Seems like every time I open a Kingmaker thread there is somebody talking about the evil kingdom their players are starting. Sometimes it seems like at least half the kingdoms out there are evil. While there are rules for evil kingdoms, Kingmaker, like most APs, assumes that the PCs will have at least some benificent motives for undertaking alot of the quests and missions. Evil groups would either need to develop their own motivation or just ignore those missions to do their own thing.
As far as kingdom building goes, I'm also struggling a bit with why evil characters would want to create a kingdom, unless it is to live out certain tyrannical fantasies, and if that's the case, why anyone would willingly move there to submit to their rule.
I must admit my own bias. I never play evil characters except in occasional one-off adventures. When I am GM, as I am now for Kingmaker, I don't allow evil characters, for a wide variety of reasons. I admit to being puzzled as to why so many people like to play villains.
So educate me on why y'all like to play evil characters, and particularly in Kingmaker, how this is impacting your campaign.
I believe it is because of the current lack of an "evil" AP. Most of the AP's assume that you are playing heroes. With Kingmaker you have the chance to really play anyway you want.
I believe it is because of the current lack of an "evil" AP. Most of the AP's assume that you are playing heroes. With Kingmaker you have the chance to really play anyway you want.
My players kingdom is very lawful and somewhat N/E...i think its fits well as your bring order to the wild, and many many enemies in the mods are chaotic...and they either join or perish
Because a certain bard in Rivers Run Red is a fat rabblerousing jerkface, and it's incredibly cathartic to have a kingdom structure which allows you to messily execute him in secret for his percieved crimes and selling out without any remorse.
I believe it is because of the current lack of an "evil" AP. Most of the AP's assume that you are playing heroes. With Kingmaker you have the chance to really play anyway you want.
Hmmm. I guess I had always assumed (probably like the Paizo developers) that the evil-loving crowd was a niche group, not large enough to justify producing material specifically for them. I could be wrong though. I am curious if others think there would be a market for such a product.
I personally would have no objection to it. I probably wouldn't buy it or use it, but Paizo already puts out more APs than I can use, given that we game only once a week.
Because a certain bard in Rivers Run Red is a fat rabblerousing jerkface, and it's incredibly cathartic to have a kingdom structure which allows you to messily execute him in secret for his percieved crimes and selling out without any remorse.
I hear that. My players hated him with a passion, but were constrained by their respect for the law and basically good nature when dealing with him. They eventually neutralized and discredited him publicly, but he was able to successfully flee before they could arrest and execute him. He'll be back some day to cause more trouble and give them a chance to ram a sword through his guts.
...We actually ended up using his rabble rousing timed with the ill-timed dropping of our King and the Grand Diplomat from the campaign to effectively organize a makeshift coup to replace the ruler with one of the other PCs before buying his assistance using funds we took from the town (blaming it on the previous king and diplomat, who obviously were JUST as evil as the bard had painted) and making him a council member.
As far as the citizens know, the baron and his evil advisor were forced out in a small act of activism, the Councilor (The people's representative!) became the new baroness, and bardface took the position of councilor (having been successfully bought off after heated negotiations).
...and the new baroness took a point towards LE. =.=
EDIT: Removed a name.
In a cliche, power corrupts.
In something other than a cliche, I think that some of it is...I don't really have a proper word for it, outside of forum bias. I suspect that, if you actually polled KM players, there would not be a predominance of evil kingdoms, and a balance if not the opposite. But evil kingdoms create more questions, if for no other reason than a sense that there should be rules or chrome that more deeply entwine the kingdom's alignment: special buildings for evil, neutral, and good kingdoms for instance.
You could probably say the same about religion.
|
To be honest, I think some of my PLAYERS may be innately Evil themselves.
We have found that our "Evil Parties" have greater cohesion, motivation, and ease of play. This has been true in CotCT, SD, and now KM.
Good PC's tend to go out, right a few wrongs, and trust the wrong folks, which ends up stabbing them in the back when they least expect it. (With me as DM, or with the other DM's in the group)
Neutral PC's tend to stay put, make large amounts of fortifications / magic items / huge warships, and in general not really ADVENTURE...
Evil PC's tend to go out, right a few wrongs, not trust anyone, establish power bases, recruit assets, then use them ruthlessly to achieve their goals.
To wit: all the rulers of our KM game are mostly Evil, or leaning that way, yet they care for, provide for, and lavish festivals & resources on their people. Why? They are valuable assets to them, and they want them as functional as possible. Heck, our Druid (the Marshall) has a long-term breeding program to ensure the eventual dominance of Humanity throughout the known world, a la Bene Gesserit from Dune.
In a cliche, power corrupts.
In something other than a cliche, I think that some of it is...I don't really have a proper word for it, outside of forum bias. I suspect that, if you actually polled KM players, there would not be a predominance of evil kingdoms, and a balance if not the opposite. But evil kingdoms create more questions, if for no other reason than a sense that there should be rules or chrome that more deeply entwine the kingdom's alignment: special buildings for evil, neutral, and good kingdoms for instance.
You could probably say the same about religion.
Good point I can sign up to with regard to the power corrupts angle. I think a lot of RL governments and politicians start out wanting to do good things and then lose their way or are tempted into doing wrong. But that's RL. In PF, good and evil are more tangible and measurable (or at least detectable). If you accept that to be the case (and not everybody likes the alignment rules) I am still struggling with why evil characters would want to start a kingdom, unless it would be to benefit themselves, and if that is the case, how they are able to attract followers. It's one thing to be stuck in an established kingdom that's sliding into evil, and quite another to ake a conscious decison to move to a kingdom ruled by a despot. Of course, the rulers could be hiding their evil well, and I could definitely buy that, but I'm failing to see the logic behind setting up an obviously evil kingdom from scratch. I can see the recruiting posters: "Evil Kingdom seeking fools to live under its tyrannical rule."
I believe it is because of the current lack of an "evil" AP. Most of the AP's assume that you are playing heroes. With Kingmaker you have the chance to really play anyway you want.Hmmm. I guess I had always assumed (probably like the Paizo developers) that the evil-loving crowd was a niche group, not large enough to justify producing material specifically for them. I could be wrong though. I am curious if others think there would be a market for such a product.
I personally would have no objection to it. I probably wouldn't buy it or use it, but Paizo already puts out more APs than I can use, given that we game only once a week.
That's what we want you to think, really we are all EVIL!
Seriously it's amazing how much a persons "true" identity can come out in Dnd and video games, nothing like watching my brother-in-law playing through fallout only to see him make every evil decision in the game because "it was the best choice", ie; this is what I would have done in real life. scary
To be honest, I think some of my PLAYERS may be innately Evil themselves.
We have found that our "Evil Parties" have greater cohesion, motivation, and ease of play. This has been true in CotCT, SD, and now KM.
Good PC's tend to go out, right a few wrongs, and trust the wrong folks, which ends up stabbing them in the back when they least expect it. (With me as DM, or with the other DM's in the group)
Neutral PC's tend to stay put, make large amounts of fortifications / magic items / huge warships, and in general not really ADVENTURE...
Evil PC's tend to go out, right a few wrongs, not trust anyone, establish power bases, recruit assets, then use them ruthlessly to achieve their goals.
To wit: all the rulers of our KM game are mostly Evil, or leaning that way, yet they care for, provide for, and lavish festivals & resources on their people. Why? They are valuable assets to them, and they want them as functional as possible. Heck, our Druid (the Marshall) has a long-term breeding program to ensure the eventual dominance of Humanity throughout the known world, a la Bene Gesserit from Dune.
I can understand the kind of evil kingdom you are talking about, as the evil is largely hidden from sight, and they take steps to at least appease the people rather than outright oppressing them.
What is your evil PC's motivation for "righting a few wrongs"? Why do they care?
I am a little disturbed by your description of how good PCs work in your campaign. It almost sounds like the dominant DMing style in your group actually punishes good PCs, which could be why people gravitate toward evil characters. Good doesn't have to mean stupid, and for every time that a good character is stabbed in the back by someone they naively trusted, there should be (at least) another instance in which people they help, help them in return or their good reputaiton helps them in a situation. Unless you have a much more cynical view of how the world works than I do.
|
...We actually ended up using his rabble rousing timed with the ill-timed dropping of our King and the Grand Diplomat from the campaign to effectively organize a makeshift coup to replace the ruler with one of the other PCs before buying his assistance using funds we took from the town (blaming it on the previous king and diplomat, who obviously were JUST as evil as the bard had painted) and making him a council member.
As far as the citizens know, the baron and his evil advisor were forced out in a small act of activism, the Councilor (The people's representative!) became the new baroness, and bardface took the position of councilor (having been successfully bought off after heated negotiations).
...and the new baroness took a point towards LE. =.=
EDIT: Removed a name.
Yeah, when I ran this game for my players the way the town had been built plus a couple lucky roles put him on trial. It probably helped that the councilor was a priest of the drunken god and had pushed for multiple brothels/breweries/taverns to shore up loyalty and economy. The trial was a whole town looking at him and laughing at his accusations. See the holidays for the drunken god revolved around free liquor and company (which were also present at the trial I might add). He ended up leaving town, it's very tough to be a bard when no one believes you because your despotic rulers believe in free booze and companionship and roll a couple nat twenties versus you with diplomacy.
What is your evil PC's motivation for "righting a few wrongs"? Why do they care?
Good PR. ;)
Because a certain bard in Rivers Run Red is a fat rabblerousing jerkface, and it's incredibly cathartic to have a kingdom structure which allows you to messily execute him in secret for his percieved crimes and selling out without any remorse.I hear that. My players hated him with a passion, but were constrained by their respect for the law and basically good nature when dealing with him. They eventually neutralized and discredited him publicly, but he was able to successfully flee before they could arrest and execute him. He'll be back some day to cause more trouble and give them a chance to ram a sword through his guts.
*gasp*
but he's such a kind man... a good man, that cares about the people of his kingdom. *guffaw*
What is your evil PC's motivation for "righting a few wrongs"? Why do they care?Good PR. ;)
Sounds about right. Why would citizens wish to join? Because being evil doesn't necessitate being cruel to everyone around you. What about building up a kingdom, getting people in, and expanding into other kingdoms? "Hey, we'll keep you safe, and we'll offer advancement!" History is replete with "evil tyrants", but they weren't all despised by their own people.
Apart from all that, I think KM allows for anti-heroes more than some of the other APs I've read. Instead of saving the king's town from the evil baddie, you're saving *your* town from the upstart twit who dares to challenge you.
And that ain't necessarily a bad thing. :)
|
Because none can stand before the power and the glory of Victor Von Doom, it is better to join Doom as a servant, than fall as his enemy.
Seriously though, my PCs are mostly good aligned and really loving this campaign. Every group is different, and the sandboxy nature of KM really lets evil PCs let loose a little more than they could in a standard adventure path without too much fear of falling off the tracks.
What is your evil PC's motivation for "righting a few wrongs"? Why do they care?Good PR. ;)Sounds about right. Why would citizens wish to join? Because being evil doesn't necessitate being cruel to everyone around you. What about building up a kingdom, getting people in, and expanding into other kingdoms? "Hey, we'll keep you safe, and we'll offer advancement!" History is replete with "evil tyrants", but they weren't all despised by their own people.
Apart from all that, I think KM allows for anti-heroes more than some of the other APs I've read. Instead of saving the king's town from the evil baddie, you're saving *your* town from the upstart twit who dares to challenge you.
And that ain't necessarily a bad thing. :)
Good points. I can definitely see a crafty evil ruler who knows how to manipulate the mob ("bread and circuses", anyone?) succeeding. Or the cold-blooded evil bastard who knows he needs the people and does what is right for them because it serves his own interests, although I do think that last example might find himself slipping toward neutral if he isn't careful. After all, are you not defined to some extent by your actions? If he keeps doing good things for his people and enjoys the feedback, he might find himself eventually seduced over to the bright side, to flip the old situation around. What will he be doing to retain his Villainy Club membership card?
What is your evil PC's motivation for "righting a few wrongs"? Why do they care?Good PR. ;)Sounds about right. Why would citizens wish to join? Because being evil doesn't necessitate being cruel to everyone around you. What about building up a kingdom, getting people in, and expanding into other kingdoms? "Hey, we'll keep you safe, and we'll offer advancement!" History is replete with "evil tyrants", but they weren't all despised by their own people.
Apart from all that, I think KM allows for anti-heroes more than some of the other APs I've read. Instead of saving the king's town from the evil baddie, you're saving *your* town from the upstart twit who dares to challenge you.
And that ain't necessarily a bad thing. :)
Good points. I can definitely see a crafty evil ruler who knows how to manipulate the mob ("bread and circuses", anyone?) succeeding. Or the cold-blooded evil bastard who knows he needs the people and does what is right for them because it serves his own interests, although I do think that last example might find himself slipping toward neutral if he isn't careful. After all, are you not defined to some extent by your actions? If he keeps doing good things for his people and enjoys the feedback, he might find himself eventually seduced over to the bright side, to flip the old situation around. What will he be doing to retain his Villainy Club membership card?
What is your evil PC's motivation for "righting a few wrongs"? Why do they care?Good PR. ;)Sounds about right. Why would citizens wish to join? Because being evil doesn't necessitate being cruel to everyone around you. What about building up a kingdom, getting people in, and expanding into other kingdoms? "Hey, we'll keep you safe, and we'll offer advancement!" History is replete with "evil tyrants", but they weren't all despised by their own people.
Apart from all that, I think KM allows for anti-heroes more than some of the other APs I've read. Instead of saving the king's town from the evil baddie, you're saving *your* town from the upstart twit who dares to challenge you.
And that ain't necessarily a bad thing. :)
I can definitely see an evil ruler who knows how to manipulate the mob succeeding (bread and circuses, anyone?). I can also see an evil bastard ruler who is smart enough to realize he need the people and treats them right to further his own purposes succeeding, although that guy might be in danger of being seduced to the bright side. After all, you are defined to some extent by your actions, right? So what's he doing to maintain his Villains of the World membership card?
Edit: sorry for the duplicate post. I thought the first one got eaten.
Good point I can sign up to with regard to the power corrupts angle. I think a lot of RL governments and politicians start out wanting to do good things and then lose their way or are tempted into doing wrong. But that's RL. In PF, good and evil are more tangible and measurable (or at least detectable). If you accept that to be the case (and not everybody likes the alignment rules) I am still struggling with why evil characters would want to start a kingdom, unless it would be to benefit themselves, and if that is the case, how they are able to attract followers. It's one thing to be stuck in an established kingdom that's sliding into evil, and quite another to ake a conscious decison to move to a kingdom ruled by a despot. Of course, the rulers could be hiding their evil well, and I could definitely buy that, but I'm failing to see the logic behind setting up an obviously evil kingdom from scratch. I can see the recruiting posters: "Evil Kingdom seeking fools to live under its tyrannical rule."In a cliche, power corrupts.
In something other than a cliche, I think that some of it is...I don't really have a proper word for it, outside of forum bias. I suspect that, if you actually polled KM players, there would not be a predominance of evil kingdoms, and a balance if not the opposite. But evil kingdoms create more questions, if for no other reason than a sense that there should be rules or chrome that more deeply entwine the kingdom's alignment: special buildings for evil, neutral, and good kingdoms for instance.
You could probably say the same about religion.
To answer the first question in inverted cliche, if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then the absolutely corrupt (an evil character in PF) is absolutely drawn to it. It's almost the good characters you should be questioning the motives of.
As to how to attract followers, well, once we've established that this is PF, and good and evil are much less mutable terms, then there's no question there are like-minded evil souls out there, looking for a place that speaks to their heart. Besides, many of them may be looking to hench, or otherwise to seek opportunities to rise in the hierarchy as the players did.
Secondly, you run into the "...but the trains run on time" sort of logic. Tyrannical rules have often had their less than tyrannical adherents. I could see someone moving there on the basis that this kingdom was likely to be the winning side. Also, possibly too realistically, the sorts of things that cause people to make moves are less high minded. You want job opportunities, a cheap place to stay, or a market your competitors have yet to reach; questions of the morality of the leadership are a somewhat distant question.
I think it might be the megalomanic in all of us which makes so many people make evil character for Kingmaker, plus at times (and this is why I love the fact there is no "Alignment base" for buildings) evil and good can be seen as certain Ethics. For instance, I'd like to build a Brothel which will bring in money, but unfortunatly it will cause a bit of unrest. Some would see such a building as "evil" but others would see it as either "good" or "neutral" but that's all opinion.
There are of course things like if the party have been particularly dickish to the fey that you could always make the argument "You listen to our laws or you will fall to the fey." not to mention a lot of people believe there is something inheriently dickish inside us.
Of course I'm sure a lot of us just want to roleplay as a outlet which is why so many people make evil characters, just for the needless cruelty which can be quite theropudic.
Those are my thoughts anyway. I hope to grab onto a kingmaker game sometime.
|
|
I can understand the kind of evil kingdom you are talking about, as the evil is largely hidden from sight, and they take steps to at least appease the people rather than outright oppressing them.What is your evil PC's motivation for "righting a few wrongs"? Why do they care?
I am a little disturbed by your description of how good PCs work in your campaign. It almost sounds like the dominant DMing style in your group actually punishes good PCs, which could be why people gravitate toward evil characters. Good doesn't have to mean stupid, and for every time that a good character is stabbed in the back by someone they naively trusted, there should be (at least) another instance in which people they help, help them in return or their good reputaiton helps them in a situation. Unless you have a much more cynical view of how the world works than I do.
Well, more specific details can be found in the campaign journal "A Bandit King Arises!". But the gist goes:
Righting wrongs increases stability of the nation. The nation directly provides manpower/gold/materials to make, say, "Kobold Suicide Wheelbarrow Bombers" or "Axe Beak Archery Cavalry". Without those resources, the PC's are much less powerful, and they do love their power. Thus, righting wrongs is basically like a Day Job for the Evil Mastermind, and you still have adventures.
As far as cynicism goes, our jobs may have influenced our outlooks a bit...EMS, Police, Retail Manager (shudder), poor student, not so poor student, and we DO prefer a grim & gritty approach most frequently. Then again, I'm the DM most of the time, and my favorite book of all time is Neuromancer, by William Gibson.
Finally, in most of the written AP's (which we've been playing almost exclusively since they've released) the vast majority of the NPC's are villainous in some manner or other. The PC's are assumed to be some of the few "Good Guys" in the area, and there's lots of "lesser of two evils" choices around. This occurred most strongly in Second Darkness, to this day we (those of our group who played, rather than DM'ing) developed a strong mistrust and disliking of elves. Maybe we just hold a grudge...<shrug>
A good written example of the character archetype Rilani & Artemis (the evil female duo mostly driving the nation) are based off can be seen in Fall of Angels and Master of Arms, by L.E.Modesitt Jr. The main character prophetically leads her isolated people against the surrounding, hostile natives after crash landing her super-science spacecraft on Golarion-tech-level, low magic world.
Knowing the eventual goal, and most of the costs in advance, she still proceeded to kill, cheat, lie, force-multiply, preemptive strike, total-ruthless-Art-of-War murder her way through the present, always striving to head off that horrible potential future. After it all ended, and she paid the butcher's bill, she had established her people as a dominant, "Do Not Mess With Us, We Will Kill You Dead" neighbor. Besides, they lived at the highest peak of the tallest mountain of the world, eking out an existence where noone else could.
That kind of knowing, calculating, Lawful Evil behavior I love in my players, because it means they've invested in their characters and the world enough to have machinations. They want so hard to keep their stuff, they seek out adventure, new territory, and invariably bigger and nastier problems. It all works out in the end.
I have yet to see one of the APs which could not be played through quiet happily and reasonably by an evil group.
Hell some of them down right lend themselves to evil PCs(curse of the crimson throne springs to mind).
First time I played curse of the crimson throne, it was as part of an evil group and actually that made more sense than the neutral/good party was in the second time around.
Playing a lawful evil cultist of blackfingers, carving out a criminal empire, cooperating with Croft to stabilised the city in a manner that served my purposes, so that I could profit from it, just made sense. Getting to stick a boot in with that damned chellish queen? That made it fun ;)
By comparison being 'heroes', felt a little bit force and silly was dull.
My Neutral Good party have built 7 brothels..they see nothing inherently evil about prostitution as long as they pay their taxes to the crown.
I am still struggling with why evil characters would want to start a kingdom, unless it would be to benefit themselves, and if that is the case, how they are able to attract followers.Also, don't forget that most of the people who will be moving in will have absolutely no idea of what the rulers are actually like - so far removed are they from that strata of power & society...
Take this along with the fact that being a peasant in one country is pretty much like being a peasant in any other country you care to name, is a pretty simialr experience...
As well as the fact that we live in an age where information is dispersed widely & quickly - a somewhat different proposition to the area surrounding the APs lands...
As well as the fact that you will ALWAYS get people who think they can make a buck...errrr...sorry - gold piece, somewhere that is in the badlands...
As well as the fact that some people just have it bad enough that they need to go somewhere else...& can't leave after they've arrived as they committed everything they had just to get there...
As well as the fact that you'll have do-gooders who go there just because they think they can make a difference if only they try hard enough...Ok - so, I can keep coming up with reasons - I haven't even included any involving the criminal element, runaway slaves, remmittance people etc etc etc.
You just need to consider that there will ALWAYS be people willing to try something if the perceived payoff is great enough.
We sometimes forget that most of us live in reasonably safe countries, such that we have no concept of what people around our own world still go through on a day to day basis.
We must try to leave our own paradigms at the door...& let fantasy be fantasy...
You have some good points about people always being willing to take a chance to strike it rich or better their lot in life. I also already conceded that some folks who naturally bend toward evil would be attractd to such a kingdom, but I caveat that by saying those aren't the kinds of people that usually can build a community. For that you need craftsmen, entrepreneurs and others willing to work hard to raise a kingdom out of the wilderness. Those people are looking for at the very least stability and protection, and for some framework of just laws that allow them to be confident that they will be able to profit from their labors.
My real question is with openly evil groups, for example those who keep armies of undead, or promote the worship of known evil deities, who ally with known evil humanoids, or who act tyrannically and/or exploitatively. Why would anyone in their right minds subject themselves to rule by people like that? Of course, I make the assumption that the great majority of people are basically neutral, perhaps aspiring to be better than that, but only if it isn't too much bother. I think relatively few people are actively Good, and even fewer are actively Evil.
As to having no concept of what people throughout the world go through on a day to day basis, I daresay I have more understanding than most people. My job has had me living for years at a time in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and traveling to just about everywhere else. People do indeed live in deplorable conditions under despotic rulers many places in the world. They do so because they have no choice. Given half an opportunity, they vote with their feet and leave. One good way to judge a nation's character is to look and see whether they have to erect walls to keep people in (Cuba, China, old Soviet bloc) or keep them out (U.S., Europe). People aren't stupid and they know, or quickly figure out, where they have the best chance to succeed. This is particularly true of the most highly educated/motivated/intelligent people, the ones who are most likely to have the resources and desire to be able to move themselves - exactly the kinds of people you want in your nation. It is no accident that the countries with the most freedom also are the most prosperous.
There is evil and then their is Evil. I believe the real question could be is anyone trying to build a chaotic kingdom? It seems most are playing evil as a selfish type verus a brutal type. I think LN is the scariest alignment as it is the enforcment of the rules regardless of circumstance. You also have to rememeber that good and bad are perspectives in many cases versus absolutes.
Think about the kingdom that enslaves species and breeds them just to be slaughtered next time you eat a hamburger.
In the real world the US would be more towards LN not LE as they wish to enforce there laws but do not try to take over other countries. They hold there ideals and enforce there will in good ( humanitarian, aid etc..) and in evil ( Iraq, Vietnam etc ) . They do this to maintain the world in a balance that they see and believe in. The USSR was LE they conquered lands to enforce there will and laws. If the US kept france, germany, Italy after WWII then you could argue they were LE.
Why more poor people join the army is that there are more poor people then wealthy people. :) Affluent people still join the military at officer academies but in smaller numbers. Also the military is a route to discipline and stability that many poor people did not have.
A kingdom that is non lawful I see as having issues with rule and order. If everyone did what they thought was right then there would be chaos as in kingdoms the good of the many does outway the few.
Good point I can sign up to with regard to the power corrupts angle. I think a lot of RL governments and politicians start out wanting to do good things and then lose their way or are tempted into doing wrong. But that's RL. In PF, good and evil are more tangible and measurable (or at least detectable). If you accept that to be the case (and not everybody likes the alignment rules) I am still struggling with why evil characters would want to start a kingdom, unless it would be to benefit themselves, and if that is the case, how they are able to attract followers. It's one thing to be stuck in an established kingdom that's sliding into evil, and quite another to ake a conscious decison to move to a kingdom ruled by a despot. Of course, the rulers could be hiding their evil well, and I could definitely buy that, but I'm failing to see the logic behind setting up an obviously evil kingdom from scratch. I can see the recruiting posters: "Evil Kingdom seeking fools to live under its tyrannical rule."In a cliche, power corrupts.
In something other than a cliche, I think that some of it is...I don't really have a proper word for it, outside of forum bias. I suspect that, if you actually polled KM players, there would not be a predominance of evil kingdoms, and a balance if not the opposite. But evil kingdoms create more questions, if for no other reason than a sense that there should be rules or chrome that more deeply entwine the kingdom's alignment: special buildings for evil, neutral, and good kingdoms for instance.
You could probably say the same about religion.
To answer the first question in inverted cliche, if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then the absolutely corrupt (an evil character in PF) is absolutely drawn to it. It's almost the good characters you should be questioning the motives of.
As to how to attract followers, well, once we've established that this is PF, and good and evil are much less mutable terms, then there's...
Good point on "the trains run on time", which I believe is drawn from Italian nostalgia for the days of Mussolini during their chaotic post-war years. Mussolini may have been a bastard, but he actually kept Italy running better in some ways than many of his democratic successors.
Particularly in RL, some of the worst dictators sometimes acted in ways that benefitted their own people (or at least some or most of them). I prefer to see good and evil in the Pathfinder world as more clearcut than in RL. I agree that evil rulers who run their kingdom in such a way that everybody prospers and there is stability will likely have significant support, provided they don't stomp on the liberties of the majority of the people. Of course, you might question how "evil" such rulers are. Seems like a lot of people want to be evil merely because of the freedom they believe it gives thier characters to act however they please, rather than out of a desire to really be villainous in the classic fantasy tradition.
I think it might be the megalomanic in all of us which makes so many people make evil character for Kingmaker, plus at times (and this is why I love the fact there is no "Alignment base" for buildings) evil and good can be seen as certain Ethics. For instance, I'd like to build a Brothel which will bring in money, but unfortunatly it will cause a bit of unrest. Some would see such a building as "evil" but others would see it as either "good" or "neutral" but that's all opinion.
There are of course things like if the party have been particularly dickish to the fey that you could always make the argument "You listen to our laws or you will fall to the fey." not to mention a lot of people believe there is something inheriently dickish inside us.
Of course I'm sure a lot of us just want to roleplay as a outlet which is why so many people make evil characters, just for the needless cruelty which can be quite theropudic.
Those are my thoughts anyway. I hope to grab onto a kingmaker game sometime.
I agree playing a complete bastard of a character every now and then for short periods can be fun and perhaps even therapeutic. For me, however, it gets old really quickly. I fail to see the attraction of playing such over a long period like and entire campaign, but that's just me. For me, the game is a lot more fun when I can get to be the hero, slay the dragon and rescue the princess, cliche' though that may be.
We have been playing kingmaker for a few months now since November I think. Every one in the party is undeniably evil. The idea of an evil kingdom is not to much of a stretch as a good few of the kingdoms in the setting are very evil and do just fine. As for the Pc's motivation for starting a kingdom is simple, Power.
In a party of two LE three NE and a CE character the over tone is always power. From my character the evil alchemist who preformed bloody experiments in the basement of the castle on the werewolf that terrorized the kingdom simply looking for a natural cure. To the Cleric of Asmudaus who is creating a kingdom to embody the law of hell with his Necromancer Queen.
The end goal is power and you don't trick the flock or the people in your kingdom to give you power by robing and murdering them you do it through legal means that every one excepts. You put their tax money into the Alchemist lab that will create golems and weapons of war. You convert masses of unwitting peasants to worship Asmudaus and damn their souls forever because it is the state religion.
King maker has to be hands down the best adventure I have ever played. My DM does a great job of expanding our story lines every character is fleshed out and seems like while we are evil the kingdom and the stolen lands would be worse off with out us.
If you look at the histories of most of the evil kingdoms (like Cheliax, for example) they didn't start evil. Also, many of them aren't doing "just fine", particularly if you consider the lot of the common people in those benighted countries, and their relations with neighboring countries. The worship of Asmodeus in Cheliax, came about from a deal made with the devil (literally) during a succession struggle. The people had no choice. they were already there and unless they were going to rise up in rebellion (as some parts of the Empire did) or leave everything behind and flee, they had to put up with it. The kingdom started in Kingmaker is a very different animal. It needs to attract people into a cold, barren, hostile wilderness to raise a kingdom out of nothing. Why would anyone in their right mind move themselves and their family into the Stolen Lands to be forced to worship Asmodeus? I've yet to hear a really convincing answer. Most people fight their whole lives to avoid having to submit to the laws of hell in the afterlife, and your group is trying to recreate that in Golarion, and expects people to willingly submit to it?
Anyway, glad you are having fun with it. Not my cup of tea, but that's cool.
Lots of interesting stuff.
Cool. I appreciate where you are coming from and think I understand. Your characters seem to be more like complicated real life villains with mixed motives and records than classic high fantasy BBEGs, for example.
I actually inject a fair amount of "reality" in terms of grit and so forth in my campaign, but I expect the PCs to rise above it, do the right thing, and still be heroes, and reward them appropriately for doing so.
I have to admit to being pretty ruthless in dealing with characters tending toward the dark side, perhaps in reaction to the many examples of what I see as poor DMing in which evil deeds done by characters have no consequences. That's partially because that's how I see a world reacting logically to openly evil acts, and partially my own admitted bias.
I have yet to see one of the APs which could not be played through quiet happily and reasonably by an evil group.
Hell some of them down right lend themselves to evil PCs(curse of the crimson throne springs to mind).
First time I played curse of the crimson throne, it was as part of an evil group and actually that made more sense than the neutral/good party was in the second time around.
Playing a lawful evil cultist of blackfingers, carving out a criminal empire, cooperating with Croft to stabilised the city in a manner that served my purposes, so that I could profit from it, just made sense. Getting to stick a boot in with that damned chellish queen? That made it fun ;)
By comparison being 'heroes', felt a little bit force and silly was dull.
I admit the way I like to play can be cliched at times, and others may see it as dull. For me, getting to be the hero never gets old. After 30+ years of playing, I still want to be Dudley Doright. I deal with more than enough grim realism and outright nastiness in RL, and can't really do that much about it. For me it's cathartic, in my fantasy gaming life, to be able to drive a sword into the bad guys and put an end to them.
My Neutral Good party have built 7 brothels..they see nothing inherently evil about prostitution as long as they pay their taxes to the crown.
Prostitution comes in many forms, ranging from high-priced, selective call girls and well-regulated, clean and safe brothels in some parts of the world to junkie streetwalkers, underage runaways selling themselves to live, and sexual slavery. While the first couple of examples may not be evil in and of themselves, they represent just a tiny fraction of prostitution (although Hollywood and other media tend to focus on just that part, since the rest is pretty depressing). Much, much more common are those in the sex trade who either were forced into it or were desperately poor and had few other options. And lets not even get into the effects that prostitution in even its most palatable forms can have on families.
Inherently evil? No.
Providing a huge, fertile breeding area for evil to thrive in? Yep.
Don't mean to come across as an uptight prude, but that's the reality of the sex trade.
Lots of stuff more related to current events and recet history than Kingmaker.
You make some debatably good points, but I'd prefer not to get into a debate on the "alignment" of real world nations, as that artificial concept can't really be made to apply to the Kingmaker setting, and some folks will get too hot and bothered defending or attacking real life countries, policies and individuals. There are political blogs out there for that.
I'd prefer to stick to just a couple of principles that can be applied to Kingmaker:
Decisions by rulers, including their publicly visible alignment, should have consequences. If they treat their people well, that should have some benefits. If they act capriciously or oppressively, that should also have consequences. Openly evil parties have, at the very least, a PR problem.
If your party chooses to follow an evil path, they need to have a plan for how they will deal with some of the easily foreseeable problems such as morale amongst their populace and the reaction of neighboring nations.
Evil characters will have more complex motivations for creating a prosperous kingdom.
With regards to evil in kingmaker religon is a major point that would affect most people. If openly cruel and evil religons were allowed to flourish then that can have an effect on unrest, if people are killed on the streets then unrest will occcur.
If an evil kindom is controlling but protective and pushes to have the kingdom prosper there will be little unrest.
However in my opinion this is more of a matter of Lawful vs Chaotic then good versus evil. Socities function more on that axis then the other. In my opinion.
Well our Kingdom was CN with an 8 chr half orc as it's ruler (who was also the nations general) a Militaristic Totalitarian Anarchy (makes sense for CN doesn't it)
It was basically a 'do what you want until I say different' Society.
We gave away alot of loot, and had lotteries to finance our country.
We seriously didnt want to build kingdom, the mechanics of it bored us, we wanted to adventure, so we left it up to the people, until we needed to come home and stop some kind of spiraling demise from happening.
As for the bard, I think the barbarian ruler had him contracted out.
I was the royal assassin, but he didn't want any governmental ties to his disappearance. I never did know what happened to that chap.
We never finished.
The whole thing annoyed us.
I'm going to run it again in a while, but this time we talked about the PC's just putting NPC rulers up in the government (possibly puppets?), so that they could adventure, and not spend as much time on this and that.
Seems like a lot of people want to be evil merely because of the freedom they believe it gives thier characters to act however they please, rather than out of a desire to really be villainous in the classic fantasy tradition.
Brian, I think all of your confusion comes in right here. Not everyone sees Pathfinder good and evil in this vein. Evil to me is self-centered and greedy. You could be perfectly evil and not hurt anyone. In my campaign, about 25% of the populous is evil.
Also, you seem to be of the opinion that if the players do good things for their populous then they will shift towards good. Can evil overlords not pay their henchmen well?
I find Evil PCs are much easier to motivate. Evil doesn't mean baby killing psychotic types. When I have players playing evil characters they usually are more like politician and bankers. The type the are "You mean I can do that and it's all legal and I won't get caught" while they screw over the peasants of small town. Kind of like Walmart coming to town.
Seems like a lot of people want to be evil merely because of the freedom they believe it gives thier characters to act however they please, rather than out of a desire to really be villainous in the classic fantasy tradition.Brian, I think all of your confusion comes in right here. Not everyone sees Pathfinder good and evil in this vein. Evil to me is self-centered and greedy. You could be perfectly evil and not hurt anyone. In my campaign, about 25% of the populous is evil.
Also, you seem to be of the opinion that if the players do good things for their populous then they will shift towards good. Can evil overlords not pay their henchmen well?
I agree that its likely a perception thing. In my fantasy games I want evil to be EVIL, the kind of mother-killing, puppy-kicking, baby-sacrificing evil caricature that very, very few (fortunately) in the real world could ever be. That makes it so much more satisfying to beat the snot out of them.
I think evil is more than fairly normal cheat on your taxes self-centered and greedy. It's more of a stab the tax man in the back, hide the body and steal his collections kind of thing. My percentages would probably be about 75% neutral or some variation thereof, 20% good or really trying to be, and 5% rat bastard evil.
I think I would probably label most of the "evil" rulers that have been described here as pretty neutral, at least as far as determines the alignment of their kingdom. They may be pretty nasty in person, but they keep that nastiness well under control when ruling their kingdom. So perhaps evil rulers can run a neutral kingdom?
I admit the way I like to play can be cliched at times, and others may see it as dull. For me, getting to be the hero never gets old. After 30+ years of playing, I still want to be Dudley Doright. I deal with more than enough grim realism and outright nastiness in RL, and can't really do that much about it. For me it's cathartic, in my fantasy gaming life, to be able to drive a sword into the bad guys and put an end to them.I have yet to see one of the APs which could not be played through quiet happily and reasonably by an evil group.
Hell some of them down right lend themselves to evil PCs(curse of the crimson throne springs to mind).
First time I played curse of the crimson throne, it was as part of an evil group and actually that made more sense than the neutral/good party was in the second time around.
Playing a lawful evil cultist of blackfingers, carving out a criminal empire, cooperating with Croft to stabilised the city in a manner that served my purposes, so that I could profit from it, just made sense. Getting to stick a boot in with that damned chellish queen? That made it fun ;)
By comparison being 'heroes', felt a little bit force and silly was dull.
I have never felt the attraction of Dudley Doright, I guess because it is who I aim to be in 'Real Life'. Being a good person has cost me, both my mental health(my desire for the world to be a better place has been a driving element of my depression since before I ever had to talk with medical professionals about it) and physical pain(yay for no-violent intervention in assaults on woman!!!!!! Getting your nose broken for someone who begs you not to press charges against their boyfriend is just such wonderful fun!). I deal with trying to make the world better every day in my job, where I work in social housings in one of the best sheltered housing schemes for vulnerable elders in the country(we just got gold at the national housing awards. *does a little dance*).
And because i deal with this, because I have immersed my self in subjects of what is good and bad, and what needs to be done to make the world better(and what better is), and the study of human and animal behaviour, in professional, personal and educational arenas, the 4 colour hero just doesn't appeal to me.
Even when i was relatively young I think I understood that such people are not only unrealistic(in that they really don't exist), but that it is a really good thing they do not exist, because they'd make things worse. The kind of black and white moral zelotry that such people embrace just makes things worse.
Seems like a lot of people want to be evil merely because of the freedom they believe it gives thier characters to act however they please, rather than out of a desire to really be villainous in the classic fantasy tradition.Brian, I think all of your confusion comes in right here. Not everyone sees Pathfinder good and evil in this vein. Evil to me is self-centered and greedy. You could be perfectly evil and not hurt anyone. In my campaign, about 25% of the populous is evil.
Also, you seem to be of the opinion that if the players do good things for their populous then they will shift towards good. Can evil overlords not pay their henchmen well?
I agree that its likely a perception thing. In my fantasy games I want evil to be EVIL, the kind of mother-killing, puppy-kicking, baby-sacrificing evil caricature that very, very few (fortunately) in the real world could ever be. That makes it so much more satisfying to beat the snot out of them.
I think evil is more than fairly normal cheat on your taxes self-centered and greedy. It's more of a stab the tax man in the back, hide the body and steal his collections kind of thing. My percentages would probably be about 75% neutral or some variation thereof, 20% good or really trying to be, and 5% rat bastard evil.
I think I would probably label most of the "evil" rulers that have been described here as pretty neutral, at least as far as determines the alignment of their kingdom. They may be pretty nasty in person, but they keep that nastiness well under control when ruling their kingdom. So perhaps evil rulers can run a neutral kingdom?
Some CotCT spoilers within
Elspeth; my cleric/rogue for CotCT was evil, but that did not mean she didn't have many admirable, even heroic qualities.
-She loved her culture and her people. She would protect and Varisian, from any external threat, on principle.
-She gave generously to charities which supported here community.
-She provided employment opportunities to her people in legitimate businesses.
-She worked with the korvosan watch to undermine many criminal enterprises, restore order to the city and prevent plague.
-She fought against the rule of a tyrannical queen.
But yet....
- She was a staggering racist, with a hatred of chellish people that rivalled the queens hatred of varisians. And went so far as to murder a number of relatively innocent Chellish individuals for nothing more than sport and a few coins.
- rackateered
- manifactured and sold drugs
- Betrayed here boss, and taking control of eel's end from the king of spiders. And becoming the queen of spiders
- Used torture, poisons and magic to acquire information, defeat her foes and spread terror amongst her enemies.
- worshipped norgorber.
So is that evil, neutral or good?
It is no accident that the countries with the most freedom also are the most prosperous.
First of all, freedom does not automatically equate good.
You can be free to suffer, you can be free to starve, you can be free to labour for pitance while your efforts enrich another. All those things are possible in a 'free' society.
There is an increasingly clear correlation and causation between income inequality and social ills. Yet many free countrys, such as england and America(the grand daddy and child of free societies) ahave staggering levels of income inequality and social ill. When your the face of freedom and you have the highest recorded infant mortality rate of the top fifty developed nations, it becomes clear that a free society is not automatically a good society.
While prosperity has demonstrable benifits, and is a massive driver for improving the lives of everyone in a society, there comes a point where benifits of simple prosperity have been shown to level out. Beyond a certain point, increased wealther simply stops making society better. At that point, income inequality takes over as the most important determining factor.
Given the fact that both the US and the UK, with their massive economies are in fact, due to their levels of massive income inequality lawful evil societies. They are increadably wealthy, but said wealth but they are wracked by social problems spawned by the social stresses caused by the existance of the super rich.
While countries like the Northern european social democracies and modern Japan are lawful good societies. Still very wealthy socieites, but which due to being more equal sociaties, less prone to social issues.
Related links:
How British society is being engined to channel wealth from the poor to the rich
The evidence basis for the argument can be found here (ignore the video, or if you do watch it, understand that it is a massive simplification. There isn't just one factor, but income inequality is demonstrated to be a very major factor.)
I have never felt the attraction of Dudley Doright, I guess because it is who I aim to be in 'Real Life'. Being a good person has cost me, both my mental health(my desire for the world to be a better place has been a driving element of my depression since before I ever had to talk with medical professionals about it) and physical pain(yay for no-violent intervention in assaults on woman!!!!!! Getting your nose broken for someone who begs you not to press charges against their boyfriend is just such wonderful fun!). I deal with trying to make the world better every day in my job, where I work in social housings in one of the best sheltered housing schemes for vulnerable elders in the country(we just got gold at the national housing awards. *does a little...
First off, I applaud you for your RL efforts. RL heroism is a complicated thing, best defined as "ordinary people placed in extraordinary circumstances who do the right thing". I actually think there are lots of heroes in the real world, and you may well be one of them. They are very different from, as you describe it, the "four-color hero" of the golden age of comics, an uncomplicated do-gooder dealing with a black and white world in which moral decisions are always clear. As you say, such heroes aren't very realistic (although I won't go so far as to say either that they couldn't possibly exist or that they would do more harm than good). Even in the complex world we live in, however, I think things are frequently more black and white than many people are willing to admit - I'm not really a huge fan of moral relativism.
I perhaps should clarify that Dudley Doright isn't really a good representation of any character I have actually played. They are all considerably more complex than that, and not all of them have been terribly heroic, even. Most of the time, though, I am drawn to playing the good guys.
My work (international relations and public policy) entails lots of complicated choices in which what is right and wrong is frequently highly debatable, and the path of "good" isn't easily seen, much less followed. I really try to "do good", but even when I can identify the way to do it, there are frequently so many obstacles that I have to settle for half-victories or am just plain stymied. That's tremendously frustrating to me (but the occasional victories are sweet and rewarding) and I don't really want to recreate it in my fantasy worlds, which are a blessed escape for me.
There, I want clear ethical choices, easily defined "bad guys" and a clear path to doing what's right. I want to be the hero. That's what I find cathartic and what keeps me coming back.
Seems like every time I open a Kingmaker thread there is somebody talking about the evil kingdom their players are starting. Sometimes it seems like at least half the kingdoms out there are evil. While there are rules for evil kingdoms, Kingmaker, like most APs, assumes that the PCs will have at least some benificent motives for undertaking alot of the quests and missions. Evil groups would either need to develop their own motivation or just ignore those missions to do their own thing.
As far as kingdom building goes, I'm also struggling a bit with why evil characters would want to create a kingdom, unless it is to live out certain tyrannical fantasies, and if that's the case, why anyone would willingly move there to submit to their rule.
I must admit my own bias. I never play evil characters except in occasional one-off adventures. When I am GM, as I am now for Kingmaker, I don't allow evil characters, for a wide variety of reasons. I admit to being puzzled as to why so many people like to play villains.
So educate me on why y'all like to play evil characters, and particularly in Kingmaker, how this is impacting your campaign.
I really wish I knew why people like playing evil characters, but I know that my players actually begged me for an all evil campaign, so I re-wrote second darkness so that it was from the drow side. Allowing them to call down a test star, etc. And gave them the option of noticing that there were four non-drow pretending to be drow, etc. In the end, they still lost and Golorion was saved... but they said they loved the game.
Perhaps we all have some hidden anger, and ruthlessly killing imaginary things helps....
Lots of interesting stuff about her CotCT character.
That character sounds -- complicated. Very difficult to define. In fact, she offers so many intriguing contradictions that I would be loathe to attach any consistent alignment to her. If I had to, I'd have to go with Chaotic Neutral. She sounds like she'd be best friends with a CN Sorcerer I played once, other than the worshipping an evil god - he worshipped no gods, as he believed they had all betrayed his people.