Making An "Evil Empire" Seem Sympathetic

[Leliel]

Well, an idea of mine, is that the PCs are the literal barbarians-as in, the historically accurate barbarians, rather than the character class-at the gates of an empire, trying to invade and probably suceeding.

Of course, being an empire, said barbarians probably have a list of legitimate complaints, but I also want to make a statment of society, so I want to portray them as a nation of geninune, sympathetic people rather than an evil bunch of psychopaths.

The main idea for me is that they were actually nice, kindly people who were originally peaceful-or at least as peaceful as a society can be in D&D-but over time, corruption and greed has become endemic to their culture, and they have become stagnant as an opressive religous climate has supressed technological progress and innovation. The war they have with the PCs culture is more of the death throes of a failing state then cultural discrimination-although there's elements of that. Sort of like Rome in it's last days. Or any other superpower, for that matter (Spain, Britan, etc.).

So what do you suggest to make an empire seem well-intentioned but gradually suffocating under it's own weight?

And yes, this has a political element, but it's more of a general statement on the nature of power than any axe to grind (although I have those). So please, keep it clean.

[Zaq]

Consequences and sacrifices. The average citizen might not go around dressed in black spiky armor and whipping children and the infirm for no reason while cackling maniacally, but the actions of most folks in society (at least of middle class or above, if a middle class exists in your world) have some kind of really unpleasant cost associated with them. Slavery is a good start, but this is fantasy, so you can make it uglier if you want to. The thing is, you can hide this aspect of the society fairly easily, or at least put a veneer over it. Your standard citizen won't say "man I'm hungry, let's go slaughter a few slaves and then have a feast of kittens slow-roasted while they were still alive," but the food that they DO choose to eat still resulted in the death of a few innocent people (not in a cannibalistic sense, necessarily, simply because of the inherent danger in hunting the meat of choice, or some weird cooking ritual, or something else.) . Still pretty evil, but your average citizen won't really know anything different, won't even think about the human (or humanoid) cost, might not even really realize that this has an effect, but it's still there.

Maybe that's a poor example. I'm not feeling amazingly creative right now. The point is, remember that societies and people are separate. You can have a totally evil (or at least very, very distasteful) society populated with well-meaning and relatively pleasant people.

[BRC]

I say you go the wulfenbach route. Namely, the empire is powerful, repressive, and the rulers have a habit of putting down revolt with great force. However, they do so because it's the only way to supress abunch of rival factions that would, if given the opporotunity, vie for power and tear the nation apart.

[holywhippet]

Perhaps borrow from Warhammer 40K a bit? The Imperium isn't a particularly nice place. On some worlds violence is practically encouraged because it ensures a supply of tough, combat proven people to enlist into the army. On other worlds, it's expected for people to not try to learn more than they need to - ie. to know their station in life. Life is cheap in the imperium and the heresy has resulted in entire planets getting sterlised.

Place similar concepts in a fantasy kingdom - due to the suspicion of something (rogue mages/demon worshippers/enemy infiltrators) the entire kingdom is very paranoid and pretty much a police state because of this.

[Rhiannon87]

:: puts political science major hat on ::

Okay. Here's some ideas. You can have a civilian government that is semi-corrupt (but they get the job done), and they use the military to crush rival factions, in the name of maintaining order/keeping the peace. Hell, you could have an order of Nationalist Paladins (not unlike the Purple Dragons) whose job it is to control dissidents.

You could have a theocracy where majority of the people follow that faith and are well treated, but other believers are oppressed. (Variation on above, really, just with more religiosity.)

You could have a society with explosive economic growth, lots of building projects, a booming middle/upper class, but a semi-hidden much-abused workforce, probably of immigrants (or slaves, or serfs) with few rights, low pay, and little recourse to improve their situation.

You could have an empire that has afforded its citizens plenty of rights and treats them wonderfully, but has a strong military and expansionist aims and is trying to conquer neighboring lands, often held by "less civilized" people, such as your barbarians. The military is spreading itself thin trying to hold all the conquered land, the birth rate is dropping because all the men are at war, and the economy is beginning to stagnate.

Basically, you're going for deceptive appearances. Things look good on the outside, and for some people might genuinely be good, but the society is collapsing in on itself. It has no core to hold itself together.

Also, cookies for people who can identify what nations I'm talking about in examples 1/3/4! :smallbiggrin:

[Pronounceable]

Add a fully LG religion to the empire to make them more sympathetic.

Harsh law enforcement is easiest to justify and make looking sympathetic by infiltrators/heretics/random spontaneous demon posessions. Slavery can also dramatically improve living conditions of slavers, plus the slaves can be inherently evil/destructive and whole world is better off with them suppressed (which is very possible in DnD) makes it very justifiable. Corruption though, can't be sympathetified.

[snoopy13a]

Instead of a good empire turned evil, how about an evil empire turned good?

A series of good emperors has led to a ceasing of expansion, a reduction in the army and contributed to the rise of NG pacificist religions. While the empire has gotten soft, the barbarian hordes have gotten stronger.

Of course, part of the empire will have once been barbarian land (conquered when the empire was evil) which provides motavation for the barbarians to take back their "ancestral lands". Both the barbarians and the empire will think of themselves as the "good guys".

[Fishy]

Corruption though, can't be sympathetified.

Sure it can, though it's tough.

When 'the system' is almost about to break down, and is genuinely unable to provide for its inhabitants, corruption just happens. If the rations aren't enough, people start hording what they have and a black market springs up. If a government official has no oversight, no transparency, and no job security, he'll be willing to bend the rules if he can get a bribe. If a contractor is out of work, and has a brother in high places, maybe jobs start being funneled to him in less than legitimate ways. And if everybody's doing it, it becomes normal- and it becomes impossible for the system to heal itself.

It's like tipping a waitress who earns less than minimum wage because she gets tips. Except with bribery and rulebreaking.

Set it up so that the PCs feel like everybody in the Empire is willing to do something they shouldn't, for a price. When it gets really bad, the citizens won't take bribes in the local currency, only in things that are 'actually worth something'.

[Ravens_cry]

Make the trains run on time. That is, the Empire provides tangible benifits for the people who live under its stern rulership. Say, the cities have clean drinking water, and protects them from the barbarian invasions and raids. Routes for merchants and pilgrims are kept safe. Maybe even they work with the large temples to provide a short term social safety net. Doctors who can heal you, slower sure, but much cheaper then a priest or shaman. Make it a Civilization!
If the Empire is suppressing magic, give them good reasons for doing so, like ancient, still dangerous, magic blasted ruins. Cursed fields that can grow nothing without it been stunted or monstrously changed. Make the soldiers they encounter not faceless mooks, but people. Have them encounter the effects of other, or even their tribes, raids, like refugees running for protection, BACK to the Empire, who WILL protect them. Have it, on a basic level, WORK. Empires that simply plunder their conquests tend to not last very long.
Sure, their will be obsfucating bureaucrats, and citizens will likely be a bit racist and fearful, at least initially, but have them be proud, and justly so, of what has been built. Things in the higher stratum's will be much more complicated then your average barbarian will enjoy, but drinking it up with a sailor who has seen the Spice Mines of Abroona, and the fair Elves of Quickmoon, will probably be right down their alley.

[dspeyer]

Most civilized nations look evil from the perspective of their weaker neighbors. Consider the USA and all the native tribes, the powers of 19th century Europe and African colonialism, China and Vietnam, Rome and Judea.... Pick a nation in real history you find sympathetic that has ever had meaningful power, and I can find a perspective from which it looks evil.

The sympathy comes not from justifying the evil but from recognizing the good they do produce: art, science, infrastructure, safety, prosperity and sometimes freedom. Usually at least some of these benefits extend beyond their borders.

If you want a really well-intentioned empire, there are still things you can do. They may have "settled" and farmed the "empty" sacred spaces and hunting grounds of the tribe. They may need so much water for irrigation that the river downstream (into barbarian lands) runs salty. They may demand their own courts and punishments on genuine criminals from the barbarian tribes, and send military forces when refused. They may demand the barbarians stop practicing ancient magics that weaken the already fragile wall against the lower planes -- even though it was civilized magics (recently stopped) which rendered the wall so fragile. Their culture may be eroding the barbarians' traditions without replacing it with anything that can hold them together -- even without taking any deliberate action.

Those should be some ideas. They're all taken from history or current events. There's plenty more.

Just be careful not to pull anything too directly from the headlines -- allegory plays poorly in RPGs.

[nightwyrm]

:: puts political science major hat on ::

Okay. Here's some ideas. You can have a civilian government that is semi-corrupt (but they get the job done), and they use the military to crush rival factions, in the name of maintaining order/keeping the peace. Hell, you could have an order of Nationalist Paladins (not unlike the Purple Dragons) whose job it is to control dissidents.

You could have a theocracy where majority of the people follow that faith and are well treated, but other believers are oppressed. (Variation on above, really, just with more religiosity.)

You could have a society with explosive economic growth, lots of building projects, a booming middle/upper class, but a semi-hidden much-abused workforce, probably of immigrants (or slaves, or serfs) with few rights, low pay, and little recourse to improve their situation.

You could have an empire that has afforded its citizens plenty of rights and treats them wonderfully, but has a strong military and expansionist aims and is trying to conquer neighboring lands, often held by "less civilized" people, such as your barbarians. The military is spreading itself thin trying to hold all the conquered land, the birth rate is dropping because all the men are at war, and the economy is beginning to stagnate.

Basically, you're going for deceptive appearances. Things look good on the outside, and for some people might genuinely be good, but the society is collapsing in on itself. It has no core to hold itself together.

Also, cookies for people who can identify what nations I'm talking about in examples 1/3/4! :smallbiggrin:

I assume modern, present day nations?
Russia, China, USA. Did I do good?

[Asbestos]

I assume modern, present day nations?
Russia, China, USA. Did I do good?

Seems like it could be most anything, but it seems like an invitation to violate a forum rule...


However, all the suggestions work for an Evil Empire in a campaign world.

Edit: The original suggestions, not the modern nations.

[Khanderas]

I feel myself drawn to the Roman empire version.
After decades of expansion and economic growth, it stagnated. Its populace still demand slaves to improve the free citizens lifestyle and are prone to start a raid now and then for new slaves.

It is still a good empire due to the great advances they do and how they keep the peace within the empire. For a citizen there is simply no better place in the world. High fashion, high culture, parties, makings of democracy (not modern day, but atleast with some thought on treatment of any citizen, not only the rich), scientific breakthoughs, religious freedom to some extent (murderous cults not allowed, one or several religions are encouraged / assumed to be its citizens first).

Barbarians see the riches and want to take it on their terms, though conquest then being conquerd.
I don't really know why it has to be an evil empire.

[Ravens_cry]

I don't really know why it has to be an evil empire.
Nothing says you can't avert or subvert a trope.
Though the empire was never explicitly mentioned, Agrabah (from Aladdin) would have had to be the capital of a pretty large empire to sustain itself. Very lawful, stealing a loaf of bread could get your hand chopped off, in general, most of the people encountered did seem to be pretty well off. Even our titular hero seemed fairly comfortable with his existence on the outskirts of society. And, who knows how long after, when the vagrant/merchant/opening narrator told the story, the city was still prospering.

[Totally Guy]

Give the empire a genuinely evil dictator character with stories told about how evil he is. Play this up as if the character is going to be the Big Bad. Then when the players actually get to this civilisation have the evil character get booted from power purely by choice of the people. When anyone is asked why it happened "He was evil, and we weren't oblivious to it".

I used this one. The evil mayor kept having his past misdeeds come back to thwart his plans. One such revenge plan against the evil guy managed to endanger the city so in a twisted way this actually made the good PC's work for him when no one else would.

[Quincunx]

The Empress is as close as you can get to a living saint. When the oldest folk were still toddlers, the holy girl united these two historical enemies under the threat of outside evil, fought against that invasion force from the Lower Planes, and won. The nascent empire was good first, and lawful as an afterthought--maybe even Neutral Good instead. While the residents freely blasphemed about the descendants of their historical enemy, they will hear nothing ill about the Empress, and have been known to make themselves eat hot coals as a punishment for using her name in a curse. The problem is that, as old as the Empress is, she's been senile for the past twenty years, and her version of the world and Good and Law no longer has anything to do with reality. Anyone who would dare assume more power and try to stop the decay as imperial policies aggravate problems, instead of mending them, is stripped of power by her believers, viewing that leader as an affront to the living saint. People said that she was wrong and mad when she warned the ancestor nations about the invasion from the netherworld--who now says that she is wrong and mad in her rule?

[Riffington]

I assume modern, present day nations?
Russia, China, USA. Did I do good?

But it could as easily be Turkey, Dubai, and Thailand. Better not to actually talk about modern real-world countries; you get as many views on what those countries represent as there are (log readers).

[bosssmiley]

Also, cookies for people who can identify what nations I'm talking about in examples 1/3/4! :smallbiggrin:

1 - England under Elizabeth
2 - England under Queen Mary (or before the Reformation)
3 - Britain during the Industrial Revolution
4 - The British Empire at the start of the 20th century

Life (and a good game world) is more complex than the cliché of one fixed national archetype. :smallwink:

That caveat given, it's really easy to make an 'evil' empire sympathetic. Just introduce a sympathetic and admirable character from that country.

Once you've actually met and spoken to a person from who you like and admire, it's [I]really difficult to go back to thinking of them and their countrymen as the inhuman Mekon and his mindless legions of Treens. I'm not saying anything new; this idea is the whole crux of Rudyard Kipling's Ballad of East and West (http://www.daypoems.net/poems/1806.html).

David Gemmell does this well. In a lot of his stories even the designated villains are people who, in other circumstances, might have been friends and allies of the lead characters.

[Avilan the Grey]

Most civilized nations look evil from the perspective of their weaker neighbors. Consider the USA and all the native tribes, the powers of 19th century Europe and African colonialism, China and Vietnam, Rome and Judea.... Pick a nation in real history you find sympathetic that has ever had meaningful power, and I can find a perspective from which it looks evil.

Exactly. All nations have expanded by conquering someone else. The fact that the nation or empire is seen as Good at the moment, does not mean that it has always been viewed that way.

This is why I also like the "evil empire turned good" suggestion in this thread; it's the one closest to reality, I think.

Of course in the real world there has also been a (recent) stigma against conquering others for fun and profit; up until WWI people still believed there were true Honor in conquering and defeating enemies. In some nations that mindset stayed until and past WWII.

[Telonius]

Suggestion one: The Crazy Ally. Put the PCs in a situation where their friends, allies, or superiors respond excessively against the Empire. If you're familiar with Avatar: the Last Airbender, think "Jet." A few "No prisoners!" scenes may cause thinking players to question who's in the right.

Suggestion two: The Nice Imperial. Have the PCs go on a spy mission within the Empire, and give them a NG or LG contact. Show them hospitality, welcome them as friends. Bonus points if they discuss politics, and he mentions the excesses of the PCs' ally as a contributing reason why he's loyal to the Empire.

Suggestion three: "Dread has come upon you all!" Have a situation where the PCs and Imperials must join forces to defeat a larger evil. It's harder to hate someone when you're both fighting the same bad guy. (Though when the threat is removed, people often fall back into old patterns).

EDIT: "All nations have expanded by conquering someone else." - There are some exceptions, though they're probably the exceptions that prove the rule. A good chunk of US expansion was due to property purchases (Louisiana, Alaska) rather than outright conquest (original colonies, Mexican territory). Though even those properties were bought from other countries who had recently conquered them - they were treated like assets, rather than integral parts of France and Russia.

[dspeyer]

A good chunk of US expansion was due to property purchases (Louisiana, Alaska) rather than outright conquest (original colonies, Mexican territory). Though even those properties were bought from other countries who had recently conquered them - they were treated like assets, rather than integral parts of France and Russia.

France never really conquered the Louisiana Territory beyond New Orleans. They sold the USA their claim to it, but that meant nothing on the ground (that's why it was so cheap). The USA then conquered it in a long series of small wars.

[kieza]

Sure it can, though it's tough.

When 'the system' is almost about to break down, and is genuinely unable to provide for its inhabitants, corruption just happens. If the rations aren't enough, people start hording what they have and a black market springs up. If a government official has no oversight, no transparency, and no job security, he'll be willing to bend the rules if he can get a bribe. If a contractor is out of work, and has a brother in high places, maybe jobs start being funneled to him in less than legitimate ways. And if everybody's doing it, it becomes normal- and it becomes impossible for the system to heal itself.

Hey, I just wrote a paper on this! The thing about black markets is that they don't arise spontaneously; people have to need what they sell and be unable to obtain it through legal means. So if this black market deals in, say, food that rural farmers are producing and hiding from the tax collectors (who would probably take a part of the production instead of charging cash), it does so because (a) the citizens need food which isn't being supplied and (b) they're willing to pay more than the farmers want in exchange for hiding their crops and risking being caught.

Corruption works on the same principle: you can't get something done legally, but you're willing to pay more than the going price to do it illegally, and someone is willing to do it because that little bit extra is worth more than the risk.

To get back to your setting, perhaps the empire is in bad economic condition. In order to ensure that scarce food is distributed equally, the government has decreed that farmers sell to government distributors who sell it to the populace, and the distributors do try to be fair. But because there still isn't enough to go around, people will pay extra to get more than their share, and so the farmers are selling a good chunk of their crop before the government gets any, and thus cutting down on the legit supply so that the rationing has to continue; if you want to take it further, maybe this happened during a drought a decade ago, but because the farmers are artificially lowering the legitimate supply, there's still an "official" shortage and the rationing is still going on, while the farmers and black marketers make a killing.

[RagnaroksChosen]

Another idea is a Utopian society with the "state" trying to protect its people. But going over board. secret police, people who speak out get brought before the concel or what not. you could realy run an Iron curtian style game like that.

Kinda like the V for Vendetta movie where the "state" makes it seem like its doing every thing for its people.


I would add a twist and make most of the guards/politcians easily bribe-able.


but that's just my 2 cp.

[kamikasei]

Why does the empire have to be (overtly, definitely) evil? Why can't it just be an empire? It conquers territory to gain resources and secure its homeland against threats. There's no reason most of the people living in, or for that matter governing, an empire have to be baby-eating psychopaths in the first place, so no need to subvert it. If you need a reason for your barbarians to fight the empire, survival is a good one, or revenge for deeds done long ago in which the barbarians weren't necessarily unequivocally in the right.

[SurlySeraph]

National folklore holds up the rule of law, and the great judge-paladins of old are seen as national heroes. But over the centuries of the empire's existence, the legal system has gotten more and more ludicrously complicated. Isolated cases caused overly broad laws to be made (for example, a cult giving out poisoned food to beggars caused the judges to make giving out free food illegal), and all of the separate laws frequently contradict and overlap each other. The bureaucrats to their absolute best to puzzle everything out in the way that helps everyone the most, but the task of figuring out a legal way for the central bureaucracy to order the army to stop oppressing the foreigners is just too complicated for anyone to resolve. Everyone in the empire wants to do good, they just can't figure out how to do it.

[Athaniar]

The empire was created by a generally evil guy through manipulation of more well-intentioned people, but it serves a purpose by keeping an overwhelmingly powerful enemy faction/race from a faraway land (preferably religious fanatics who hate something most people take for granted, such as arcane magic) from attacking and destroying a land in discord. Over time, this evil man has gained more and more influence over the more ethical leaders. Sure, the leader is utterly evil, but kill him and the whole empire collapses before long (barring the rise of some powerful warlord who'll try to keep the remnants together). The common men (by which I mean those not oppressed) should not be particularly evil, just very Lawful and order-obeying. A cookie for the first person to guess what I'm referring to.

[Ganurath]

Surly: Cloud Nacatl of Naya?

Xavius: Star Wars Empire.

As for the route I'd favor, I'd go with a theocracy to Hextor in a desert environment. Natural resources are lacking, so one has to rely upon magic to survive. The Fist of Tyranny (formal name for the Church of Hextor) doesn't use its military presence to enforce the laws where excommunication will suffice: The only way for the lower class to get food is to go to a temple of Hextor for the free castings of Create Food and Water. This frees up the military arm of the nation to sellsword to wealthy merchant families that make up the nobility as security, which doubles as a military presence to keep the nobles in check. Wars against neighboring nations are frequent, either against the hobgoblins that want to enslave the lower class or the ?G nation that wants to liberate them. Such campaigns can push the borders back into the desert, but can never get much further as the head of the Fist of Tyranny holds the Blue Dragon Orb, and uses it to direct the blue dragons local to the desert toward threats to the community.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Rather than try to disguise it, I'll just say post-Vetinari Ankh-Morpork. A former assassin ruler, who has institutionalized crime, taxes normally immune institutions, loan sharks other countries, profits massively from the sale of weapons, and actively utilizes monsters within it's borders.

[EENick]

Well this is just my take but the best way to make an empire evil or otherwise seem sympathetic is simply make the alternative worse.

If I may let me run with your barbarian example, this is the way I would work it anyway.

For years the empire has been taking tribute from the barbarians making life very hard for them. The empire is a place far away that to them just comes in and takes stuff from them each year and maybe once in a while has marched in an army when someone dared to say no.

The Empire's people are largely poor while the elite in the empire and pooring money into a huge military which is drafting people from where ever. Perhaps a common punishment for crimes is being forced into the army. etc. etc.

What makes this all seem no so bad is that they are fighting with something bigger and a whole lot worst to the east like say a Githyanki invasion and if the empire falls then the whole region falls so they really actually need that tribute (even if it means a few starving barbarians each year) and realtive peace back home to keep the war effort going against the invaders.

From there you can either have the barbrians topple the empire while the army is away unintentionally paving the way for the Githyanki or whomever or have them team up with the empire to defeat teh Githyanki and then confront the empire to change its ways after the war is over. (After all it is not uncommon for such a protector to feel it is owed something from those lesser people's it protected, like say more tribute.) The PC's could feel very betrayed as a honorable ally from the way is ordered to come back and say take their weapons for the sake of the new peace and force the members of the empire to either defect or compromise their morals.

[Zhalath]

Now, I was thinking, just because an empire is evil, doesn't mean it's not effective. What you would want to do in the design of the empire, is make it very lawbound and complex, housed in legalities and technicalities. Have the leaders give enough to their people, that they don't mind getting taken away from.
Think Machiavellian. Make your leaders feared, and the whole system feared, but in a way that works with the system. The people should be afraid their property will be seized, or they will be arrested, or over-taxed, not be afraid that the government will break down their door and start eating their children.
Feared, but not hated. As long as the empire is feared but not hated, it doesn't have big problems. Look at the Galactic Empire. Sure, it was scary, but it got the job done. And that's how you want to do it.

Also, in case you haven't figured it out, your big focus here should be "Lawful Evil". Any other evil alignment will result in an ineffectual empire.

[Lapak]

Trying to keep to your specific mode of sympathy does make things less simple than any one example or character can make them.

- Great society in decay rather than outright evil
- Widespread corruption
- Theocratic crackdown
- Good intentions, bad results

OK. Set the players up against a series of opponents that hail from the Empire who aren't there to cause trouble but are doing it anyway. Examples:

The Empire wants to spread their religion, so they send missionaries into the wider world including the 'barbarian' territories. Everything is hunky-dory for a while. The players are investigating an apparently-unrelated issue and it tracks back to the missionary temple (body-stealing for undead? Secret murders? Worse?) BUT - to keep sympathy, here - the missionaries are not evil cultists except for one of them. Once they've found the wolf among sheep and stopped him, it is revealed that he was seen as a potential problem and so shipped off to the back of beyond 'where he couldn't cause any real harm' by his superiors. The rest of the missionaries are a good thing - they're healing the sick for free, casting spells to help the crops, and so on.

The Empire wants to eliminate bandit raids that are stopping trade, and send a respected general into the borderlands with a troop to deal with the villains. He finds it's difficult to distinguish between bandit gangs and tribal nomads, and tries to solve the problem by confiscating weaponry under pain of imprisonment or execution. The bandits, who are staying out of his way anyway, get to keep their weapons. The nomads are left defenseless against the bandits, and also find themselves plagued by thugs that happen to be members of the general's troops to boot; probably at least a few units that make up a fair chunk of his forces are impressed criminals that were just waiting to be given a choice opportunity like this. The PCs have to dodge being arrested for being armed, deal with the bandits and stop the criminal troops. They'll probably end up being chased out of the army by the army as bandits themselves in the end. But the General is a genuinely good man, and that's not because he's trying to persecute people unfairly - he's just got more trouble than he can handle and the PCs are trouble on wheels.

[Dervag]

They may demand their own courts and punishments on genuine criminals from the barbarian tribes, and send military forces when refused.Oooh. This is a good one. It was a big factor in historical clashes between the US and natives on the US's western frontier, for instance.
____

More generally, as others have said:

You don't need to make the empire bad. You just need to give the barbarians a good reason to think that the empire is bad. Just having the empire play by a different set of rules from the barbarians can do that.
____

Imagine that among the barbarians killing a warrior from another tribe can be forgiven through the payment of a suitable weregild. Say, a dozen cattle. Also imagine that (as was common in many societies) cattle raiding is a way of life among the barbarians.

The barbarians will have two kinds of "war" fought between humans. One is "blood feud," in which both sides attempt to kill each other. This is "war" as we understand it, only barbarian style.

Generally, after roughly equal numbers are killed on both sides, the two tribes will bury the hatchet (literally) and quit fighting. Or one tribe will flee the area. This kind of war is seldom fought to a decisive conclusion- you hardly ever see one tribe being outright destroyed by another. But it can lead to ongoing conflict for generations, in which men of tribe X will always try to kill men of tribe Y, unless special circumstances come into play. Ending a blood feud is damn near impossible.

But the tribes also have a second kind of war: "mutually assured cattle raiding." This is almost more like a form of sport, because the object is to expand one's cattle herds at the expense of the neighbors. But (this is important) you aren't trying to kill the other tribes' warriors while doing this. You're not ready for or interested in a blood feud with them, so killing their warriors forces you to pay the weregild... typically in the form of cattle. Which defeats the purpose of staging a cattle raid in the first place.

So the barbarians have two kinds of war- one that lasts almost forever but is essentially tribe versus tribe, and one that's sort of light-hearted, usually nonlethal, and centered around stealing the other tribe's wealth faster than they can steal yours.
_____

This may seem confusing as it is, but it gets worse imperial merchants show up. The Empire doesn't care about weregild or blood feuds; that's not part of their cultural background. Let's say that a bunch of rambunctious young barbarians decide to stage a "cattle raid" on an Imperial trading post. They sneak in, grab some valuables, and run for it without trying to kill anyone. From their point of view, this is all fun and games.

But after this happens a few times, the imperial merchants will bring some guards with them the next time they come into the mountains. The guards don't know about the local custom of mutual raiding. When they see a few teenage barbarians trying to unlock the gate and yoink their boss's horse, they yell a warning. Confusion ensues, a fight breaks out, someone gets killed.

Now, when this happens among the barbarians, the killer or his tribe pays a reasonable settlement to the victim's tribe, and the incident gets smoothed over. But when a tribal representative comes to the Imperial trading post to demand blood money, the imperials don't care. They point out (with reason) that this guy was trespassing on their property and trying to steal the boss's horse, that he had a perfectly good opportunity to run away without getting hurt, and so on. Under Imperial law, this might all be very reasonable. But to the barbarians, it means that the imperial merchants have now declared blood feud on tribe X.

And the barbarians are good at blood feuds.
_______

One border war later, the Imperials are scrambling to find a way to make the barbarians quit raiding frontier imperial settlements. Every time they send an envoy to the barbarians (who the Imperial government see as a big undifferentiated mass, not as a bunch of separate family-clans), one of two things happens:
1)He makes some faux pas, offends the locals, and comes back with his nose and ears in a bag around his neck, or
2)The barbarians demand some enormous amount of tribute (from their point of view, the weregild for all the warriors the Imperial Legions killed).

This isn't going to end well. The most likely outcome is for the Empire to get really mad and send a huge army up into the mountains- more than the barbarians can possibly fight. This army's objective will be to kill as many barbarian warriors as possible, and to seize much of the tribes' wealth. After all, as far as the Empire can tell there's no way to make peace with these crazies, so the only solution is to destroy their ability to cause harm.
_______

And the barbarians are going to remember that for centuries. The result is that the Imperials don't understand why the war started and chalk it up to the barbarians being "savages." And any attempt by the barbarians to get revenge will just give them more of a reputation for savagery.

And the barbarians think they understand why the war started and (not without reason) think it's all the Empire's fault.

But this can happen without anyone in the Empire being truly evil in the "baby-eating Hitler clone" sense that some fantasy villains are evil.

[nightwyrm]

snip

Wow, that's good.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I appear to have accidentally created one in a different thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109722)

Relevant information below:
The Why
Consider the Moral Imperative Problem:
(1) Evil people have no qualms about hurting innocents

Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

(2) Good people actively protect the innocent from harm

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life
(3) No society is able to stop every criminal act before it happens

(4) Evil people are the only people who casually harm innocentsNow, given that Good people want to protect the innocent, and that they know that only Evil people casually harm the innocent, what justification does any Good society have for not separating dangerous people from innocent society, even if they haven't actually harmed anyone yet?

The How
There are two types of criminal offense - criminal acts and criminal alignments. Criminal acts are likely treated as they are today, though I would expect a more retributive justice system than a rehabilitative one for non-Evil criminals. In any case, non-Evil criminal actors will be returned to society after serving their term (likely no capitol punishment for them) but Evil criminals will be transferred to the Criminal Alignment branch.

Criminal Alignment cases are simple - the Evil alignment is confirmed and, if there are no outstanding criminal acts, they are sent to a rehabilitation camp (let's call it Coventry). Coventry will be a large, fenced off space with adequate natural resources to maintain a decent agrarian lifestyle - farming tools may be provided, as well as medical care. Each inmate will be marked with a Mark of Justice that triggers if they go more than 1 mile outside of the walls of Coventry, and then be let loose inside. At any point, any member of Coventry may come to the main gate and request Parole. At this point, a Paladin will examine them - if they are non-Evil, they are let free (and the Marks removed). If not, they are returned to Coventry.

Naturally, extremely dangerous individuals (spellcasters, high level characters) would be restrained somewhere else, or would be given far stronger Marks that trigger if they attempt to use their dangerous powers. Aside from that, the Evil people are allowed to live as they choose inside; if they want to get out, they must convert to a non-Evil alignment.

So, take Coventry and put 'em on the road. They conquer a new city, round up all the Evil people and ship 'em off to Coventry, all in the name of The Greater Good... except this time, it is Good.

[Talic]

Portray the consequences of corruption. A Few in positions of privilege, many downtrodden. The people on high believe themselves the peasant's only hope, and so justify their excesses.

In the absence of serious threat, Military grows soft, while merchants/politicians keep highly skilled bodyguards / elite forces.

The government up top should be genuinely trying to help, and not understanding why their plans aren't helping...

And those in middle management should be siphoning a bit of everything, staying mostly apathetic. After all, they don't make a difference.... Do they?

Your overall feel with peasantry is "day to day, getting by". Military, should be "lazy, enjoying the excesses of a foreign port... at home". Politicians range, but you should feel like nothing gets done. Bureaucracy abounds. The government expands to meet the needs of the expanding government, and all.

[JonestheSpy]

Great thread, once again affirming my belief that gamers are some of the smartest people around. Don't have much to add, except to reiterate that the OP can probably gather a ton of ideas by checking out Roman history.

I do feel compelled to dispute this though:


All nations have expanded by conquering someone else.

While war was the more common method of expansion, it should be noted that there are other scenarios. Expansion by peaceful union is one important one. Germany became a real nation-state in 1871, uniting the Prussians, Bavarians, Hessians, and many other smaller states, though the Prussians dominated.

Likewise, the Haudenosaunee - named the Iroquois by the Europeans - were a league of five native American tribes that came together, later joined voluntarily by sixth. Now, some historians think that the Iroquois were very imperialistic and expansionistic before the Europeans showed up, but they did join together peacefully without anyone conquering the others.

Also, in a fantasy world, there's can be just space to expand in where no lives at the moment - either no intelligent population ever happened to move in, or whatever lived there before left and/or died out. The most obvious example I can think of is the Hobbits of Middle Earth wandering in from he East and finding the lands that became the Shire, now depopulated through centuries of war and other hardships the Kingdom of Arnor suffered.

[Josh the Aspie]

Well, the first, best (and right now, only) advice I can really give that I'm fairly sure will apply is not to get too Anvilicious (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Anvilicious). If you do, most players I will met will not appreciate any learning you attempt to over-emphasize. Also be sure to at least attempt to steer clear of MoralDissonance (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralDissonance). While these two terms are highly subjective, and it is rare that an author or DM intends to invoke either of these, reading examples of each can help them to be avoided.

After that, a lot of it depends on how you think your PCs might interact with this government. If all they are going to do is go in hacking and slashing, and rarely talk to anyone, many of the suggestions of the above posters will fall flat.

If, on the other hand, it's an insertion or psy-ops mission, many of the above will come off fairly well. In fact, in some of the above instances, the PCs may decide to join said empire, and attempt to fix problems that they believe ARE repairable from the inside out.

If you can give us more information about your group, it may be helpful for crafting said campaign.

Also, depending on your members, it may cause a damper on the enjoyment of some if you institute a religion (especially a good one) as the source of the problems.

For now, as I said above, most of what I have is a bunch of maybes, depending on info not currently available.

[SurlySeraph]

Surly: Cloud Nacatl of Naya?

Actually, I made it up on the spot. But I'm going to look that up now.

[Sergeantbrother]

In a way, all empires are evil, especially when you're on the receiving end of their imperialism. Any historical empire which most of us see in a positive or at least neutral light can be seen as evil and villainous from the perspective of its enemies.

As somebody else said, perhaps the empire was once evil, or at least strongly imperialistic, and has gotten morally better. Its a common theme when presenting empires that are in decline to make the empire good in the past and immoral in its decline. Perhaps you could change that theme by having the empire decline because it has become too nice, its no longer cruel enough to keep its conquered people in line. Perhaps the empire tries to establish alliances with peoples whom it has attacked in the past. Maybe the characters view this empire in light of past actions, but encounter kind of well wishing people in the empire who are suffering from failed attempts at making up for past deeds.

[John Campbell]

A couple of general comments:

Empires are big things, and not homogenous, and they delegate power. An evil, or just foolish or short-sighted, man in a position of local power can cause an awful lot of trouble for a barbarian tribe much smaller and weaker than the empire. This may involve doing things that the Emperor might believe to be, at the very least, excessive if he knew what the whole situation was, but that he won't order stopped because he doesn't have a clear picture of the local situation from his capital a thousand miles away, and he knows that, and so trusts his delegates to be doing their jobs more or less right without too much meddling.

And attempts to enlighten the higher-ups may not come off so well... who's the Imperial Grand Vizier going to trust, a bunch of dirty barbarians who can't even speak good Imperial and don't know the proper series of genuflections for approaching him, or the High General of the Eastern Marches, whose legions earned three Crests of Valor when he was Warlord of the South?

The relative scale can cause problems, too... things that are literal matters of life and death to the barbarians can be, to the powers that be in the empire, minor issues that they don't have time for and pawn off on their subordinates. Who probably caused the problem to begin with. And by the the time things balloon to the point that the higher-ups have to take notice of them, the higher-ups don't see anything but that they've suddenly got a war on their hands, and are too concerned with how they're going to win it to look too deeply into how it got started. And, anyway, too much blood has been spilled for either side to be willing to back down...


The other thing is that the barbarians' picture of what the empire is like is probably no more accurate than the empire's picture of what the barbarians are like. For starters, they probably don't have any experience with systems the size of the empire - their experience is with societies that are much smaller and more personal. They probably won't understand any of the above... they'll take things that imperial officials do as representative of the policy and outlook of the entire empire, even if it's just something that happened because some decurion had a misunderstanding, his superior slapped him on the wrist for it, and no one more important has any reason to know or care about it.

The PCs, if they've grown up in the barbarian tribe, are likely to have a seriously distorted picture of the history involved, consisting mostly of the empire's offenses against them. The barbarians' offenses against the empire they probably don't really see as wrong, or maybe it was, okay, not exactly right, but it was just retribution for what the empire did. They've probably been told that Imperials are baby-eating monsters, even though they aren't, because the barbarians don't understand Imperial customs, have most of their contact with soldiers who don't understand or trust them either and are frequently there to fight them, and take the occasional infantivore as representative of the whole empire.

And then after a couple fights with those imperial legions and their nameless, faceless soldiers in their identical armor with their mechanical tactics who most of their fellows have no problem with finishing off after the battle, the PCs get put into extended contact with some of them - maybe prisoners taken for interrogation or for ransom... or maybe the PCs are the prisoners - and discover that these guys are actually just people, who didn't join the legion for the baby-eating opportunities, but to feed their families and for the promise of a farm twenty years down the line. Or to defend their homelands against the rampaging, bloodthirsty barbarians on the frontier...

[hamishspence]

Even within D&D alignment, there is a lot of flex. While Good characters may not casually harm innocents, they may take a For The Greater Good approach, and occasionally do it in a crisis. May not be casual, but the innocents are just as dead.

The Neutral character is more likely to do this, and less likely to worry overly much.

So "only evil characters casually harm innocents" is not the same as "only evil characters ever harm innocents"

Correspondingly, Evil characters may not cause great harm to innocents, or may specialize in emotional rather than physical harm, or even "Pay evil unto evil" and do greatly evil acts, but only to those they perceive as "deserving it"

so "evil characters tend to harm innocents" is not the same as "all evil characters harm innocents"

on Empires, some fantasy authors are better than others at giving The Empire a feel of being, if not benevolent, at least beneficial to the ruled.

[Count Chumleigh]

I'm going to second the suggestion to borrow a bit from Warhammer 40K. The Empire is a brutal, corrupt, oppressive, and genuinely unpleasant place, but the alternatives are even worse.

[krossbow]

take a look at Final Fantasy 12's Empire. THAT'S a great way to portray an evil empire sympathetically.



have the villain use reasonable, if cold blooded statements about life (think Hobbes's Leviathan), and make the citizenry genuinely benefit from much of its actions.

[Dervag]

To make a short statement:

I think the key to making a sympathetic "evil empire" is to make it an "evil" empire, not an evil "empire."

That last bit is often forgotten- an empire has to rule a diverse population, many parts of which would be countries in their own right if not for the central imperial control. Some fantasy authors are prone to ignore that and create a homogenous, monolithic "empire," which is an oxymoron.


While war was the more common method of expansion, it should be noted that there are other scenarios. Expansion by peaceful union is one important one. Germany became a real nation-state in 1871, uniting the Prussians, Bavarians, Hessians, and many other smaller states, though the Prussians dominated.Ah, but would the Prussians have been able to convince the smaller German states to join them if not for their offensive military victories?

I would argue that Germany as a centralized nation was created in large part by the Prussian conquest of Alsace-Lorraine.