Power and Responsibility

[Jürgen Hubert]

Just for the edification of the thread - where do you get this impression? Clearly, there's a base assumption here, and respondants might be well-served to know the source of the assumptions.

Because, as usual, it isn't like there's reliable market research about how folks play the game in this level of detail. So why does it seem like this to you?

Some of the responses in the thread I pointed out in the original thread. Both there and here quite a few people seem to assume that getting involved directly with ruling cities or nation runs counter to the base assumptions of D&D.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Oh, dark lord Elmer? OK, we subdue him and force a helm of opposite alignment on and off of his head. The wizard'll detect magic until the helm is nonmagical. Goodbye, Light Lord Elmer. Hope you can fix the mess you've made of the kingdom. We're off to save the multiverse now.

What if Dark Lord does any of the following:

- Abdicates because he feels no longer worthy to be a ruler?
- Commits suicide in despair about the sins he has wrought?
- Insists that he be put on trial for all his crimes?

Imagine this: You wake up one morning and are one of the nicest guys in the world. Unfortunately, you have the entire memories of an evil bastard who has killed many, many people in order to gain and maintain power - and you regret each and every one of them.

Under such circumstances, will you still be an effective ruler?

 

[Slife]

What if Dark Lord does any of the following:

- Abdicates because he feels no longer worthy to be a ruler?
- Commits suicide in despair about the sins he has wrought?
- Insists that he be put on trial for all his crimes?

Imagine this: You wake up one morning and are one of the nicest guys in the world. Unfortunately, you have the entire memories of an evil bastard who has killed many, many people in order to gain and maintain power - and you regret each and every one of them.

Under such circumstances, will you still be an effective ruler?

If he's a good guy, he'll want to take responsibility. Isn't that what you've been arguing?

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

If he's a good guy, he'll want to take responsibility. Isn't that what you've been arguing?

Stepping down might be a way of taking responsibility. After all, his reign was founded on terror - and he does no longer wish to use the tools he used to maintain his power. Ruling in a different way might require a fresh start, with new people.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

And once they got rid of the tyrant, what then? He might been the only thing holding his nation together - so if they don't take charge of it, it will dissolve and start an ugly civil war that will cause even more deaths. So what are they going to do about it - other than ruling the nation themselves?



My point is that once the PCs become powerful enough to defeat whole armies by themselves, they should think in grander terms than just slaying bigger monsters. They have the power to shape the world for good or ill - so at the very least they need to come up with good explanations for why they aren't doing just that.

You know, the basic question that needs to be answered is what exactly you are aiming at with this thread, because I could simply pose the opposite question "Why should they if they don't want to?" and describe a counter for every argument you might bring up. This could turn this thread into a morass of back and forth that won't lead to any real result.

So what is it you're after that hasn't been mentioned here already? The very simple answer to your question is "Because all players involved don't want to." And basically, that's the only thing that counts, the intentions of the players in question about what they want in their game. The repercussions of the characters' actions are only important if a) the DM brings them up and b) the players think their characters care about them. And really powerful characters have the luxury to CHOOSE whether they care about the repercussions of their actions or not. There isn't much that can make a group of 15-20 level characters take responsibility besides DM Fiat, and in the case of uninterested players, the game will most likely disintegrate if the DM tries to force stuff on them they are not interested in.

Contrary to what was already mentioned, D&D used to be not only about killing monsters and looting the bodies. At least in earlier editions, the perspective of characters as rulers and political world-shakers was built in as well. It's not so much anymore though, and the speed of the game has simply increased so much that it's no surprise people want to play their high-level characters like they are just extra powerful dungeon-crawlers...after all, that's what they ARE. If it took you 3-5 years to level a character to 15th level, you had more than enough dungeon crawls and monster slayings that you were happy to try out something different with your character, like managing a kingdom on the side while running a new 1st level character through the Caves of Chaos. By now, you're supposed to be 20th level after a year or so of regular playing...and in combination with adventure paths and high-level adventures that are nothing but high-level dungeon crawls, that simply changed how players view their characters.

It all boils down to what the players want, and that's not simply going to change by pointing out to them that their characters are something like superpowered demi-gods for that setting now, and should take a broader view. If they don't want that, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

And on the note of Adventure Paths etc...the current Adventure Path from Paizo, Rise of the Runelords in Pathfinder Magazine, actually provides rules for running a keep in Varisia in #3 The Hook Mountain Massacre. I haven't read the adventure yet, but that part jumped out at me from the Content Page..."Keeping the Keep".

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

You know, the basic question that needs to be answered is what exactly you are aiming at with this thread, because I could simply pose the opposite question "Why should they if they don't want to?" and describe a counter for every argument you might bring up. This could turn this thread into a morass of back and forth that won't lead to any real result.

I already answered that point in post 9. My point is that both DMs and players should at least consider active political involvement by their characters in their campaign - because that might be far more fun than they expected.

If they discover they don't like it, fine - they can still ride into the sunset afterwards. But I think it would still be worth their time to try.

So what is it you're after that hasn't been mentioned here already? The very simple answer to your question is "Because all players involved don't want to." And basically, that's the only thing that counts, the intentions of the players in question about what they want in their game. The repercussions of the characters' actions are only important if a) the DM brings them up and b) the players think their characters care about them. And really powerful characters have the luxury to CHOOSE whether they care about the repercussions of their actions or not. There isn't much that can make a group of 15-20 level characters take responsibility besides DM Fiat, and in the case of uninterested players, the game will most likely disintegrate if the DM tries to force stuff on them they are not interested in.

Naturally, such political games have to be driven by the player characters, since it will be their plans that drive the campaign forward.

But I think in many cases finding motivations for such plans can be found by good role-playing. Good characters will strive to make the world a better place in whatever way they can, and doing something about bad governments only makes sense. Evil characters will probably strive to grab whatever power they can find. And even Neutral characters might have ambitions beyond seeking monsters to kill - which might be a fine task for the more martially oriented characters, but the more celebral ones (such as wizards or clerics) likely won't see this as the entirety of their lives' ambitions.

 

[Spatula]

Cerebus: High Society is a good example of what should happen when your average D&D character tries to get into high-level politics. Physical power and cleverness won't get you very far when you upend an active political system without a thorough plan to deal with all the various power groups that actually get things done.

Someone already pointed out the difference between personal power and institutional power. It's an important distinction. Sure, you can lay waste to armies and beat anyone in a fight. But that won't save you if you piss off the wrong people. Say the High Pontiff of the One True Church witholds services for all of the faithful within your newly-acquired borders, unless and/or until you bow to his wishes (this happened at one point in Europe's history). The fact that you can easily kill the Pontiff doesn't help much in that situation. As you try to assert power and change the system, established interests (that you need on your side in order to run the place) will fight back if they feel their power is threatened. Not necssarily by trying to kill you (which can have unpredictable consequences, and in the case of a high-level D&D character is virtually impossible anyway), but by undermining your rule whenever they feel they can get away wtih it. That's politics.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Or perhaps because they are incapable of acting in the world without their followers - or perhaps they aren't able to act directly at all (see Eberron, for example).

However, the PCs are still mortals. And permitting them less power to influence the shape of nations than a little 8th level Aristocrat tyrant just doesn't make sense. The PCs don't live forever - but when they do live, they should be allowed to shine.

OK, before we keep going back and forth, I would like some clarification. At the start of the thread, your question seemed to be why wouldn't the players of good characters do things like take down tyrants to better the world. I have tried to answer why PC might take that attitude. But then your argument seemed to shift to The players should be allowed to try and change the world. I won't argue with you there for a second. If the players want to do this, and the DM is up for running it, it makes perfectly good sense. Where I have had issue is with the idea that somehow this is the only path that makes sense for high level, good PCs.

Edit: I didn't see you post to Geron Raveneye that basically answered this. Thanks.

Why is it that only Evil is capable of planning ahead? Why can't the Good Guys make plans, too?

They aren't the only ones who can plan ahead, but the Good Guys usually take a more cautious and reactive route because they fear that if they start deciding what is best for everyone else, the may be stepping onto the slippery slope of dictatorship.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I already answered that point in post 9. My point is that both DMs and players should at least consider active political involvement by their characters in their campaign - because that might be far more fun than they expected.

If they discover they don't like it, fine - they can still ride into the sunset afterwards. But I think it would still be worth their time to try.

So the point is that players should try out something they don't want to because they might find out it is more fun than they expected?

Not that I don't agree on that, and not just for gaming (food, movies, music, and whole lot of other things come to mind), but my experience with human beings tells me that you will find 1 in 3-4 people who will actually try that out, and a like percentage of those who tried will actually admit he had fun doing so afterwards.

And the percentages get worse the longer the folks you try to sway have been doing that particular thing, in this case playing D&D.

Naturally, such political games have to be driven by the player characters, since it will be their plans that drive the campaign forward.

But I think in many cases finding motivations for such plans can be found by good role-playing. Good characters will strive to make the world a better place in whatever way they can, and doing something about bad governments only makes sense. Evil characters will probably strive to grab whatever power they can find. And even Neutral characters might have ambitions beyond seeking monsters to kill - which might be a fine task for the more martially oriented characters, but the more celebral ones (such as wizards or clerics) likely won't see this as the entirety of their lives' ambitions.

And that's the second "problem"...many D&D players don't equate playing D&D with immersion-style roleplaying, and generally prefer a mil-op style of small group tactical encounters in dangerous environments with opponents of variable power. They couldn't care less if the empire they currently adventure in is an enlightened state of goodness or a den of tyrannical evil, as long as they get a heap of interesting and challenging encounters to test their combat savvy against. If either side bothers them, they're as likely to simply kill off the tyrant's evil goons as to ignore the good king's messengers, and will simply relocate if harassed...or quit the game.

There is a percentage of D&D players that like what you are describing, and generally would follow in that direction, or already play that way...but there's at least an equal percentage that has no interest in it whatsoever, and it's almost always based on personal taste, prejudice, and sometimes in negative experiences with that certain playstyle.