Could one craft a non-evil character with world domination as his/her goal?

[Maho-Tsukai]

As the title says. Is it possible to create a non-evil character who's goal is world domination? If so, what alignment would they be and why would they want to take over the world? Also, if they where non-evil how would they intend to take over the world if they had issues with doing some of the rather ruthless acts needed to obtain such a thing(like..um...conquest.)? Ninja Jesus Naruto-style cult of personality made from their overwhelming charisma and general hero-ness(As people love heroes.)? Maybe they balance the ruthless actions they take with more kind ones?(such as treating conquered peoples with respect and dignity and perhaps even making their lives BETTER then what they where under their old ruler?)

So, I want your opinions and ideas on how you would make a non-evil character who's goal is world domination?

[myancey]

Maybe don't have ruthless actions. Create a character with a unique vision--perhaps a goodly cleric with idealistic religious views. A goodly character can accomplish world domination through warfare. Just try and walk the high road. Offer cities the ability to surrender. If they do, ask for part of their army to join yours, and promise them a hand in things to come.

I dunno if my ideas are the best..but yeah, it's possible.

[Heatwizard]

A neutral/good take on "the world would be better off if I was in charge"? I could see it happening; pragmatic types planning to kill political heads they see as corrupt, and then stepping into the power vacuum. Nonpragmatically, maybe you could pump social skills, and talk world leaders into a UN of some kind with yourself at the helm.

[MammonAzrael]

Roy Mustang from Fullmetal Alchemist is a fairly decent representation of this idea, I think. It isn't an exact fit, but his character could serve as a good model.

So does Peter Wiggin (assuming you remove the psychosis).

[Urpriest]

Well, all of the neutral alignments can also have take-over-the-world plots. Look at Formians and Slaad. Possibly also Rilmani, or some of the more agressive Druid-types.

Second, you can have a character who pursues ruthless means to achieve good ends, possibly sacrificing image in the process. Possible (though potentially controversial) examples include Lelouch from Code Geass and most of the protagonists from the Dune series.

Also, the classic "we will join together and defeat the evil empire" trope can work with a perfectly straight hero.

[Temet Nosce]

Well, the simplest and most obvious one would be to go Lawful-Neutral. Law for its own sake, one world government. Alternatively, to be honest you could pretty easily sell this as Lawful-Good based on implementing the greatest good for the greatest number (unless you're being strict, in which case it'd be hard for anyone in an adventuring group to be good at all, forget conquering anything). To be honest I'm not entirely sure what kind of information you want here, barring you intending to be scrupulous about alignment as mentioned before, in which case you should probably give up on this idea. As far as atrocities committed in your name, you would of course need to act your alignment, but you can to an extent pass them off as regrettable necessities.

Now if you want a character who isn't lawful, it might be somewhat harder to work with. In that case it could still be dedication, perhaps a true neutral character dedicated to maintain balance.

[Seerow]

So does Peter Wiggin (assuming you remove the psychosis).

Huh? I always thought Peter Wiggin was pretty much solidly Lawful Evil.

[Mikeavelli]

Certainly.

Canon is littered with examples of this sort of thing, oftentimes they don't just wake up one day and decide, "I'm going to take over the world." They grow into the idea, crusading around, righting wrongs, showing wisdom in their decisions, etc. They would have to excel at diplomacy, convincing other good-aligned nations to accept their authority (perhaps in a gigantic alliance) - while at the same time crusading against evil nations.

The Planescape faction called the Harmonium is the result of one such group, an adventuring party called The Knights of Harmony (implied to be lawful good, or at the very least lawful neutral) successfully defeated all the lawless forces of chaos on their world, established a world government called the Harmonium, and set off for the planes to establish a Harmonious multiverse.

Overall, a desire for world unity can be a noble and good goal, the means a character uses to achieve that goal determine whether he's good or evil.

[AmberVael]

Yes you could, and quite easily, and in many many ways.

For example, I'll present the hypothetical character Awesome Radical Dude (we'll call him Ardy).

Ardy thinks he is the most spectacular guy in the whole world. He is, in fact, a bad enough dude to save the president- no, in fact, he's a bad enough dude to save the president and then be awarded his place!
...Ardy may be a bit of an egomaniac.

Anyway, Ardy is convinced that he is so awesome, that everyone should acknowledge that he is awesome. He's not out to force anyone to do it, because he thinks his awesomeness should be self evident. If he has to beat someone into thinking he's great, he's not doing it right. So he quests through the world to prove that he is the most radical man in the radical land, saving kingdoms, wooing princesses and thumb wrestling with gods.

Eventually he plans on getting crowned king of the world, though this may take a while. Not that he really cares about the real act of ruling over everything (that would be way too tedious and leave less time for being cool) but having the authority and respect and potential to rule over everything would likely satisfy his incredibly overbuilt ego.

I would classify Ardy as either neutral or good, depending on his heroic tendencies. It might be possible to take such a concept and make it evil, but generally he'd be incredibly annoying at worst- and at best, his egomania would be somewhat justified if he could in fact back it up by driving a motorcycle with chainsaws for tires across a lake of dire lich red dragons and hellfire. :smalltongue:

[Slipperychicken]

I saw a LN Necromancer who served Wee-Jass. All he wanted was Order and to serve his Goddess. Life was disorderly (always in flux, free will), undeath is orderly (obeys order, constant), so he wanted to eradicate all life. He was going to conquer the world via lichdom + undead hordes and then wipe out all life, including himself (by being undead).


...Although I did argue with the Player that his character's actions should make him Evil, but he and the DM said he was Neutral because of his motivations being LN. Pretty much a cookie-cutter BBEG backstory who *technically* isn't Evil. More of a BBNG (Big Bad Neutral Guy) or something along those lines.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I saw a LN Necromancer who served Wee-Jass. All he wanted was Order and to serve his Goddess. Life was disorderly (always in flux, free will), undeath is orderly (obeys order, constant), so he wanted to eradicate all life. He was going to conquer the world via lichdom + undead hordes and then wipe out all life, including himself (by being undead).


...Although I did argue with the Player that his character's actions should make him Evil, but he and the DM said he was Neutral because of his motivations being LN. Pretty much a cookie-cutter BBEG backstory who *technically* isn't Evil. More of a BBNG (Big Bad Neutral Guy) or something along those lines.

He would be evil. Actions speak louder than words.

[Maho-Tsukai]

I am not looking to peruse actively evil means. However, in the real world, many people consider war evil as it causes death and destruction. I mean, even in nations that try to minimize casualties and other nasty repercussions that war has there are people who see it as evil despite. Since the most obvious way to take over the world is to raise an army I am wondering how a character who's goal is to take over the world would be able to stay good or neutral even with good intent as war, which is the most likely and common way to take over the world will result in the loss of life. Wouldn't a character who deliberately puts into motion something that causes the loss of many lives(like..um war) be pushed to evil even if they had a good intent behind it? Or is war for a good cause handwaved due to the fact that their going to make the world better despite the fact they've caused the loss of life to do it?

Thus, if causing war even if to make the world better would push them to evil I also want to know if there are other ways a non-evil world conqueror could go about his campaign for global government with him/her at the helm?

So, in summary, I am asking:

A) Is global conquest through warfare being the goal that you peruse make you evil even if you have good intent behind it.

B) If the answer to A) is yes, then what other means could a non-evil world conqueror go about his global domination campaign that would cause less loss of life?

[myancey]

I am not looking to peruse actively evil means. However, in the real world, many people consider war evil as it causes death and destruction. I mean, even in nations that try to minimize casualties and other nasty repercussions that war has there are people who see it as evil despite. Since the most obvious way to take over the world is to raise an army I am wondering how a character who's goal is to take over the world would be able to stay good or neutral even with good intent as war, which is the most likely and common way to take over the world will result in the loss of life. Wouldn't a character who deliberately puts into motion something that causes the loss of many lives(like..um war) be pushed to evil even if they had a good intent behind it? Or is war for a good cause handwaved due to the fact that their going to make the world better despite the fact they've caused the loss of life to do it?

Thus, if war even if to make the world better would push them to evil I also want to know if there are other ways a non-evil world conqueror could go about his campaign for global government with him/her at the helm?

The question, then, boils down to whether you and your DM believe the greater good warrants lesser evils. You feel you're accomplishing the greater good by solidifying the lands of the world under one rule, even if it means accruing tolls of war.

[Slipperychicken]

ways a non-evil world conqueror could go about his campaign for global government with him/her at the helm?

Discussed in another thread:

1. Teleport to World Leaders
2. Mindrape World Leaders (EDIT: Remember kids: One evil act isn't enough to warrant alignment change!)
3. ???
4. PROFIT!!!

[MammonAzrael]

Huh? I always thought Peter Wiggin was pretty much solidly Lawful Evil.

Very true. Which is why I noted that you need to lose the psychosis. Peter's evil tendencies were only ever a hindrance to his desire for world domination. While it's blurry in the beginning how much of his motivation is from his..."evil side"...as opposed to his stated reasons, it becomes clear over the course of the series (Shadow of the Hegemon, Shadow Puppets, and Shadow of the Giant) that while Peter may have been evil personally, his goals for world domination and how he went about it were anything but. It was a terrific contrast.

Peter Wiggin could make an excellent model to build a non-evil character that wants world domination. Just remove the evil bits, and you'll find that his reasons and intentions for ruling the world remain largely intact. Even Good.

[Maho-Tsukai]

Last time I checked, Mind Rape is an [evil] spell, so I doubt any good aligned character would even think about casting it. A neutral, maybe, but even then it would be hard to justify and may send you towards an evil alignment, especially if you cast it on a regular basis.

[Temet Nosce]

This is why I mentioned if you were going to obey alignment strictly, you shouldn't even try this since essentially noone is liable to be capable of following that, far less a conqueror. Even in an adventuring party, things will die that you either have no idea of the innocence of, or which strictly speaking are innocent.

However, hypothetically I suppose you could make use of some variety of social optimization to rule. Of course, even then I'm not sure if you could stay good using strict reading. I suppose a bluff/diplo score high enough to have a guaranteed success against basically anyone even on a 1 would work. Of course, getting there might be somewhat harder.

[Big Fau]

Queen Aurala, current ruler of Thrane (Eberron) is plotting world domination and is NG.

[Slipperychicken]

Last time I checked, Mind Rape is an [evil] spell, so I doupt any good aligned character would even think about casting it. A neutral, maybe, but even then it would be hard to justify and may send you towards an evil alignment, especially if you cast that spell a lot.

But... it's totally bloodless. If our antagonist can find and easier, more reliable, faster way (Okay, Diplomancy, it's even less evil, although you'd need to be in rather close contact with the leaders)... But the idea of someone just walking up to world leaders and taking a full-round action, expending trivial resources if any to say "Hay Guise, let's all hold hands and be free and make me God Emperor of Mankind, kay?", and succeeding, feels kinda boring/cheap to me.


TL;DR: Diplomancy. Can be any alignment you bloody well want to, just have access to leaders, speak their language, and be able to reliably hit a DC 60 Diplomacy check.

[Maho-Tsukai]

I am not saying I agree with the [evil] descriptor it has, I am simply mentioning that it has it. I suppose taking hellbred as my race(for evil exception) would negate that drawback, though.

Also, Diplomancy works but I would generally want to use it on a high-cha character and most casters(Not too much into pure melee though gishes are fine in my books) do not use cha. The last time I checked, the only cha-casters who don't have horrid MAD are the Sorc, Warmage, Dread Necro, and Shugenja.(I don't count stuff like warlock, DFA, Binder ect.. as true "casters" because they use alternate systems.) Warmages are known stinkers and when I play a Dread Necro I play them as evil because, lets face it, when your a necromancer chances are your evil or at least neutral with evil tendencies. I do have a soft spot for the shugenja but I don't use them without D20 Rokugan content and Sorcs are bland and lackluster to me due to their lack of class features.(Though I do find the pathfinder sorc to be totally awesome and bursting with flavor...but thats because it has, um...class features.)...

So Diplomacy gives me a lack of class options as far as true casters are concerned, though I suppose a Sorc/Crusader/Jade Phoenix Mage would not be as bland as a standard sorc due to the gish-ness and, gasp, actual class features....but even then I can't help but think there would be better options..

Also, I know of the bard. I am not much of a fan of playing Bards, though.

[DeltaEmil]

Does the character use the "The end justifies the means"-excuse? If yes, then the character is evil, and just convince itself that it does good while in truth it does evil, so that one can sleep better.

The end does not justify the means. That is what a character that does not want to be evil must remember.

[candycorn]

For an excellent example of this, please refer to Isaac Asimov's, "I, Robot". For those without the inclination to read Asimov, watch the Will Smith movie of the same name.

Robots designed with rules designed to be completely safe to humans. They could not harm a human, nor could they, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. Naturally, they could not sit idly by and allow humanity to destroy itself... So they tried to take over, to save humanity from itself.

Might be LN, might even be LG, since the overriding goal is the preservation of life and the establishment of order.

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

With the phrase, "It is for the greater good".

[Ravens_cry]

With the phrase, "It is for the greater good".
To which I would say, "When someone says they are doing something for 'The Greater Good', look, very, very carefully at what they are doing."

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

To which I would say, "When someone says they are doing something for 'The Greater Good', look, very, very carefully at what they are doing."

Well that's a given, but the person with that mentality can still believe that they are doing the right even if they are taking over the world.

[hamishspence]

While nonevil characters who do evil things toward an overarching Good goal might exist- for them to stay nonevil can be pretty difficult.

Even in D&D, it's quite common for evil characters to perceive themselves as nonevil, believing (incorrectly) that their goal justifies their deeds, as the splatbook Champions of Ruin points out.

For a person out to take over the world, to stay nonevil, requires both good intentions (the wellbeing of others) and an aversion to evil means- they should be avoiding doing evil wherever reasonably possible- perhaps going above and beyond the call of duty in doing so.

[Ravens_cry]

Well that's a given, but the person with that mentality can still believe that they are doing the right even if they are taking over the world.
Maybe so, but even if you do believe you could run the place better, that does not mean you have to compromise the principles you uphold while doing so. Gandhian methods writ large, perhaps.
Someone who does evil "for the Greater Good" on the other hand is very likely evil or on the road to becoming so. They probably don't think of themselves as such, but none but the most **** Dasterdly, Snidely Whiplash, card carrying, union member, villains think of themselves as evil.

[SITB]

See Asimov's Foundation series on how one can conquer worlds without violence.

[Frozen_Feet]

You hear it said "end justifies the means", but just as often means justify an end.

The concept of a messianic king to come and unite the world in turmoil under his wise rule is pretty ancient.

[Urpriest]

The main way this sort of thing works is via politics and stunts. Help the right person, they name you heir to the throne. Marry some other nation's princess. Etc. Very rarely do I read fiction where someone conquers the world with an army: at best the army is used against one villain, and the rest of the conquest is done via diplomacy and trickery.

[Frozen_Feet]

Marry a princess? Bah! Marry them all! And the leftover princes, too. Live happily everafter in a polygamous utopia.

[Maho-Tsukai]

True, but that would require a high cha and I stated earlier how there are very few cha-based casters that are good AND able to be played as non-evil(If only Beguiler where cha-based..*sighs*). All the Tier 1s are non-Cha based, so they are out. Tier 2 offers a bunch of MAD casters(favored soul, spirit shaman) and the Sorc, which I find to be bland and boring due to the lack of class features. Tier 3 has better offerings for cha-based casters in the Dread Necro and Shugenja, but the latter has a very specific fluff(oriental) and the former lends itself better to evil then good or neutral. I did not mention the warmage because it sucks, and the DFA, while cool, is an Invocation class and I am not too keen on invocation users. I do like Psionics but don't like the wilder and the rest of the psionic classes are non-cha based.

I suppose I could petition to use the pathfinder sorc in place of the 3.5e one as it actually has class features and is not boring and bland?

Oh, and I did not include bards because they don't get 9ths. To me, a "caster" gets 9ths. Anything that dose not get the highest level powers in it's respective casting system is a hybrid class, not a caster.(Bard being a hybrid skillmonkey/caster)

[Urpriest]

True, but that would require a high cha and I stated earlier how there are very few cha-based casters that are good AND able to be played as non-evil(If only Beguiler where cha-based..*sighs*). All the Tier 1s are non-Cha based, so they are out. Tier 2 offers a bunch of MAD casters(favored soul, spirit shaman) and the Sorc, which I find to be bland and boring due to the lack of class features. Tier 3 has better offerings for cha-based casters in the Dread Necro and Shugenja, but the latter has a very specific fluff(oriental) and the former lends itself better to evil then good or neutral. I did not mention the warmage because it sucks, and the DFA, while cool, is an Invocation class and I am not too keen on invocation users. I do like Psionics but don't like the wilder and the rest of the psionic classes are non-cha based.

I suppose I could petition to use the pathfinder sorc in place of the 3.5e one as it actually has class features and is not boring and bland?

Oh, and I did not include bards because they don't get 9ths. To me, a "caster" gets 9ths. Anything that dose not get the highest level powers in it's respective casting system is a hybrid class, not a caster.(Bard being a hybrid skillmonkey/caster)

You have heard of Sublime Chord, right? Ninths even with dips seems better than ninths. You could do, for example, Bard 1/Binder 1/Warlock 1/Marshal 1/Bard +6/Sublime Chord, and have pretty much every diplomancy dip accounted for and still get ninths on track.

Plus, you don't need diplomancy or even diplomacy for conquering the world this way. Again, look at Lelouch. Even without his mind control powers he gets a fair distance from tactical knowledge alone. That's Int-based. Just as war isn't about who has the higher Str score, politics properly played isn't about who has the highest Cha score.

[graeylin]

IMO, no, because of the way you framed the question.

Could a good aligned person wish to take over the world and run it? Yes. Could it be done? theoretically.

Can a good aligned person DOMINATE the world? No, because domination, that is, the subjugation of others to a will not their own, the removal of freedoms, and the reduction of liberty and free will are not good actions, thus, they would turn the person towards an evil alignment.

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

You have heard of Sublime Chord, right? Ninths even with dips seems better than ninths. You could do, for example, Bard 1/Binder 1/Warlock 1/Marshal 1/Bard +6/Sublime Chord, and have pretty much every diplomacy dip accounted for and still get ninths on track.

Plus, you don't need diplomacy or even diplomacy for conquering the world this way. Again, look at Lelouch. Even without his mind control powers he gets a fair distance from tactical knowledge alone. That's Int-based. Just as war isn't about who has the higher Str score, politics properly played isn't about who has the highest Cha score.

Listen to this man, he knows what he's talking about when it comes to world domination.


IMO, no, because of the way you framed the question.

Could a good aligned person wish to take over the world and run it? Yes. Could it be done? theoretically.

Can a good aligned person DOMINATE the world? No, because domination, that is, the subjugation of others to a will not their own, the removal of freedoms, and the reduction of liberty and free will are not good actions, thus, they would turn the person towards an evil alignment.

To that I have to say look at the game, The World Ends With You. (Contains spoilers (no duh)) At the end of the game you find out that the reason the masses were being controlled by the head of the antagonist organization was to save them. Because 'god' was getting bored and decided to destroy Shibuya if it couldn't be changed from chaos to order in a set period of time. So by 'dominating' Shibuya he was trying to save it from obliteration.

[Frozen_Feet]

True, but that would require a high cha and I stated earlier how there are very few cha-based casters that are good AND able to be played as non-evil.

You'd be surprised what proper dowries can achieve...

In the case you weren't talking about just that: Sorcerers, Favored Souls and Sublime Chords are Cha based and gets ninths no problem without alignment being an issue either. But even beyond that - skill ranks and other bonuses consistently outdo attribute modifiers even at high levels. So you don't, in fact, have to be charismatic at all to be a great socialite, it's just a matter of practice. Int-based classes lend themselves well to this, actually, since they have more skillpoints.



Can a good aligned person DOMINATE the world? No, because domination, that is, the subjugation of others to a will not their own, the removal of freedoms, and the reduction of liberty and free will are not good actions, thus, they would turn the person towards an evil alignment.

"Freedom" must be one of the most poorly understood buzzwords in human history... long story short, not all restrictions are evil. No freedom is absolute, and doesn't have to be. Restricting liberty is more a factor on Law - Chaos axis than Good - Evil.

Subjecting others to a law that restricts murder and debasing of others, that discourages and penalizes disrespect of other living things and encourages and rewards benevolence, is not evil. It's restricting and reducing freedom and liberty to do evil, and thus is domination.

No matter how strongly you can equate dictatorship with tyranny and evil in the real world, that equivocation doesn't hold true in the fantasyland of D&D. In D&D, there's such thing as benevolent dictatorship, because the will you're subjugated to can be fundamentally and undeniably good.

[Maho-Tsukai]

How can you take over politically without a good diplomacy check? I honestly have no idea how one could manipulate political events without ever having to make a diplomacy, bluff or intimidate check? If there is a way to manipulate people without using any of the social skills(Or abusing charms and dominates) I would like to know, but as of now I can't see anybody without social skill ranks being able to pull off political manipulation without DM handwaving/the DM allowing you to RP it out instead of rolling a social skill check.

[Urpriest]

Also: Economancy. Conquer the world with Flesh to Salt and Wall of Iron.

[Coidzor]

It depends upon just how they intend to dominate the world. Intending to make one's nation the dominant nation and economic super power as well as pre-eminent military power such that all other nations and states are eventually absorbed or take on enough of one's culture as to basically be satellite states isn't Evil, after all. It just requires a long view and to play the various games of states and thrones right.

Intending to take the world over by raw force of arms probably is evil unless everyone else is basically evil and will just attack or constantly raid or what have you anyway. So, y'know, a single stable-ish mostly goodish state surrounded by marauding orc tribes isn't exactly being evil when it sends out armies to stop the orcs from attacking them, and, hey, if they happen to get useful territory that the orcs were too lazy and violent to develop themselves, the better.

Really though, world domination is a mug's game because of the Underdark and planar entities.

The ocean would also pose some problems, since the Sahuagin seem to like to already have that market cornered after kicking the aboleth into hiding.

[Urpriest]

How can you take over politically without a good diplomacy check? I honestly have no idea how one could manipulate political events without ever having to make a diplomacy, bluff or intimidate check? If there is a way to manipulate people without using any of the social skills(Or abusing charms and dominates) I would like to know, but as of now I can't see anybody without social skill ranks being able to pull off political manipulation without DM handwaving/allowing you to RP it out instead of making you roll a social skill check?

Because you're not convincing anybody of anything (well, not face to face anyway), you're putting people in positions they can't get out of, or taking actions and predicting peoples' interpretations of them.

If you're not familiar with Lelouch, most of the politically active characters from the Ender's Game series also act like this. It's a matter of making doing what you want the rationally best choice, and it's not an easy tactic to summarize because in every situation it'll be different. That's how tactics work. But since you can't conquer the world with armies or diplomacy checks anyway (barring extremely wide reception on the latter), regardless of how good either is, tactics and plot are your only option.

[Frozen_Feet]

Of course, good things often become better together. In case of tactics and social maneuvering it's surely so.

[Urpriest]

Since I can't think of any concise examples, I will instead direct readers to the following (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BatmanGambit).

[Coidzor]

But since you can't conquer the world with armies or diplomacy checks anyway (barring extremely wide reception on the latter), regardless of how good either is, tactics and plot are your only option.

Well, being carried by the world's fastest ruby knight vindicator while playing an alphorn well enough that everyone who hears it loves you fanatically is also a possible tactic... :smallbiggrin:

Well, for getting the surface world at least. I'm not sure how well sounds that travel for miles penetrate to things beneath the waves (probably get the things that live in the shoals and near the surface) or to things in their fuzzy-wuzzy burrows.

And going through the Underdark, even with the fastest RKV that could see in the dark and fly and breath underwater seems like it'd just be time consuming with little payoff anyway.

[TriForce]

Id like to present Baron Wulfenbach in the Girl Genious webcomic as a Character thats (probably) lawful neutral and wants to take over the world.

he basically came back from being away for a few years and saw the world he knew in Chaos and permanent war. so he gathered what resources he could, and took over any place he could, expanding his empire in order to stop all the wars ( counter-intuitive, but it worked) after a little while, his influence and reputation grew so much, that even the mention of his name was enough to stop 2 partys from going to war. he basically has a policy of "dont make me come over there", as long as you dont make your people suffer, he will leave you alone, heck, he will even allow any place he conquered to go on the same way they always did, with the same leaders if possible. just dont piss him off, or your toast.

[Frozen_Feet]

Wulfie might also be an example of not-very-charismatic Machiavellian ruler. It seems everybody hates his guts, but he's so big and intimidating no-one dares to work against him. Well, "no-one" is bit of a hyperbole, but still...

[Coidzor]

I don't think he's ever expressed world domination as his goal. He seems to have mostly stabilized a largely unstable Europa that was tearing itself apart because he was sick of all of the fighting & figured beating them and making them play nice was the better alternative to doing nothing and squatting in a ruined castle.

[hamishspence]

Havelock Vetinari has an element of this- generally disliked, yet most of the city's inhabitants recognize that without him the situation is likely to deteriorate.

[Frozen_Feet]

The trope for these kinds of rulers is "And it worked", coming from Wulfenbach's rant on the issue. Essentially, it's a trope for people who seem like the most disgusting villains ever - but within the context of the story, they're right and succesful in making the world a better place.

[shadow_archmagi]

Peter's evil tendencies were only ever a hindrance to his desire for world domination.


A hindrance which he recognized and overcame, in the end, didn't he?



Robots designed with rules designed to be completely safe to humans. They could not harm a human, nor could they, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. Naturally, they could not sit idly by and allow humanity to destroy itself... So they tried to take over, to save humanity from itself.

Note that in the movie, they decide to take over through armed rebellion, and are ultimately stopped. In the books, they quietly take over via market manipulations and so on, and succeed.



No matter how strongly you can equate dictatorship with tyranny and evil in the real world, that equivocation doesn't hold true in the fantasyland of D&D. In D&D, there's such thing as benevolent dictatorship, because the will you're subjugated to can be fundamentally and undeniably good.

I don't see why freedom and tyranny have to be unilaterally opposed. Dictatorship would simply imply that the ruler wasn't democratically elected; couldn't you have a tyrant ruling a country with the exact same laws and liberties as one with a king or a president?


Havelock Vetinari has an element of this- generally disliked, yet most of the city's inhabitants recognize that without him the situation is likely to deteriorate.

Vetinari is probably an excellent example. He very rarely actually intercedes in the lives of daily citizens, and even then, allows everything to work out for the best.

[Coidzor]

I don't see why freedom and tyranny have to be unilaterally opposed. Dictatorship would simply imply that the ruler wasn't democratically elected; couldn't you have a tyrant ruling a country with the exact same laws and liberties as one with a king or a president?

Weeeeeeeeelll, that's a bit of a tricky question to answer given the table.

[hamishspence]

I don't see why freedom and tyranny have to be unilaterally opposed. Dictatorship would simply imply that the ruler wasn't democratically elected; couldn't you have a tyrant ruling a country with the exact same laws and liberties as one with a king or a president?

"Dictator" is a person with more authority than normally allowed for.

You could certainly have an "elected dictator" who surrenders authority at the end of their term.



Vetinari is probably an excellent example. He very rarely actually intercedes in the lives of daily citizens, and even then, allows everything to work out for the best.

And is decidedly opposed to the idea of his city expanding and becoming an empire "We've only just gotten over the last one."

Characters out to "Take Over The World" who are portrayed as doing the right thing, seem to be somewhat rarer.

[Quietus]

I think Wulfenbach is a very good example. Sure, he's.. ruthless, in the way that he does things, but I'm sure a Wizard played in top form could also serve as the "Ever present and unstoppable machine of Good", forcing people to play nicely. Maybe take Leadership to have his own base of operations and fanatic followers, plus a Bard or somesuch as a cohort for support and assistance with diplomatic relations. Technically he makes himself the top of the political food chain, by telling everyone else to stop bonking their neighbors on the head, but mostly he stays out of their business unless something in particular is needed.

Could be an interesting character, actually.. now I kind of want to play him. :smalltongue:

[erikun]

Wouldn't nearly every deity have world-domination, or at least world-saturation, be a long-term goal? Pretty much everyone would want every intelligent being to worship them and follow their dictates, and even allied deities (such as two different good-aligned ones) have different ideas on what would be the "perfect" way to live.


Since the most obvious way to take over the world is to raise an army I am wondering how a character who's goal is to take over the world would be able to stay good or neutral even with good intent as war, which is the most likely and common way to take over the world will result in the loss of life.
Lawful neutral pacifist necromancer. He spends all his time raising skeletons, which he then commands to enforce the law and do nothing more. Assuming the skeletons are TN and do nothing but follow issued commands (as opposed to CE and attack when left alone), the necromancer would eventually take over the world simply by having control of all courtrooms and taking over every military. Of course, this assumes you could leave skeletons unattended (and uncontrolled) and they would still follow previous orders, and that you could hand out new commands to all the skeletons everywhere, and that you don't die...

In short, starting a war with the desire of taking over the world isn't likely to keep you non-evil, regardless of intentions. Neutrals would probably just force change into the worldview they desire, either through dominating judges and jury (lawful) or through removing what they deem inappropriate (probably chaotic). Goods are more likely to coax or bribe everyone over to their side with rewards for whoever supports them.


Any particular reason why you need to play a tier 1 full-caster character?

[Ravens_cry]

Also: Economancy. Conquer the world with Flesh to Salt and Wall of Iron.
Well, that only works if your DM RAWS trade goods. Sure, you could control a good chunk by being the cheapest source of said goods. But people only need so much salt or iron. Besides, if your secret gets out how you make it, nothing is stopping any other spell caster of similar level of doing the exact same thing. Unless such spell casters are rare to the point of legendary, your monopoly will soon be broken.

[Taelas]

IMO, no, because of the way you framed the question.

Could a good aligned person wish to take over the world and run it? Yes. Could it be done? theoretically.

Can a good aligned person DOMINATE the world? No, because domination, that is, the subjugation of others to a will not their own, the removal of freedoms, and the reduction of liberty and free will are not good actions, thus, they would turn the person towards an evil alignment.

Wrong; it's Lawful, not necessarily Evil. It CAN be Evil, easily, but the base action is Lawful.

Also, for non-Evil character with world domination as the goal: See Rand al'Thor, the Dragon Reborn, from the Wheel of Time. It is at least one goal, if not the only (or primary) one.

[Quietus]

Lawful neutral pacifist necromancer. He spends all his time raising skeletons, which he then commands to enforce the law and do nothing more. Assuming the skeletons are TN and do nothing but follow issued commands (as opposed to CE and attack when left alone),

Unfortunately, Skeletons are Neutral Evil by RAW. Take of that what you will.

[erikun]

Unfortunately, Skeletons are Neutral Evil by RAW. Take of that what you will.
True, but neutral undead are one of the more common houserules. You could also replace skeletons with golems of any kind, which would be more expensive but just as doable (eventually).

[cZak]

"World Domination" has always seemed an illogical and unreasonable goal. In real life, but especially in an RPG setting.

The level of power required to dominate the greater percentage of a populace does not seem achievable for a mere mortal. Even a wizard...

Regardless of how powerful you are, unless you overthrow the most powerful deity, there will always be someone of at least equal if not greater power.
Or an innumerable amount of lesser powers will band together whose sum exceeds your power.


Domination is best done in the same way you eat an elephant; one bite at a time, to the point of when you are full. At which, you've taken as much as you can hold.

[Taelas]

You don't need to control the entire world -- you just need to control the leaders.

To continue my example with Rand al'Thor from earlier, Rand doesn't personally lead the countries he conquers -- he has their rulers lead, for the most part, with him controlling their greater doings.

[cZak]

Szar_Lakol
Re: Could one craft a non-evil character with world domination as his/her goal?
You don't need to control the entire world -- you just need to control the leaders.

To continue my example with Rand al'Thor from earlier, Rand doesn't personally lead the countries he conquers -- he has their rulers lead, for the most part, with him controlling their greater doings.

The problem with this, and its demonstrated int he books, is that as soon as you leave their immediate presence, they conspire to undermine if not actually remove your authority.

And, as it is developing in the story, others are organizing a not inconsiderable force to establish sufficient strength to overthrow Rand's rule.

Spoiler'd to avoid plot ruin for those not having read WoT yet...
Most are by themselves incapable of solo'n Rand's rule, but if consolidated are very capable:
Seanchan
The Black Tower
White Cloaks
Borederlands; Shinar, Arafel, Saldea, Kandar (potentially)
others I can't recall at the moment...


And a DM who does not utilize these conditions vs a party or PC that has global domination in mind is honestly (IMHO) not doing is job.

[Taelas]

I didn't say he succeeded, just that world domination was one of his goals.

[hamishspence]

Unfortunately, Skeletons are Neutral Evil by RAW. Take of that what you will.

Skeletal dragons and zombie dragons from Draconomicon are True Neutral though.

"Nonevil necromancer" is certainly possible- though they'd have to do quite a bit of good to make up for the evil acts of creating undead and casting [Evil] spells. They might have to actively avoid any other Evil acts, as well as focusing on doing as much Good as possible.

[Tokiko Mima]

I almost tend to think it is inherently unrealistic for an evil/selfish person to want to rule the entire world. That's way too much work for very little return and when you're on the top, everyone will want you dead.

Now, a person with enough idealism and arrogance would be vastly more likely to be into the world domination gig. But they don't necessarily have to go about it in a good or evil fashion. The moral choice between the two tends to just boil down into how efficient and quick they want to be about achieving their goal, versus the obstacles they face and the resources they have.

[Ravens_cry]

Maybe, and I do define a great part of evil to be an extreme of selfishness and an expression there of. But if a good person could try to take over the world without falling into the "Greater Good" trap, one could just as easily, if not more so, fall into it.

[hamishspence]

The definition of "take over" may also very depending on the hero or villain.

A hero who wants their moral code to become the norm across the world, or wants "happiness and reduced suffering" to become the norm across the world, might not seek to hold personal power over others.

Thus, they might try to convince others of the rightness of their code, and once they've done that, set those others to Spreading The Word.

Similarly (if it's happiness they're out for) they might do good things (fighting crime, fighting disease, improving safety) and try and get others to do the same.

Endpoint, a safer, or happier, or less diseased world- where everybody follows that hero's code to a greater or lesser degree-

but the hero holds no more control of others' actions, than they did at the start of their mission. Yet they've still "taken over" in a sense.

[Ryu_Bonkosi]

The definition of "take over" may also very depending on the hero or villain.

A hero who wants their moral code to become the norm across the world, or wants "happiness and reduced suffering" to become the norm across the world, might not seek to hold personal power over others.

Thus, they might try to convince others of the rightness of their code, and once they've done that, set those others to Spreading The Word.

Similarly (if it's happiness they're out for) they might do good things (fighting crime, fighting disease, improving safety) and try and get others to do the same.

Endpoint, a safer, or happier, or less diseased world- where everybody follows that hero's code to a greater or lesser degree-

but the hero holds no more control of others' actions, than they did at the start of their mission. Yet they've still "taken over" in a sense.

This is definitely a good way to do it.

[Darcand]

"Dictator" is a person with more authority than normally allowed for.

You could certainly have an "elected dictator" who surrenders authority at the end of their term.



And is decidedly opposed to the idea of his city expanding and becoming an empire "We've only just gotten over the last one."

Characters out to "Take Over The World" who are portrayed as doing the right thing, seem to be somewhat rarer.

Pratchett might argue that Vetinari does infact rule the world, he just finds it easier to do by not letting them know.

Since his format has been used I am going to go a different direction with it and suggest a CN druid who views civilization as a perversion of the natural order of things and strives to see the world returned to a more feral state. There is nothing evil about a wolf eating a deer, unfortunate, but not evil. I'm thinking Tyler Durden meets Poison Ivy.

[Maho-Tsukai]

Also, an archivist(or cleric, but I prefer high int to high wis.) can easily take over the world non-violently. All they would have to do is make some magical traps of create food and drink, endure elements, remove disease/other healers and sickness removers and prestidigitation(to make the created food and drink taste good.)

Set up a "bread line" in a town where people move from trap to trap and at the end get their prestidigitation-flavored food and drink. Suddenly the standard of living in the town has jumped significantly. They never have to worry about shelter and/or being too cold or warm(endure elements), never have to worry about sickness and minor injuries(remove disease and heal stuff), and are always fed. Pretty soon with you making everybody's standard of living so much better you will put everybody else out of business, make everybody dependent on you and more or less take over the town....yet at the same time the people's lives will be better off then they where before you "took over." Continue to spread this "business" around the world and pretty soon you'll have entire nations, and eventually, the world living at a far better standard of living then they could ever dream and totally dependent on you for that lifestyle.

If your a good-aligned character you can use your wealth and power gained from this to further benefit the community such as building schools, churches ect... If your a selfish neutral you can just use it to overindulge and live an excessive lifestyle. You'll be selfish, but not evil as nobody would be suffering as a result and their lives would be BETTER then before. It just so happened that by improving their standard of living you've greatly improved your own and as long as you don't start using your wealth and power to oppress people and do other evil things you can stay a selfish netural.

[kestrel404]

How about a real-world example? Alexander the Great did, for all intents and purposes, conquer 'the world' as he knew it in his day and age. As he went about his conquest, he set up local governments of the best and most fair sort known in his time (admittedly, greek city-states were somewhat less fair than even the Roman republic) and his primary goal was in the creation of an empire for his descendents.

At worst, that's lawful neutral.

He might not have managed his goal completely, but he got closer than anyone else, before or since.

[hamishspence]

Pratchett might argue that Vetinari does infact rule the world, he just finds it easier to do by not letting them know.

He's got no say in events on Fourecks, or the Agatean Empire. Or Uberwald (though an old friend of his who hints that she learned a lot from him, does).

"rule" would imply a bit more influence, than that.

[Larpus]

And then, there is also the variables to take into account.

Conquer the kingdom of an evil or simply corrupt king?

Good or Neutral at worse, as much war and bloodshed that happens, as long as most of the population survives and their lives change for the better, it's not evil at all.

Now. conquering the kingdom of a king that might not be "as good as you are" but still decent enough so people don't have big issues? That's possibly evil or just quite a-holly.

Still, there are many ways around it, such as conquering all evil kingdoms first and then simply inviting the good nations over or something.

In the end of the day, as long as you don't do anything too evil or want to rule everything with an iron fist (and sometimes even if you do), it won't be an evil world dominance, though it most probably will take a whole lot more time and be quite more convoluted than simply being consequentialist about it and fully embrace all the needed evil actions (but possibly be very secretive about it, aye?), with or without alignment shift.

I mean, most great leaders who "conquered the world" to some extent did this, such as the guys who unified Japan or China, nowadays in history books they're mostly portrayed as good guys, but they promoted wars left and right and I'll bet my balls they ordered more assassinations than most RPG villains.

[hamishspence]

"portrayed as a good guy" doesn't necessarily mean "would qualify as a Good-aligned guy by D&D standards".

The "power corrupts" statement in full has a corrollary "Great men are most often bad men" (which can be amended to "the great, are most often the bad"

Hence it is very hard, to do "great things" in the sense of changing the world on a large scale, and not slipping into that trap.

[Larpus]

Indeed, and even so such people might not be evil aligned depending on how much importance the DM gives to actions over thoughts.

Does a very, very Evil action such as summoning the most powerful demon known to men and then sacrifice an entire kingdom to his name but with a very, very Good outcome such as managing to get absolute peace and happiness in the rest of the world without ruling with an iron fist puts a character's alignment where?

After all, the guy indeed sacrificed like 20-100k people and brought forth a very powerful evil force, however he managed to seal away the evil force and gave everyone else (millions?) everything anyone could ever ask for in their lives.

[hamishspence]

Might depend on if this is a one-shot, or part of a pattern of behaviour.

Generally in D&D (if you go by Champions of Ruin) a pattern of Evil behaviour- even with Good intentions, tends to result in an Evil alignment rather than a Neutral.

They might be more compassionate, altruistic and caring than than your average Evil character- but they'll still have the same alignment.

It's worth remembering that summoning a fiend, on its own, is only a 1 pt Corrupt act- which is pretty low. Classes built around fiend-summoning tend to have "Any non-good alignment" rather than "any evil alignment"- and one (the Malconvoker) is immune to alignment shift from casting such spells).

Sacrificing people to the fiend, would be Murder though- a much more serious corrupt act. Especially if each person who's killed is counted separately.

[Shadowknight12]

A good-aligned character does not actively conquer the world. A good-aligned character merely lives his life and the world raises him to hero, paragon, leader, god. When a heroic character is no longer threatened by villains or evil schemes, the universe raises him to prominence and ties innocent lives to his every judgement and his every action, so that he can never again know peace of mind.

Ruling the world is not a reward for the good-aligned character. It's not a goal to be attained, regardless of how amazing he thinks the world would be with him on charge. It's another challenge to overcome, another chance to fall from grace, another pile of sacrifices to make.

[Larpus]

Might depend on if this is a one-shot, or part of a pattern of behaviour.

Generally in D&D (if you go by Champions of Ruin) a pattern of Evil behaviour- even with Good intentions, tends to result in an Evil alignment rather than a Neutral.

They might be more compassionate, altruistic and caring than than your average Evil character- but they'll still have the same alignment.

It's worth remembering that summoning a fiend, on its own, is only a 1 pt Corrupt act- which is pretty low. Classes built around fiend-summoning tend to have "Any non-good alignment" rather than "any evil alignment"- and one (the Malconvoker) is immune to alignment shift from casting such spells).

Sacrificing people to the fiend, would be Murder though- a much more serious corrupt act. Especially if each person who's killed is counted separately.
Now that's quite interesting, on a bit of offtopicness, in the end I was right when wanting to summon a demon who answers all questions in order to find the cult that summoned him in the past (I wanted to go further and slay or imprison the demon so the cult would no longer be able to use him), I was a LN wizard in the occasion, the group and DM said it was "too evil" to be allowed and all that.

Back on topic, yes, I was considering a one-time deal rather than a pattern something like "Ok, now I finally have (through Good or Neutral ways) enough power to summon this demon and slay it if needed, so here goes nothing...".

[hamishspence]

While the DMG says alignment change tends to be gradual, it also says there are exceptions.

And there is precedent, especially in older editions, for one major evil act, even "for the greater good" to lead to instant alignment change.

In the 2nd ed PHB, the example was "burning down the disease-ridden village to save the continent"- result, instant alignment change to Evil for the paladin.

Going back to the original topic- "Good" and "power-hungry" aren't incompatible- but the Good character generally needs to show restraint in their hunt for power (avoiding Evil acts) to stay Good.

And they're more likely to see the power as means to an end (making the world a happier and less evil place) than as an end in itself.

Some might work to reduce their own power in the latter stages of the process- so that when their goal is achieved, they are no longer necessary to keeping the world running.

Peter Wiggin, in Shadow of the Giant, is suggested to be doing this.