I need some GM brainstorming help, please.
I've got a city-state of just under 120,000. The city hall building is suddenly destroyed, all leaders and most nobles evacuate and the city guard abandons their posts because they don't know of they'll be paid.
What are the next bunch of things that happen to this city? Complete anarchy leads to what events?
Looting seems like an obvious thing to give 'random encounters' as the party goes from point A to B. Thieves, slavers, and murderers would definitely take advantage of the lack of authority and the fact that there will be a lot of untracked disappearances and destroyed goods (due to fires).
Maybe a roving gang or two. Possibly racial tension, and they blame so and so group (elves, dwarves, etc.) due to a lack of official information sources. They just think 'it had to be dem dern dirty elves, practicin' some wyrd magik in ther ivory towers'. This of course provides both battle and RP possibilities as the party can try using diplomacy/bluff in order to sway opinions with facts or convenient lies (assume that most rioters are just scared normal folk, and that there are a few rabble rousers igniting tensions).
All of these suggestions could be on purpose though. You have someone spreading chaos, so why not cause civil unrest as well?
You'll always have pockets of people interested in saving and protecting their own, who may or may not be distrustful of others. As crime goes up, vigilante groups will form. Conmen will take advantage of those they can through sweet talking words. Those who rely on rules to make money will form groups to either take control or at least reduce the vhaos in certain areas so they can continue to thrive - especially those who make money in less-than-ethical ways, such as slave markets, those selling weapons to "both sides," and many others. Depending on how far the destruction goes, food may become a problem, and some people may horde food in order to gouge prices.
And this is all assuming that things go in the worst direction.
It's entirely possible that the guards don't abandon their posts (many may be honorable and want to fight to keep order and protect the city). Some of the "higher ups" may not abandon the city and fight to keep order - fight with all their power and money to keep the peace and restore the city. A call to arms for patriots to jer the peace may help reduce the chaos; firefighters and magic users are called to bring down the flames and save lives. Clerics and hospitals join together to restore health and protect lives, setting up many areas for medical treatment.
When disaster strikes, it isn't always the evil who rise. Take a look at any modern major disaster on TV in the last 20 years (or even beyond that), and witness just how many people you see running towards danger in order to help.
Hmm. If you want to take the plot in an unexpected direction, perhaps the local church was keeping something locked away, and was founded on the site for this very reason, a fact that has been forgotten, along with the knowledge that the prison is there at all. With the clergy jumping ship, there's no-one to keep up the rites reinforcing the cage, and the age-old prisoner is rattling its chains.
Also, organised crime, a period of anarchy followed by someone stepping into the power vacuum.
I agree with bookrat: by the very nature of social species, there will be groups of people who band together because of commonalities and pre-established trust.
Where I disagree is:
1. Communities will start policing themselves. Areas where the crime rate is high will spike for a few days, but then taper off. Once everything's stolen, it's stolen.
2. Once there is no more looting in the most dangerous areas, the strongest communities (usually those that already had the most to begin with, but not always) will start to organize even more. Healthy political factions will probably form along lines of money, power, and prestige. [See The Dragon's note about the power vacuum.]
3. People will resort to trading goods and services in lieu of a government that won't back the currency. Once a government gets reestablished, currency will be worth something again.
4. Black market trading will be pushed away from the strongholds of the city mentioned in (2).
5. As long as the "bad" parts of the city stay damaged (physically - as in broken windows, etc. - or psychologically - where the dregs of society already know they can gather to escape the eye of the new law), then they will continue to stay "bad."
Societies don't stay broken as long as people on shows like "The Walking Dead" like to think that they do. This is a modern fascination with anarchy and dystopia.
However, telling a good story is more important than what would probably happen if this was real life.
And I believe that saving a city from itself would make a pretty good story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's entirely possible that the guards don't abandon their posts (many may be honorable and want to fight to keep order and protect the city). Some of the "higher ups" may not abandon the city and fight to keep order - fight with all their power and money to keep the peace and restore the city. A call to arms for patriots to jer the peace may help reduce the chaos; firefighters and magic users are called to bring down the flames and save lives. Clerics and hospitals join together to restore health and protect lives, setting up many areas for medical treatment.
..or the people helping could be doing so in self interest. Minor nobles with little property to lose may find that this situation is a golden opportunity.
Fight valiantly as a savior of the city, and suddenly the people love you. Accuse those who left the city of being greedy, cowardly, and disloyal, and their standing and holdings will fall. Suddenly, the city is in need of new leaders who can prevent such disasters from occurring again.
Not trying to be nefarious here. While that is entirely possible as well (inciting chaos so it can be quickly quelled seems like a very LE thing to do, admittedly), but people can be much more easily encouraged to do the right thing when there are great gains to be had (I mean, that is the modus operundi of most adventuring parties). If the right thing just so happens to set things up in your favor....
Anyway, this could be an opportunity to introduce new NPC contacts and quest givers within the city's movers and shakers. As a player, I would personally appreciate someone with good intentions...but always looking for that angle that brings the best rewards. An Abadar worshiper, rather than an Asmodeus follower, right?
EDIT- Broadhand- I think that the Walking Dead has good reasons for order to stay broken- one person dying in their sleep turns into an outbreak in the living areas. With medical centers being hit the hardest (since they have the highest concentration of dying people and were the places where bite victims were taken first), a bad case of the flu could have such a result due to a lack of proper medical care. Things get bad when social infrastructure breaks down that badly (although you may have a point about whether it would break down that badly in the first place; the common trope of ineffective military support)
EDIT- Broadhand- I think that the Walking Dead has good reasons for order to stay broken- one person dying in their sleep turns into an outbreak in the living areas. With medical centers being hit the hardest (since they have the highest concentration of dying people and were the places where bite victims were taken first), a bad case of the flu could have such a result due to a lack of proper medical care. Things get bad when social infrastructure breaks down that badly (although you may have a point about whether it would break down that badly in the first place; the common trope of ineffective military support)
That's more my point, yes. It takes a LOT for social infrastructure to break down to the point of constant, disparate anarchy. Zombie outbreaks could do it, if only because each new case could potentially reignite the anarchy. When you have situations like the one OP described, things may not settle so quickly, but they do tend to settle more thoroughly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with bookrat: by the very nature of social species, there will be groups of people who band together because of commonalities and pre-established trust.
Where I disagree is:
1. Communities will start policing themselves. Areas where the crime rate is high will spike for a few days, but then taper off. Once everything's stolen, it's stolen.
2. Once there is no more looting in the most dangerous areas, the strongest communities (usually those that already had the most to begin with, but not always) will start to organize even more. Healthy political factions will probably form along lines of money, power, and prestige. [See The Dragon's note about the power vacuum.]
3. People will resort to trading goods and services in lieu of a government that won't back the currency. Once a government gets reestablished, currency will be worth something again.
4. Black market trading will be pushed away from the strongholds of the city mentioned in (2).
5. As long as the "bad" parts of the city stay damaged (physically - as in broken windows, etc. - or psychologically - where the dregs of society already know they can gather to escape the eye of the new law), then they will continue to stay "bad."Societies don't stay broken as long as people on shows like "The Walking Dead" like to think that they do. This is a modern fascination with anarchy and dystopia.
I don't see this as a disagreement, more of an extension to my post. I fully agree with what you say here.
EDIT- Broadhand- I think that the Walking Dead has good reasons for order to stay broken- one person dying in their sleep turns into an outbreak in the living areas. With medical centers being hit the hardest (since they have the highest concentration of dying people and were the places where bite victims were taken first), a bad case of the flu could have such a result due to a lack of proper medical care. Things get bad when social infrastructure breaks down that badly (although you may have a point about whether it would break down that badly in the first place; the common trope of ineffective military support)That's more my point, yes. It takes a LOT for social infrastructure to break down to the point of constant, disparate anarchy. Zombie outbreaks could do it, if only because each new case could potentially reignite the anarchy. When you have situations like the one OP described, things may not settle so quickly, but they do tend to settle more thoroughly.
Admittedly, the scale is hard to compare. A single city is usually just a small regional conflict. At best, it is the fall of an empire (but the providential hubs would likely retain enough power to defend themselves).
Walking Dead is more of a global disaster, as far as I am aware. There is nowhere for refugees to run, no outside powers to call upon for aid.
I mean, even if a country was decimated to the point that a neighboring country could just take over, that would result in at least some restoration of order. As long as some of the resources are still there (fertile land, location as a trade hub, etc.), then someone is going to come in and try to set things back up for their own profit.
These are excellent! The Dragon seems to be referring to Carpenter's Prince of Darkness.
I'm wondering what kind of external threats come when they hear that there is a city with no official defenses. You might have slavers and looters but might you attract the attention of paladins and other Lawful Goods, looking to restore or impose order?
These are excellent! The Dragon seems to be referring to Carpenter's Prince of Darkness.
I'm wondering what kind of external threats come when they hear that there is a city with no official defenses. You might have slavers and looters but might you attract the attention of paladins and other Lawful Goods, looking to restore or impose order?
Or hellknights. They might decide it is for the city's 'own good'.
Oh, and how about hobgoblins that had been previously kept in check by the military, who decide they want to set up an iron fisted shop in town?
Renegade druids unhappy with logging/mining trade routes, and they decided that taking out the trade hub would put a cease to the operations?
Think about historical events like the Reign of Terror at the begining of the French Revolution. Mob rule, with individuals with hidden or not so hidden agendas popping up as leaders in the new reality.
So Reign of Terror: mob rule, citizens trusting people from their neighborhood or family & suspicious of outsiders. Mass events where demagogues whip groups up to attack the "enemy" (whichever internal enemy they target) and the leadership constaintly denouncing each other and 'eaten' by the revolution. Barricades thrown up in various neighborhoods to support the defense of that area by the locals. Gangs taking care of their turf, shaking down the residents for support.
You can have underclass vs general common folk, race vs race, ethnic tensions (Chelaxians vs Varisians), religious tensions, strategic locations multiple groups want to control (grainaries, armories, docks, historical palace (to legitimate their claim to power) new center of power such as a square where people congregate to demonstrate).
Think about which inside or outside groups might try to pull in outside help or supplies, and who might decide to intercept help and redistribute the wealth. Think about who has ability to travel via spells or abilities like flight, and the people who'd want to stop or control that transit, as its not helping (therefore weakening) their group.
The Dragon's idea of rites to keep an evil in check now being interrupted is great. Think of more hidden processes which are impacted and the unforseen consequences, like patrols of the sewers which kept the ratfolk population down, but no one was really aware that there was a population of ratmen waiting to probe the boundaries of the city.