It's been a bit since I've expanded my badasses of history list. So, this week, I sat down and put together another of those character build/history articles, and gave us one of the most violent, and outright crazed men we've ever elected to the office of the president. I give you, Andrew Jackson.
Very nice. I nominate Tesla if you branch out from presidents.
Slanderous at the end. Populists are about as far from evil overlords as it's possible to get.
The Sideromancer wrote: Very nice. I nominate Tesla if you branch out from presidents. I figured I'd do the first 3 or 4 entries with presidents, and then branch out. While Nicola is an interesting prospect, he lacks the agency I associate with adventuring. NPCs stay behind in labs and build things, while PCs are the ones who go out and fight wars, hunt down treasures, and right (or cause) wrongs.
Though the list does have notable seafarers like Grace O'Malley, Ching Shih, and Edward Teach, along with individuals like Gotz Von Berlichingen, and others.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Atarlost wrote: Slanderous at the end. Populists are about as far from evil overlords as it's possible to get. First, because I feel like being pedantic, it's only slander if you speak it. Given that it's written, you'd call it libelous.
I'm also not entirely sure that you can fit Jackson under populism, especially given both his standing as a member of the elite (a war hero, lawyer, and landowner) along with his behavior while he was in office. A flagrant lawbreaker who saw himself and his office as the ultimate authority in the land, he was prone to ignore laws he disagreed with, reacting to pressure from the other branches with an invitation to a duel on more than one occasion.
As I understand it, the president was not considered the most powerful position in America before Jackson gave it that makeover. A lot of the attitudes we have today are directly because of how he chose to act, regardless of legality and general consensus. Not exactly a man of the people, and since he chose to go for bloodshed instead of fairness, far from what the alignment spectrum would consider a good man, as well.
God, this guy was a turd. But we need stats for turds, too!
Also, the term "evil overlord" was never used. If it was, that would imply a certain level of tyrannical tendencies (which Jackson, as a man with no regard for inconvenient things like "laws" or "limits to power", would probably be quite fine with).
Campaigning on a populist message is not exactly the same thing as being populist. Surely we've learned that by now.
Article wrote: The other question you need to ask is how closely you're going to hew to the real-life model for your story. The harsh childhood, the internment camp, and the military tactician are just the sorts of things you'd find in a fantasy game. But, let's face it, Andrew Jackson is much more likely to be standing in front of the army dressed in spiky black armor than he is to be fighting against it. So, before you recreate this whirlwind life of brutality and death, it's a good idea to ask what side you're on.
He was a complicated guy, capable of both impressive and atrocious acts. He presided over an act of attempted genocide, but also saved the nation from shadow control by banks (at least for awhile, we've b**$*%+s'd that up a bit recently). He was an eager duelist who killed multiple opponents, but also the only president to ever leave office with no national debt. He invoked the relatively obscure check on the judicial branch, but did so for the worst reason possible. In some ways he was a product of his time, but in others he was distinctly unique.
I particularly view him with an odd mix of embarrassment and pride, because I'm related to him.
Where is the leadership feat to simulate his large slave ownership?
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
If you're interested in a good portrayal of Andrew Jackson, he's a main character in Eric Flint's excellent alt-history, 1812: The Rivers of War and it's sequel, 1824: The Arkansas War.
Recent threads in Conversions
|
