Libertarian Paladin - Creating a Good faction in a neutral setting

[Carduus]

I’m an administrator of an original-theme sci-fi MUSH (think sci-fi/sci-fantasy tabletop gaming with two scoops of social/tavern rp on top, since people play 24/7), and I’m trying something I don’t think anyone has successfully done in our 13 year history: create a truly Good faction. This is harder than it seems on its face: over the years, the most active section of the playerbase is often those with a gray-and-darker-gray mindset, as this position means they're able to get rp from a variety of sources, both shady and legal. They're often willing to abandon the NPC they don’t know to his fate if it means saving their favorite character’s neck, which doesn't rub your typical paladin well. Heroism may be rewarded, but it also means you’ve made a few enemies that you have to watch out for, and they're not much for that.

It doesn’t help that our setting tends to explore the clash of personalities, and complex motivations are par for the course. Few of our bad guys are 100% bad, and few of our good guys don’t have a few bad habits and foibles. When true paladin-types rise to the surface, they’re often a lightning rod for the more evil characters, and tend to get put into moral situations where they’re forced to either betray their beliefs or lose something dear to them, which often means a severe loss in morale. While our few paladin-types make for amazing plotlines, their stars tend to burn brightly and burn out quickly.

Knowing all of this, I attempted to craft an entire intelligent race of Good characters that can survive and self-perpetuate, and not just burn out quickly. They should be able to sidestep the most common pitfalls and foibles of an alignmentless roleplaying game, have some acceptable venues for them to be rough around the edges, and come out smelling (mostly) sweet on the other side.

Towards this end, I created the Pyracani (http://www.jointhesaga.com/oswiki/index.php/Pyracani_(Race)). They’re a race of wolf/fox people with a bit of a warrior culture, competitive cursing, some Irish influences, and a strong, mostly uncorrupt central religion that teaches the kind of Good stuff that the playerbase will accept, stuff like tolerance, personal freedom right up until it infringes on someone else’s, and sticking up for the little guy. By the time I was done, I realized that I had created a libertarian paladin, someone willing to fight and die against stuff like slavery, tyranny, and those that put unnecessary restrictions on the unwilling, but also someone with a little bloodlust, who will relish the idea of testing battle prowess against a worthy foe.

Now, here’s the problem. Every paladin needs a Code, whether lawful good or chaotic good. Otherwise, we’d have no way to distinguish when someone has Fallen, and no longer represents the beliefs of this faction. This is important, because it’s a quick and decisive means of making sure that one corrupted person doesn’t corrupt the brand, and thus begin dragging the outward perception of the faction down into shades of gray, which is essentially the same thing as tarnishing the faction directly, because the next person will create a character off their external impressions of that faction, so he'll be a little more off-mark, and on, and on until we're anti-heroes or something. If you aren’t following the Code, then you aren’t one of us, and out you go. To that end, I created the Path, a set of guidelines set down by their god as to how to live a virtuous life.

My question is, what should the Path include? How do you craft a list of Truths for someone who’s basically chaotic good in a neutral setting? I’ve seen things in D&D like paladins of freedom, but they seem kind of contrived, stressing selfishness just to show off the difference between them and a regular paladin. I need rules that someone can measure themselves by, such that they can rp amongst neutral characters and balance not being a jerk with not becoming neutral themselves, someone who's more about actions than words. They need to be a beacon that a bunch of individualistic Han Solo-types respect and even follow, and not come off as someone with a stick up their butt who needs to be knocked down a peg.

Is this a realistic goal? And if so, what rules would you include?

[Omeganaut]

I think you should start out with what good people should do. Things like help people in need, give to charity if you have wealth, punish those who hurt others, and respect everyone until you have reason to not respect them. The path should include a set of ideals that are basically a perfect person that all should strive for, and a set of rules that are almost neutral that cannot be broken, such as never hurt the innocent. If someone starts abusing the ideals, have them cast out of the society because the society should be able to ultimately decide who is worthy, and not the rules.

[Carduus]

That's certainly a good start (and I will very likely use your ideas in the final product), but yeah, I can do the society-tosses-you-out-when-you-tick-off-the-GM thing with any group, and I have tried similar stuff in the past. While it gives me greater leeway in removing the worst of the problem players, it doesn't cut to the heart of my problem.

Between having 50+ characters on at any given time and yeah, a culture that very slowly drags characters towards neutral, I need to build a systemic fortress around these characters such that they can self-police objectively. I'm not able, or willing, to sit down with every person who toes the line and discuss with them their motivations and character's perspective on things, and how they're striving for this goal, but X, Y and Z are in their way, and thus these goals can't be met. That's a recipe for disaster, because I don't have the time or patience to do that as much as it'd need to be done. I'd like to spend my time giving them good-type plots to reinforce good behavior, than patrol the bad stuff.

Thus, wanting rules that balance high-mindedness and objective goodness with not being a jerkface that invites people to try to knock him off his high horse.

[Omeganaut]

Well, if you want something to push people away from neutral, you have to give them incentive. Plain rewards won't help because doing something for reward isn't inherently good. However, if you can ensure the players in the group will trust each other and support each other, having allies would be a good incentive. Backstabbing would result in the whole society not just casting you out, but actively working against you. Just ignoring a plea for help would be against the rules. Maybe have some extra support in the form of NPC's that would help the players in the group, which would help kick-start the idea of helping one another.

[Carduus]

That's a good point. Fostering the culture amongst the actual players certainly helps towards self-perpetuation, and having NPCs as role models at the beginning is a good way to start. That will certainly be a part of the process.

But I still need to crystallize this Path as the backbone. Anyone have any thoughts as to what else should go into a list like this?

[Omeganaut]

I'll bullet what I can think of, feel free to add more setting/system specific rules

When able, a Pyracani must help a person in danger of death
A Pyracani cannot ignore a beggar, one must give something, even if it is just a penny.
If able, a Pyracani must punish those who intentionally cause harm to innocents
A Pyracani must treat every stranger with respect until the stranger proves themselves unworthy of respect.
A Pyracani must never intentionally attack someone unless that person has attacked an innocent, or a Pyracani
When not doing anything better, a Pyracani must give aid to another Pyracani who requests help.
Pyracani must never intentionally fail to fulfill their side of a contract, and if extraneous events cause a Pyracani to break contract, they must make reasonable restitution.
Pyracani must never overcharge the poor for goods or services.
If a Pyracani breaks a rule, they must notify an elder, and seek to make things right. Failing a better solution, community service is acceptable.

I'd think of some options that are specific to the game you are playing based on what is acceptable and what isn't really acceptable in the general public.

[erictheredd]

Thoughts on the following ideas"


I'll bullet what I can think of, feel free to add more setting/system specific rules

When able, a Pyracani must help a person in danger of death

too, vauge, too easily manipulated. However, this might work when applied to specific people, such as slaves, children, and the elderly


A Pyracani cannot ignore a beggar, one must give something, even if it is just a penny.


too easily manipulated or thrown aside. These vows must be meaningful.
The last two might be feasible in combination though, protecting those who truly ask for it, or perhaps defending beggers who are attacked.



If able, a Pyracani must punish those who intentionally cause harm to innocents

punish--- not so sure. Stop-- It could be a great theme of the race. Stopping could include all sorts of methods, from staring down to killing the next day.



A Pyracani must treat every stranger with respect until the stranger proves themselves unworthy of respect.

This is a good one. there should be standards to this though. They should have a code of things one does and does not do.



A Pyracani must never intentionally attack someone unless that person has attacked an innocent, or a Pyracani

There should be something along these lines. "attack" might be changed to "kill" though, with special penance required for a pyracani who happens to break this law. (an evil plot counts as an attack)



When not doing anything better, a Pyracani must give aid to another Pyracani who requests help.

good idea, could use better phrasing. "When not doing anything better" is weak. A strong sense of loyalty to the causes that others of their races choose is a good idea though. "Aid" does not mean swinging off your sword. "Aid" means saving the children the other is defending. A Pyracani cares more for his cause than his life. He would rather be revenged or his opponents stopped than his life saved.



Pyracani must never intentionally fail to fulfill their side of a contract, and if extraneous events cause a Pyracani to break contract, they must make reasonable restitution.

too lawful, too easily manipulatable.



Pyracani must never overcharge the poor for goods or services.

Sounds good, though define "poor"



If a Pyracani breaks a rule, they must notify an elder, and seek to make things right. Failing a better solution, community service is acceptable.

I'd think of some options that are specific to the game you are playing based on what is acceptable and what isn't really acceptable in the general public.
[/quote]

good idea, but "community service"? we need something more fitting.



so, my own ideas.

Pyrancani would view the world in a couple of grand divisions:

1) the weak.
2) the ignorant
3) the knaves
4) the valiant.

they ignore the ignorant, protect the weak, and fight the knaves. They, of course, are the valiant, and hold each other to higher standards than the other groups. If a Pyrancani ceases to be amount the valiant, he is stripped of his rank. If he falls amoung the knaves, he is killed.

[Carduus]

Omega: That's certainly a good start, but I agree with many of Eric's points. Some of the points seem too vague, and some seem too lawful good. Some will be kept.

Eric: That's interesting, to segment it into four groups like that. It's certainly a new way to think about it. You're right, though. Their job isn't to convert the ignorant, and this makes that more clear. How would you extrapolate those four groups into concrete rules with proper wording?

[erictheredd]

I guess the first step is to define the "weak". I would need to know more about the world.

The Pyracani aren't lawful, so it could be more of honor and the feel of things rather than a set definition of who is weak. I suggest that a person considered incapable of killing is considered weak. While Pyracani have no problem striking a foe who while they're down, They strike against foes who were or will be dangerous. If you have slaves in your world, they could be considered "weak", although some may be dangerous. conceivably, anyone who does not know how to use a weapon is weak. also, should this come up, someone who is dead is considered weak.

Knaves are those who harm the weak. "Harm" means to injure, kill, or take things from. Pyracani, while regarding all these things as dastardly deeds that the world should be rid of, focuses on the taking and injuring more than the killing. They hate slavery more than death, and that is the primary evil they fight.

The ignorant are those who have the power to kill, yet leave the weak alone. They fight among and steal from each other, but they can defend themselves. They have but a little honor, in the eyes of the Pyracani.

The Valiant are those who defend the weak from the oppression of the Knaves. They also abide by certain laws:

1) a Pyracani's life is not his own. He must choose an evil to fight. It is his choice as to how he goes about it, but he must have a cause. He may go about his daily business, but he must have and remember his cause.

2) a Pyracani must stop a knave he sees oppressing the weak. While this can be waved if not possible, a Pyracani looses honor when he sees this happen. If the offender is an associate of his, he must stop them.

3) a Pyracani does not attack someone who has never before attacked, however dangerous. ordering someone killed counts as an attack, as does any attempt to get someone killed.

4) a Pyracani treats strangers with respect until they break one of the laws of the valiant, in which case they are then ignored or attacked.

5)a Pyracani must state why he is attacking a person, giving their crimes. This does not have to be spoken or even given before the attack, but it must be given. examples include a note left during an assassination, accusations during the battle, or a public defamation a year before the attack. Those who attack the Pyracani do not need to be accused, though many Pyracani still state why they fought back, even if its regretfully to a dead body.

6) a Pyracani must come to the aid of a pyracani who swears the valiant's oath to them. The oath may only be invoked one day prior to the completion of the cause of the Pyracani's cause, or a notable stepstone. A pyracani who swears the oath and receives aid and fails (and lives) is no longer counted among the valiant, and must do penance and go through the trial to regain his honor and position among the valiant. If he does not receive aid he is under no obligation, though the honor of the refuser may be diminished.

the penance of a fallen valiant is given by a stalwart valiant, under ideal conditions chosen by a group of at least 5 valiant. the stalwart is chosen for his honor, particularly in the situation where the fallen failed. the stalwart may require any service, though hard labor, a period of prolonged solitude, or service to the stalwart may be required. In cases where the fall is not judged to be the fault of the fallen, they are given a quest. once the quest is finished they are among the valiant again.

There should probably be a ceremony where a young Pyracani is given membership among the valiant. It would also be interesting to allow non-Pyracani amoung the valiant, under strict circumstances.

[Halna LeGavilk]

The problem you, of course, have, in having CG paladins is that you can't have a set-in-stone code, or it's lawful, and if the code isn't set in stone, then its manipulable.

A better thing would be to have the Pyracani be about the struggle for goodness, where people can always be redeemed. All members of the Pyracani are trained in the martial arts, but are taught only to use them as a last resort, preferring to talk rather.

A good example of what I think is a NG/CG society with what is still kind of strict rules it the Aiel from the Wheel of Time.

[Carduus]

Eric – What would you need to know about the world to have a better idea? And how would a government determine weak, if it’s meant to be self-determined? Or would a group of this sort not interfere in politics as a body?

Halna – I don’t think written rules and chaotic good are necessarily incompatible, or I wouldn’t be trying this exercise. If nothing else, a bill of rights are technically universal rules that a chaotic good-type would work to set up and follow. I’ll look more into the Aiel, they look interesting.

Rob Roy – I certainly stole stuff from The Fountainhead for this race, especially being well-known as excellent crafters who eschew the sameness and soullessness of factory manufacture, and Roark certainly is a good example of a strong, pure Libertarian. The problem is the second part of my dilemma, existing in a neutral world. Roark was entirely unable to cope within his neutral society despite his attempts, and was forced into terrorism and universal condemnation to keep true to his Path. This is the ‘lightning rod’ scenario in my original post. In order to stay true, he is forced to burn brightly, but briefly, as society eats him alive. My game isn’t the type where a spittle-inflected courtroom speech on ideals is going to start a slow clap and turn the tide, as that only works in stories where there’s only one main character and other characters can be used as setting when needed. The Pyracani need to be savvy at navigating through the philistines and still maintain their internal compass such that we never get to the terrorism and courtroom scene.

[erictheredd]

Things to know:

status of slavery.
typical government structures
level of government corruption
status of children, women, and elderly.
common crimes that go unpunished.


as for who determines the weak: mostly I was envisioning each Pyracani making a call. I was imagining them as regulating their laws on a very local level. I would not see the individual goals of the Pyracani to be very united, though their beliefs would be similar. They accumulate prestige rather than power.

however, when I made the recommendations I hadn't read your entry on them yet, and missed the sci-fi part. I was thinking of a slightly more tribal society as a whole (meaning outside the pyracani)

as for terrorism-- I was kind of imagining a little terrorism, but in the name of all Pyracani and generally against clear targets. The note stating the crimes on the body and all that. Individually they should be very savy at getting along and knowing when to keep their mouth shut.

[Carduus]

1. Slavery is entirely banned, and has been so for centuries. It makes them very angry.
2. A group of 5-15 people making decisions, occasionally with a figurehead or tiebreaker is the most common governmental structure, with the most work being done by the heads of the 12 nations.
3. While there are corrupt individuals, and certainly some inefficiency in the system, the government and the governmental system is mostly uncorrupt.
4. The elderly are respected but expected to have the wisdom to direct others, and are expected to not be working by the time they're 90 and in an advisory role of some sort. Children are partially raised by year-round schools, but are the sorts of things Pyracani will fight and die for. Women are a mixed bag. It's been 300 years since the concept of women doing the same stuff as men has been introduced, but there's still a little macho culture that wants combat and some other professions to be an all-boys club. To which women responded with organizations like the Moose and Elk clubs, focused on casual combat training in case of war.
5. Crimes that go unpunished are simple assault between adult males, non-lethal dueling, and a lot of personal property stuff like trespassing where they expect you to have a gun and deal with intruders yourself. The law also tends to give warnings a lot of the time for less serious crimes.

Does that help?

[Renegade Paladin]

libertarian paladin
Hi. :smalltongue:

If I may interject my opinion, valuing liberty /= non-lawful. A strict code of behavior is still just that, even if it says "de oppresso liber" on the tin. Nothing about the concept of lawful behavior dictates that you must support a monarchy or dictatorial government, after all.

[tsuuga]

Hmm... To simplify the four-types-of-people system further for ease of arbitration, how about this:

There are four basic rights:

Life - The right to continue living
Freedom - The right to do what you please, as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others
Property - The right to own what you make or gain fairly
Justice - The right to a legal system that protects these rights, and violates them only where an individual has violated the rights of others

There are four kinds of people:

The Weak are unable, unwilling, or untrained to defend their rights with lethal force.
The Ignorant are able to defend their rights but do not follow the Path.
Knaves infringe on the rights of the weak.
The Valiant are the Pyracani, and perhaps a few honorary outsiders.

There are four parts to the Path:

A Pyracani restores rights to the weak where he can, he alerts other Pyracani where he cannot.
A Pyracani does not break an oath sworn on the Path, but he can be released from it.
A Pyracani treats every stranger as a friend until he finds a reason not to. A Pyracani who intentionally takes rights from the Weak or the Ignorant, or becomes unable to defend his own rights is no longer Pyracani

[erictheredd]

hmmm. That's.... not an easy society to make a code for. In fact, it's the sort of society that most codes broke down in.

you say that the few paladian types become lighting rods. could you give an example? what is the situation you're trying to avoid? what moral dilemas do the characters keep getting forced into.

tsuuga seems to have a good foundation, though you might want to tweak the rights a little bit, "justice" doesn't quite seem to fit under the current description. on the other hand, it could be exactly what you're looking for.

[hamishspence]

If able, a Pyracani must punish those who intentionally cause harm to innocents

In D&D "punish" is closer to a Lawful ethos, than a Good ethos specifically. LG characters "hate to see the guilty go unpunished" but this isn't called out for NG or CG.

And taken to an extreme, can lead the character into evil- Asmodeus in Fiendish Codex 2, for example.

"Redeem the wicked" rather than "Punish the wicked" might be a Good-centric attitude, though it might be mitigated with a "where practical" clause.

That said, mercy and forgiveness aren't incompatible with LG- Manual of the Planes does describe Celestia that way- this might be the Good aspect of Lawful Good coming to the fore.

[Carduus]

Tsuuga - I really like that simplification. I think I'm going to use something like that to build the Path off of.

Rob Roy - I don't see how adding a right to one's own body and labor is that far a stretch from a classical libertarian society, unless you're getting into the argument that a truly free person should have the right to give up that freedom.

Eric - Okay, here's an example. A faction tried to subvert the gray by being a secret society of do-gooders, spying around and doing good things off the radar. Eventually, a disgruntled former member named the members, and 'outed' them as some kooky illuminati cult kind of a group, and as they tried to stay secret during this rather than doing damage control, this label stuck. Now unable to be taken seriously as a positive force, and more distrusted than anything, the group lost their ability to do the small, subtle good that they had before. In more and more desperate attempts to show that they had no secret, manipulative interests behind their actions, they delved into the big, dangerous Good stuff.

Their leader volunteered to take a fast ship alone on a suicide mission to the homeworld of the corrupted hivemind-type big-bad to learn something useful about it, or perhaps find some clue on how to un-corrupt it before it scoured the galaxy. While he was one of the best pilots with one of the fastest ships in the game, he knew the odds of success were miniscule, and he was willing to take that risk in hopes of redeeming his organization with his death. He did get some useful information, but not of the type that might stop the hivemind, just damn some of the hivemind's co-conspirators, and he did end up getting killed.

The hivemind decided to use the excuse that his intrusion was an act of war, and rather than side with the good guy, the playerbase believed the villain, and thought that he was to blame for the big-bad beginning its destruction a week later, like waving red before a bull. His organization was now leaderless, and blamed for genocide. The organization quickly broke up under the weight of being pariahs, jaded and angry.

So while the good guy was admired OOCly by several people for doing the classic good guy sacrifice, the gray setting tended towards destroying that group. This is why I need objective good that doesn't come off as stick-up-the-butt, and in a form that self-valuing types can respect. It needs to just be there in the foreground, unchallenged, as a believable part of the setting. These guys simply are this way, that's that. No, they don't tolerate corruption, no, they're not going to have some huge scandal next week, but no, they're not going to try to convert you or make you feel guilty for not being perfect.

[Omeganaut]

It strikes me from your descriptions that your players a really afraid of getting stabbed in the back by the other players. That sounds less neutral and more evil to me.

As for not having the same problem, have their rules be common knowledge, and have each member supervised secretly by two other members. That way everyone can trust them, as their code is in the open, and they can internally police themselves. Also encourage them to get a good reputation quickly, so that one disgruntled member will be less believed than the group as a whole. At least the leaders should be known members, to avoid having the secrecy back-fire

[Carduus]

Omega - I'm just telling the stuff that fits the narrative. Our players often pull the rogue with a heart of gold stuff, and if paid for a job, prefer it's a noble one. But it's caring on an individual level, not systemic. You risk everything to save a friend, you charge headlong into the fight to be cinematic and save your friend who is held captive. But sacrificing yourself for *society* and righting *societal* wrongs, even though you know they're going to come knocking on your door eventually, that's a line that many won't cross.

[Omeganaut]

It sounds like you need more missions for the good of a society. They may not strictly pay well, but give other benefits like reduced costs in some stores, help from NPC's associated with the society, and some sort of recognition in front of all the PC's. Also, those missions should create a trusting relationship between the PC and the society, so that the society would go to the PC first with missions, and maybe give some secrets or more help for future missions. Make those who do things for good reasons renowned for their deeds. Start a holo-series on their brave exploits where they save the universe. If the character is worried about becoming too public, they could use a fake name and disguise, and pretend to be a friend to the do-gooder. Its hard to RP noble ideas because people think you are trying to get on the GM's good side. Make it a fair way to get on the GM's good side so that there's nothing to complain about.

[hamishspence]

Basic principles:

1: Don't do evil
2: Do good
3: Oppose evil
4: Encourage freedom

These might be a "high flexibility" CG paladin code.

[Carduus]

Hamish: I'm willing to have it be a little more lawful than that. :smallbiggrin: I'm more set on creating a Path that will work for the group in the setting, than in making the Path work for a shorthand concept of the group.

[Mando Knight]

Hi. :smalltongue:

If I may interject my opinion, valuing liberty /= non-lawful. A strict code of behavior is still just that, even if it says "de oppresso liber" on the tin. Nothing about the concept of lawful behavior dictates that you must support a monarchy or dictatorial government, after all.

Indeed. As a personal example, in nearly every D&D personality quiz I take, I ping as in that Lawful Good corner (depending on the quiz's quirks, I might be neutral one way or the other), but I would politically identify myself as fairly libertarian. There are different reasons why one would identify as a libertarian, but they're not all because of an inherent distrust of any legal system... it could be due to a belief in limited purpose and powers of the government... it's what separates anarchism from libertarianism, IMO.

Sorry if this sounds too political (I'm trying to avoid any real issues, just explaining my view on a philosophy)... philosophies regarding the interaction between the Law/Chaos alignment axis and government seem to be inherently politically charged.

[Carduus]

Mando: I'm not married to the chaotic idea. My original thought was in having good people who don't seek out people to convert or attempt to make other people adhere to their belief system/laws, so it didn't cheese off the rest of the game, or end up getting corrupted into something overbearing and evil. Chaotic just seemed like a good shorthand. I want a good that can survive in this environment in a strong but quiet fashion. If that comes in the form of lawful good individuals, so be it.

[Omeganaut]

Maybe focus on Neutral Good. That way you don't have to worry about fighting the laws or being overly stuck on them.

[hamishspence]

Drop the "encourage freedom" from the previously mentioned list, and those first three principles are pretty much the basis of Good- the doing of good deeds, and the opposition to evil (which may include the avoidance of doing evil oneself).

[erictheredd]

Well, I have two responses for your example of how "good" characters fall:

one, its seems that secrecy was their downfall. The only acts that were made known to the public were those that their enemies chose to make public

The other is, and I hate to say it, your players seem to have a natural aversion to good characters in this setting. It fits everything you've been saying. The problem isn't your system, its that your players believe every "good" society can be broken and you have enough willing to play Iago.

A couple of Thoughts:

making them an "established" race is a good idea.

Think of how the idea can be twisted. Can these people be labeled as "ignorant savages"? more importantly, will your players respond to them that way and will it destroy their reputations?

The public rules, private policing suggestion is a good way. Also make sure there are very clear social rules on those who "leave the path" or you will have an army of "the only member of the race to throw off their culture". And these rules should be enforced with laws that can be enforced upon players and that they will respect.

having them as a culture rather than a society is a good idea.

They should also be very public about what they are doing, even if it is after the fact

and they need to be able to carry on when the world is against them. Yes, your gray players will turn against them and blame them for all sorts of things. You are trying to introduce an unwanted concept into the game. That said, its not like they won't enjoy the challenge of breaking it

I also get the impression that while you are the GM you either have very little control of the world or you decide not to use it. If you want good in your world, you will probably have to have NPC support.

[Carduus]

Just to give you a better idea of the setting, I run a 13 year old game as one GM of many, with overarching plots being run at the same time as smaller-scale plots. And yeah, over the years, people have gotten burned for a variety of reasons, some involving GMs we've fired, some involving other PCs.

In an infamous PC example, a player felt we were suppressing any rp we didn't agree with when his president character on a democratic planet wanted to change the government into a monarchy, and we required him to do rolls to see if his people rebelled. Well, his sheet had almost no leadership skills, so they did. A few months later, the big-bad of the year came through town, and he believed that it was the admins trying to take his planet from him, since he had put down the revolution. He set up explosives in the core of his planet, already made of what we use for starship fuel (which made him fabulously wealthy), and when the big bad came close, detonated them, killing over 30 characters on the planet because he gave them no advance notice it was happening. When asked why, he said that he truly believed that we would stop him and prove him right. But by allowing players to have autonomy, that many characters were dead, and all their friends had that weight of grief heaped upon them.

We've turned the universe over on its head like seven or eight times, and any character that's been through that many years has likely seen quite a few friends die. So yeah, though we've toned it down in recent years, one of the factors is a bit too much scar tissue, and the fact that happy endings for the good guys aren't a sure thing.

And while secrecy was the problem for that one example, we've had several other groups and individuals attempt the good route, to be felled by everything from their small faults getting flanderized over time, to the fact that there was no rp in the law-abiding area today, so the lawful good policeman goes during his off-time to the lawless areas, gets recognized, and taken for ransom.

I agree with you, though, that thinking about how a group can be twisted is a useful exercise. And yeah, while I could take over the game and mold it in my image, that's not something I have the time, energy, or really, desire to do. I'd much rather build this group well enough to start with that yeah, small good plots and news articles are the only kind of boosts they need.

[Omeganaut]

You could still use NPC's to alter the idea to having more good. It's not railroading to have NPC's be more friendly to people they know are good people, rather than people who are expressly in it for the money, or for personal reasons. Plus doing good deeds openly would allow most NPC's to know a character is good and make it sensible for them to start out friendlier to good PC's

[Carduus]

It makes sense, and seems like it'll do the job, but is there a way to incorporate cookies for non-flashy good acts as well? This seems like it will encourage my neutral-types to just play a better PR campaign when their interests inevitably intersect with good-type behavior, resulting in the big group saving the galaxy for pay having more NPCs treat them nicely than the individual actual good guy who saves the orphanage for free.

[Omeganaut]

Well, you could have a journalist cover the good deed, and have it go viral across the galaxy. Or maybe he could get a follower from that orphanage. Or even just make NPC's trust them more. And if they are rewarded, the NPC's should know that, and not give them discounts. Even better, by achieving their good mission, they have trouble getting trust from the underworld, and have to be good or be hated by both ends of the spectrum.

[Carduus]

Yeah, that's probably going to be the toughest part of this sort of reward: no longer offering cookies if the neutral-types do good actions for neutral reasons, as well as putting a stick on the underworld side, as there's pushback that the neutral character is getting too well-known or at least, doesn't have the underworld's interests at heart anymore. I'm sure at least some of this problem is due to not wanting to deny rp to anyone. Thanks for your help!

[Arathnos]

They definitely sound much more lawful then chaotic at this point. People always seem to forget that lawful doesn't mean 'stick-up-your-bum'. Remember, an evil knight could be lawful evil. He could be a vile, loathsome tyrant who oppresses the weak and slaughters anybody who gets in his way. He follows some form of code, but what that code contains is subject to the knight's discretion.

Lawful individuals stick to their beliefs, but they don't absolutely have to be lapdogs of the government or societal laws. The Pyracani are lawful to themselves, and to their own order. They hold themselves accountable to themselves and the Path. All decisions must be made with the Path in mind, and a Pyracani cannot stray from the Path. That is the difference between them being lawful and them being chaotic. A chaotic good 'order' would allow its members to make decisions based on their own discretion. Passion and situational circumstances would dictate action, rather than a code.

At least in my mind... :smalltongue: