|
LG vs LG: Two Kingdoms at war: a Thought Experiment
I would like to pull together a set of general traits that could be used to create two kingdoms, both of which are fairly plainly Lawful Good. These kingdoms should dislike each other in the best of times, and it should be entirely believable that they would go to war agaisnt one another if the right buttons were pushed.
It's not for a campaign or anything, just an interesting exploration of alignment and what it does and does not mean.
Here's what I've got so far:
* different races: Dwarves and Humans are excellent choices, though not always viable.
* different patron gods / belief systems: may or may not be doable, depending on existing deities.
* different ruling structures: King, Council of Lords, council of wizards, Parliament, etc. This should be easy enough to set up.
* different power bases / lands: one small but significantly developed (likely with a large population of arcane spellcasters), the other large but more rural, possibly with emphasis on druidic customs and respect for nature/balance. Other ideas would be nice, here.
* reasons to fight: each needs something: land, wood, metals, etc, that the other has in abundance. They currently trade for it, but don't like being so dependent.
* a history of fighting: always easier to pick a fight with someone if there's a history of fighting. Even better is if it's generational - kids fighting the same war their parents fought. And, of course, "stuff" must be "taken" - crown jewels, handy resource on the border (city/mine/port), etc. An excellent example: port city was part of Kingdom, switched allegiances to Monarchy; Kingdom went to war and won/lost X generations ago. Loser preparing for "corrective action" to "take back what is rightfully theirs".
Other ideas?
|
Hiya,
I like your idea.
A few thoughts for food :
I'd say : not the same god, or not the same clergy (just look at the religion wars in medieval France to get an idea).
Then : Okay, the kingdom may be LG, that does not mean that EVERYBODY in the kingdom needs to.
Especially, as far as military staff go. IMHO, a sizable number of military brass may evolve to LN rather than LG, if only by the nature of the grim duty. They might perpetuate war out of tradition, honor, long familial history over a disputed province ....
There could also be other pressure groups who would benefit from fighting the war in one way or another. They need not be altogether EVVVIIILLLLL ! Once again, a few LN guys at the top could create pretty bad neighborhood relations just to fight over a needed resource.
Hmmm, well, that's it for now, but I look forward to the next posts in this thread.
|
|
Oh, well, It just seems I forgot a classic one ....
Okay, Kingdom X and Kingdom Y were unified recently due to the marriage of prince X and princess Y, and they had two twin children, born at the exact same moment.
When the parents are assassinated by Evil Big Baddie, each kingdom signs for one of the infant twins, who is -of course- the ONE TRUE RULER of the whole (in their mind)
Once again, looking forward to the rest.
I don't know how doable it is in D&D, but some widespread disaster or collapse, that translates to: 'we each have X number of people. There is enough food/resources to barely feed X people.'
So, either we starve half our people, or we fight over the resource to see which of us starves.
It's not Good so much as 'sometimes you have to decide which innocents to help.' And, being Lawful, they are committed to THEIR people/nation.
If they both sreved the same god/goddess, it could be a religious schism. Especially something petty, like which knee to kneel down on or which end of the egg to open during communion.
Anyway, the diety respects honorable combat and chivalric ideals, and so lets the war progress, perhaps to allow evil elements to present themselves for purging?
"The clerics and oracles have been seeing portends of corruption within our ranks, and now those left-knee-er big-enders have gone and run a patrol over the river into our soverign territory. It's war, I tell you, and a sign that their heresy must be rooted out!"
This one would work perfectly. Both Christianity and Islam are supposed to be LG religions (follow these rules and live a good life and you'll get into heaven), but look at the anger, violence, and destruction that gets perpetuated in the name of "destroying the infidels" (from both sides).
LG vs LG: Two Kingdoms at war: a Thought Experiment
I would like to pull together a set of general traits that could be used to create two kingdoms, both of which are fairly plainly Lawful Good. These kingdoms should dislike each other in the best of times, and it should be entirely believable that they would go to war agaisnt one another if the right buttons were pushed.
To me, any kingdom with an effective government is Lawful. Most of them mean well, so I'd say barring the case of tyrants, all PC-race kingdoms are lawful good. Unfriendly kingdoms could easily have the same god, even close relatives ruling opposing kingdoms.
That said, there's almost always a war on somewhere. It's not always good vs evil. Not all wars are crusades.
I'm currently running a game in a kingdom with
a political structure I VERY loosely based on England during the Glorious Revolution. The whole continent worships the same pantheon. Most of the hold one particular god as chief god over the others.
Within the worship of this god, there is a schism. The god is held to have a host of semi-divine knights who fight in his celestial crusades. One sect of the church holds these semi-divine creatures to be intermediaries between the gods. Many of these celestial knights represent some ideal or community to their adherents, and many people carry an icon of their celestial knight.
The other sect holds this to be heresy. Only the gods are gods, and if you pray to something other than a god, You're Doing It Wrong(tm).
The rulership of this particular kingdom has swung back and forth as to which church the monarch belonged to over the last two centuries. But every monarch has meant well for his kingdom. The current king is LG, and means well.
Right now, the son-in-law of the current king, a ruling prince of a princedom across the inland sea, is sending an invading army to remove the king from power. The prince's wife, also his second cousin, cements the prince's claim to the throne of the kingdom (combined with a prophecy in the vault of the main national temple) and he plans to unite the two. He is LG and means well. He is supported by a conspiracy of nobles in the kingdom, many of whom mean well for the kingdom. Granted, there are some who are using the religious schism as a means to motivate people so that they can claim power for themselves.
Now, this isn't the main focus of the campaign. That's just what's going on in the background. What's going on for the players is that they're slowly learning about an invasion of Aberrations from another plane. (NOTE: This did not happen in England.) All of the adventures have been geared toward that. But they've been given hints of the political situation for the entire year we've been playing. Things just blew up politically, and they're in a neighboring country trying to get people to believe them about the alien invasion. They just heard about the mess back home. They've been in the wilderness for a week or so.
Anyway, the two soon-to-be warring countries are not only both LG (or at least the rulership is), but they're relatives, and they worship the same gods.
ETA spoiler because blah blah blah
ETA wiki link
ETA note
As far as resources go, access to waterways is a big one. Whether it is drinking water, irrigation, trade, a sea port, ect. Waterways are of huge value to any country. One ountry could even be upstream of the other and is inadvertantly poluting the water with human wastes, like the Ganges in India. The polution could even be magical in nature: gnomes in the mountains use so much magic in their daily lives it bleeds into the water and mutates things in the grasslands.
The "other side are heretics" is a classic mechanism, and rooted in history - see Hundred Years War, Thirty Years War. The Albingensian Crusade (1209AD - 1229AD) erupted - ostensibly - over tithes to the church. This crusade was called by the Pope himself (Innocent III). This was French vs French...although they had provincial ethnic lines. Nasty stuff - it was estimated that anywhere from 200,000 to 1,000,000 people were killed during the 20 years of the crusade. Here's the url for the crusade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade
Read it, I suspect it will give you some solid ideas for what you are looking for. Lots of intrigue, assassination, excommunication, etc. All from a "good" and "law-abiding" nation.
LG Kingdom X and LG Kingdom Y have been allies and a thorn in the side of CE Kingdom Z (or terrorist organization, temple of evil deity, etc.) for many years. Secretly, CE Kingdom Z pits Kingdoms X and Y against each other through deception and frame-ups (for example, assassinating a royal family member of Kingdom X and making it look like Kingdom Y's doing, especially if Kingdom Y would gain something from said royal's death due to intermarriage, inheritance, etc. to make it seem more plausible).
Of course, the religious schism idea is plenty of reason (if history tells us anything) for two kingdoms that both think of themselves as "good" to go to war. During the Great Schism of the middle ages, everyone in Christendom was excommunicated by one pope or the other (there was the pope in Rome and the pope in France, and each wanted to be the only one, LOL).
To me, any kingdom with an effective government is Lawful. Most of them mean well, so I'd say barring the case of tyrants, all PC-race kingdoms are lawful good....LG vs LG: Two Kingdoms at war: a Thought Experiment
I would like to pull together a set of general traits that could be used to create two kingdoms, both of which are fairly plainly Lawful Good. These kingdoms should dislike each other in the best of times, and it should be entirely believable that they would go to war agaisnt one another if the right buttons were pushed.
I disagree with this very much. Many nations definetely aren't good. As for lawful, I can think of many cultures that are not lawful.
If the governing body believes people need to work out things for themselves and its their problem, like many clan systems, you can easily make that a chaotic government. Or if lines of authority are unclear, and people all have similar say. I would personally consider the Athenean democracy to be a neutral government on the law-chaos scale.
As for the good-evil spectrum, it would depend on how the government cares about its normal citizens. The high number of slaves in many early cultures would put them as neutral, or even evil. They believed in the prosperity of their culture at the expense of others.
would be interesting if the 2 Kingdoms came to an agreement to be at war. so that war would stimulate both kingdoms economics and science and also keep both populations in check... which i know is more LN then LG. but sounds interesting to me
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
They could fight over political nuances instead of religious nuances, as well. Perhaps one LG kingdom practices a relatively benign form of slavery... indentured servitude, peonage, or so forth, backed by an authoritarian monarchy. LG kingdom #2 is a constitutional republic like Andoran and considers any form of slavery or even class distinction to be evil. Rule of law still applies, but very different ideas about power distribution. Peasants/indentured servants of kingdom 1 seek asylum in kingdom 2, diplomatic row ensues, differences cannot be reconciled, war ensues. LG individuals, organizations, and nations still have economic/practical interests and will prioritize those differently in relation to their ideological interests.
Another scenario: Succession Wars. The king is dead in K1 (long live the king). There is a dynastic struggle because more than one claimant have strong claims to the throne. K2 backs the claimant that best aligns with K2's interests; because of K2's support, the succession turns bloody (perhaps the claimant they back is accused of selling the country to foreign interests). Civil war ensues (War #1). K2's claimant loses. K1's new king now, justifiably, sees K2 as a threat to his sovereignty. War #2 ensues.
Another take on the previous scenario: The Hundred Year's War. K1 has a strong lawful claim to K2's throne. K2's lawful king naturally takes exception. No king is simply going to lay down his crown to avoid a war, even if it means suffering for his people, no matter how LG he is.
Yet another scenario, the fight over honor. Let's call this one the "Much Ado" scenario. K1's king's daughter is set to marry K2's crown prince. Evidence comes to K2's attention that the young lady's honor is, ah, compromised. K1 is obligated to vindicate his daughter's reputation, even at the points of a thousand lances. War ensues. Perhaps the whole affair (ba-doom cha!) is orchestrated by evil third parties.
would be interesting if the 2 Kingdoms came to an agreement to be at war. so that war would stimulate both kingdoms economics and science and also keep both populations in check... which i know is more LN then LG. but sounds interesting to me
Actually, that sounds more Lawful Evil to me. No, scratch that -- that's pretty much the premise for 1984, so let's go with Psychotic Evil alignment.
Simply because a system makes good internal sense doesn't mean it's rational or well-ordered.
would be interesting if the 2 Kingdoms came to an agreement to be at war. so that war would stimulate both kingdoms economics and science and also keep both populations in check... which i know is more LN then LG. but sounds interesting to meActually, that sounds more Lawful Evil to me. No, scratch that -- that's pretty much the premise for 1984, so let's go with Psychotic Evil alignment.
Simply because a system makes good internal sense doesn't mean it's rational or well-ordered.
Shhh! Big Brother is listening! ;)
To me, any kingdom with an effective government is Lawful. Most of them mean well, so I'd say barring the case of tyrants, all PC-race kingdoms are lawful good....LG vs LG: Two Kingdoms at war: a Thought Experiment
I would like to pull together a set of general traits that could be used to create two kingdoms, both of which are fairly plainly Lawful Good. These kingdoms should dislike each other in the best of times, and it should be entirely believable that they would go to war agaisnt one another if the right buttons were pushed.
I disagree with this very much. Many nations definetely aren't good. As for lawful, I can think of many cultures that are not lawful.
I knew somebody would argue with me here.
I'm not going to say you're wrong, and your examples were fine, but not really what I was talking about. I specifically said kingdoms, not all nations. And I specifically said effective government. You need law to have effective government. That's kinda what it means.
EDIT: I also specifically mean kingdoms (and other feudal-like constructs) the size of the ones in my campaign world. Sorry. Meant to say that.
Yeah nations where LG as a whole is the dominant alignment are definitely unusual in my games (and in a good number of published settings). The ruler of a nation might certainly be LG but even a LG Paladin ruler is going to be constrained by practicalities.
For the most part I typically assume that the alignment of a society as a whole tends towards LN (The rule of law/social contract is necessary) in organized, high population density societies and N/CN in areas where rugged individualism is the norm such as borderlands/the old west.
LG rulers who govern with fairness and justice in mind are generally enough to shift a society towards LN(G) but in general I think you need a concerted effort on the part of LG secular and religious authorities to shift the whole area into full blown LG land.
Laws and judicial systems that routine advantage the powerful over the weak generally shift a society into the LN(E). Most people practice a sort of "screw you I've got mine" type of attitude. More concerted efforts of LE authorities turn the society into a paranoid police state ala 1984.
So IMHO LG societies are unusual but not unheard of. While most of the time two LG societies would cooperate assuming that they share a common moral/ethic system I can definitely see how they would come to blows.
One society might worship a LG diety (lets go with the name Ra). They believe that arcane spellcasting is immoral, that raise dead and similar spells are acceptable, that they have a duty to promote their religion, etc.
They live next to a country that is ruled by LG arcanists who believe some LG philosophy (no divine casters). Arcane spellcasting is the source of much goodness in their world, raise dead and similar spells are violations of the natural cycle of things akin to necromancy, they believe that worship of gods is deluded and dangerous.
It would be extremely easy for these societies to come to blows. Individuals that can cast detect evil will probably be concerned that their opponents don't show up as evil but will possibly believe that it's the result of misdirection or false negatives.
.... even at face value, don't good kingdoms fight good kingdoms all the time? Violence, or the treat of violence, within a civilization is a natural progression when communication breaks down or fails to work as intended.
Rivalry/wars between dwarves and elves aren't unheard of. Of course, one is CG and the other is LG, so that may be an issue of law versus chaos, but oh well.
Miscommunication happen all the time. Wars happen because of what someone thought someone else said, felt insulted, and wanted to go to war as a result. Or people do things because they think that someone else wants them to do something else, and so on and so forth.
Imagine a dwarven outpost which is on-edge, and as a result immediately stops anyone passing by and begins thoroughly interrogating them. An adventuring party consisting of elves and half-elves is stopped by the dwarves, and the party reacts pretty poorly to this. Fighting their way out, the dwarven outpost is now specifically on a hair trigger for "elven spies" who are hostile. When a war party of elves passes through, the dwarves try to get the drop on them, and when the survivors of the war party report back into their superiors, suddenly the elves start mobilizing for war, which causes suspicion and accusations by the dwarves, and suddenly they're both about to march to war...
Suspicion, accusations, misunderstandings, paranoia, realpolitik -- these are the tools you need to refer to. Even good-aligned people can be paranoid and imagine that every 0-level commoner is a pit fiend polymorphed to escape detection. Such people might be constantly casting detect evil, but even then they know that it doesn't tell them anything, since hiding an alignment is entirely possible, especially for powerful pit fiends...
In fact, I can imagine some monsters that subsist of the strife caused by the miscommunications they inspire. Hrm... *hurriedly scribes down notes*
To me, any kingdom with an effective government is Lawful. Most of them mean well, so I'd say barring the case of tyrants, all PC-race kingdoms are lawful good....LG vs LG: Two Kingdoms at war: a Thought Experiment
I would like to pull together a set of general traits that could be used to create two kingdoms, both of which are fairly plainly Lawful Good. These kingdoms should dislike each other in the best of times, and it should be entirely believable that they would go to war agaisnt one another if the right buttons were pushed.
I disagree with this very much. Many nations definetely aren't good. As for lawful, I can think of many cultures that are not lawful.
I knew somebody would argue with me here.
I'm not going to say you're wrong, and your examples were fine, but not really what I was talking about. I specifically said kingdoms, not all nations. And I specifically said effective government. You need law to have effective government. That's kinda what it means.
EDIT: I also specifically mean kingdoms (and other feudal-like constructs) the size of the ones in my campaign world. Sorry. Meant to say that.
Gengis Khan, who led the largest nation to ever exist in our world, streching from China, accross Russia, bringing Elephants into europe. He led a Chaotic central government. Every town under him was allowed to have different laws, cultures, belief systems. No part in his nation would have been the same. At the same time, they all paid him tribute, and he unified and protected them.
Libertarians want a chaotic government. Low governmental controls that are very loose fitting, givng the people the right to choose most things for themselves.
Because of divination spells like zone of truth, deceptive means of pitting two LG kingdoms against each other would be almost impossible to pull off. The more I think about it, the more ideology seems to be really the only way to do it.
I like Charlie Bell's idea about the ill-fated marriage so much that I might steal it for my next campaign! Thanks, Charlie! :)
As a note, I agree that most feudalistic nations, like those of medieval Europe, would be lawful. As would the Indian fuedal system, Ancient Japan and China, and many other cultures.
This one would work perfectly. Both Christianity and Islam are supposed to be LG religions (follow these rules and live a good life and you'll get into heaven), but look at the anger, violence, and destruction that gets perpetuated in the name of "destroying the infidels" (from both sides).
Only Christianity and Islam sure don’t act like they are LG, which could very well be a good way to have two supposedly LG countries go to war. Sure, the leaders are LG but the people under them are less so, and seeing as how the leaders get all their info from their followers it becomes quite easy to have a war.
|
|
Guys, guys, we are getting sidetracked here.
It's not about whether or not "most kingdoms" are or aren't Lawful Good. That's irrelevant. An interesting topic, but irrelevant. Please move any such discussions to a separate topic.
It's about having two Lawful Good kingdoms, both of which behave in a generally Lawful manner and strive to serve the people as a Good government would.
It's about coming up with as many ways as possible of making these two very decent and honorable kingdoms hate each other very much for a number of perfectly good reasons.
It's about coming up with reasons for groups of Paladins to very much want to kill each other, without anyone involved doing anything evil or chaotic.
This is not easy.
Only Christianity and Islam sure don’t act like they are LG, which could very well be a good way to have two supposedly LG countries go to war. Sure, the leaders are LG but the people under them are less so, and seeing as how the leaders get all their info from their followers it becomes quite easy to have a war.
This one would work perfectly. Both Christianity and Islam are supposed to be LG religions (follow these rules and live a good life and you'll get into heaven), but look at the anger, violence, and destruction that gets perpetuated in the name of "destroying the infidels" (from both sides).
Yeah, note how I said "supposed to be LG religions."
How about a simple misunderstanding that gets blown out of proportion?
How about a simple misunderstanding that gets blown out of proportion?
You can't Zone of Truth your way out of a misunderstanding! :D
Guys, guys, we are getting sidetracked here.
It's not about whether or not "most kingdoms" are or aren't Lawful Good. That's irrelevant. An interesting topic, but irrelevant. Please move any such discussions to a separate topic.
It's about having two Lawful Good kingdoms, both of which behave in a generally Lawful manner and strive to serve the people as a Good government would.
It's about coming up with as many ways as possible of making these two very decent and honorable kingdoms hate each other very much for a number of perfectly good reasons.
It's about coming up with reasons for groups of Paladins to very much want to kill each other, without anyone involved doing anything evil or chaotic.
This is not easy.
Just because someone is LG doesn’t mean they have access to perfect information.
You could use a group of CE troublemakers setting up both kingdoms in an attempt to start a war. Could be fifth columnists or a third kingdom spreading rumors and staging boarder raids.
Another idea along that same line could be a kingdom of LG Dwarves who make contact with a kingdom of LG Orcs, and fighting breaks out before anyone has a chance to talk calmly and realize that they agree on just about everything. Both sides have a history of warfare with the other, and have no reason to believe that this new group is any different from all the others.
Libertarians want a chaotic government. Low governmental controls that are very loose fitting, givng the people the right to choose most things for themselves.
I think most libertarians (at least within the dominant current pro-capitalist viewpoint) still want the rule of law, the social contract, etc. They just want the power of the state to be limited through constitutional means. The power of the state should be limited to the common defense and extremely limited provisioning of public goods. Courts would have laws and judges would be supposed to stick to the letter of contract law, etc.
More extreme branches like Anarcho-Capitalists would definitely be in favor of even less government to the point of privatizing all public goods and services including the national defense.
However they are both laboring under a conceptualization that in the absence of state power the natural tendency of society is to operate in a rational manner where every participant can maximize their personal utility. As such in the absence of state power the tendency is towards harmony.
So it really depends on whether Lawful = Statist and Chaos = Individual Sovereignty. Or Lawful = Rationality (in the neoclassical economics
viewpoint) and Chaos = Disorder.
I'm never quite certain of where I stand in regards to conceptualizing the law-chaos alignment continuum. It's one of the things that really isn't 100% clear and is clearly subject to interpretation.
But Bobchuck is right we are definitely derailing a decent topic.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Food for thought. In Calvin's Geneva, essentially a theocratic city-state, a man by the name of Michael Servetus was preaching a doctrine that Calvin considered heretical. Calvin was concerned that if any of his flock came to believe Servetus's doctrine, their very souls would be in peril of hell. I won't get into the doctrinal particulars here. So Calvin, faced with the eternal, spiritual deaths of his parishioners, chose temporal, physical death for one man instead: he had Servetus executed. This is all historical fact.
Say what you like about the ethics of Calvin's decision; that's not the point here. The point is showing you the thinking and the process behind that decision so you can understand how well-intentioned LG types can disagree, to the point of death, over religious issues that neither party considers trivial. It's easy to dismiss religious schism as trivial if you're broadly dismissive of the issues involved.
BobChuck, if you do make your LG conflict religious in nature, I recommend you treat the point of contention seriously rather than as a minor, cosmetic difference. Christopher Dudley's religious schism over (essentially) the veneration of saints is a great example. It's idolatry on one side, and blasphemy on the other... serious business. Take your players inside the thinking of both sides, so when they choose, their decision is meaningful. They will be more motivated and more involved in the story as a result. If you do take the religious difference tack, be advised, you are pretty much required to have hands-off deities. Interventionist deities would just appear and settle the issue or write the answer in the clouds or something.
Anarcho-Capitalists
They don't exist.
Capitalism, with the private ownership of the means of production, is incompatible with a philosophy based on equal distribution of power.
Anarcho-CapitalistsThey don't exist.
Capitalism, with the private ownership of the means of production, is incompatible with a philosophy based on equal distribution of power.
Or in other words, in order for capitalism to work it depends on the institutional enshrinement of private property, which needs to be enforced by some sort of policeman (i.e. the governmentally-empowered police).
Err, don't mind me -- just an economics grad student who has a serious sociological bent rambling about institutions and what not.
Anarcho-CapitalistsThey don't exist.
Capitalism, with the private ownership of the means of production, is incompatible with a philosophy based on equal distribution of power.
Well people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists definitely do exist ;)
Now whether their assertions are correct or false is up to the individual to come to a conclusion on. I personally don't buy their philosophical assertions (too much is based on the neoclassical theory of rational man and a belief that free markets work perfectly, apparently market failures are exclusively the result of state intervention, etc) but I still accept their desire to classify their beliefs under some sort of title. Anarcho-capitalism seems to be the one they like :D
Anarcho-CapitalistsThey don't exist.
Capitalism, with the private ownership of the means of production, is incompatible with a philosophy based on equal distribution of power.
Or in other words, in order for capitalism to work it depends on the institutional enshrinement of private property, which needs to be enforced by some sort of policeman (i.e. the governmentally-empowered police).
Err, don't mind me -- just an economics grad student who has a serious sociological bent rambling about institutions and what not.
Well yes, but that wasn't exactly what I meant when I said it. I was being simpler. Private ownership of means of production = economic power ≠ equal distribution of power.
Your post is more a sociological interpretation of what that means, I was just being philosophical.
LG vs LG: Two Kingdoms at war: a Thought Experiment
Other ideas?
In ages past, a great war was fought against the Invading Orc-Kin. In the aftermath of that war, the Human country took over a significant portion of Dwarven lands. At the time, these lands were unprotected due to the devastation of the Orc-Kin. Therefore, the dwarves living there, although not particularly happy, accepted their human protectors.
After a couple centuries (or however long), the Dwarven nation has rebuilt it's armies. It now has the resources to protect its people. Especially since one of the mines in the "occupied" territory has been discovered to hold mithril (or another valuable item). Which only adds fules to the fire ("You only want to take the mine! If you cared, you would have reclaimed your people earlier!")
The Dwarven Kingdom makes demands that it's ancestral territories be returned to it. The Human Kingdom replies that humans have settled in the area, and therefore it is their home, too.
Separatists in the human and/or dwarven territories perform not-kind acts to their neighbors. Dwarves die.
Dwarves, being rather stubborn, march to war to reclaim their lost kin.
Humans defend their homeland . . . and tempers get out of control.
Seriously, look to history to get an idea of how basically "good" and "lawful" people come to blows. The above example uses some information from WW2 (where a small piece of Germany was separated from the remainder of the nation) and some stuff in Israel (two communities living side by side, and terrorism).
Good luck.
Anarcho-CapitalistsThey don't exist.
Capitalism, with the private ownership of the means of production, is incompatible with a philosophy based on equal distribution of power.
Well people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists definitely do exist ;)
Now whether their assertions are correct or false is up to the individual to come to a conclusion on. I personally don't buy their philosophical assertions (too much is based on the neoclassical theory of rational man and a belief that free markets work perfectly, apparently market failures are exclusively the result of state intervention, etc) but I still accept their desire to classify their beliefs under some sort of title. Anarcho-capitalism seems to be the one they like :D
Well of course they have the right to label themselves as they wish. I could call myself a raspberry all I want. Doesn't make me a raspberry.
Capitalism is incompatible with socialist ideologies, period. It doesn't matter if they believe in the rational man or the idea the free markets work perfectly. The very idea of a free market, because it is based on private property and thus inequal economic distribution (which is a form of power), it cannot be anarchism.
"Anarcho-capitalists" are nothing more then radical capitalists, thinking that capitalism can fix everything.
Any way, I'm gonna stop being an angry socialist and let the thread get back on track.
|
Yeah nations where LG as a whole is the dominant alignment are definitely unusual in my games (and in a good number of published settings). The ruler of a nation might certainly be LG but even a LG Paladin ruler is going to be constrained by practicalities.
For the most part I typically assume that the alignment of a society as a whole tends towards LN (The rule of law/social contract is necessary) in organized, high population density societies and N/CN in areas where rugged individualism is the norm such as borderlands/the old west.
LG rulers who govern with fairness and justice in mind are generally enough to shift a society towards LN(G) but in general I think you need a concerted effort on the part of LG secular and religious authorities to shift the whole area into full blown LG land.
Laws and judicial systems that routine advantage the powerful over the weak generally shift a society into the LN(E). Most people practice a sort of "screw you I've got mine" type of attitude. More concerted efforts of LE authorities turn the society into a paranoid police state ala 1984.
So IMHO LG societies are unusual but not unheard of. While most of the time two LG societies would cooperate assuming that they share a common moral/ethic system I can definitely see how they would come to blows.
One society might worship a LG diety (lets go with the name Ra). They believe that arcane spellcasting is immoral, that raise dead and similar spells are acceptable, that they have a duty to promote their religion, etc.
They live next to a country that is ruled by LG arcanists who believe some LG philosophy (no divine casters). Arcane spellcasting is the source of much goodness in their world, raise dead and similar spells are violations of the natural cycle of things akin to necromancy, they believe that worship of gods is deluded and dangerous.
It would be extremely easy for these societies to come to blows. Individuals that can cast detect evil will probably be concerned that their opponents don't show up as...
I would tend to agree here. I'd go a little further and say that when the arcanist nation and the religious nation do start fighting though, there are going to be very strict guidelines as to rules of war, treatment of prisoners, etc. Think of it as a LG Geneva Conventions sort of deal.
Some examples:
1. The killing of non-military/non-casters is strictly forbidden.
2. No torture
3. A foe on the battlefield who surrenders will keep his life.
4. Pillaging is forbidden.
It may even evolve to incorporate respect of the other culture's beliefs:
5. A fallen arcanist is not to be taken from death.
6. Citizens and prisoners will not be forbidden from (basic) worship.
7. No battles on High Days (whether they be days of contemplation or days of special worship).
Regardless, the nations are going to keep a general respect for each other, even if they are shedding blood. I would expect that victory through bloodshed would not be the goal, but rather a diminishing of of commanders on a battlefield. You capture a commander and either imprison her or call for an exchange.
eg. We'll release your the council of magi (or high priest) members for a re-evaluation of the current borders. You will cede x cities.
I think the overall idea is that two LG nations are going to allow themselves to be bogged down by rules and regulations of war, whereas a neutral society would restrict only do so to an extent, and an evil nation even less so.
Remember that LG does not mean 'brilliant,' or even 'particularly smart.'
Or that a LG nation knows that another nation is LG.
Or considers vast issues of alignment, rather than reacting to desires.
So, for example, 'the dwarves are encroaching on our northern border, violating border agreements and threatening our farmsteaders there,' the answer might be military engagement which snowballs because the humans don't particularly trust dwarven stories of a mine collapse and refugees, and the dwarves are too proud to necessarily even explain that in the first place.
Well spell use can definitely give insight into another culture's basic alignment.
Detect Good/Evil can be used on opposing forces, you can even cast it through scrying so that you can find out if the opposing side's leadership is good or if they are evil monsters manipulating the good people of Ruritania.
Other divinations like commune and contact other plane are insightful, "Is the Duke of Ruritania evil?" There might be misleading information given but overall I think that to a certain degree it will be difficult but not impossible for two neighboring LG societies to be entirely clueless about the real nature of the other. I think it's more plausible to have it where one believes that the other is essentially good but heretical and needs to renounce it's heresy even if it requires force to accomplish.
Very interesting thread.
Some past events need to be in the background to explain some hatred. For example :
1. The dwarven kingdom (DK) has always been in good terms with the human kingdom (HK). HK borders a wild area and is often facing monstrous horde invasions. Usually, DK is helpful and often provides troops during times of threat. One day, a terrible plague strikes DK. Not only is the human clergy interpreting this as a sign of punishment from their god, but rumors of the rise of a new lich-king abound. The human king is willing to help the DK, but is caught between his clergy and his people, who fear an invasion and is against the sending of help to DK. The human king suffers deeply and he watches is neighbour getting devastated for several months. The next year, the lich-king invasion begins, and the DK politely declines to help the HK as they are still recovering. For regular folks of both sides, the other side is in part responsible for their own suffering.
2. A religious site, located in DK, is also a place of worship for the humans. The dwarves have, for hundreds of years, build a magnificient temple to their dwarven-god and their dwarven pride. The dwarves do not wish to open their religious site to other races; the clergy sees this as a dilution of their cult.
Some of those hatred would pick up wind in their wings every time something else happen. Religious tensions would rise when a political conflict erupts.
For example, DK and HK both border a wild area. Colons live a very difficult life and they put their blood and all they have fighting to expand their land and protect their crop. As both kingdoms expand, they come into contact with each other and tensions rise...
Another example: DK and HK don't really know each other but both have exchanges with a third party. The DK has made an alliance with the third party. When conflict erupts and HK invades the third party, theDK is dragged into the conflict.
I like the marriage and blood-related feuds. You could have both the DK and the HK worship the same god, until the human king dies and is heir announces a great Reform. His brother flees to the DK and asks for their help. The DK, bound by a pact, invades the HK.
DW
|
This one would work perfectly. Both Christianity and Islam are supposed to be LG religions (follow these rules and live a good life and you'll get into heaven), but look at the anger, violence, and destruction that gets perpetuated in the name of "destroying the infidels" (from both sides).
Take it you haven't read the Bible anytime recently, sonny?
Not to start a religious spamtastic debate, but seriously... say things about groups of people when you know what you're talking about. It's vulgar to say "black people like fried chicken" it's vulgar to say "Wicca is devil worship" and it's vulgar and inaccurate to say "Christianity is all about rules, etc, etc."
People get pissed when you just say things and don't know what you're talking about,even if it's done in innocent ignorance, so take this as a warning.
BobChuck, trying to get internet forum posters to stay on topic is like trying to herd cats.
Going back to your request . . .
Conflict could erupt thanks to the efforts of a few crazed radicals.
Dwarven Ambassador is assassinated by crazy elven nature-radicals while the former is visiting the Human kingdom. Dwarves get pissed that the Humans didn't protect him, violence ensues (Similar to what ignited WW1).
Human clergy discover where St. GoodGuy is buried. The Humans want to move the remains to their country, but the remains are actually on the grounds of a past battlefield, and the other guys (elves, or dwarves, etc) say this is sacred ground, and therefore off limits. Religious group conflicts with cultural beliefs, violence ensues. This is similar to Native American vs United States Gov't stuff from the 1800s.
Blatantly steal from history, change some names, maybe a race or two, add a dragon. The players will never know the difference.
Before you go stealing from history, can you point out one single LG state that ever existed, let alone two LG states bordering each other which went to war????
Before you go stealing from history, can you point out one single LG state that ever existed, let alone two LG states bordering each other which went to war????
Can't be done objectively, because alignment doesn't really exist. If you need to apply game dynamics to the real world, you'll fail, because no matter what country you say is or isn't a LG someone else will disagree with you. The USA has laws, and people who support those laws believe wholeheartedly that they are doing things for good and altruistic reasons. And other people in the world think the US is a cesspit of greed/hedonism/imperialism/[choose your evil].
And that's also part of my take on Alignment IMC. It's not really objective. Subjectively each nation believes it is behaving in a lawful good way, but other nations might view some of their behaviors as unlawful, or ungood. Not necessarily chaotic or evil, just not what THEY consider lawful AND good. This is on a societal level, not an individual level.
By my definition IMC, two neighboring LG (structured societies in which individuals GENERALLY want what's best for the country) nations could easily go to war. If your Alignment system is on the other end of the spectrum, i.e., with very clear cut and quantifiable definitions of good and evil, where there are decidedly good countries and definitively evil countries, this is less likely.
Can't be done objectively, because alignment doesn't really exist.
OMG! Are you saying D&D is a construct designed to replicate a very specific situation and can't be applied to all areas of life?
Okay, that was a bit snarky. But thank you for pointing out that . . .
THIS IS A GAME!
By the way, I thought of another example, although this isn't always LG vs LG.
An LG state believes that its way is the best way. It culls the radicals, the free thinkers, the undesireables from its population in an effort to make its population better. To ascend to the next level, if you will. They take the philosophy of LG to the extreme. I believe there is already an example of this in Golarion, albeit a single entity that rules the country (a gold dragon, I believe).
Naturally, this means as they look past their borders they see things about their neighbors that they don't like. The elves are too arrogant, and won't accept the LG state as their benevolent ruler. Therefore they need to be wiped out. The dwarves have this silly habit of Ancestor-Worship, which is obviously a degrading practice which only prevents the dwarves from advancing as a species. They need to be wiped out. And gnomes? Don't get me started . . . .
This one would work perfectly. Both Christianity and Islam are supposed to be LG religions
Yeah. Supposed to be (Though Jesus has a strong CG vibe, if you ask me - "It's more important to help than to stick to traditions and nonsense like this"). And there are probably a lot of people who are like this.
But a lot of people just don't get those religions, some use them as an excuse to insult, harm, and kill others, and clerical power abuse is a big topic.
In the real world, where the gods either don't take a direct or visible approach to what their clerics and followers do, or don't exist at all (let's just not discuss any option here, we can all agree that whether or not god exists, he doesn't take any obvious steps against abusers of power), you can be LE in a LG church.
But things aren't quite as easy in a world where gods are a fact, grant their followers powers that are very obvious (divine magic and the like), and where violating the alignment restrictions will have consequences for clerics (no more divine magic, and deities can send divine agents or even their herald if someone goes all in with his blasphemy).
Things over which LG Kingdoms might fight:
•People A are driven from the land by monsters or conquest. Then people B restore the land's viability by driving off the monsters or conquerors. Then people A return, strengthened, to reclaim their land.
•People A have an uneasy truce with nearby giants. People B with a history of conflict with giants attack said giants, who make reprisal against people A.
•LG people A are at war with non-LG people B. LG people C are dragged into the conflict by ancient treaty with people B.