Hello everyone!
I'm adding a rather large (15,000+) city to the southern jungle of my current campaign's continent. I want the city to be neutral evil aligned but I'm looking for ideas on how that would shape the city.
How would it affect trade? Government? The average citizen? What distinguishing characteristics would manifest in such a city?
I welcome any and all ideas!
|
Generally? The people in charge should be either cruel, power-hungry and ruthless, or both. And the city should probably either not have an especially restrictive set of law, or possibly not care about the ones it has. Think Sin City, from the movie or comic book of the same name, with a corrupt police force and a mixture of equally corrupt officials and actual criminals in charge, but laws still in place, and even enforced on those without the influence to ignore them.
I've got a Neutral Evil city in my current game that's run by an illegal lumber consortium (it's Elf-ruled, and Elves have strict rules about logging) who utilize slave labor extensively and bribe the soldiers and police sent from the capital to look the other way about their various excesses (it helps that the commander of the army as a whole is in bed with the lumber consortium, and only assigns 'picked units' there).
Model it off of Venice, just make the machievelian politics more evident.
Law number the first: Don't F*** with [Insert ruler's name here].
Law number the second: Don't get caught.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any American city.
I jest..or do I?
Their primary export could be mercenaries. Ruthless and effective, but the moment your coffers empty the entire legion will drop out.
If the city has a lot of power outside its walls you could go the enlightened despot route with the ruler. Make them a patron of the arts and sciences, willing to spend great sums on the construction of world wonders to enhance their prestige. A gilded city could function as quite the delicious trap for incoming heroes...
It could be a case of ruthless colonialists oppressing the population, or or a nihilistic cult sacrificing people to put off the date of some doom they expect, or perhaps they're refugees from some lawful evil society who are ruled by local strongmen - disillusioned revolutionaries.
Neutral evil isn't enough to define a society, you need more description even to start. None of the above are terribly similar.
A NE society shouldnt have any issue raising and using undead. So consider a city without a peasant population, all menial tasks are performed by undead. Skeletons tend to have less of a stench?
Convince them that they're the greatest city and that they're superior people. Convince them that they are the beacon of justice for the world.
NE is the most common alignment, even though most NE people would identify themselves as LG, NG, or CG.
You cannot have a society based on net worth and have it be good, for instance. Plutocracy is fundamentally evil and it's not fully lawful, either, because there are always two tiers of law:
1) law to keep the little people down
2) law that exempts the elite from punishment for criminality
The neat trick is to make the little people think that this is not only good but exciting. If that fails then just convince them that they're superior people so the way things are run is an unfortunate "best we can expect" thing. Economic boom and bust cycles will ensure that people in the know keep the resources while the little people chase after phantasmal wealth.
The only actual good is total pacifism. That is exceedingly rare. Similarly, the only actual good is environmentalism, because polluting and destroying one's environment causes harm. Since it's impossible to live and not destroy it's also paradoxical.
Law is tailor made by the wealthy elite to enable them to keep their privileges, but a LE society is impossibly paradoxical. It's not law at all when it's fully adhered to in an evil manner. It's slavery.
...You have a very limited view of good, SRS. One that doesn't align with how Pathfinder defines it at all.
I mean, I agree with most of your post but that last paragraph kinda threw me for a loop.
...You have a very limited view of good, SRS. One that doesn't align with how Pathfinder defines it at all.
I mean, I agree with most of your post but that last paragraph kinda threw me for a loop.
Good and evil are specious. Not only can they not exist without each other, due to the necessity of contrast, they are abstractions of convenience.
Everything eventually comes down to convenience. People do "good" things due to the principle of reciprocity. However, since no one can be someone else, people are fundamentally self-centered.
I'm quickly dealing with Hegel mainly.
People are biologically programmed to cooperate. People who don't have defective frontal lobes (the source of "conscience"). However, although we consider those people evil, objectively our behavior (as "healthy/normal" people) is also evil because we place our own welfare (due to selfishness) above that of others (including animals and plants). It's notable, for instance, that the top two pets are both predatory carnivores. Our "cute" cats are designed from the ground up to kill. Even their play is practice for killing, like our Cowboys and Indians.
Hmm. I think the disconnect is that I wouldn't define greed and selfishness as inherently evil. Condemning ambition simply because it is ambition even when it is directed in a constructive manner seems rather useless to me. There's nothing wrong with looking out for yourself.
Slavery is LE in the alignment system of Pathfinder/D&D.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who runs Barter Town?
People are biologically programmed to cooperate. People who don't have defective frontal lobes (the source of "conscience"). However, although we consider those people evil, objectively our behavior (as "healthy/normal" people) is also evil because we place our own welfare (due to selfishness) above that of others (including animals and plants).
People can't both be "biologically programmed to cooperate" and be evil because they "place their own welfare due to selfishness" ahead of people, animals and plants.
Your statement is self contradicting! Even if it wasn't, people are evil because they value their own well being more than that of plants???
There is nothing wrong or evil with looking out for yourself. That is what all creatures do otherwise they would not survive. You might as well call a wolf evil for not starving to death or a deer evil for refusing to stop eating grass. Hey we naturally avoid fire because it burns us. Such selfishness!
Really there are so many things wrong with your statement, that it is almost laughable.
An individual can choose to be a pacifist or a "environmentalist". Everyone who does not make that choice is not evil.
Well, now I feel bad. "Laughable" was not nice, so sorry about that. I think that you have studied philosophy and are trying to apply some things to society that really should only be applied to individuals.
Pacifism for example looks great on an individual level. But how does it look when you stand idly by and watch as your neighbor gets killed when you could have helped her but it would have required violence on your part? It looks ... not so good. In fact some people would call that evil ... placing your own selfish interests ahead of of her safety.
how does it look when you stand idly by and watch as your neighbor gets killed when you could have helped her but it would have required violence on your part? It looks ... not so good. In fact some people would call that evil ... placing your own selfish interests ahead of of her safety.
In the end it all comes down to convenience. There is no altruism and there is no evil. There are only degrees of functionality, adherence to our biological programming. The only law is Natural Law and it doesn't care.
Your statement is self contradicting!
Although I think much of your analysis is flawed, it should be noted that I said good and evil are specious and then preceded to employ them as constructs. That, of course, is paradoxical as the concepts themselves are.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good and evil are specious. Not only can they not exist without each other, due to the necessity of contrast, they are abstractions of convenience.
Everything eventually comes down to convenience. People do "good" things due to the principle of reciprocity. However, since no one can be someone else, people are fundamentally self-centered.
I'm quickly dealing with Hegel mainly.
People are biologically programmed to cooperate. People who don't have defective frontal lobes (the source of "conscience"). However, although we consider those people evil, objectively our behavior (as "healthy/normal" people) is also evil because we place our own welfare (due to selfishness) above that of others (including animals and plants). It's notable, for instance, that the top two pets are both predatory carnivores. Our "cute" cats are designed from the ground up to kill. Even their play is practice for killing, like our Cowboys and Indians.
Y'know, I'm tired, so I'm not gonna argue this as well or thoroughly as I should...but I disagree with this position on just about every possible level.
Biology isn't destiny. Biological programming, while real and important, is not the sum and total of who we are, social conditioning of various sorts also plays a huge role, as does the often overlooked third factor: Choice.
We can choose to defy biology and society both if we have the will and courage to do so.
And that leaves entirely aside the issue that you're defining Evil...really weirdly. Killing isn't necessarily Evil, especially killing plants or other completely mindless things. But even animals are pretty easy to argue as morally acceptable to harm even if harming sapient life isn't. And even there, if we get into self defense or defense of another...
Really, no action (taking the broadest definition of action) is evil or wrong devoid of the context in which it occurs. Killing certainly isn't inherently evil in and of itself.
And even aside from all that, if we're talking Pathfinder Alignments...your personal definitions (even were they valid, which I don't acknowledge) don't synch up with those actually defined in the rules, and are thus a more fit subject for an Off-Topic thread than one where someone is looking for help dealing with the alignment system as presented, not odd re-definitions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
how does it look when you stand idly by and watch as your neighbor gets killed when you could have helped her but it would have required violence on your part? It looks ... not so good. In fact some people would call that evil ... placing your own selfish interests ahead of of her safety.In the end it all comes down to convenience. There is no altruism and there is no evil. There are only degrees of functionality, adherence to our biological programming. The only law is Natural Law and it doesn't care.
B@##!++&. I choose to follow a moral code. Not because my biology demands it (indeed, it most certainly does not...my biological programming on its own would make me a monster), or because it's convenient (it isn't), but because, intellectually, I believe it is the right thing to do.
Biological programming, while real and important, is not the sum and total of who we are, social conditioning of various sorts also plays a huge role, as does the often overlooked third factor: Choice.
Social conditioning stems from biology and so does the illusion of choice.
We can choose to defy biology and society both if we have the will and courage to do so.
Delusional, actually.
Killing isn't necessarily Evil, especially killing plants or other completely mindless things.
Setting up a hierarchy about what deserves to live and not live based on your appraisal of various qualities such as intelligence isn't? Does that mean we should eat people with low IQs or something?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
...I don't think you quite understood what Stowe was writing about.
|
|
Social conditioning stems from biology and so does the illusion of choice.
Not really, no. Speaking as a Psych Student...the scientific community in no way has enough data to make this kind of blanket pronouncement about human psychology. Some people believe what you are saying to be true...some do not. We have no definitive evidence in this area as of yet.
Indeed, twin studies argue against this being a legitimate model of explaining all behavior pretty strongly...
Delusional, actually.
Insulting people for holding views you disagree with is not usually considered good form in reasoned debate. So cut that s$*+ out.
Setting up a hierarchy about what deserves to live and not live based on your appraisal of various qualities such as intelligence isn't? Does that mean we should eat people with low IQs or something?
Yes, because eating a banana and a human being are exactly morally equivalent *rolls eyes*
Sapient beings are moral actors capable of distinguishing, and choosing between, right and wrong. Killing them is clearly thus immoral, as you are extinguishing a being with as much capacity to know right from wrong as you, even if their general mental capacity is lower. The same does not apply to non-sapient beings, making setting the bar for what it is morally acceptable to, say, kill for food below the level of sapience a perfectly reasonable moral stand.
This has all been extraordinarily helpful, many thanks!
Insulting people for holding views you disagree with is not usually considered good form in reasoned debate. So cut that s#~~ out.
I wasn't insulting you. By the same token, angrily blacklisting rebuttals doesn't seem particularly to be an example of good form either. It seems to be a way to avoid confronting the rebuttal with one's own.
No one can defy biology. That's quite impossible.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Think of:
- the Rogue Isles from City of Villains
- Renaissance Italy under the Medicis/Borgias
- Frank Miller's Sin City (leans more Lawful)
- Rapture from Bioshock (leans more Chaotic)
- the planet Brekka from the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "Symbiosis"
No one can defy biology. That's quite impossible.
"Things are only impossible until they're not." - Jean-Luc Picard
|
|
I wasn't insulting you.
Calling someone delusional is usually considered an insult. Especially when one's beliefs in this area are based on the empirical evidence we currently have access to...
By the same token, angrily blacklisting rebuttals doesn't seem particularly to be an example of good form either. It seems to be a way to avoid confronting the rebuttal with one's own.
Uh...I responded to literally everything you wrote in a coherent fashion. And never stopped doing so...how is this 'blacklisting'? I responded to a few things somewhat flippantly...but that's not the same thing at all.
Indeed, you seem to only be responding to an isolated statement of mine rather than the posts I made as a whole, so if anyone is avoiding making a meaningful rebuttal...
No one can defy biology. That's quite impossible.
That depends on how one defines 'denying biology'. If you mean, say, flying by flapping your arms or suddenly seeing in the dark, or otherwise demonstrating capabilities you lack biologically, then no you cannot.
If, on the other hand, you mean (as I did) choosing not to act on particular biological drives because you have some sort of principles that say not to...then yes you can. Indeed, as mentioned, twin studies and other scientific evidence strongly suggests that people with basically identical biology can wind up with highly divergent behavior patterns and life choices.
What scientific evidence do you present that they cannot do this?
Check out political alignment on dndwiki
The 3.0 DMG has a nice section on settlement alignment too.
It might be fun to build the city statblock with PF settlement rules, and possibly enhance it with 3.0/3.5 settlement rules for inhabitants class spread and government types.
Not all NE cities will be the same...
Examples for NE cities in Pathfinder/Golarion are:
Pangolais, the capital of Nidal
The sample settlement "Creepy Backwoods Hamlet" from the Game Mastery Guide[see settlement rules link above]
I don't think most people in the city need to be NE, but most will probably be within 1 alignment step. Many people of authority will be NE, but even for those there can be exceptions with different factions or individuals.
As neutrals, they would neither be obedient to authority out of duty or a sense of rightness, nor would they chafe at the pressure of authority in and of its own sake. Which means that the city can have a hierarchy and power structure but it should be more pragmatic and based on power that is enforceable. Those in charge would have to have the ability to enforce their will if the public doesn't comply. There are probably multiple power blocs in the city, but all out feuds would be rare.
As evil people, they are comfortable with hurting others to get what they want or need. So the economics of the city should reflect this. They could have industries that are predatory in nature, like slavery, piracy, mercenary companies, and so on. Remember that for the city as a whole to be evil the general populace needs to usually be evil, not just the leaders.
The people of the city might justify themselves along the lines of "the strong survive" or "if we didn't do this someone else would."
Of course you could also consider a city where the leaders are evil but the population isn't necessarily; this works a bit differently. The government remains in power because the general public feels helpless in the light of the entrenched power of the "bosses" or because there is something else they fear more which the existing government protects them from.
Peet
I wasn't insulting you.Calling someone delusional is usually considered an insult.
I didn't call you delusional. Personalizing this discussion is ad hominem. I'm really not here for the angst. Later.
|
|
Check out political alignment on dndwiki....
Looking at that, I found:
"Where a lawful good citizen may place the law above friendship, a chaotic good citizen will almost always shield an ally from persecution. Of course, this isn’t necessarily good for you; if the only way to save a local boy is to blame his crime on a suspicious stranger — which is to say you, the wandering adventurer — a group of chaotic good villagers may do just that."
I object pretty strongly to this; it's a common fallacy regarding alignment. Placing group loyalty over justice is actually one of the foundations of Lawful (particularly Lawful and non-Good) societies. I even remember playing the judge in a mock trial in college replicating the Nuremberg Trials, observing the proceedings, and writing down an epiphany: "The problem is LOYALTY."
A Chaotic Good person's "loyalty" is ultimately only to their own conscience ("I'm loyal to nothing, General..except the Dream."), and if a Chaotic Good person's friend was discovered to have done something they never would have thought that friend would ever do, they wouldn't hesitate to "betray" them (after all, their friend clearly either betrayed them first, or they demonstrated themself to have become a friend on erroneous pretenses, or their friend has a serious problem that can only be helped if given attention - and if those providing the attention are Chaotic Good themselves, there's little to fear).
|
|
I didn't call you delusional. Personalizing this discussion is ad hominem. I'm really not here for the angst. Later.I wasn't insulting you.Calling someone delusional is usually considered an insult.
Someone professes a belief. You call said belief delusional. How is this not calling that person delusional?
No one can defy biology. That's quite impossible.
I beg to differ.
Humanity has been defying biology for most of our existence, thanks to these neat things called tools.
I wear glasses, defying the poor eyesight that is part of my biology.
Humanity has been to the moon and deep into the sea, both locations that we are not biologically suited for.
We routinely attempt to conquer mortality via medicine, and have made a lot of headway in that regard over the last few centuries, with one of the next advancements, Cybernetics, looking to literally defy our biological limits.
It would in fact be fair to say that defying biology is what we do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Neutral = +1 to Lore
Evil = +1 to Corruption
This means that the citizens here are slightly more prone to blab secrets (Diplomacy: Gather Information checks) and keeps decent records (+1 to Knowledge checks using the city's resources). Furthermore it means that getting around the city is a little easier; outside buildings you can pass unnoticed (+1 to Stealth outside buildings) while getting in places is as easy as looking like you belong there (+1 to Bluff city officials).
This seems like a great place for people with Stealth, Bluff, Diplomacy and Knowledges to gravitate to and what class has those skills? Bards, Rogues...and Inquisitors. Imagine: what would a city run by a thief, a charlatan and an inquisitor look like?
Frankly NE cities always remind me of Gotham. City officials are bought and sold; criminals crowd the streets but they're craven snitches; a man in broad daylight can duck into an alley and don a giant bat costume with no one noticing. Imagine Gotham in the jungle.
Humanity has been defying biology for most of our existence, thanks to these neat things called tools.
Tools have to conform to our biology and cannot be built without our biology.
Going to the moon requires food, oxygen, pressure suits, and so on. All of that is inextricably generated from our biology, including the brain function and mechanical functionality needed.
Someone professes a belief. You call said belief delusional. How is this not calling that person delusional?
Separate philosophical points from individual people and you'll be able to more clearly focus in these debates. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of ad hominem.
Ad hominem is a fallacy that changes the subject (generally by injecting emotion) from the original one to a referendum on specific people. My sentence did not say "You are delusional." It said the premise you presented is an example of delusion. Those are very different things. And, even thought there was a touch of ambiguity in the wording the context was not about anyone specifically.
People have many delusions and illusions without being so delusional that they would deserve such a label. That label implies that the person is mentally ill. My posts have been quite clear, in my view, with the idea that people in general support entropic behavior ("evil" if you prefer) as a result of normal human biological functioning, while simultaneously rationalizing that behavior. That is not the akin to labeling someone mentally ill. However, ironically, doing so could actually be complimentary because they would be more resistant to falling into the trap.
Also, paradoxically, being completely committed to doing good (fighting entropy) would destroy a person. We aren't equipped to make such a total commitment.
Check out political alignment on dndwiki....
Looking at that, I found:
"A neutral evil nation is similar to a lawful evil society, but worse. While a lawful evil nation may use the law to oppress its citizens, at least the law is a respected power. In a neutral evil society the rulers hold absolute power, and there is rarely any pretense that the citizens have any rights. Slavery is extremely common in neutral evil societies; members of the ruling class may have certain privileges and a legal code, but the teeming masses have no rights whatsoever, and no recourse to the law. In a nation where the majority of the population is neutral evil, opportunism is the name of the game. If there’s any way the lower classes can move up in the world, they will do anything to do so. If not, they will stoop to any depths to gain a modicum of long-term security and comfort"
Which kind of accurately describes Pangolais and Nidal IMHO. Note that in Pangolais there's a gold dragon great wyrm living in disguise a humble lowly beggar iirc.(From Dragons Revisited iirc)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The web enhancement to the 3.5 DMG contains rules for building a city by district.
Together with the DMG rules for generating towns/demographics and the award winning free A Magical Medieval Society: City Guide, this is a great tool for citybuilding.
This dungeon article from Robin Laws goes into a bit more detail with conflicting power centers and prevailing alignments and degrees of authority.
This is what DMG says about NE power centers:
"Alignment of the Power Centers
The alignment of the ruler or rulers of a community need not conform to the alignment of all or even the majority of the residents, although this is usually the case. In any case, the alignment of the power center strongly shapes the residents' daily lives. Due to their generally organized and organizing nature, most power centers are lawful.
[...]
Neutral Evil: The residents of a community with a neutral evil power center are usually oppressed and subjugated, facing a dire future.
"
|
|
Separate philosophical points from individual people and you'll be able to more clearly focus in these debates. Otherwise, it becomes a matter of ad hominem.
This is a conversation (though a debate in the colloquial sense), not a formal debate. The rules are somewhat different. To be specific, certain methods of attacking someone's point amount to an attack on them as well (ie: "Your belief in gender equality is delusional." to a woman, or a feminist). Now, that example is quite a bit worse than what you did, obviously, but what you said is impolite and inappropriate for the same reasons, just to a lesser degree.
Ad hominem is a fallacy that changes the subject (generally by injecting emotion) from the original one to a referendum on specific people. My sentence did not say "You are delusional." It said the premise you presented is an example of delusion. Those are very different things. And, even thought there was a touch of ambiguity in the wording the context was not about anyone specifically.
Delusion is a word with a rather specific definition. So is delusional. To quote a dictionary for delusional "Suffering from or characterized by delusions."
So...definitionally, if you're calling someone's beliefs a delusion, or delusional, you are calling them delusional as well. That's how words work.
People have many delusions and illusions without being so delusional that they would deserve such a label. That label implies that the person is mentally ill.
I'm perfectly willing to believe you didn't intend to be offensive. However, I am not a mind reader. I responded, inevitably, to what you actually said which was, in fact, offensive.
My posts have been quite clear, in my view, with the idea that people in general support entropic behavior ("evil" if you prefer) as a result of normal human biological functioning, while simultaneously rationalizing that behavior.
Lacking any empirical data proving this perspective as definitive (there's plenty of data that this happens sometimes, but basically none that it's universal), you're nonetheless making categorical statements and labeling opinions differing from yours as delusional. That's poor manners and an excellent way to not only not convince anyone, but actively make people become angry with you. So please stop.
I've admittedly dropped into a few categorical statements myself, but mostly only to dispute yours (ie: No, that's not the only way it works).
That is not the akin to labeling someone mentally ill. However, ironically, doing so could actually be complimentary because they would be more resistant to falling into the trap.
The mentally ill are not, generally speaking, 'more resistant to falling into' much of anything. People with abnormal brain structures might be, but that's not inherently the same thing as mental illness.
Also, paradoxically, being completely committed to doing good (fighting entropy) would destroy a person. We aren't equipped to make such a total commitment.
No, we aren't. Which makes saying people are Evil for not doing so...dd and unpleasant.
|
|
I would highly recommend looking into Sanctuary from the "Thieves World" series of books. It is a city of comparable size to the one you are creating, and a city where slavery, murder and rape are commonplace and accepted as daily occurrences as much as jaywalking, and the only ones who are safe are wizards and those who have the money to bribe private armies of bodyguards to protect them. It is a city in which a well-meaning but ineffectual young prince who was appointed governor is guarded over by a mass-murdering rapist who is the chosen vessel of the setting's God of War, along with his small army of heartless mercenaries. A city where a merely cynical person would be considered a starry-eyed optimist. I would say that Sanctuary definitely qualifies as a neutral evil city from which you can extract some inspiration.
EDIT: And I see that I've been beaten to the punch. Good call.