PDA

View Full Version : Making use of Monsters



Paseo H
2014-05-09, 05:33 PM
One issue that comes up in my game sometimes is, a ruler or someone who isn't a true monster in and of himself intentionally making use of 'mad dogs' and whatnot for some purpose, knowing full well that they're monsters and that they might do terrible things in the course of whatever greater good he's pursuing.

To what extent is he a monster himself?

For example, if Roy were to send Belkar on a needful errand, knowing with some certainty that Belkar would do terrible things to innocent people and yet it was the only choice, how much would that weigh upon him?

Kish
2014-05-09, 07:47 PM
I've always thought Roy's (lack of) effective control over Belkar was kind of appalling, from the word go, or rather from the words, "Run, my pretty little chunks of XP, run!"

Beyond that, well...what exactly is "needful"? Does Roy have a guarantee from the Oracle that Xykon will conquer the world if he does anything but unleash an unrestrained and unsupervised Belkar, or is he just doing the "out of sight, out of mind" thing he's almost always done in the comic?

Paseo H
2014-05-10, 03:54 AM
I'm not quite sure what sort of situation would merit what I've described, but that's beside the point really.

And in order to make the debate more interesting, let's say that it's not so much a 100 percent guarantee, but rather a 90 percent guarantee. That 9 out of 10, Xykon will win unless Roy takes the leash off Belkar, collateral damage be damned.

Think about it. It'd be easy to sigh and accept the necessity of it if it was 100 percent. But if there was a small chance, would that small chance merit the likelyhood but not absolute guarantee of Xykon's victory, in order to keep your hands clean?

In any case, I was just using an OOTS based example. A lot more examples are all over the place in other stories. And I don't mean in things like (Game of Thrones spoiler) we know Tywin's a monster and makes use of 'mad dogs' like The Mountain I mean in stories where they try to portray that the person commanding the 'mad dogs' as still being on the side of the greater good and meaning it all for the best.

For instance, in my campaign:

One of the emperors is a Lawful Evil 'harsh but fair' type tyrant, he's not cruel and he's careful not to oppress his subjects beyond their endurance. However, to secure the empire to start with, and to move things through the volatile first few years of imperial rule, he accepted help from offworlders who were basically mad dogs, and at one point their plan was to massacre dissidents (while sparing children and scholars), and eventually pretend to be publicly executed by the emperor so he could 'apologize' for his 'rogue generals.'

He hated the plan, but figured that this sick good cop/bad cop game was needful so that the populace could be placated, on the basis that the masses would value their comfort and thus accept the play by the emperor, while removing dissenting voices.

One of his daughter's friends, for her part, hates the emperor to this day (aunt and uncle slaughtered in the purge, scholarly aunt brainwashed), and considers him as bad a monster as his mad dog generals, for making such use of them.

Point is, he considers himself as doing what is best for his empire, and hates needing these peoples help.


I could see it argued both ways.

Paseo H
2014-05-11, 08:49 PM
bump due to the spam

Jay R
2014-05-12, 08:33 AM
That depends.

If the ruler or leader knows exactly what hes doing, then he's as much a villain as his minions.

If his well-intentioned experiment gets out of hand, then he has made a tragic mistake, and should eventually have a Dr. Frankenstein "What have I done?" moment.

If, like Roy, he has in fact reduced the amount of damage his minion is doing, as measured by this graph (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html) (eleventh panel), then he is a hero.

Paseo H
2014-05-12, 12:37 PM
He knows what he's doing (he's Lawful Evil but not a sickeningly evil example of LE like Tarquin) but he means it for the good. As in, better to sacrifice a few innocents so the empire remains solvent in the turbulent early years.

veti
2014-05-13, 09:43 PM
In Real Life(tm), people make use of monsters because that's what they've got on hand. You play the cards you're dealt.

In any given political player's domain, let's assume there are 100 adventurers of sufficiently high level to be worth employing. Of those 100, at least 80 are busy getting on with their own campaigns (or lives) and have no interest in helping you; a couple are probably in jail, 6 are politically sympathetic to (or already employed by) one of your rivals, 4 have optimised their builds for a completely different type of work. That means the pool of eligible applicants to actually do an important job is pretty small, and you can't afford to be too fussy about things like alignment.

If you're lucky, you'll be able to employ a team like the OOTS or the Scribblers that is mostly good-ish. If you're unlucky, you get the Vector Legion instead. But if the choice is between "getting the Vector Legion to save the world" and "not saving the world at all" - well, whatcha gonna do?

Paseo H
2014-05-14, 10:02 AM
I tend to agree, but it seems to me we should give due consideration to the other side of the debate.

In the case of the example before, it's "I don't care what your intent was, your mad dogs killed my family members and you were the one holding their leash, so you're just as much of a complete monster as they are."

Might seem silly trying to split the difference between "non-monster evil" and "monster evil," but I like to ponder these matters.

Driderman
2014-05-14, 10:20 AM
I don't know, if you're "intentionally making use of 'mad dogs' and whatnot for some purpose, knowing full well that they're monsters and that they might do terrible things" I don't really see how you can not be a monster yourself. Sure, you might be able to convince yourself that what you're doing is alright from a "greater good" point of view, but that's just the slippery slope arguments that will gradually lead you towards True Evil. I suppose it depends on what exactly your definition of "a monster" is.

You might be a canny, calculating or "refusing-to-admit-own-nature" type of monster, or you might be a fool, but when you plan and execute mass slaughter of the people you are supposed to rule over (and, presumably, protect in return for whatever obligations they have as citizens), you're past the point of acceptable "greater good" arguments to absolve you. You chose the path and the plan, you're a monster. Especially in a game like D&D where Good and Evil are tangible concepts and not abstract philosophies. Killing innocent subjects to remain in power is definitely Evil.

Jay R
2014-05-14, 11:42 AM
For example, if Roy were to send Belkar on a needful errand, knowing with some certainty that Belkar would do terrible things to innocent people and yet it was the only choice, how much would that weigh upon him?

Fortunately, we've been given the official answer in this case:

I'm not sure how comfortable I am with Roy taking it upon himself to contain Belkar, but I'll put it down in the file as an attempt to reform an evildoer.

That should remove the taint of Belkar's actions from Roy's record.

Luckily for Roy, our latest projections on what Belkar might have done without his influence back him up. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html)

Also, there's one factor you're not considering in this scenario.

He's trying.

He's trying to be Lawful Good.

People forget how crucial it is to keep trying, even if they screw it up now and then.

They figure that if they can't manage it perfectly every waking second, then they should just pick some other alignment because it'll be easier.

But it's the struggle that matters. It's easy for a being of pure Law and Good to live up to these ideals, but Roy's a mortal.

What matters is that when he blows up, he gets back on the horse and tries again.

Roy... well, Roy's record is full of grey spots, but he never stops working at improving it.

That's what's important. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html)

My conclusion in the general case of your scenario is that these kinds of questions are complicated, and cannot be solved in the general case. We'd need the exact specifics of the person, the monsters he's employing, what they would have done otherwise, what was prevented, etc.

veti
2014-05-14, 05:21 PM
I don't know, if you're "intentionally making use of 'mad dogs' and whatnot for some purpose, knowing full well that they're monsters and that they might do terrible things" I don't really see how you can not be a monster yourself. Sure, you might be able to convince yourself that what you're doing is alright from a "greater good" point of view, but that's just the slippery slope arguments that will gradually lead you towards True Evil. I suppose it depends on what exactly your definition of "a monster" is.

Well, yes. These are complex questions. Some actions are definitely Evil, some are definitely Good... and if you can't do the Good without also doing the Evil, what are you?

Fortunately, there's really no need for everyone to agree on an "authoritative" answer to that. You, the DM, decide that the NPCs do what they do. The PCs can decide how they react. Who's really "right" and who's really "wrong" - in the end, who cares? The game plays out either way.

Paseo H
2014-05-15, 02:19 AM
You might be a canny, calculating or "refusing-to-admit-own-nature" type of monster, or you might be a fool, but when you plan and execute mass slaughter of the people you are supposed to rule over (and, presumably, protect in return for whatever obligations they have as citizens), you're past the point of acceptable "greater good" arguments to absolve you. You chose the path and the plan, you're a monster. Especially in a game like D&D where Good and Evil are tangible concepts and not abstract philosophies. Killing innocent subjects to remain in power is definitely Evil.

In this particular instance, his thinking is that if he allows his empire to be destroyed, it'll go back to being a Mad Max type world, which it was. It was post-apocalyptic and eventually this warlord got all Oda Nobunaga on everyone, and then was aided further by this psycho who viewed him as one of the 'chosen ones' of her cult, and so eventually they defeated/united everyone into an empire.

As for planning and executing, it was less that he did so and more that he grudgingly allowed them to be the ones to do it. It kinda went like:


Yue: Let us purge the dissidents and then you can use us as scapegoats to placate the masses who are too afraid to risk their own comfort. Besides, it's for the best that the innocents who want a more benevolent rulership are punished as much as the guilty who want to depose you for their own power, because it shows that innocence will not impertinently countermand your imperial authority.

Iason: Damnit all...fine. (thinking: was this deal with the devil worth it?)

I suppose you could draw a comparison to the situation with Empire of Blood, but I don't think it was quite as brutal as that empire, either.