Annnd I've been in a couple games where we attempted to do the right thing but the GM was all set to be as 'morally ambiguous' as possible, which was really just a codeword for 'screw the PC's so they can't actually win'. Something like 'Well, you succeed in wiping out the evil child molesting devil worshippers that were the head of the Empire of Xor. The Empire falls apart and people celebrate their freedom. Of course, how could you know that the strength and power of Xor was the only thing keeping the Black Waste Barbarians in check? The next spring they stream out of the mountains like a river and kill everyone in the Empire. Hahaha. Of course they would have all starved anyway because you killed the people that also made the weather moderate enough to actually live in this region."

That's a shame. When it comes to moral ambiguity, I much prefer the more honest approach of Exalted: "The World is screwed - unless the player characters do something about it. And if you don't rule a nation very soon after character creation, you aren't really trying very hard."

 

[DragonLancer]

It depends on the amount of pseduo-realism that a given group wants. I've never een interested in taking a game that why as either DM or player, and in a way I'm thankful that my current players arn't either.

Why can't the game remain the same at higher levels?

 

[wedgeski]

Sure, that's a valid concern as well. But what are you going to do after you have beaten the Abyss?

Retire and let younger, more dynamic and self-centered versions of themselves take on the next round of challenges.

I can see what you're saying Jurgen and I'm sure from your obvious world-builder's point of view, you can't understand DM's or player's who *don't* want to do this, but I'm not inclined, as a DM, to build a complete political engine in which the PC's will likely take over the entire world... and it seems my players aren't that concerned about it either, cos they've never brought it up beyond wanting a nice warm keep to settle down in before ending the campaign.

Which is not to say the notion isn't interesting enough to explore for *someone*.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Well, if they are of good alignment, then how can they justify leaving obvious tyrants in place?

In such cases, it might not be a case of "desiring to" for the PCs, but a case of "Someone has to do something about this guy - and who else but us could pull it off?"

They can justify it by having the wisdom to know they are not the ones to create something better. Its easy to destroy "evil," but good will not automatically fill the void. It is much harder to create and implement the government that will fill that vacuum.

There have been real world incidents where someone with power has thought they could impose a new government without direct support of the people, and no real idea of how to get the people to take responsibility for their own governance. The results is usually a major mess, or governance by force that is not much better than what was there before.

It is one thing for high level PCs to come to aid of a weak or fledgling rebellion, it is another to decide that they know what is best for others and impose that upon them.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I can see what you're saying Jurgen and I'm sure from your obvious world-builder's point of view, you can't understand DM's or player's who *don't* want to do this, but I'm not inclined, as a DM, to build a complete political engine in which the PC's will likely take over the entire world... and it seems my players aren't that concerned about it either, cos they've never brought it up beyond wanting a nice warm keep to settle down in before ending the campaign.

Actually, I understand this perfectly well - most of the campaigns I was involved in until very recently were the same.

But running an Exalted campaign has really opened up my eyes to the possibilities. "You guys are among the most powerful people in the world. The world has serious problems - not just extradimensional enemies, but also social and political inequalities and injustice. So if you aren't going to put things right, then who else will?"

The crushing weight of responsibility for tens of thousands of people has added a whole new dimension of drama to the campaign - and thus made for some rather novel (to us) and fun roleplaying. On one hand, you want to improve the lives of all your citizens. On the other hand, if you screw up, lots of people will suffer. But walking away from it all does not mean that the suffering will stop - to the contrary, things will likely get worse for most people.

So now the PCs are busy plotting, scheming, running their own social engineering projects and work to create something that will stand the test of time (one PC, in fact, wishes to alter the mechanisms of reincarnation in the world so that people will actually remember their past lives). They might disagree over some of the particulars, but they all agree that something needs to be done - and they can't just hand over this responsibility to other people who are less qualfied for that burden.

 

[Doug McCrae]

This thread made me think. Apparently, some people take the stance that the point of really high character levels is that you are going to slay bigger monsters, face bigger threats, and get bigger treasures.

Isn't that all Dark Lord Elmer is? One more threat. Going on to rule his nation after slaying him is a different ball game.

PCs wouldn't do this because they're adventurers not rulers. They'd install the rightful king over the usurper, or their own choice of puppet monarch, and go and look for more monsters to kill.

 

[Piratecat]

I'm suddenly reminded of the comic book The Authority -- superheroes who finally realize that they're the most powerful people on Earth, so they can overthrow any tin-pot dictator who is abusing his power. Hilarity - or at least some fantastic stories - ensues.

 

[Phlebas]

In an earlier thread we ended up talking about high level PC's taking over castles / cities / kingdoms and then getting very bored with the trivia of management, which they'd normally be pretty bad at (also explaining why grand viziers end up running everything) and unless you have players who want to start empire building there's a lot of work to do with little obvious reward. (i know - i'd love for players to take an interest in politics but unless you tell them the guys in red hats are the baddies and safe to kill they're not interested)

You could always explain it away in game as fighting the world destroying threats rather than the kingdom ones (after all, whats a few oppressed peasants compared with the destruction of the entire world?)

the other perspective could be that when the players are that powerful / well known there's probably a lot of people with vested interests in stopping them taking over the kingdom / empire. The PC's might be mega powerful but the massed weight of the aristocracy / guilds / masses could easily be motivated by a few 'concerned' individuals to block the party's / individuals route to power. So unless the PC actively sought power and was willing to pay the price (tame bards etc) it wouldn't happen by default.

After all, in fantasy the champion of the kingdom is the most powerful, but he still has to swear fealty to the true king.....

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Isn't that all Dark Lord Elmer is? One more threat. Going on to rule his nation after slaying him is a different ball game.

What if he didn't threaten them directly, but simply minded his own business of oppressing his peasants?

I mean, if the PCs visited them, he might even give them the red carpet treatment. Those are some powerful people, after all, and it doesn't pay to antagonize them. But still, he won't stop oppressing the peasants until the PCs dethrone him.

PCs wouldn't do this because they're adventurers not rulers. They'd install the rightful king over the usurper, or their own choice of puppet monarch, and go and look for more monsters to kill.

But what makes them "adventurers" in the first place? And why should that coincide with a motivation to just seek the next monster to kill, instead of actually creating something new?

I realize that part of this is simply a genre convention. But like any other convention, this one should be examined a bit more closely - and perhaps given a good shake.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I'm suddenly reminded of the comic book The Authority -- superheroes who finally realize that they're the most powerful people on Earth, so they can overthrow any tin-pot dictator who is abusing his power. Hilarity - or at least some fantastic stories - ensues.

Yup, that's part of what I mean.

For decades, one of the underlying assumption was that all what superheroes did was to beat up the bad guy of the week once he appeared (and maybe join some charity effort or something like that) - but at the end of the comic, everything went back to the status quo and the world remained just like it was.

But newer comics like The Authority change that assumption. Realistically, normal governments would have great trouble stopping these people - so when superheroes decide that some governments need to be dealt with, the world will see some big changes.

High-level PCs in D&D can essentially be compared to superheroes - no one but their peers can stop them. Yet somehow it still seems to be taken for granted that the PCs ride into the sunset/visit the next pub and simply let the governments of the world alone - no matter how corrupt or inefficient they might be...