Power and Responsibility

[kigmatzomat]

Altering power structures will usually result in collateral deaths (like we've seen throughout world history up to this day), and it's always a heated debate if the new power structure is worth the deaths. But to claim that altering the (originally evil) power structure is outright EEVIL? I'd wager not.

I never argued against altering a power structure. I argued against:

Evil should go unpunished because punishing evil has nasty consequences? Sounds like cowardly adventuring. Screw the consequences and kill the bad guys would be my approach.

There's a big difference between deciding to never topple Elmer and deciding to wait until you have a solution that isn't worse than Elmer.

 

[Spatula]

Altering power structures will usually result in collateral deaths (like we've seen throughout world history up to this day), and it's always a heated debate if the new power structure is worth the deaths. But to claim that altering the (originally evil) power structure is outright EEVIL? I'd wager not.

Example: US civil war. It was not all about slaves (not my strong subject), but should they have let that power structure standing because altering it was going to cause a lot of death? After all, a system of slavery is a thing that could be called evil in D&D terms.

The analogy is not perfect, because in real world changing a power structure quickly usually requires a revolution or war. In D&D a power structure can be effectively decapitated by a group of high-level adventurers.

The real-world analogy would be assassination, no? I mean, if the PCs are going to swoop in, kill a head of state, and then leave, it's no different at all from an assassin's bullet.

 

[Numion]

The real-world analogy would be assassination, no? I mean, if the PCs are going to swoop in, kill a head of state, and then leave, it's no different at all from an assassin's bullet.

Didn't think about that, but you're right. Except that adventurers have (a little) more staying power. As in moving to the presidents palace and setting up house, but then again that was the part that brought a lot of discussion in this thread :\

Killing bad guys, YES!
Nation building, NO!

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

You are assuming that this is the sort of adventure that's over in one evening. What's wrong with telling the DM "I'd like to do something about toppling Mad Lord X" at the end of a gaming session, and then have a short brainstorming session with everyone to discuss what you could do?

Nope.

I've been in nation building campaigns. I just don't find them fun.

 

[CruelSummerLord]

I have a question, as to why the PCs go charging in to liberate the oppressed inhabitants...

1) How do they know the victimized peasants will welcome them as liberators? If the PCs simply go charging in wands blazing and arbitrarily try and change things without any sort of pretext, can they be sure they'll be welcomed?

In real life, there are plenty of times when foreign invaders go in guns blazing, arbitrarily try to change things to make life better for the people...only to have it bite them in the rear when they realize the locals aren't very grateful.

2) Will the people accept the changes being imposed by the good-aligned victors? What if they refuse to accept certain reforms, such as women suddenly being given equality in a patriarchal culture? That might cause no small amount of resentment among the people, who may come to view the PCs as barging in and telling them what's good for them. They might see the characters as arrogant and patronizing, as if the PCs know what's best.

If the people fight back or rebel themselves, how will the PCs react? The efforts by the 19th-century European empires to "civilize" people in the rest of the world were, to say the least, not well received by the locals. What keeps the PCs from becoming tyrants themselves, trying to convince the locals to accept what's good for them?

3) What if the PCs are tired or burnt out? Even the greatest archmage can only do so much-all the effort he put into thwarting the last half-dozen tyrants who tried to destroy the kingdom might have left him too mentally exhausted to pick up the slack. He's put in his time, done his part-let the younger generation step up and fix things! If the archmage has earned his rest, he should be able to concentrate on his research, if that's what he wants.

4) Can the PCs challenge every single evil out there? If you've got four different despots oppressing four different lands, can the PCs really topple them one after another? Not even Epic-level characters necessarily have the resources to pull off something like that, unless they have armies of their own, or a lot of potential allies they can call on who owe them a lot of favors.

 

[Slife]

Detect Evil can be beaten by a mere second level spell (Misdirection). Relying on a first-level spell effect to be your moral compass should be a quick way to end up no longer bearing the moniker "Good Guy".

Augury with a paladin in the party. Losing his paladinhood - a bad thing. Badda bing, badda boom.

>Killing this guy, good idea?
Weal
>All right! Break out the weapons, dudes.

>Killing this guy, good idea?
woe
>You're clear... for now.


For more reliable results, use a phylactery of faith.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I have a question, as to why the PCs go charging in to liberate the oppressed inhabitants...

1) How do they know the victimized peasants will welcome them as liberators? If the PCs simply go charging in wands blazing and arbitrarily try and change things without any sort of pretext, can they be sure they'll be welcomed?

In real life, there are plenty of times when foreign invaders go in guns blazing, arbitrarily try to change things to make life better for the people...only to have it bite them in the rear when they realize the locals aren't very grateful.

Indeed. So the PCs had better make plans - and good plans, too.

My players know that in my campaigns they can attempt to do almost anything, including toppling nations, and this shows. But smart role-playing is still rewared - the better their plans are, the more likely are they going to achieve what they want.

In this case, this means showing the peasants - before and after the coup - that they are indeed a better alternative than their current leaders. Making the current government not only look evil (which they are likely doing already to some degree), but arbitrary and incompetent is certainly a good step - and smart players should have a few ideas for pulling that kind of thing off.

2) Will the people accept the changes being imposed by the good-aligned victors? What if they refuse to accept certain reforms, such as women suddenly being given equality in a patriarchal culture? That might cause no small amount of resentment among the people, who may come to view the PCs as barging in and telling them what's good for them. They might see the characters as arrogant and patronizing, as if the PCs know what's best.

If the people fight back or rebel themselves, how will the PCs react? The efforts by the 19th-century European empires to "civilize" people in the rest of the world were, to say the least, not well received by the locals. What keeps the PCs from becoming tyrants themselves, trying to convince the locals to accept what's good for them?

That is a question that the PCs can try to answer themselves in the course of play - and personally, I found that such questions made for some of the very best role-playing I have witnessed.

3) What if the PCs are tired or burnt out? Even the greatest archmage can only do so much-all the effort he put into thwarting the last half-dozen tyrants who tried to destroy the kingdom might have left him too mentally exhausted to pick up the slack. He's put in his time, done his part-let the younger generation step up and fix things! If the archmage has earned his rest, he should be able to concentrate on his research, if that's what he wants.

Then they can try to find some replacements and concentrate on other things for a change. The DM can then judge player interest (he should certainly discuss things out-of-character with them) if this is just a temporary matter or a long-term thing. If it's the former, he can always involve new political intrigues later on...

4) Can the PCs challenge every single evil out there? If you've got four different despots oppressing four different lands, can the PCs really topple them one after another? Not even Epic-level characters necessarily have the resources to pull off something like that, unless they have armies of their own, or a lot of potential allies they can call on who owe them a lot of favors.

Indeed. However, Epic-level characters are much more likely to be able to attract such armies and allies in quick order than anyone else - if they choose to do so.

At such levels, their power and prowess should known far and wide - and numerous people will seek them out to petition them for one thing or another. If they want, they can quickly leverage this into political power.

 

[babomb]

There are some good arguments for not getting involved, though I daresay it would be a rare and cynical PC to come to that conclusion without having previously experienced the consequences of overthrowing governments. This issue is repeatedly dealt with in Terry Pratchett's Discworld series, which frequently parodies fantasy tropes.

"You could strike me down," [Lord Felmut] said. "And perhaps you could find someone to replace me. But he would have to be a fool indeed, because he would know he was under your evil eye, and if he mispleased you, why his life would be instantly forfeit. You could protest all you wished, but he'd know he ruled with your permission. And that would make him no king at all. Is that not true?"

"Down there." [the Patrician] said, "are people who will follow any dragon, worship any god, ignore any iniquity.... They accept evil not because they say yes but because they don't say no. I'm sorry if this offends you," he added, patting the captian's shoulder, but you people really need us.... We're the only ones who know how to make things work. You see, the only thing good people are good at is overthrowing the bad people. And you're good at that, I'll grant you. But the trouble is that it's the only thing you're good at. One day it's the ringing of the bells and the casting down of the evil tyrant, and the next it's everyone sitting around complaining that ever since the tyrant was overthrown no one's been taking out the trash."

And then, of course, if you do manage to overthrow the evil dictator and set up a good, stable government in his place, people'll expect you to keep on doing it. You'll have no end of people coming after you begging you to overthrow this or that evil dictator, and you'll have no good excuse for them (or at least none that will satisfy them), because look how well it worked the first time. 16th level characters are practically gods compared to the average commoner, and if you start answering prayers all the time, they'll expect you to keep on doing it.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

And then, of course, if you do manage to overthrow the evil dictator and set up a good, stable government in his place, people'll expect you to keep on doing it. You'll have no end of people coming after you begging you to overthrow this or that evil dictator, and you'll have no good excuse for them (or at least none that will satisfy them), because look how well it worked the first time. 16th level characters are practically gods compared to the average commoner, and if you start answering prayers all the time, they'll expect you to keep on doing it.

Indeed. But to me, all this seems appropriate for high-level play. At this stage, it's hard to retreat to anonymity - there are few people who haven' heard of them and their fame means that everyone has expectations of them.

Just think of all those ex-presidents/prime ministers/chancellors in the world. They might no longer be in office, but most of them still seem to have some sort of urge to meddle - and even if they don't, lots of people still badger them about politics.

Now imagine what would happen if these people could cast 9th level spells...

 

[Umbran]

Augury with a paladin in the party.

At best, 90% chance of success - meaning that after about 10 times, this will mean losing the "Good Guy" moniker.

For more reliable results, use a phylactery of faith.

Since it, too, is based on aura detection, the phylactery can be fooled by misdirection - so now the target needs to change the target of the spell in order to beat you. Not to mention the character has to walk around wearing a box on their forehead all the time to be effective.

And, of course, once you reach high levels, Mind Blank pretty much kills all such nonsense.

My point being that you can always turn this into an arms-race. There is no sure-fire way to systematically determine if you should kill all your targets. This sort of thing can give you information for an occasional, particular case. Make a habit of it, and a smart enemy should use it against you.

Also, the Good Guy moniker is not just about alignment. It is about what society thinks of you. One good shot fooling the PCs, and they're running form the local authorities, whatever their alignment is.