I noticed an interesting trend during my review of the country submissions. Out of 32 entries, there were only 5 nations with a predominent alignment of Good. By contrast, there were 10 Evil nations...and 17 Neutral nations...though one of the Neutrals was actually listed as LN (E), for evil tendencies...so maybe it's more like 11 and 16?
But that got me thinking. When I voted for my Top Five, at least 2 of the Evil nations made it in. And many of the other Evil nations got heavy consideration. None of the Good nations even came close to my Top Five. And I wonder why?
Is it possible that it's much more difficult to craft a compelling Good nation as opposed to an Evil one? Are we, as voters, generally swayed more by the Evil nations because there's an immediate "extra" conflict that pervades the powers-that-be...and heroes can then legitimately oppose authority at the same time they're opposing the evil humanoids that also pepper the countryside?
I guess I'm kind of disappointed that no Good nations are likely to make it through. Or, even worse, that so few entries even attempted to do a write-up on a country devoted to Good. Anyone else have any thoughts or feelings on that? I guess ultimately, it doesn't matter. We're voting on an author, not a country...and the one's who did up such great Evil nations might just as easily do the same for a Good one. But what do others think?
Curious,
--Neil
Creating compelling advneture hooks for a Good nation without involving other nations is gonna be pretty tough. I'm tempted to mention the word limit, but it's more the focus.
If you're making a country and it's ruled Good aligned, finding original drama is tough, extremely tough.
Beating the old drum, Ghost Hound found a way to create an original and compelling Good country.
Name one good country, just to get our bearing as to what you consider good.
But good countries may be tough to do, what kind of conflict can they provide, what kind of adventures?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I noticed an interesting trend during my review of the country submissions. Out of 32 entries, there were only 5 nations with a predominent alignment of Good. By contrast, there were 10 Evil nations...and 17 Neutral nations...though one of the Neutrals was actually listed as LN (E), for evil tendencies...so maybe it's more like 11 and 16?
But that got me thinking. When I voted for my Top Five, at least 2 of the Evil nations made it in. And many of the other Evil nations got heavy consideration. None of the Good nations even came close to my Top Five. And I wonder why?
Is it possible that it's much more difficult to craft a compelling Good nation as opposed to an Evil one? Are we, as voters, generally swayed more by the Evil nations because there's an immediate "extra" conflict that pervades the powers-that-be...and heroes can then legitimately oppose authority at the same time they're opposing the evil humanoids that also pepper the countryside?
I guess I'm kind of disappointed that no Good nations are likely to make it through. Or, even worse, that so few entries even attempted to do a write-up on a country devoted to Good. Anyone else have any thoughts or feelings on that? I guess ultimately, it doesn't matter. We're voting on an author, not a country...and the one's who did up such great Evil nations might just as easily do the same for a Good one. But what do others think?
Curious,
--Neil
Your comments are right on, and I will say it is much harder to do an interesting good nation than an evil or scum-neutral nation.
In the stone age of D&D in the 70s and early 80s, very often your campaign consisted of "town" and "dungeon." Town was safe, Dungeon was not. Wilderness you passed through to get from one to the other was iffy.
Good nations are kinda like Town. At its heart, we want to think of a good nation as a place that is not dangerous, where our characters can breathe and live. Because it is not as dangerous, it feels inherently less interesting.
Of course, good writing and good design can trump that, and it is possible to create interesting history, culture, politics, rival factions, and on down the list. You can also set up your good nation in opposition to some threat (the Iolandis submission springs to mind). The problem is that the threat often feels more interesting than the country. "To heck with the goody-goody country, tell me more about the Source of All Badness!"
For some people, just to pick the first example that pops into my head, in FR they would say Undermountain is much more interesting than Waterdeep (which is only a semi-good city-state anyway), Thay more interesting than Impiltur or Thesk or Damara, Zhentil Keep or Mulmaster more interesting than Tantras or Raven's Bluff.
Who's the more interesting character in Star Wars, Luke, Han, or Darth Vader? Assigning simplistic alignments, probably Darth (evil, though redeemed in the end of course), Han (neutral), and then Luke (good) last. Many great comic book superheroes rise or fall on the strength of their villains as much as (or more than) on the hero.
So in a nutshell, I think when people came up with ideas that in their mind went "Oh, that will be totally COOL," by sheer random chance most of them will have been evil, scum-neutral, or at best ambiguous ideas. I think you have to work hard to come up with a COOL "Good Nation" idea, especially one that hasn't been done to death, while I think the creepier ideas come more naturally.
Of course, if your nation design is cool on the basis of geography rather than politics/religion/alignment, there is no reason that it couldn't be a good culture in that weird/fun/interesting land, so maybe I'm overstating my case.
Anyway, back to work...
Epic fantasy is often defined by the fantastic evil that pervades the setting and requires unlikely heroes to band together to oppose it. If one were to create a "Good" nation as his centerpiece it could come across as being weak in plot or originality, as in our minds, the themes of fantasy are defined by the Darkness to which the Light stands against.
That's why I think the interest of the judges and voters are drawn to the evil nations as they provide more of the unique flavor that defines a fantasy setting.
My mind works a little differently than that. I like to look at the Light first, what elements in the world are good and noble, something for evil to work against -- Loyalty, friendship, family, love, tradition, honor, sacrifice. These are the things that in my experience are important to heroes, and without it, all the sadistic, dark entity serving, reality twisting foes in the universe are left hanging in the wind.
Mordor wouldn't be anything without the heroes from the Shire.
I heart evil.
Seriously, I'm drawn to read about evil whether it's about a particular person, monster, society or country. I find this to be true not just in roleplaying games but novels as well. Actually, it's pretty much the same for movies too.
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
|
I was thinking earlier that it's a shame many of the stronger entries are based around a disaster, an evil invasion or a secret corruption rather than a strong and viable nation.
The Ghost Hounds, as others have said, are a counter-example.
A Good alignment does not automatically mean a boring society or a lack of problems.
I have found that while many people consider "good" nations to be boring, they can be interesting if there is a conflict on what is considered the "best" good. Many good deities can have conflicts between their churches if they believe they are the best of the Good choices.
The fight between Good and Evil is very black and white obvious. The conflict between Neutral Good, Lawful Good, Chaotic Good and Lawful Neutral is a roleplaying one, based on character moral decisions. You almost need to have 2-3 countries described in order to set up the conflict properly. Given that the contest was for one country, most people went for the most interesting single entry.
I disagree with some of the narrative arguments outlined above, but from a gaming perspective, I'm empathize.
D&D games require a force to oppose. The most common mechanic for this force is the alignment structure, whith characters often representing a default stance of 'mostly Good.' This means that conflcit must threaten/oppose Good in some manner.
Now, in a game setting conflcit is pivotal, and the judges reflected this within their comments again and again. Thus, a high degree of 'that which opposes Good' in a country makes for a better starting point.
General comments on fantasy and story-telling, I'd want to go into a deeper discussion, but that would quickly get off-track.
I will say that the best plotted game I ever particiapted within was absed in Waterdeep with no use of Undermountain. The nice about WD is that the power bar is so high that players can easily fall between the cracks. Conflcit can arise because the non-Good the players face simply isn't improtant enough to be addressed ersus everything else going on in the city/world.
Really the best thing that positive nations have going for them, especially in a fantasy world, is that their loss or failure is always tragic. If you can latch on to that aspect and portray it well, a good country can be far more entertaining than an abject, villanous one...
Really the best thing that positive nations have going for them, especially in a fantasy world, is that their loss or failure is always tragic. If you can latch on to that aspect and portray it well, a good country can be far more entertaining than an abject, villanous one...
Yep. But one glaring weakness is describing any place as good or evil. It belies the complexity of power struggle within both the narrative plot and the institutions.
Yep. But one glaring weakness is describing any place as good or evil. It belies the complexity of power struggle within both the narrative plot and the institutions.
Obviously, polarities are going to be subjective. In the real world, determinations are based upon the comparison and weighing of alternatives.
But, D&D operates under a Star Wars-esque value system which clearly simplifies the delineation between positive and negative. Gray areas have always been the province of the home game.
In my own campaigns, I've always found the best way to portray positive nations is to place them in transition — as a young nation on the rise, or aging nation in decline (soft nations breed soft people, as they say). Then, you can hook players into trying to grow a beacon of justice and civilization in the world (in the case of the former). Or, in the later, applying the brakes to the slide or working to reinvigorate the society a la Frank Herbert...
I'm not so sure. Alignment means people express polarities, but a conglomeration of mostly Good still has some Evil.
It's an old argument, but I think even accepting the black and white dynamic insisted upon by the core rules leaves lots of room for ideological complexity on a grand scale.
I mean, even in the Star Wars movie, I think most people would be hard-pressed to separate what signifies accepting the darkside versus fighting it unless given clues by music, costume, or lighting ;)
I was thinking earlier that it's a shame many of the stronger entries are based around a disaster, an evil invasion or a secret corruption rather than a strong and viable nation.
Me too. Which is why I felt compelled to start this particular discussion thread. I'm hard-pressed to identify a country from the 32 submissions that I'd want my character to hail from...and yet, there are plenty there that I wouldn't mind my character adventuring within...so, go figure. :)
The Ghost Hounds, as others have said, are a counter-example.
The Ghost Hounds entry didn't resonate with me like it did for many others. It was a calculated risk on the part of the author that just didn't draw me in. I certainly appreciated the desire to do something different. But it just didn't scream RPG Superstar to me.
A Good alignment does not automatically mean a boring society or a lack of problems.
Exactly. A generally good society could be fraught with all kinds of political machinations behind the scenes. Some evil. And yet some simply misguided. Good people argue and plot against one another, too. It's all about different leaders wanting to take control for what they believe is the greater good. Or, maybe with a Chaotic Good society, you have lots of disorganized do-gooder organizations, but many of them just don't get along with one another...or the Lawful Good ones sitting on the throne.
As a result, I think there's plenty of room to design a compelling submission based on a primarily Good nation. But I get the sense that most authors took the easier path (or cop-out?) and presented an evil or morally ambiguous country simply because they knew it would appeal more to the public. And, unfortunately, that tactic isn't as appealing to me as a voter. The competitors would have impressed me more if I'd found a well-written Good nation, because I personally think they're harder to do. And that would have identified an RPG Superstar to me much more clearly. In fact, I'd probably have given such an entry even greater weight than my 4th or 5th votes at the moment.
Just my heartfelt two-cents,
--Neil
I'm not so sure. Alignment means people express polarities, but a conglomeration of mostly Good still has some Evil.
It's an old argument, but I think even accepting the black and white dynamic insisted upon by the core rules leaves lots of room for ideological complexity on a grand scale.
I mean, even in the Star Wars movie, I think most people would be hard-pressed to separate what signifies accepting the darkside versus fighting it unless given clues by music, costume, or lighting ;)
I disagree — a nation can be considered "good" without being pristine and one-dimensional. Maybe you aren't giving your fellow human beings enough credit...
I disagree — a nation can be considered "good" without being pristine and one-dimensional. Maybe you aren't giving your fellow human beings enough credit...I'm not so sure. Alignment means people express polarities, but a conglomeration of mostly Good still has some Evil.
It's an old argument, but I think even accepting the black and white dynamic insisted upon by the core rules leaves lots of room for ideological complexity on a grand scale.
I mean, even in the Star Wars movie, I think most people would be hard-pressed to separate what signifies accepting the darkside versus fighting it unless given clues by music, costume, or lighting ;)
Ah, but wait--we're still discussing the arena of fiction and narrative here. This discussion has little to do with our fellow human beings ;)
If the topic had changed, I would never cede to such impractically imprecise terms as good and evil.
Now, assuming that you mean I'm not giving the potentiality of the author enough credit, I would say, how so? My point was in fact that there was great potential:
'I think even accepting the black and white dynamic insisted upon by the core rules leaves lots of room for ideological complexity on a grand scale.'
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4
|
I was thinking earlier that it's a shame many of the stronger entries are based around a disaster, an evil invasion or a secret corruption rather than a strong and viable nation.
Well said - and it dovetails with a lot of the design considerations that I had to make for my own nation regarding usability and mass appeal. Without violating the terms of the "no discussion regarding your entry" rule, I would simply say that I found my Lawful Good nation, after being so lovingly drafted up, FAR less interesting than the horrible, horrible things that were done to it by Evil Incarnate.
The metaphor that I keep returning to, of course, is that Gondor is more interesting to me than the Shire, while Mordor is more interesting still.
Or perhaps, in light of the reputation for video-game-centricity that I am so rightfully saddled with, a more apt observation might be that Megaman never really had a very well-defined "home", but Dr. Wiley's various castles fascinate me to this day.
Well, I think Gondor is more interesting a setting than Mordor overall.
However, Frodo's passage through Mordor is the most interesting element of the LotR, and that hits our gaming concerns in the gut. Heores are just better when under the gun.
When it's time to adventure, Evil better be turned up to 11.
Well, I think Gondor is more interesting a setting than Mordor overall.
However, Frodo's passage through Mordor is the most interesting element of the LotR, and that hits our gaming concerns in the gut. Heores are just better when under the gun.
Really? I found whole Mordor section frankly rather dull, as story and as country. I do not much care for oppressive evil, strains of bad are often more interesting, like those in Gondor or Rohan (and to some extent Fangorn and Lorien). I'm a sucker for moral ambiguity.
Is it possible that it's much more difficult to craft a compelling Good nation as opposed to an Evil one? Are we, as voters, generally swayed more by the Evil nations because there's an immediate "extra" conflict that pervades the powers-that-be...and heroes can then legitimately oppose authority at the same time they're opposing the evil humanoids that also pepper the countryside?
Yeah, as others have noted, the evil countries are set up as clear antagonists for the players. So, the question of what will the players do has a clear answer.
Stereotypical, monolithic evil can be dull, which is why I'm drawn to countries like Bereket that is pretending to be one thing while secretly being manipulated by a cabal of evil druids.
Really? I found whole Mordor section frankly rather dull, as story and as country. I do not much care for oppressive evil, strains of bad are often more interesting, like those in Gondor or Rohan (and to some extent Fangorn and Lorien). I'm a sucker for moral ambiguity.Well, I think Gondor is more interesting a setting than Mordor overall.
However, Frodo's passage through Mordor is the most interesting element of the LotR, and that hits our gaming concerns in the gut. Heores are just better when under the gun.
It isn't the oppressive evil that makes that section so good, it's how the characters cope with that evil, resist it, and are corrupted by it. It's the relationships between Sam, Frodo, and Smeagul(sp?) that make it the most interesting section. However, you don't get that same soul-shaping hammer on anvil emotional harrowing without the Mordor.
In modern literary circles, Mordor is the child abuse, rape, or other tragic event that shapes the emotional realm of the main character(s).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4
|
It isn't the oppressive evil that makes that section so good, it's how the characters cope with that evil, resist it, and are corrupted by it. It's the relationships between Sam, Frodo, and Smeagul(sp?) that make it the most interesting section. However, you don't get that same soul-shaping hammer on anvil emotional harrowing without the Mordor.In modern literary circles, Mordor is the child abuse, rape, or other tragic event that shapes the emotional realm of the main character(s).
Well said! The interesting thing about "evil" (read as: tragedy, pain, loss, regret or what have you within the context of modern, non-fantasy, non-"good vs. evil" stories) is not, I think, "OMG DARKK-LAZORS!", but how it shapes our protagonist(s).
Okay, plus dark-lazers.
Point is, I love a good story of human frailty, corruption, redemption and heroism - whether from the perspective of LotR or "American Gangster" - and the question of 'evil' is what drives the arc of that narrative.
It isn't the oppressive evil that makes that section so good, it's how the characters cope with that evil, resist it, and are corrupted by it. It's the relationships between Sam, Frodo, and Smeagul(sp?) that make it the most interesting section. However, you don't get that same soul-shaping hammer on anvil emotional harrowing without the Mordor.In modern literary circles, Mordor is the child abuse, rape, or other tragic event that shapes the emotional realm of the main character(s).
Well said! The interesting thing about "evil" (read as: tragedy, pain, loss, regret or what have you within the context of modern, non-fantasy, non-"good vs. evil" stories) is not, I think, "OMG DARKK-LAZORS!", but how it shapes our protagonist(s).
Okay, plus dark-lazers.
Point is, I love a good story of human frailty, corruption, redemption and heroism - whether from the perspective of LotR or "American Gangster" - and the question of 'evil' is what drives the arc of that narrative.
Personally, I don't find moral ambiguity entertaining. While, like everything, it has it's place, use to excess quickly makes me bored. Whenerver the protagonist goes all emo and bemoans the fact he has a hard choice to make, it's more-or-less at that point my eyeglows roll.
I guess when you come down to it exploration of 'the human condition' just doesn't do it for me, like AT ALL. Hell, I couldn't Lich out of humanity fast enough! Maybe because I don't do angst in real life, I don't want to see it. Especially in my recreation because I don't find watching other people being unhappy to be very entertaining (unless a) they deserve it, e.g. the Bad Guys or b) it's in real life and I'm causing it myself with sharp objects e.g. the Elven prisoners in our brig.)Or Vampires or Shi-Ar/Gladiator. There's no way any of those maggotlings can be made to suffer enough.
It's the thing that I like least about the X Men (yet ironically, the fact they weren't typical worshipped heroes was what piqued my interest in them initially. (That and Jubilee.) I guess then, the oppression just stopped being fun after a while.)
I'd much rather have a Xycon or a Palpatine or a Thrawn than a Magneto or a generic 'guy-who-thinks-he's-good-but-isn't'.
My comfortable level of moral ambiguity is about that of LotR. Or CSI Miami on an especially munchkin Horatio episode. Or Naruto. Yeah, that's about the level...
Plus dark lazers; 40% of the entire point of being evil! (Getting all the best lines, evil laughter, being a magnificent bastard and doing cool, fun bad stuff to people are the other 60%).