|
So I'm running a game using the Kingdom Building rules. Each player is in charge of their own kingdom, with a couple NPC kingdoms to keep things interesting.
The thing is, the kingdom's alignment just doesn't seem to have any effect beyond a couple of minor static bonuses. Historically, it seems that evil kingdoms suffered the equivalent of Unrest and Loyalty penalties, but that isn't represented in the framework of the rules.
Does this seem like something that should be there, or am I just looking for a reason to penalize Evil?
Well, good gets loyalty, evil gets economy. One could certainly argue whether those are accurate or appropriate, but fundamentally it is designed so that different types of kingdoms can be run without alignment being a net benefit or detriment. Whatever alignment you pick, you will end up being 4 higher among the three stats. Alignment doesn't give an obvious mechanical advantage (although I do think economy is in general the most important, and more then the others there is no such thing as 'enough', if you can make a loyalty roll on a 2 you don't need more loyalty, but you could always use more money).
I will say though that each player running their own kingdom might be quite a challenge. There is a fair amount of bookkeeping for just one turn for one kingdom, running several will take a fair amount of time.
The kingdom building rules are fairly good as backdrop in a game, but they aren't especially great as the focus i.e. they work fine for heroes who also have a kingdom they run, they don't really work as a substitute for playing sim city. And in my opinion, the mass combat rules are terrible.
You really should be using this here for keeping track:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvsy&page=11?Ultimate-Campaign-Kingdom-Tra cking-Spreadsheet#501