Power and Responsibility

[Numion]

I was reading Spell Compendium and noticed a nice 9th level spell called Programmed Amnesia. You can basically reprogram a persons outlook on life (alignment, etc..), erase / insert memories. The whole thing. That spell could fix tyrant problems just like that.

Saruman is now Lawful Good and remembers he lost the Orthanc and the Palantir to Gandalf in a game of high-stakes poker

 

[Reynard]

D&D is a fantasy game that I play to enjoy being a part of fantasy events. Give me the ancient dragon rather than the feuding nobles.

Ancient, feuding dragon nobles. Seriously.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

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.

That is not what the game is designed for.

Power and the use of power speaks to morality and ethics.

The morality of D&D – with in the novels and the published settings – is simple, even simpler than that of comics books. Evil and good, black and white, left and right. All in all, all an NPC has to do is call themselves something (“good” for example) for them to be that, even if none of their other attitudes, behavior, treatment of others and temperament actually match the criteria for the quality. This is true of PCs only if DMs allow it, though most players will spin and spindle any situation to justify any immoral act they can.

Ethics is more determined by profession and situation, i.e. business standards and table manners are more ethical matters than moral issues. In terms of D&D a wizard is ethical if he or she acts like a wizard and unethical if they act like a ranger. This is true of NPCs (usually) and PCs both.

That is what the system is designed for and all the system is designed for. It is not designed for the kind of moral or philosophical (or social or political) inquiries you are asking about. All the rulers (good and bad) are in place and questioning their role (or roll) is at best pointless.

None of the hack-and-slashers would support making these inquiries in a particular game (nor into the game as a whole), and even mentioning it is an invitation to have people shout you down.

Ultimately, the only thing the Rules As Written allow for is the PCs to be bloody minded grave robbers and scalp hunters living and dying at the whim of unapproachable kings and queens.

That is just the way things are.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

The PCs will find it impossible to make it an issue without the DM's collusion. The DM represents the entire non-PC universe, after all. There is no such thing as a repercussion or a broad-ranging effect without the DM's say-so.

Well, that cuts both ways. For one thing, PCs have a phenomenal capacity for creating chaos. For another, there is only a game so long as the players participate. They participate because they get want they want. And a DM cannot (I mean that literally) dictate to the players what they want.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Contrary to what was already mentioned, D&D used to be not only about killing monsters and looting the bodies.

I disagree. It may have been that way in the past, but it is not now.

Mind you, I’m not entirely happy about that. I’ve long bemoaned the lack of republics or democracies as nation-modes in the DMG or as countries in the published settings. But statistically, vastly more players come to the table (buying books along the way) to be like the characters in Blood Meridian (and call it good) than to play out being someone like Dr. King or General Eisenhower.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

There's any amount of things Good Guys can do to act proactively...

That at best barely works in the real world. And the RAW do not support this working in the game.

 

[Slife]

I let them get creative with problems like these:

"The Guild system is corrupt and inefficient and holding back innovation and commerce. Yet the majority of city-dwellers belong to one guild or another - so how can we reform them without pissing off the inhabitants of our cities?"

Make a list of any possible options. Use commune to ask the freaking god of commerce which ones to use.

"The antagonism between these two religions is driving our citizens apart, with more and more people feeling that they have to join with either side. How do we resolve this conflict without triggering a religious war?"

Two options.
One or both of the gods is/are evil. Kill any evil gods. No religious war.

The gods are both non-evil. That's what you keep the bard along for. Gate your way into the divine realm, and politely* ask the gods to settle it in person.

"To renovate the sewer system and build a new aquaeduct for the capital city so that it becomes a far nicer place to live than the capital of our rivals, we need about 2,000,0000 gp. Where can we get that money?"

What do we need that amount of money for? We have a bard who automatically beats a DC 18 perform check and a Lyre of building.

"The nobles spend far too much time feuding with each other - yet we don't have enough trained bureaucrats to run the realm instead, and the nobles all have lots of armed followers. How can we get rid of them without triggering mass unrest?"

Either have the bard ask them politely, or you can just use some enchantments. Or use the obvious solution, and have *them* conquer dark lord elmer, and keep themselves busy managing the mess he made of the kingdom while the PCs get to do the fun stuff.

*diplomacy check of 60+

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I disagree. It may have been that way in the past, but it is not now.

No, you don't....that's why I said it "used to be" not only about killing monsters. I well recognize that this focus at higher levels is long gone, and for the worse of the game in my opinion. It used to be that D&D took into account the shifting power levels of high-level characters compared to low- and mid-level, and channeled them into more appropriate challenges. It isn't that way anymore, and from what I've seen of 4E, it will be even less that way in the future. But hey, everybody should have fun the way he/she prefers.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Make a list of any possible options. Use commune to ask the freaking god of commerce which ones to use.

Does he have the same priorities as you, though? What kind of economy does he see as "best"? And is it truly going to be one that benefits the greatest number of people?

Two options.
One or both of the gods is/are evil. Kill any evil gods. No religious war.

Easier said than done.

The gods are both non-evil. That's what you keep the bard along for. Gate your way into the divine realm, and politely* ask the gods to settle it in person.

What if the gods are remote and don't meddle in the affairs of the mortal realm directly (or might not even exist, as in Eberron)?

What if the religious strife is simply the result of decades or even centuries of mutual resentment threatening to boil over - and thus can't be easily solved by orders from high?

What do we need that amount of money for? We have a bard who automatically beats a DC 18 perform check and a Lyre of building.

Better hope he has a good Craft(architecture), too - or else the new constructions might be rather unstable over the long run.

Besides, this won't stimulate the economy like a normal civic engineering project would. By doing all the work for your citizens, you ensure that they won't have any work.

Either have the bard ask them politely, or you can just use some enchantments.

Ah, so you don't have any ethical problems with using long-term mind control magic on others?

 

[ruleslawyer]

Ultimately, the only thing the Rules As Written allow for is the PCs to be bloody minded grave robbers and scalp hunters living and dying at the whim of unapproachable kings and queens.

That is just the way things are.

IMO, that's reductionist to an extreme, mainly due to your insertion of the "only" qualifier. Many published settings, as well as the RAW, actually *do* support a more comprehensive definition of good and evil than what you're suggesting; leaf through Power of Faerun, The Seven Sisters, or the Planescape boxed set for examples. Grave-robbing is *not* the only style supported, especially in a world in which a) "encounters," not "foes slain," yield XP; and b) the PCs can buy or make magic items rather than having to loot them off corpses. It's actually quite easy to structure a campaign in which morality is a tangible and comprehensive force and in which self-declarations of behavior don't cut it. None of my campaigns since I started DMing at the tender age of eleven have been in the style you're asserting is the "only" way to play.