I've recently stumbled upon an idea for my homebrew which could radically change the tone of the setting; it ultimately comes down to a "war against the dark lord," but I think it could go a long way in terms of providing definition, dynamism, and focus to the world. It's made me wonder: how many people with homebrews design worlds with this feature? I'm not talking about a single campaign against some powerful evil ruler, but an ultimately Tolkien-esque struggle in the world set as a sometimes active, sometimes passive background for an entire setting? It's certainly different than the approach in major published worlds: Greyhawk has gone through its wars, but the world is not defined by one single good-against-evil struggle. The Realms have isolated wars here and there, some simmering on and on and others resolving themselves and entering the setting's history. Eberron had the Last War, but part of the setting's "thing" is that's over and now you have to deal with the fallout (literally, in some regions like Cyre). Even in the height of the Last War, my impression is that it was never really good vs. evil, but more along the lines of each nation squabbling violently over who would ascend to the vacant throne. That's far more real-world in it's approach.
Having a more "peaceful" world, with only some hot spots of conflict here and there, is also a more "real-world" approach. It seems to be what most people opt for. I supposed initially that it allowed for more diversity, in that one could more easily drop in or design adventures that might not otherwise "fit" with the world's "theme." But now I'm not so sure. For example, Azeroth, WoW's setting, is ulimately defined by the battle of Horde vs. Alliance vs. Scourge vs. Legion. There's plenty for adventurers to do there, some dealing with the ongoing wars, but most of it not. Dragonlance and, of course, Tolkien also had their wars which defined the settings. Though the Companions of the Lance and the Fellowship of the Ring ultimately were directly involved in the overall conflict, not everything they did was so directly linked (i.e., the wight in the Barrow Downs; Sturm's "side-quest" to become a Knight of Solamnia).
Having a setting plunged into conflict makes plenty of ruins and abandoned wildernesses for monsters and treasure to lurk in, and for adventurers to explore. It explains excellently why no one else has done it sooner; they've been fighting for their lives! It creates a huge call for men and women of skill and ability which aren't bound up in the fighting. The PCs can easily become heroes of reknown from directly aiding the war effort, or from doing good on a kingdom's behalf while its soldiers are off fighting the good fight.
So, ultimately, I'm just kind of curious how many people like to use war-torn settings either published or of their own design. For those who do, what draws you to them? For those who don't, is there something about them which disinterests you? Ready... discuss!
I have never been a fan of black and white good and evil in my fiction. My villains are often very morally ambiguous from the PC’s perspective. So there is rarely a unifying big bad for the world to fight against.
There are still plenty of wars. For me, watching PCs that were once fanatically aligned to one side “go over” during the struggle is a thing of beauty.
Even the world wars of our world were not the oft over-simplified Germany vs. everyone else conflicts.
The graying tendency of the modern world has been born at least partly out of the endeavor to sweep away old prejudices about what right and wrong are, and to open people’s minds to tolerance. Yet it has the very real danger of simultaneously destroying the judgement which remains and always will remain necessary. World War II is a prime example. There may not have been a clear cut force of good. Even the Germans were not some monolithic evil power. But it was Hitler’s army, and Hitler was evil, as was his circle and many if not most of the SS who committed such atrocities. One of the major purposes of the eternal tale of good versus evil is to take the muddled gray world and recast it in a clarifying light, to remind us that evil is, and it falls to us to face whatever incarnation it takes.
Then there is the matter of bravery, and of hope. Any conflict of good versus evil in which evil is easily defeated does not portray the truth of the eternal struggle. Evil is strong, and death is a certainty for us all. Yet that is no reason to shrink in fear and turn to despair. The depiction of good fighting evil enables and empowers tales of heroic bravery against even the deepest darkness, of never giving up hope even in the face of doom. The human race would be lost without these qualities.
Fantasy is the perfect milieu for such a thing precisely because it isn’t historical, and isn’t bound to cleave to what is believable in terms of real-world history. Even the best story of good forces versus evil forces will be prone to faltering when set in a historical context, as demonstrated by the already- and oft-mentioned World War II. The truth of the matter remains, but it is clouded by historical (in)accuracy. A fantasy setting is by definition immune to such obfuscation. It allows the power of the stories to come through without the distraction of incidental history.
It is true that crimes have been committed and hatreds fed in the name of morality. The abuses morality has suffered at the hands of hypocrites and deceivers is no reason to discard it, however. Simply because the truth is hard to find does not mean that it does not exist; no one claims that the right choices are easy to make, but that does not mean they shouldn’t be made or that they may not even really exist. All these ideas, which seem to be in so much danger of being lost at our own peril in this modern age, are captured and revived in the eternal story of the struggle of good versus evil. These are the reasons I relish such tales and seek to emulate them in my setting.
All that having been said, it isn’t really what I’m driving at. There are other war-torn settings I enjoy where the good and bad aren’t so clearly defined, or ambiguous elements are mixed with unambiguous ones. For a case in point, I return to the too-oft maligned Azeroth of WoW. There is clear and true evil in that setting: the Scourge and the Legion. Yet the other factions aren’t so clear cut. The Alliance and Horde have been fighting each other for years, but neither is really in the right or in the wrong; and each has heroes and villains within its own ranks. The natures and identities of these factions is a vital part of what makes the setting, but the more elemental factor is that Azeroth is set against the background of war. If the world’s identity amongst the pantheon of fantasy settings had to be described in a single sentence, that war would be an integral part of the sentence.
I’m currently in a mood musing upon the possibilities, adventure-wise and fluff-wise, this type of setting opens up. I’m entertaining the idea of recasting my own homebrew in such a light, and would just like to converse with fellow Paizonians about this topic some before making such a commitment (for my player’s sakes, I try to keep world alterations to a minimum). Not that I wish to dismiss what you have to say, CourtFool. My above reply is not directed solely at you; but rather at a general host of conversations on- and off-line, with an attempt to craft the words somewhat appropriately to the dialogue actually at hand. Having delineated my own views on the matter, I’m intrigued to here what it is about black and white wars in fantasy which repels you, or what it is about gray conflicts which intrigues you (seeing as the two statements are not truly one-in-the-same). So please, all, continue to discuss!
|
Well, Tegara as I'm building it is in a post-conflict, midevil, cold war setting. Admittedly, there is a powerful evil opperating behind the scenes, manipulating people and events.
At some point, there will be a very real war, but it will not place the cold war parties against each other. It will be another force against some of the cold war parties.
|
There's plenty for adventurers to do there, some dealing with the ongoing wars, but most of it not. Dragonlance and, of course, Tolkien also had their wars which defined the settings. Though the Companions of the Lance and the Fellowship of the Ring ultimately were directly...
It creates anarchy. Thousands of Refugees fleeing a besieged or overrun city pouring through the countryside carrying starvation, disease, plague...Consider the effect of picking off key agricultural districts or communities or shutting down traderoutes that are vital to the support of some huge capital of fifty thousand.
COMMUNITIES PREPARED FOR A SIEGE
For a city of 20,000 people to hold out a year against a siege requires:
100' x 1000' x 30' high cistern to store a year's water
4800 Storage tunnels 10' wide x 100' long x 15' high for firewood
32 such storage tunnels for Grain
It is certainly a matter of taste. I hope it did not sound like I was saying you were wrong. I was offering my own opinion.
What repels me about black and white is that it over-simplifies conflict. For me, it is an immersion challenge. It does not feel real. This is probably why I was never a big fan of Superman either. Sure, he has weaknesses, but he does not have any character weaknesses.
I also find it difficult to believe that truly evil would ever be able to accomplish anything. Why would evil work with evil when they both know they will stab each other in the back the first opportunity they get?
For me, the appeal of playing in the shades of gray is getting the players to question assumptions. To get them to consider a new perspective. Are orcs truly evil or are they just trying to survive?
And even in the muddle of gray, I believe there is room for good to triumph. Not only is it difficult to do the right thing, it is difficult to know what the right thing is. So the victory is even sweeter when it does come. I find it more interesting and more rewarding to forge an alliance between orc and other sentient races rather than simply wiping an entire species from the map.
Black and white certainly has its place and maintains an appeal for many. When I was younger, it was an excellent tool for teaching right and wrong. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is an excellent example. It just so happens that I associate more with Edward than with any of the other characters. So even with black and white, there is room for some gray.
Thank you for starting this subject. It was an interesting read and it set me thinking.
When I started DM-ing about 20 years ago I used the standard good-versus-evil-plot and the campaign world was slowly escalating into war. The PCs were in a race against time finding an item which could restore balance. In the end they had to bring the item to a special place, travelling through war-torn territory and battlefields.
It was an interesting campaign, but soon I discovered the grey was creeping in of its own accord. It just happened.
This got "worse" when the war was over. Since then my campaigns have been getting greyer and greyer.
I ran the Iron Kingdoms once, and one of the overarching threads was war between two countries (Cygnar and Khador). I determined the players had no interest in the greater story.
For example: "Be our spies and tell us what you see. You'll get rewarded." I purposely steered the adventure so the PCs found a secret hide-out. They could use this as an "in" with the equivalent of the CIA. The very next meeting with their handler, they didn't say anything about it. The players were more interested in going their own way. If by chance that way meant "messing with Khador" so be it, but they didn't grab the plot-arc.
I had a similar thought when I was putting together a campaign in the Forgotten Realms. Silverymoon had fallen, and the PCs would end up coming across the child-princess and rightful ruler of that nation. During pre-campaign talks, I discovered that most of the players would probably bypass taking on the responsibility of a child.
In the end, its up to the players to want to play High Fantasy. Most, in my experience, would rather play Sword-and-Sorcery stuff. That way they don't have to act heroic all the time.
I'm still playing with an idea to have the war-thing go on in the background, but have it exist as a backdrop instead of the central theme.
I read another thread that kept me thinking about this one. Don't have the link, but it was about the Age of Worms adventure path and what happens if the PCs don't stop a very bad thing from happening.
It seems like the way to go about the "great war" idea is to have it in the background, and if the players want to go that way, they can. Eventually, however, the war will come to them. Perhaps their hometown will be destroyed, or their families are captured. Maybe something they do allows the evil overlord a victory. An example might be defeating that ancient Red Dragon in the Mountains. Without that dragon, now the overlords forces can march on the PCs home kingdom.
I seem to remember that there is a "great war" campaign setting in the Paizo store, although I can't remember the name (curse my faulty brain cells!).
In short, I think it works best if the players decide that is the tack they want their story to take. Otherwise, I think the grey areas of morality tend to overshadow the fact that the characters are supposed to be heroes.
Of course, this is coming from someone who hated playing evil PCs, precisely because I don't enjoy the wanton killing that seems to go along with that scene.
I've played in campaigns with the all powerful evil. But I've never ran one. It would be interesting to try one day I think though. It adds a simple elegance to campaigns. I don't mind there being a clear cut evil in the world. There is always a ton of opportunities in a world like that, for anything you'd like to play.
Interstingly enough, most of my players never bite on the "big plot lines" and seem to go their own way. If nothing else, a war can be a great backdrop for stories.
I'm still playing with an idea to have the war-thing go on in the background, but have it exist as a backdrop instead of the central theme.
Right. I like to look at it as the setting having a theme, but an individual campaign in that setting may have a different one. This also frees up the PCs to do what they want. My group is pretty much interested in being the heroes and doing what heroes are generally expected to do; but if they want to break away from the overall struggle of good versus evil, they're still free to play heartless bastards which exploit villages left without defenders due to the war. Of course, even in a world where most of the warriors are off fighting, there will be enough left that such PCs can't have free reign; but that's another issue entirely and the norm for all campaigns.
I also wouldn't want the war to end anytime soon. On the one hand, it's a little cliche. The forces of darkness are or have gathered, and then the PCs find some magical doohickey which sets everything right again la-dee-da. On the other hand, ending the war changes the tone of the setting which I'm trying to create. It would be like playing in Eberron, which is ultimately defined as a post-war setting. Or worse, think of what happened to Dragonlance the further it moved from the War of the Lance. Blegh. And from a less abstract point of view, if the evil threatening the world can be defeated with relative speed and ease; then it doesn't sound like that great of a threat anymore, and with the threat lessened, the heroes are somewhat, as well. Rather, if the forces of evil are so strong that they are ultimately unbeatable, and the point is simply to resist and endure and hold them back at best; I think that makes the "heroes" more heroic. I use quotes to point out those heroes don't necessarily have to be the PCs, since they're always free to partake in the struggle as said heroes or do something totally different. It's more about providing a compelling background for the campaigns, which can become more active if the PCs choose to involve themselves in it.
The primary antagonist is a lich powered by the heart of a slain dark god. He is served by numerous "lesser" lich lords, each an epic or nearly epic threat in their own right. The war has been raging on and off in one form or another for 3,000 years. There's no macguffin (sp?) to find or destroy to end the conflict once and for all; no ring to unmake and cast down the dark lord. The only one which could is already and always has been in the possession of the archlich himself, who is beyond the capacity of any power present in the world to destroy in a lasting way.
Here's another thought about good versus evil in games. There's an assumption that everyone has to know about it, but the truth is that even in Tolkien the 'good' folk often fought one another for territory or treasure while ignoring evil growing around them.
What does evil get out of it? I think that first of all evil would rareloy recognize itself as such. But consider--what makes someone's motives evil? Greed, vengefulness, sadism, lust, and so on.
So in the 'dark lord' scenario there is this personification of what we know to be wrong and vile in the world. I thi nk that in a LOTR scenario we have an apocalyptic situation wherein everyone seems to know the sides, but even then we have conflicts on both sides--Denethor versus Gandalf, Boromir versus Frodo, Dwarf versus Elf, etc.
I have some thoughts along the lines of this theme for my current game's trend, but I'll discuss that in another thread. For now let me say that I really like the idea of there being no McGuffin. However in that case then the 'McGuffin' must in some way be whatever is sustaining the courage of those who fight against the lich. Is it inspired leadership? The dread necessity of not giving in to the hordes of the living dead?