PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Evil Cities and PC's



FooBot
2014-08-25, 06:17 AM
I have always had an interesting problem when it comes to the idea of cities run by evil forces. Sometimes it makes sense, cities run by lawful evil entities can make sense and have order, but I have a hard time seeing a functional city run by those who swing to the CE or NE side of things. Should these cities be mired in the kind of chaos I would come to suspect, only held together by fear of a greater power?

Furthermore, I always wonder how PC visits to these cities should be run. Sure Cities in hell or some other lawful evil realm, are "lawful" but would they abide the presence of a group of good aligned folk walking down the street? It gets even odder when it comes to places like some kind of NE dark fey cities. Assuming good aligned PC's could even get in the gate, would they just find themselves under constant threat/ attack? Even if the PC's were evil, would they just be seen as intruders anyway?

Part of me wants to run it by just asking what would a good aligned city do if a group of dark fey/devils walked in. But part of me thinks the response could be wholly different.

I was just wondering how other people handle evil cities and places within their worlds. Any tips or comments would be appreciated.

Slipperychicken
2014-08-25, 06:45 AM
I'd say NE rulers could work a few ways:

Type 1: Corruption Everywhere.
The public services use outdated tools, the city is in squalor and discontent because city officials are stealing money from the system, nothing gets through the bureaucracy without a bribe*, and civil servants are often denied pay because their money is stolen or mismanaged.

*Bureaucrats might take bribes, not always because they're bad people, but more often because the official salary isn't enough to comfortably support a family. Bribes might even be a cultural norm to help out ill-compensated civil servants.


Type 2: Unethical but Efficient.
The trains run on time, crime is down, the economy is up, the public services are efficient, and people generally feel the city is run well. Just don't tell that to the overworked public officials, oppressed racial minorities, persecuted religious groups, the neutered political opposition, or the homeless. The city's leaders will breeze through red tape to get things done, but while their stated objectives are sound, they often violate peoples' human rights and dignity to get things done. If you're counted a member of the favored demographics and you keep your mouth shut, then life is pretty good.. Not so much you're an impoverished minority or like to criticize the authorities.

Ettina
2014-08-25, 07:23 AM
Well, in Menzobarrazzan, one of the major drow cities, the drow's Chaotic Evil nature basically shows up as everyone plotting and scheming against everyone else. They cooperate as much as is actually necessary in order to keep the city from completely falling to pieces, but they'll backstab each other whenever they can get away with it.

As for how they'd react to Good-aligned PCs walking in, well, they'd probably attack them. However, Menzobarrazzan has a lot of slavery, and some of the slaves are Good-aligned races, so the PCs might be able to disguise as slaves. In which case, they might get whipped by some random passing drow for fun and not be expected to resist, but they won't get seen as an enemy and full-on attacked.

Demidos
2014-08-25, 02:01 PM
As the poster above mentioned, checking out the Drow should give you a good reference point.

Also, check out the City of the Enigmatic Overgnome (or something like that) campaign journal of the incredible Kaveman26 as well, where an evil city (plus evil PCs!) are the center of the campaign.

Yora
2014-08-25, 02:23 PM
I would expect a Lawful Evil city to be unfair, but you always know what you're dealing with. You may not like the rules, but when you play by them you will mostly be left in peace, unless you belong to a minority that the leadership considers a blight on society.

In a Neutral Evil city, things are less regulated, which can make it both more unfair and corrupt and less openly hostile. Generally, people don't care what others are doing, as long as it doesn't interfere with their interests. The people in charge don't demand submission to their ideal of society and let you do as you like. But they will also exploit you with barely a sense of fairness. If they want something, they see that they get things their way. If you can manage to not draw anyones attention, you have a good chance to stay out of trouble. However, the authorities will also not have much concern for maintaining order and you shouldn't expect any official protection from ordinary criminals. It's simply not their problem.

A city that is predominantly Chaotic Evil probably doesn't have any real effective leadership. There may be an official government, but actual control lies mostly in some form of gangs. The groups have their own turfs, which they will defend against each other, and they may or may not form lose alliances against common enemies. If there is an actual government, it's probably controlled by the biggest and most powerful gang, and the other gangs play along with it because they would lose in an open confrontation.
Basically it's the same with drow cities. Their gangs call themselves nobility and live in fancy castles, and many are supposedly loyal to a queen or high priestess, but effectively they are still thugs who constantly are at war with each other and control the commoners through extortion and practical slavery. You work for a noble house, or else... And it works the same way with the queen. She really is just the gang leader with the best network of alliances.

Segev
2014-08-25, 03:29 PM
Chaotic Evil cities will be clannish. They will resemble close-packed tribal encampments more than what we typically think of as cities. They are, effectively, "the bad part of town" taken to a whole nother level.

Inner cities overrun with gangs are a good example. They keep order in their own territories by dint of brute force and the charisma of their leaders. They fight with other gangs who dispute their turf or just because they're posturing. If the "official" government is CE, it's the biggest power in town. The hierarchy is feudal, at best, with smaller gangs paying tribute to the bigger ones in return for being left to manage their own business.

Tribes/clans/gangs/families (see: Capulet & Montague) will protect their own and may even have authority - if only by virtue of nobody telling them otherwise - to place their own infrastructure.

If there are city-wide services, they either work directly for the biggest and most powerful force, or they are almost their own gang or guild and they provide their services to the local powers in return for negotiated freedoms, tithes, or the like. You don't mess with the sewer-minders because they own the sewers, and not only will they physically defend themselves, but you really don't want to have to clean those, yourself, do you?

Slavery will be rampant, whether offically called that or not. Slavery is just tyranny on the most intimate scale: the weak are literally unable to escape thralldom to the strong.

A neutral evil city will look similar, but will have a broader nod to civility and overall order. There will be official authorities, rather than just the strongarms of whateveer gangs or clans or families run the place. There are laws, if only because the various powers that be respect the need for order enough to agree to abide by and enforce them...most of the time...when they don't think they won't get caught breaking them.

The laws such as they are will support the status quo, and give official privileges where the CE society would merely recognize them as existing due to not being able to stop the powerful from taking them. Where CE cities would have lengthy negotiations between clans before ganging up on a trouble-maker, the facade of legitimacy given to the policing forces (city guard, whatever) means that getting caught out breaking the rules is a swift excuse for the others to turn on you. Complying with the established punishments - usually inflicted as economic or positional damage to the ruling class and as punitive force on their underlings - is better than facing the all-out war that would otherwise result. (In the CE city, it's war, period.) On the up side, you also can try to prove you didn't do it, and reduce your foes to having to clandestinely come after you.

The LE city is the most recognizable as a functional city to most of us. There, the laws are still in place to support the status quo, but are adhered to more strictly. Factions are less official; everybody is trying to use the system to get power, rather than using power to influence the system. Here, getting away with something everybody knows you did by making it impossible to prove actually works, because nobody is going to go extra-legal to handle it (...unless they can also do it without anybody being able to prove anything...).

jedipotter
2014-08-25, 04:17 PM
I was just wondering how other people handle evil cities and places within their worlds. Any tips or comments would be appreciated.

For the most part ''evil'' cities are just like ''good'' cities. In fact, it's doubtful you'd be able to tell them apart.

Lets take a couple of laws from a couple of places in the Forgotten Realms:



Laws of Waterdeep:

*Impersonation of a Lord:Death (instant)
*Poisoning of Water (City Wells; includes attempted blockage or attempts to control public access, or charge fees for such access): Death (instant)
*Bribery of a City Officer or Official (attempted or apprehended): Exile (up to 20 years) and confiscation of all property except one weapon, one week's rations, and clothes worn by the offender
*''Personal Assault'': Mutilation (loss of offending extremities, branding) and damages (up to 2,000gp)
*Fraud: Exile (permanent)




*Counterfeiting---Ranges from death to imprisonment for an arbitrary duration, depending on the severity and scope of the crime.

*Murder-Death, exile, or imprisonment for an arbitrary duration up to life.

*Sedition (Sedition is defined as any attempt to spread disenchantment with the Crown or any attempt to incite rebellion against the Crown.)---Death, exile, or imprisonment for an arbitrary duration.

*Theft--Imprisonment – one day per 250 gold value, fine of three times the value of the goods taken paid to victim.

*On the Harming of Cats--Harming cats (of the house cat variety as opposed to larger, more predatory felines) is a crime punishable by a fine of one thousand gold.





*Law of Red Robes - Only Red Wizards may wear red robes, so that all shall be able to identify them easily. Punishment for those caught wearing red robes is immediate execution.

*Law of Thievery - Do not steal from other Thayans or harm their belongings, especially their slaves. Punishment for thievery is maiming, branding, enslavement, or, in severe cases, death.

*Laws of Assault - Punishment against assault depends on the importance of the person assaulted, and can range from enslavement to death, though lesser punishments might be appropriate depending on how the case is handled by the parties involved, as there is no hard rule on the issue.







How about Tethyr:

*Treason (including assault upon a royal person): Death (immediate)

*Forgery of an official document shall result in death and dismemberment or dismemberment of the hand and submission to permanent forced labor.

*Burglary Imprisonment (1-6 months) and fine (value of goods lost plus up to 500gp)

*Worship of any deity within Tethyr may not involve the theft or destruction of other beings.

*Veneration of any deity within Tethyr may not demand tribute from persons outside its faith.

*Harmful activities countenanced by any follower’s religion shall not be granted impunity.





So, going by the laws: what is the alignment of each place?

Some of them ''good'' places sure have some brutal laws, while the evil place does not even really have ''evil'' laws....

Arbane
2014-08-25, 07:34 PM
(It's Lawful Evil, but...)



The trains run on time, crime is down, the economy is up, the public services are efficient, and people generally feel the city is run well.

And the chocolate rations have been increased from eight grams to five! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four)

sktarq
2014-08-25, 09:53 PM
Also in chaotic evil cities

may well not have law based on precedent but on individual judgment (and the judges are volunteers sacrificing for the good of the community)

regular services may be replaced with negotiated ones at rates with modifiers that could be called unfair. Such services include a neighborhood council and the sewer unions, or water delivery services. That could mean there are a half dozen water teams trying to undercut each other and kill for the contract or that the two families who manage water in the city divvy it up and only offer exorbitant rates.

That the central power is CE could be a council who is full of various houses, nobles etc who each got to their status by being ruthless, killing, extorting, and doing whatever else is needed to get and keep themselves there. And while they don't eat and excrete openly in the same place the shadows are wet and coppery smelling. Also could be a single extremely powerful individual. Like a dragon, archmagi, or high level sorcerer. He does what he wants, takes what he likes, changes the law on a whim but provides safety and the weary bureaucrats who deliver his/her latest whim are reasonably enough if not dealing with the leader's express order. It also could be a church of a CE god. Worship the god and you are okay but the god changes what they want pretty regularly (and internally is a mess of petty squabbling, blackmail, and the occasional poisoned drink) but the god also provides and the priests can get the city working by tossing massive manpower at a job-for a couple days. Could be fun if you are the gregarious sort and their evil tendencies could well be focused on outsiders, or other religions, etc. Lots of options really.

veti
2014-08-25, 10:49 PM
There are lots of examples of NE/CE authorities in fiction. Think of Bartertown in Mad Max 3 (NE), Biff in Back to the Future 2 (CE), the System Lords in Stargate: SG1 (CE), Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter (CE).

At first glance you may mistake them for LE, because they enforce their will ruthlessly on underlings. But if you watch them for a while, you soon realise they're not interested in laws at all, they just want everyone else to stay out of their way. So long as you avoid attracting their attention, you can do whatever the heck you like within their domains - they just don't care. They lack the "control freakery" gene that makes for a genuine LE ruler.

In everyday life, that'll translate to widespread corruption by all lower-level officials, probably with law enforcement that focuses more on repressing political dissent than on dealing with actual crimes (because "political dissent" threatens the gravy train and everyone on it, so that's a shortcut to "attracting the big bad's attention with knobs on").

Beige
2014-08-25, 11:55 PM
hmmmm, on the conundrum of

lets tak for example very few chaotic evil folks would actually run things - they're the kind of people good for getting in charge, but that dosen't mean they're making all the decisions. Even if the cities rules is a chaotic evil crackpot, his staff likely includes more stable people better at getting the city to actually work than the tyrant demanding a rain of custard every hour. Look at OoTS n this very website - xykon controls the army, but redcloak is the one that makes it run.

furthermore, even disregarding that, one cannot forget that chaotic does not mean stupid nor random, it means someone who acts to their own rules and feelings (which can translate to random or stupid, but the two are not the same). It's prefectly possible for them to be able to run a tight and effective ship, sometimes even more effecient than an explicitly lawful nation due to being less tied down by law.

as for the response from an evil city to visiting heroes, one needs to go back to the evil rulers? are the heroes a direct threat to the rulers? if so, then they'd probably come down on them to try and get them to leave (even just sending the police force in their pocket can work. heroes are busy people and can't topple every nation run by not very nice folks). Otherise, why provoke them? heck, maybe invite them to the palace and show off that despite the evil label, the people are happy and toppling you is a waste of time, or if the heroes are against a mutal enemy, well, why not help. save your own skin and get the other *******, all with delicious deniability :smallamused:

for some examples:

NE city - would probably be pretty much the same as any other city. I;d assume due to its rulers preferences itd have a large number of ghettos and segregation, but even the most evil of citties cannot be too evil before they become ghost town. Neutral evil also lends itself well to the traditional sisnter city model; not quite a police state, and everything runs well (if the people running it aren;t realy doing so of their own free will), but the air is tense and there's an undercurrent of fear and a slow rise of discontentment, flaring out into the occasional violent riot. but besides that, there's still buisness and trade, still poeople moving in and moving out, they'll have a team for the local sports events (even if its funding is less nice than most). Heck, it may even have a form of diplomatic govornment, with some positions changing by the whims of the people (not the overlord, of course) if it leans more towards neutral than evil.

CE city has two main ideas for the whole city to feel CE. the first is like what you mentioned - chaos; the free city where law of the strongest rules. one would assume the cities borders would just be the outer circle, and the territory itself owned by varios gangs and orginizations, all controlled by the fickle hand of the ruling villain and his direct minions, but in a very hands off sort of way. you pay tribute and stay out of his way, and he's happy. things like food and markets would still exist even if they needed armed guards, because otherwise why bother holding these dangerous city positions when you can leave?

the other is paradoxically, the most brutal kind of police state - the one controlled completly by the whims of someone without a respect for law and order, but with a lust for power and control. this is the city that has frequent riots put down by bloody force, where people live in terror and are abducted forbraking some law to be introduced tommorow, last repealed last week. The city borders will likely be a wall, and as far as trade goes one would be better to call the place a prison

or they overlord could just take over, get himself a nice house and garden, and leave control of the rest of the place to non evil people (the 'president' of gambia is a crazy loon who drives around in a tank and has made a law where hes allowed to shoot people. the capital city is a nice enough place to live as the people actually seeing to the day to day activities are elected officials like any other) because he's CE and actually running the place is effort

JusticeZero
2014-08-26, 02:11 AM
Watch the news. Look for stories of corruption, greed, elitism, and the like. Read the comments. Read what the people in the boot print of those places are saying.
Now make your city behave that way and bam, believable Evil city. Chaotic cities are anarchic and may have coups rolling back and forth; Lawful cities are where you file your bureaucratic horror stories, Neutral cities are where the police are worse than the criminals.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-08-26, 05:32 AM
Chaotic Evil cities - essentially, people and groups will survive if they're either strong enough to forcibly hold what they have, or they're important enough to the general population that no one else wants to risk losing them or them falling into a rival powers hands - healers might be informally off limits because they treat everyone equally, no matter which faction they belong to, while the people who maintain the sewers could effectively buy their protection by turning a blind eye to any smuggling operations that go through the sewers, fishing corpses out without saying a word, and by being able to create plagues if they shut the outflow sluice gates for a couple of days.

The ruler would likely be a despot, possibly not even the same species as the majority of the population, and they'd spend most of their time making sure there were no attempts on their position - political alliances would be ever shifting, and promotion would almost certainly be into dead-men's shoes, whether you emptied them yourself, or because they tried to promote themselves into the shoes of someone higher up, who survived and emptied them for you.

And the city watch would probably be the worst gang of all - they could be the ruler's bully boys and enforcers, thugs out for whatever they can grab for themselves, who imprison anyone who looks at them (not even in a funny way), administer punishment beatings on someone random just to keep the population fearful, and the only way to avoid their sexual advances (and the watch might be at least partially or even totally female, especially if the ruler is female and the laws heavily oppress males in the population) is to be involved with someone higher up the tree and more powerful than they are (giving in might just see you getting passed around the squad), or, as Beige suggested, they may be competent law enforcement officials in a ruthlessly totalitarian police state.

Greysky City's probably the first case, Mega-City 1 in The Day The Law Died (aka Judge Cal) might be the second.

Mastikator
2014-08-26, 06:27 AM
Institutional oppression, rampant corruption and violent crime, legalization of slavery, inproportionally harsh punishment for crime, lack of respect for habeus corpus, lack of empathy toward the weak, rampant abuse of power within governing bodies, organized crime, silencing of free speech, use of torture as a form of punishment. These are all the hallmarks of an evil society. I'm sure there are things I'm missing.

Would a good PC be able to enter such a place? Depends on their race and social status, a human can't enter a drow city because "humans are inferior and shouldn't be allowed to roam free", but a human could probably enter an hobgoblin city (not talking about just sneaking in unannounced, but entering through legal channels).

My point is that there are thousands of different configurations a city can have and be evil, many of these configurations are completely different from one-another. Goblin society is evil, Mindflayer society is evil, they are nothing alike, a good human society is more similar to an evil goblin society than an evil goblin society and an evil mindflayer society.

Segev
2014-08-26, 07:56 AM
For the most part ''evil'' cities are just like ''good'' cities. In fact, it's doubtful you'd be able to tell them apart.

Lets take a couple of laws from a couple of places in the Forgotten Realms:



Laws of Waterdeep:

*Impersonation of a Lord:Death (instant)
*Poisoning of Water (City Wells; includes attempted blockage or attempts to control public access, or charge fees for such access): Death (instant)
*Bribery of a City Officer or Official (attempted or apprehended): Exile (up to 20 years) and confiscation of all property except one weapon, one week's rations, and clothes worn by the offender
*''Personal Assault'': Mutilation (loss of offending extremities, branding) and damages (up to 2,000gp)
*Fraud: Exile (permanent)

I happen to know the answer to this one, so it's not a fair judge. However, trying my best to ignore that knowledge, I'd say that none of these laws are designed for oppression nor to hold power for power's sake. The closest is the "no impersonating a Lord" one, and that could easily come down to preventing con artists from trying to usurp lawful authority or suborn crimes and then claim they never meant any harm and that others were responsible.

Harsh at times, but these laws are fair and designed to protect the innocent. Whether it's LN or LG would depend on how they're enforced and whether concern was for justice or order. (No, these needn't be mutually exclusive, but which holds more interest to those enforcing the law will influence LN v LG.)



*Counterfeiting---Ranges from death to imprisonment for an arbitrary duration, depending on the severity and scope of the crime.

*Murder-Death, exile, or imprisonment for an arbitrary duration up to life.

*Sedition (Sedition is defined as any attempt to spread disenchantment with the Crown or any attempt to incite rebellion against the Crown.)---Death, exile, or imprisonment for an arbitrary duration.

*Theft--Imprisonment – one day per 250 gold value, fine of three times the value of the goods taken paid to victim.

*On the Harming of Cats--Harming cats (of the house cat variety as opposed to larger, more predatory felines) is a crime punishable by a fine of one thousand gold.
This one could be LN, TN, or NG, depending on rigidity of enforcement. The Sedition law is, again, the closest to an oppressive one, and is not unreasonable for a monarchy, depending on how stringently it's enforced. Sounds like they have a bit of a feline theocracy in their dominant religion, but that's a cultural quirk more than anything else. And the punishment, while severe for peasants, is something adventurers could help the innocent out with without needing to resort to revolt. The severity is odd, but again, how rigidly it's enforced will make a serious difference. "The cat ran out into the street and your child stepped on his tail while dodging a careening carriage," could count as a 1000 gp fine...or be waived as unintentional and minor. Not sure how they enforce that law, nor what they do if you literally cannot pay the fine. (The expense of it compared to a commoner's wealth is what makes it questionably pushing evil enough to drag the whole city to Neutral.)





*Law of Red Robes - Only Red Wizards may wear red robes, so that all shall be able to identify them easily. Punishment for those caught wearing red robes is immediate execution.

*Law of Thievery - Do not steal from other Thayans or harm their belongings, especially their slaves. Punishment for thievery is maiming, branding, enslavement, or, in severe cases, death.

*Laws of Assault - Punishment against assault depends on the importance of the person assaulted, and can range from enslavement to death, though lesser punishments might be appropriate depending on how the case is handled by the parties involved, as there is no hard rule on the issue.



Again, I know the answer, but will attempt to set that aside. The Law of Red Robes could be written off as similar to "don't impersonate a noble/lord," and is thus more Lawful than anything else. Where this slips into firm NE territory is how all of the laws center around protecting only Thayans, and are extremely flexible where individual Thayan interests may come up. It begins to feel like the laws protecting the identity of the ruling class have less to do with preventing fraud and more to do with protecting special privileges.

This one is TN to NE, becaue its laws aren't evenly applied enough to be Lawful, and its purpose seems more to maintain order on behalf of the rulers than to provide a fair basis for all to operate.




How about Tethyr:

*Treason (including assault upon a royal person): Death (immediate)

*Forgery of an official document shall result in death and dismemberment or dismemberment of the hand and submission to permanent forced labor.

*Burglary Imprisonment (1-6 months) and fine (value of goods lost plus up to 500gp)

*Worship of any deity within Tethyr may not involve the theft or destruction of other beings.

*Veneration of any deity within Tethyr may not demand tribute from persons outside its faith.

*Harmful activities countenanced by any follower’s religion shall not be granted impunity.



I actually don't know the answer to this one, so it's the best test.

The "assault upon a royal person means death" clause has me wary, but is not inherently out of line with how royalty were typically protected. It's not even out of line with how somebody who assaulted the POTUS would be treated. A little harsher if you don't treat the Secret Service's robust defense as "justice," but instead assume the accused gets to a trial, but still...this one can go either way.

Forgery's punishment is extremely harsh, and demonstrates a concern for order and its maintenance. I don't see any way for this to be twisted, outside of framing somebody for the crime, into tyranny, so I think this one fits under "LN" itself, and neither pulls an LE city up towards LN nor an LG city down towards LN. It works in either.

The burglary punishment is about par for the course, perhaps even a bit merciful. I'd put this as a law that would be most at home in an NG or TN society (possibly with CN leanings, since the lightness of the punishment could represent property being of less concern overall as something which needs legal protection).

The religious laws actually spell out the negative space of a pretty broad religious freedom, too. The focus here seems to be on preventing any justification for harm of one individual to another. If religions of all sorts weren't otherwise welcome, laws specifying that religion cannot be an excuse for what would otherwise be crimes - and specifically referring to crimes of harm against other citizens - would not be necessary.

Despite the harshness of the punishments for crimes which undermine the ruler's authority, the rest of how that authority is applied in this snapshot of the legal system makes me lean towards NG overall. (Further information could obviously change this, but from the laws alone, it sounds like they have laws mainly to preserve everybody's rights, and to prevent criminals from exploiting any obvious loopholes or undermining that system of laws.)

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-08-26, 08:25 AM
Would a good PC be able to enter such a place? Depends on their race and social status, a human can't enter a drow city because "humans are inferior and shouldn't be allowed to roam free", but a human could probably enter an hobgoblin city (not talking about just sneaking in unannounced, but entering through legal channels).

Cities need trade in order to survive, which would likely mean representatives of merchant houses or trading guilds could live there - with appropriate security, bribes to the correct officials and so on, or possibly in small protected enclaves. There might also be diplomats and officers of other states - even if they completely disagree with the political situation, they'll try and maintain diplomatic relations. That doesn't mean they're not trying to work behind the scenes to change things, and the local underground thieves guild aren't a primarily good or even lawful organisation.

Alternatively, certain groups might be considered as outside the political structure and power games, and thus hold places within that society - good Clerics could be the healers, while Paladins might be sanctioned as bounty hunters, for instance, even if they're demeened and ridiculed by the general populace, and the ruler's got certain caveats in place that prevent them from acting against him or her (whether that's Vetinarii Job Security, a dead-man's switch that will lead to mass death and/ or suffering, or making sure that they'll break their vows and fall long before they can get to them).

Or you could say that Lawful and Good are relative terms, and someone who'd be classed as neutral, maybe even borderline evil in another environment, is good in this one.

jedipotter
2014-08-26, 08:52 PM
Just consider what happens in so called good cities:

Are there homeless? Are there beggars? Are there people with no jobs? Is there a class of low income workers that can not rise out of the rut they are in? Is there a permanent underclass of near slave labor?

Does race matter? If your a set race are there set jobs for you? Would a good city ever elect an orc mayor? How about an elf?

How about beauty? If your beautiful are things easy for you? Are things hard if your ugly?

What is more important: doing what is right or following the law? Take the classic TV show/movie(watch for example: The A-Team or the movie One Crazy Summer) problem: rich guy will close the orphanage if he does not get the money by 5PM, tear it down and kick all the kids out onto the street. Does a good city allow this? It is all ok as long as your following the rules/laws? Or do the good people step in to say ''wait this is wrong'' no matter what the rules/laws say?

Lets take Star Wars. Now I'm only a fan of the movies and don't know about the expanded universe.....but: Why is the Empire evil? What bad things does the Empire do? We never see the 'evil' that makes the Rebels. Why are there even Rebels?

And sure you can say the Empire is evil for blowing up that one whole planet full of innocent people. But then the Rebels did blow up two 'moon sized' space stations and that super star destroyer. Or was every window washer, cook or construction worker in the Empire Totally Evilz? Was that guy out welding the second Death Star together also killing jawas? Like ''weld a spot, kill a jawa family, break for lunch''.

Like say the four armed dino guys son still runs that little '50's dinner on Trantor or whatwever it is called. So what does Denver the last dinosaur think about ''The Empire''? Does he get taxed? Does the Empire police the streets? Does the Empire limit how much sugar he can put in his lemonade? Is there any reason for Dever to dump some tea off a floating platform and join the Rebels?

Mastikator
2014-08-27, 05:23 AM
Cities need trade in order to survive, which would likely mean representatives of merchant houses or trading guilds could live there - with appropriate security, bribes to the correct officials and so on, or possibly in small protected enclaves. [snip]
Yes, but not necessarily with anyone that is willing. A hobgoblin city might decide to only trade with other goblins, and goblin villagers in turn trade with orcs and various giants and some wild elves, who in turn trade with high elves, who in turn trade with humans and halflings, who in turn trade with dwarves and gnomes.
You can have a complex economy where everyone indirectly trade with everyone, but many have a kill/arrest on sight. You could have dwarven smithed tools being traded for in a goblin market without dwarves being there.



[snip]
Lets take Star Wars. Now I'm only a fan of the movies and don't know about the expanded universe.....but: Why is the Empire evil? What bad things does the Empire do? We never see the 'evil' that makes the Rebels. Why are there even Rebels? [snip]
In "A new hope" Darth Vader explains to the council that democracy has finally be totally eradicated and when asked "how do we maintain power?" he explains that the military force of the Death Star will keep the various worlds in check, as it has the power to destroy a planet.
General Tarkin then orders mass murder on Alderan blowing it up, killing billions.

That alone puts them on the top of the "evilest empire in movie history" list.

What the rebels did, destroying all those ships, is a fart in the wind by comparison.

Segev
2014-08-27, 04:06 PM
rich guy will close the orphanage if he does not get the money by 5PM, tear it down and kick all the kids out onto the street. Does a good city allow this? It is all ok as long as your following the rules/laws? Or do the good people step in to say ''wait this is wrong'' no matter what the rules/laws say?

At least equally importantly, if the "good people of the city" say, "No, this is wrong," what do they do about it?

Do they try to lynch the rich guy? Do they try to force him, under threat of violence, to keep the orphanage open? Do they attempt to use threat of force to take the property away from him and give it to the orphanage's caretaker? Do they strive to gather money to pay the man by the deadline, or to open a new orphanage facility for the kids to move into?

Some of these are chaotic, some lawful, some good, and some actually evil responses, regardless of the intentions.

jedipotter
2014-08-27, 05:36 PM
Some of these are chaotic, some lawful, some good, and some actually evil responses, regardless of the intentions.

Well, I would say any such city is not good. The people that make/voted for/support the laws that do such evil things are not good people.

Lets take The Purge. Can you be Lawful Good and agree with ''murder all the poor and homeless once a year''?

How about the Judge Dread universe, can you be a good person if you agree with the idea of ''cops'' as judge, jury and executioner?

Would a good person like Babylon 5's ''death of personality'', where they ''kill'' the mind of the criminal, and then make a new personality and send them back out into the public?

It's how Minority Report arrest you before you do a crime good?

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-08-28, 07:23 AM
Well, I would say any such city is not good. The people that make/voted for/support the laws that do such evil things are not good people.

Depends on the origin of the law - it could have been originally put in place to prevent people being thrown out without any warning, or squatting without the rightful owner having any recourse to reclaiming their property.

Having unforeseen consequences doesn't necessarily change a good act into something else. It just means it needs more work.


How about the Judge Dread universe, can you be a good person if you agree with the idea of ''cops'' as judge, jury and executioner?

As it's probably the example I know most about (and he's Judge Dredd :smallwink: ), I'll focus on this one.

There's two vital words that should be added to the description of Mega City Judges - judge, jury and, if necessary, executioner. Only in certain cases (aside from things like the immediate defence of life, a couple that spring to mind are the security of the city is specifically called out in one of the early Anderson stories where she winds up getting trapped in another dimension, and Dredd uses incendiary rounds on someone infected with a highly contagious and lethal fungal disease to prevent it spreading into the general population and causing a pandemic that they may not be able to control), with the very worst offenders, or for certain crimes (there's a story involving a serial child abuser, who Anderson sentences to death for his crimes but can't bring hersel to pull the trigger, so another judge, who's had various run ins with her during the story and various preceeding ones, steps up and executes him in her place), do Judges execute people - even to the point where someone who's fatally injured is put into cryogenic suspension, to be held until their injuries can be treated and they can then serve their time.

As for whether someone can support that and be thought of as good - remember that good isn't absolute, it's a sliding scale going from "occasionally drops loose change into a charity collecting tin" to "being of pure good". It can also be relative - Mega City 1 isn't a very nice place anyway, and according to the history, it was a lot worse before the Judges got their powers.

I'd personally put Anderson into the good side of things, while Dredd himself would be Lawful Neutral, but has tended over to good on occasion.

jedipotter
2014-08-28, 03:14 PM
Depends on the origin of the law - it could have been originally put in place to prevent people being thrown out without any warning, or squatting without the rightful owner having any recourse to reclaiming their property.

Having unforeseen consequences doesn't necessarily change a good act into something else. It just means it needs more work.


Sure all laws have good intentions, as evil folks don't care. But as soon as something goes wrong, a good person should change the law. Or better yet, a good system of law would have automatic and constant reviews. Sounds very lawful too....

Yora
2014-08-28, 03:18 PM
Sounds rather chaotic to me.

Alignment doesn't make any sense.

Segev
2014-08-28, 03:26 PM
Take the classic TV show/movie(watch for example: The A-Team or the movie One Crazy Summer) problem: rich guy will close the orphanage if he does not get the money by 5PM, tear it down and kick all the kids out onto the street. Does a good city allow this? It is all ok as long as your following the rules/laws? Or do the good people step in to say ''wait this is wrong'' no matter what the rules/laws say?


At least equally importantly, if the "good people of the city" say, "No, this is wrong," what do they do about it?

Do they try to lynch the rich guy? Do they try to force him, under threat of violence, to keep the orphanage open? Do they attempt to use threat of force to take the property away from him and give it to the orphanage's caretaker? Do they strive to gather money to pay the man by the deadline, or to open a new orphanage facility for the kids to move into?

Some of these are chaotic, some lawful, some good, and some actually evil responses, regardless of the intentions.


Well, I would say any such city is not good. The people that make/voted for/support the laws that do such evil things are not good people.
Re-read my post (helpfully quoted above): The "some of these" are the various ways to respond to the situation.

Forcing him, under threat of violence, to keep it open is either slavery (if it requires work on his part to do so) or theft (because it's taking his ownership of the property away). This is evil or chaotic, since he has done nothing to deserve such abuse save not use his property the way you think he should.

Threat of force used to take his property and give it to the caretaker is also theft, and evil; it is taking that which is not yours based simply on your desire to have it, and being willing to cause harm to another in order to get it.

Offering him money through private efforts to gather it, or through legally-voted-upon public funds, in order to buy it from him would be Good, because it's merciful and willing charity.

Again: the various responses of the city are what tells you the city's alignment. There are good and evil, lawful and chaotic ways to handle this problem. Whether you think the rich guy is a reprobate or is justified is irrelevant; it's his property and resorting to theft is not moral.



Lets take The Purge. Can you be Lawful Good and agree with ''murder all the poor and homeless once a year''?

How about the Judge Dread universe, can you be a good person if you agree with the idea of ''cops'' as judge, jury and executioner?

Would a good person like Babylon 5's ''death of personality'', where they ''kill'' the mind of the criminal, and then make a new personality and send them back out into the public?

It's how Minority Report arrest you before you do a crime good?In light of what I was actually saying, I don't think these are relevant any longer. Please elaborate if you think they are.

Segev
2014-08-28, 03:29 PM
Sure all laws have good intentions, as evil folks don't care. But as soon as something goes wrong, a good person should change the law. Or better yet, a good system of law would have automatic and constant reviews. Sounds very lawful too....

Nonsense. Laws can very easily have evil intent. Lawful Evil people establish laws to give structure and legitimacy to their base desires. "Inconveniencing a noble is punishable by death, and refusing to do anything a noble suggests is inconveniencing him" is a valid law, but is evil. It establishes order by placing one class over another, but it serves no good purpose. It's purely for oppressive use.

veti
2014-08-28, 07:06 PM
Re-read my post (helpfully quoted above): The "some of these" are the various ways to respond to the situation.

Forcing him, under threat of violence, to keep it open is either slavery (if it requires work on his part to do so) or theft (because it's taking his ownership of the property away). This is evil or chaotic, since he has done nothing to deserve such abuse save not use his property the way you think he should.

That's neither "slavery" nor "theft" by any meaningful definition of either word. It's putting a restriction of use on his property, which is something most countries and cities do routinely. For example, does your city have any such thing as zoning laws? There you go. And your rider that "he has done nothing to deserve such abuse" - implies that some people could deserve it, and raises the question of how you might decide who qualifies for such treatment.


Threat of force used to take his property and give it to the caretaker is also theft, and evil; it is taking that which is not yours based simply on your desire to have it, and being willing to cause harm to another in order to get it.

It's not "based simply on your desire to have it", it's based on your desire to protect the vulnerable, which is not exactly the same thing. Although I'll grant that it's a grey area, and basing the legality of an action on the motivation that prompts it is usually a bad idea.


Offering him money through private efforts to gather it, or through legally-voted-upon public funds, in order to buy it from him would be Good, because it's merciful and willing charity.

By "legally-voted-upon public funds", I presume you mean taxes, i.e. property taken, verly likely unwillingly, from other people? Or does all taxation have to be voluntary, for this city to qualify as "good"?

Conversely, if you have to offer money through private efforts, that means you're enriching the already-rich at the expense of the generous, and incidentally you're also sending a signal to other wealthy people that "threatening to do something evil" is a ticket to get richer, as do-gooders will bribe you not to. That's not in itself evil, but it is mind-bogglingly stupid.

russdm
2014-08-28, 07:08 PM
Alignment doesn't make any sense.

Can I sig this?

Alberic Strein
2014-08-28, 07:22 PM
LE cities are awesome.

In the real world, some laws are illegal. You cannot be judged and sentenced because of who you are and not what you've done, for example.

LE governments don't have these limitations, so go wild. You don't even need to put a lot of oppression, like murder, or jail time, just oppressive laws to rub your players off. "You are X? This means a 20GP fine."

Players can pay and it won't be too much of an issue, but hell, they will hate it.

Also, take a look at the laws in Vampire for some good evil laws.

Storm_Of_Snow
2014-08-29, 03:02 AM
Sure all laws have good intentions, as evil folks don't care. But as soon as something goes wrong, a good person should change the law. Or better yet, a good system of law would have automatic and constant reviews. Sounds very lawful too....
Ok - so how do you change that law? And just because it's a good society doesn't mean it won't get sat in committees while people work out how to carry it's intent in the best possible way, make sure that it doesn't negatively affect people, and remove as many of the loopholes as they can spot (and there'll always be some that they can't).

Meantime, the site of the orphanage is a shopping mall.

And I disagree that a good society should be constantly reviewing and updating their laws - whether a society does or doesn't do that is irrespective of alignment, and more down to how well the laws are written in the first place, how well the population adhere to them, not just in letter but also in spirit, the personality of the ruler, how many people they have available in their version of the Department of Justice and how much time their lawmakers have available to be able to do that.

Yes, in the hypothetical circumstance, the law would be shown to be faulty and thus would wind up getting changed - perhaps a clause is added that certain organisations, like orphanages, cannot be moved without having a similar facility in a reasonable area provided for them and approved by the state.

But that doesn't mean there's people spending their days going through every single law.

Sidmen
2014-08-29, 04:45 AM
The best depiction of an Evil city I've seen was in the Darkside series of books.

In the Darkside there is no law enforcement beyond what each of the Major Players want to enforce. The Authorities only ever intervene (with overwhelming indiscriminate force) when their interests are threatened, otherwise they leave the Major Players to do essentially what they want. The Major Players use their thugs, professional security, and personal armies to keep their own stuff safe and make money - protection rackets, guarding industries, etc.

Everyone else is left to their own devices. Nobody cares if you kill Jimmy - unless Jimmy was Big Tony's valet - in which case Big Tony cares and will stamp you down. The Nightside is a city where murderers and serial killers get respect, and where if you can't figure out who's being screwed in a deal it's probably you.

It also has a good depiction of how Good people would be treated. They're rubes and targets. Con men and fake damsels in distress will constantly be trying to pry the money out of their pockets. There isn't any need to kill them, they'll wind up broken and in a gutter before too long anyway.

Grim Portent
2014-08-29, 05:19 AM
One option for a lawful evil city would be that they maintain things like orphanages, homes for the elderly and so on through the use of violence, murder and forced repossession. Not out of the kindness of their hearts, but because orphans and the infirm littering the streets would look untidy and offend the sensibilities of the nobles (who want to ignore that such things exist) and it's easier to murder/arrest/relocate a landlord and dump someone else in charge of his assets than it is to dispose of the poor and needy that would be loosed on the streets by closing an orphanage or care home.

Such a city would be clean, friendly, polite and quite a nice place to live provided you met the minimum of standards the nobility expect from people. Anyone too slovenly, too rude, too violent, anyone that disrupts the illusion of perfection that the nobles want to buy into would be made to disappear so that the masquerade can continue.

The nobles themselves would likely be charitable, polite, forgiving and virtuous in public, but all be paying lip service to the facade that they've built up over time rather than genuinely possessing the virtues they present to the world.

Segev
2014-08-29, 10:51 PM
That's neither "slavery" nor "theft" by any meaningful definition of either word. It's putting a restriction of use on his property, which is something most countries and cities do routinely. For example, does your city have any such thing as zoning laws? There you go. Actually, when it gets to the point that you start telling the landowner, "You MUST use it for THIS purpose and THIS purpose only," it's moved well beyond what typical Americans, at least, accepts as reasonable "zoning laws." And I would contend that Americans are right to think this way, because you ARE taking ownership of it completely away from him at that point. If you then force him to still be responsible for it, you've effectively taken away his agency over it, then enslaved him to maintaining it. Forcing somebody to do labor against their will is slavery. It's not always called that (especially if it's something like a chain gang), but it is.

Do you consider "not letting others use your property however they see fit based on their supposed needs" to be sufficiently heinous a crime to deserve confiscation of property and/or slavery as a punishment?



And your rider that "he has done nothing to deserve such abuse" - implies that some people could deserve it, and raises the question of how you might decide who qualifies for such treatment.True. I would draw that line at attempts to deprive others of their property or lives. Not "refuse to preserve their property or lives," but "actively take them away by your own action." Note that refusing to allow people to use your property is not actively depriving them of their property or lives; it is refusing to allow them to deprive you of yours against your will. It may not be nice, but it is not unethical.




It's not "based simply on your desire to have it", it's based on your desire to protect the vulnerable, which is not exactly the same thing. Although I'll grant that it's a grey area, and basing the legality of an action on the motivation that prompts it is usually a bad idea.A desire to protect the vulnerable is noble. However, the means used to do so is telling. It is laudable to give of your substance, whether time, labor, or wealth, to help those in need. It is despicable to claim you are doing good by helping those in need when your method for so doing is to force somebody else to do it for you.

That's not charity; that's greed. You're just greedy for accolades and gratitude at another's expense, rather than material wealth. Charity does not demand from others. Charity gives of oneself.




By "legally-voted-upon public funds", I presume you mean taxes, i.e. property taken, verly likely unwillingly, from other people? Or does all taxation have to be voluntary, for this city to qualify as "good"?In theory, taxes are collected based on public good. I am not usually one to support their expenditure on much beyond supporting the enforcement mechanisms which protect property rights from those who would use force to unethically deprive others thereof. However, yes, if it is deemed by enough of the public a sufficient public good, it is more ethical to at least use public funds to do the supporting of this orphanage. Forcing one private citizen to swallow the entire cost is worse. (I'm really not here to debate the ethics of taxes and government spending; the topic at hand is whether it's ethical to force one private citizen to give up his property or give of his labor without compensation just because somebody else thinks the potential beneficiaries are more in need.)


Conversely, if you have to offer money through private efforts, that means you're enriching the already-rich at the expense of the generous, and incidentally you're also sending a signal to other wealthy people that "threatening to do something evil" is a ticket to get richer, as do-gooders will bribe you not to. That's not in itself evil, but it is mind-bogglingly stupid.They already own that property. Presumably, in closing it, they have some use for it which will gain them greater benefit than the orphanage currently is. Otherwise, they'd keep the orphanage open for whatever value it could provide them, as that value is greater than the alternatives.

All you need to do to get them to sell it to you or keep the orphanage open is provide more value to them by your proffered payment than they would get from their alternative use for that property.

Or, you could take that same money and open a new orphanage, which you or your charitable organization own, and either gift it to the caretaker or run its finances, yourself, possibly with continued donations from the generous to fund it.

In any event, you're not somehow making the rich guy richer "for doing evil." You're recognizing that either the property IS worth more than what the orphanage could pay, or that you can do it cheaper over here and keep it out of the rich guy's mercies altogether.

If the rich guy can get more money by threatening to close down the orphanage, that means the orphanage was a bad investment as it stood. If it's arbitrary greed on the rich guy's part, moving the orphanage to a new location will leave him with property that is now worth LESS, because he lacks a renter. If you genuinely have no way to afford something more easily than paying his newly demanded rent, then he is right that his property is worth more than he was being paid, and thus he was being deprived of the value of his property. It's simple supply and demand.

If you want to be good and noble and charitable, support the orphanage with your own wealth, time, and energy. Do not demand it of others. Their time, labor, and wealth are not yours, and stealing from them is not justified even by your claim that others need it more. Especially do not pretend you have the moral high ground; to take that, you would have to be giving of your own substance, not of others' pilfered belongings.



So yes, the only good way to handle it, as in "good-aligned," is to perform the charity yourself, with other willing donors. MAYBE to implore the rich guy to be more generous, but you cannot demand. You can only ask. And if he agrees, it is HE, not YOU, who gave and deserves the praise for his generosity. You deserve credit only for what you give of your own substance (whether that be time, labor, or wealth). And he deserves no punishment for refusing; extorted grants of property are not charitable on anybody's part. They're theft.

hamishspence
2014-08-31, 03:45 PM
One option for a lawful evil city would be that they maintain things like orphanages, homes for the elderly and so on through the use of violence, murder and forced repossession. Not out of the kindness of their hearts, but because orphans and the infirm littering the streets would look untidy and offend the sensibilities of the nobles (who want to ignore that such things exist) and it's easier to murder/arrest/relocate a landlord and dump someone else in charge of his assets than it is to dispose of the poor and needy that would be loosed on the streets by closing an orphanage or care home.

Such a city would be clean, friendly, polite and quite a nice place to live provided you met the minimum of standards the nobility expect from people. Anyone too slovenly, too rude, too violent, anyone that disrupts the illusion of perfection that the nobles want to buy into would be made to disappear so that the masquerade can continue.

The nobles themselves would likely be charitable, polite, forgiving and virtuous in public, but all be paying lip service to the facade that they've built up over time rather than genuinely possessing the virtues they present to the world.
Sounds a lot like Lilith's city in the Terry Pratchett novel Witches Abroad.

Ettina
2014-09-01, 08:31 PM
One option for a lawful evil city would be that they maintain things like orphanages, homes for the elderly and so on through the use of violence, murder and forced repossession. Not out of the kindness of their hearts, but because orphans and the infirm littering the streets would look untidy and offend the sensibilities of the nobles (who want to ignore that such things exist) and it's easier to murder/arrest/relocate a landlord and dump someone else in charge of his assets than it is to dispose of the poor and needy that would be loosed on the streets by closing an orphanage or care home.

Why bother with orphanages and homes for them? If you don't want the elderly and infirm littering the streets, kill them. And if you're caring for orphans, why let them go to waste, when they could make perfectly good slaves? As soon as they're able to work, put them to work to pay for the cost of caring for them.

Grim Portent
2014-09-01, 11:21 PM
Sounds a lot like Lilith's city in the Terry Pratchett novel Witches Abroad.


Essentially yes, just with an emphasis on nobles who think they're good and who do all the good things in the most insignificant and self serving way rather than fairytale cliches.



Why bother with orphanages and homes for them? If you don't want the elderly and infirm littering the streets, kill them. And if you're caring for orphans, why let them go to waste, when they could make perfectly good slaves? As soon as they're able to work, put them to work to pay for the cost of caring for them.

Because it's about appearances, not about efficiency, the only part that matters is keeping the masquerade of kind and decent rulers going. If you kill all the orphans then how will the noble ladies engage in trifling charity work reading them stories and such in order to look better than the other noble ladies? The orphans and the elderly are a fashion accessory , not people.

Much easier to just get rid of anyone who would risk dumping them on the street, less death and therefore less corpse disposal and less need for dungeons/graveyards/undertakers and other such things that are simply unseemly to have anywhere near the gentry's houses.

Not all evil cities have to look evil after all, though I am partial to the dark lord who rules with an iron fist myself. It's entirely possible to have a city with evil and petty laws that result in a twisted version of what the heroes would usually works towards.

hamishspence
2014-09-02, 04:40 AM
Such a city would be clean, friendly, polite and quite a nice place to live provided you met the minimum of standards the nobility expect from people. Anyone too slovenly, too rude, too violent, anyone that disrupts the illusion of perfection that the nobles want to buy into would be made to disappear so that the masquerade can continue.

Also reminds me of Hot Fuzz - just a bit more medieval.

Segev
2014-09-02, 02:11 PM
These orphans, of course, would have to work for their care...unless they had noble sponsors. Some may be adopted (and trained to serve the noble scions as personal servants, whipping boys, bodyguards, body doubles, or less savory things), while others would be part of Lady Generousface's monthly stipend to the orphanage. Competition for the best sponsors who give the best stuff would be stiff, possibly nearly murderous. The orphans would be encouraged to be sneaky and conniving in the background to make themselves worthy and their competition unworthy of the nobility's largesse; those who claw their way to the top and put on the best facades get the best treatment (and are most likely candidates for the best kind of adoption: nobles who need heirs), while those who fail or fall are swept into the background, put back to work, and only cleaned up for very rare public appearances that demand such numbers that the standard assortment of "well-mannered cherubs" are insufficient.

As for the elderly, they actually retain their position by their cunning and politicking. Being put in an old folks' home is usually a death sentence, as it's a sign they've gotten too weak to prevent their heirs from usurping them. Some may whisper that there are secret cabals of the most devious of the old men and women who manage to run high society from the old folks' home, but most dismiss this as silly fancy. The elderly are as well cared-for as they can afford, but infirmity is a great way to get rid of a property owner whose stuff you covet. You're obviously responsible for paying for their upkeep, but their health is known to be poor...it's just a matter of time.