Power and Responsibility

[Umbran]

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

Because the Good Guys, if they want to keep that moniker for long, have to have proof that a thing is bad before they work against it. That means they are always going to be reactive - the Bad Guys have to show that they're bad before they can be deposed.

You cannot plan to depose a tyrant before you know he is, in fact, a tyrant. And then it looks like most other fantasy campaigns - the DM gives you a target, and you go after it.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Because the Good Guys, if they want to keep that moniker for long, have to have proof that a thing is bad before they work against it. That means they are always going to be reactive - the Bad Guys have to show that they're bad before they can be deposed.

I don't buy this. There's any amount of things Good Guys can do to act proactively:

- Lobby governments to overturn unjust laws.
- Create organizations that protect the innocent and watch out for Bad Guys and their schemes.
- Build up fortifications against possible attacks by hordes of Bad Guys.
- Support up-and-coming politicians who would make for better rulers than the current crop.
- Build up and secure a trade network that makes sure outlying communities get the tools and supplies to make it over the next winter and even prosper.

If they are Good Guys, then they will presumably want to make the world a better place. But doesn't mean that they have to be passive about it.

You cannot plan to depose a tyrant before you know he is, in fact, a tyrant. And then it looks like most other fantasy campaigns - the DM gives you a target, and you go after it.

In my campaigns at least, the situation is like this: If asked, I describe the political situation of the surrounding areas - and then the PCs decide if they want to do anything about the situation in these regions.

And they often do.

 

[Numion]

Because the Good Guys, if they want to keep that moniker for long, have to have proof that a thing is bad before they work against it. That means they are always going to be reactive - the Bad Guys have to show that they're bad before they can be deposed.

Detect Evil, ping, wail on the bad guy. Let gods sort it out. Rinse. Repeat.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Well, I can say one thing from experience by now...even if you set out to play the "good guys", if you get yourself entangled in a political campaign that is filled with intrigues, and the whole thing is played even halfway realistically, you end up shades-of-grey AT BEST. My goody-two-shoes sun priest (Praios, god of the sun, law and order) ended up making deals with the hidden priesthood of thieves to get out of a city alive, faked a plague inside a city that was supposed to be besieged a few days later, caused another priest of his order to be set on fire with greek fire in order to flush out an enemy spy, and a year later had to sit as final witness on that priest's pyre as an example right before the schism of his church, actively stole court files from the royal archive to blame a corrupt advocate and cause him to be expelled from the guild, lose his hands and later be murdered by the criminals who had bought him. And those were just the high points in his career. Sure, he did a lot of good whenever he could, but there was a LOT of conscience buried under the rocks of practicality and politics.

There's plenty of reasons why some good characters simply wouldn't like to touch politics with a 10 foot pole.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Detect Evil, ping, wail on the bad guy. Let gods sort it out. Rinse. Repeat.

This is problematic on a number of levels:

- What do you do about people who detect as evil, but are still pretty much law-abiding (out of fear of punishment, if nothing else)? Ratting them out will likely ostrachize them, and might push them to lash out against society.
- Are the PCs able to convince others of the matter?
- If they are able to convince others, what should be done about such people? Just because you've outed the leader of the local Merchant's Guild as Evil it doesn't mean that there will be much in the way of consequences - especially if he has been an effective leader of the Guild and pandered to the interests of its members (who might be willing to ignore the negative consequences of his activities as long as they will get richer along the way).
- What about non-Evil people with plans which still may have nasty consequences for others?
- And let's not forget that magic items that conceal one's alignment aren't that difficult to get, so any major villain with reasons to conceal his alignment will likely have one.

Mind you, Detect Evil is still a pretty useful spell - if the PCs detect an influential individual as evil then that's certainly reason to keep an eye on that person. But that doesn't mean that the PCs can avoid all work with it.

And anyway, being Good should be about more than just opposing Evil.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I don't buy this. There's any amount of things Good Guys can do to act proactively:

- Lobby governments to overturn unjust laws.

Yes, I'm sure the evil tyrant will listen to lobbyists for Good.

- Create organizations that protect the innocent and watch out for Bad Guys and their schemes.

In other words, create a reactive organization.

- Build up fortifications against possible attacks by hordes of Bad Guys.

Again, preparing for a reactive position.

- Support up-and-coming politicians who would make for better rulers than the current crop.
- Build up and secure a trade network that makes sure outlying communities get the tools and supplies to make it over the next winter and even prosper.

If they are Good Guys, then they will presumably want to make the world a better place. But doesn't mean that they have to be passive about it.

This is all fine, but in my experience it is stuff that takes place between adventures, rather than be the focus of one. I'm glad you and your friends enjoy this sort of play, but it isn't something that interests me in D&D. A lot of it can be done in real life, but doesn't interest me much, so why would I want to fantasy role-play it?

 

[buzz]

What do you do about people who detect as evil, but...

In the D&D universe, you can kill them. By definition, they have been "hurting, oppressing, and killing others". They would not detect as Evil otherwise.

And anyway, being Good should be about more than just opposing Evil.

Given the kinds of Evil that exist in most D&D worlds, "just" opposing Evil is a pretty tall order.

Nonetheless, if you want to run a campaign where the focus in on larger political issues, Alignment is more subjective, and the PC's goals revolve around uplifting their communities, by all means do so. Just lay out your concept to your group first. Better yet, play an RPG where this focus is mechanically reinforced.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

In the D&D universe, you can kill them. By definition, they have been "hurting, oppressing, and killing others". They would not detect as Evil otherwise.

So the guy who tortures small animals - but hasn't killed a human - deserves to die? Or the merchant who sells shoddy wares to unsuspecting customers? Or the bureaucrat who likes to flaunt his power over his petitioners - just because he can?

All of them could fall into the "Evil" alignment. Really, intentions and personality matter at least as much as deeds.

 

[buzz]

All of them could fall into the "Evil" alignment. Really, intentions and personality matter at least as much as deeds.

Unfortunately, this gets into discussing how Alignment works, and that will massively derail the thread.

The overall point is simply that you can't fault people for not playing D&D the way you describe. It's simply not set up to encourage deep, political, question-the-nature-of-morality style play. If you want that kind of play, you talk about it with your players beforehand and find an amenable solution.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Unfortunately, this gets into discussing how Alignment works, and that will massively derail the thread.

The overall point is simply that you can't fault people for not playing D&D the way you describe.

That wasn't my intention, and I apologize if I made that impression. I just want them to consider the possibilities inherent in such a play style.

It's simply not set up to encourage deep, political, question-the-nature-of-morality style play. If you want that kind of play, you talk about it with your players beforehand and find an amenable solution.

I think question-the-nature-of-morality play styles are fairly independent of the game system used. I am curious, however - which games do encourage such a style of play in your opinion?