PDA

View Full Version : ... But isn't it better to set your campaign AFTER the dark lord's defeated?



Vitruviansquid
2017-06-09, 04:18 AM
So I've been writing an RPG from the ground up and have pretty much cemented the mechanics to go with a vague idea of the setting, which I am now in the process of cementing.

Originally, the story was meant to be a pretty cliche, heroes vs. dark lord deal. The kingdom is rightfully inherited by an evil sorcerer king. He institutes a tax of the firstborn baby of every married couple. Shortly after the institution of the tax, the nobles of the realm lead a rebellion over the obvious monstrosity of this tax, only to be crushed by the king unleashing monstrous enforcers made by infusing magic into the babies collected from the tax. The old nobility is replaced by a new nobility of sycophants and cowards who basically follow the king. Eventually, someone discovers an ancient source of magic that can give people miraculous powers and thus challenge the king. The PCs are people who get initiated into the rebellion and acquire magical powers, and the game is supposed to be about how they fight against the evil sorcerer king.

But then I thought...

Why not make the game take place after the evil sorcerer king has been defeated?

1. If you have a game take place while there is an evil sorcerer king, the political landscape is simple - there is good and evil. You have no beef with anyone who is not advancing the agenda of the evil sorcerer king, and you have beef with everyone who is advancing his agenda. On the other hand, if you have the game take place after, there can be a patchwork of interests that sometimes work with and sometimes work against each other. When there's not a clear villain, there are more factors possible for players to consider how to align themselves.

2. If the evil sorcerer king is not there, NPCs don't necessarily have to like the players. In RPGs that follow the classic save-the-world plot, it can feel sort of silly when the heroes go to a store and have to actually spend money to buy the supplies they need to go on a save-the-world journey. In any case, the presence of massive, overwhelming evil necessarily makes everything opposed to it allied. The lack of this massive, overwhelming evil means that NPCs have a spectrum of available reactions to the PCs because the PCs aren't going to be heroes to everyone.

3. I have heard that to write a good setting means to put down many powder kegs and allowing the GM to explode them at will. In a setting with a main villain, it seems like you can really only have one powder keg - the villain himself. If that main villain has already been overcome, all of a sudden you can have many powder kegs. Different factions of now magically-powered warriors want to seize power for themselves, foreign interests will be looking to assert some control over their fragmented neighbor, you can even include the defeated fragments of the dark lord's forces who are now left to fend for themselves.

4. Besides having been done to death, I have the feeling that fighting against the dark lord has less potential to be interesting as an RPG because it is inherently a kingdom-scale threat. The larger scale the threat, the more abstract the consequences of it become and the more difficult it is to connect to. One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic, after all. In a setting that takes place after the dark lord has been defeated, you could still go for a large scale campaign - something like taking over the kingdom. However, you can also go for any number of small scale campaigns, with the big elephant in the room gone.

So what do people think about a setting that takes place after the dark lord has been defeated?

goto124
2017-06-09, 05:50 AM
The entire idea of having a dark lord is to be simple. There's one singular goal the players know they must reach, and they go for it. Works well enough for many players.

A game that's black and white, with no moral ambiguity, is not necessarily a bad thing. Again, player and DM preference, but sometimes people just don't want to consistently wonder if their actions are moral. They could be more interested in killing monsters, solving puzzles, saving innocents, etc.

There are games that don't have a big villain trying to destroy the world. Like what you described, there are political games where the PCs are part of a complex game with grey morality and different factions fighting over countries. But it's an entirely different style of game from "destroy the dark lord and save the world". Neither styles are wrong.

Honestly, I would first wonder what sort of game the players would want. Something more grey? Something more black and white?

zeek0
2017-06-09, 05:51 AM
I think it certainly has some different potential.

Before the fall of the Dark Lord, you might see his rise to power, and fight through his various allies in order to strike the final blow. It all leads up to a simple moment. See: Harry Potter, Eragon

After the fall, you have much more intrigue. Power struggles over who gets power, skirmishes between radicals, moderates, and leftover stormtroopers. You have different factions, previously united by a common cause, vying for power. Most nations don't have a proper government set up until 5-10 years after civil conflict, so you get to illustrate that time frame.

And if you want to be serious, you get to consider all those post-conflict moral quandaries. How to treat enemy combatants, identifying and justly punishing perpetrators, reconstruction, reunification, and the possibility that the new government isn't really actually better than the old government.

I've come up with a cool idea: start the campaign at the funeral for the Dark Lord / afterparty of the revolution. You get to introduce the various characters in a more innocuous setting, and there can be a final attempt by the opposition to take out the opposition once and for all! Start the characters at ~ level 3, as veterans or other people involved in the war (smugglers, spies, weapons manufacturers, diplomancers, etc.)

Arbane
2017-06-09, 11:10 AM
So what do people think about a setting that takes place after the dark lord has been defeated?

As this guy demonstrates at some length, It could be interesting. (https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?801785-Fantasy-setting-idea-After-Victory) It certainly won't lack in things for PCs to do.

Nupo
2017-06-09, 11:37 AM
If you set it after, you will also have to decide how long after the dark lord's defeat to start. You could start immediately after, and news of the event will spread throughout the land in the first session. You could start a few days after news has spread. You could start it months or even years after. As has been stated, it would take years for stable governments to be established. Heck, you could even start a little bit before the dark lord's defeat. The PC's would adventure a session or two under the tyranny of the Dark Lord, then hear about his defeat. Then things start getting crazy with the power vacuum.

Lvl 2 Expert
2017-06-09, 11:41 AM
The PC's would adventure a session or two under the tyranny of the Dark Lord, then hear about his defeat. Then things start getting crazy with the power vacuum.

Oh, someone else defeated him. Too slow, trololololo.

Wait, is that an orc horde coming over the city wall?

Mark Hall
2017-06-09, 11:45 AM
A game I have long talked about running, but never bothered to develop, I jokingly called "Bastille Day"... aka July 14th, aka 10 days after Independence Day.

The aliens are largely defeated, though you'll have some remnants, of course. The real problem is what happens now... a lot of the technological infrastructure is GONE. Sure, we still have the highway systems, but the communications centers that made our phone, internet, and television work? Those are gone with the cities that housed them. Millions dead, millions more wounded in body and mind. Little centralized government, and what there is may not have much legitimacy or ability to project their power.

Kami2awa
2017-06-09, 01:55 PM
No, it isn't better.

Or rather, it can be, but you'll need to work a lot harder to make the game interesting. You ultimately need a source of conflict to create good story, and usually that means you need an antagonist. Politicking on its own is not terribly interesting unless your players are motivated by power alone, and most people aren't.

Thinker
2017-06-09, 02:02 PM
I like the idea. It gives all sorts of ideas for antagonists, goals, and factions. You have the old claimants from the defeated Dark Lord, you have leaders of the Resistance, you have local powers who try to exercise their autonomy, neighboring countries who try to exploit weakness, and maybe even a resurrected Dark Lord (or maybe just a vestige of him) trying to regain power.

Vitruviansquid
2017-06-09, 02:44 PM
No, it isn't better.

Or rather, it can be, but you'll need to work a lot harder to make the game interesting. You ultimately need a source of conflict to create good story, and usually that means you need an antagonist. Politicking on its own is not terribly interesting unless your players are motivated by power alone, and most people aren't.

Perhaps. Let's think.

1. The rebellion fragments as soon as the dark lord is overthrown, with different factions that have different visions of how the kingdom should next be run. Some factions are fairly benign, others are kind of scary and radical.

2. All the monsters the dark lord bent to his will are now feral and ravaging the countryside.

3. Some of the dark lord's minions want to keep the war going, some want to integrate into the new society, all of tainted by magic and kind of suspect. PCs might feel like they want to fight the minions or sympathize with the minions.

4. The PCs have just come home from war, so to speak, and have few or no skillsets besides fighting. They will need to find a way to make a living. Consequently there are other veterans of the rebellion who need to find a way to make a living, and some may be less than savory.

5. Foreign nations might intervene because overthrowing your rightful king is not cool with neighboring monarchs, even if that rightful king was a monster. Or maybe that's just a pretense for them to carve up a piece of a weakened kingdom.

6. With the dark lord dead, he has left many places of power that could be full of treasures, or monsters, or both. These are what in D&D would be called "dungeons."

Clistenes
2017-06-09, 03:31 PM
That's a problem I have with settings that include a powerful, widely known Dark Lord (like Greyhawk's Iuz the Evil), Army of Evil (like Dragonlance's Takhsis's faction) or ongoing Demonic Invasion/Infestation (like Pathfinder's Worldwound)... past certain level of power, if you aren't helping fight them you are Neutral Jerk at best and Heartless Selfish Evil at worst.

Also, I like the implication that there is a time after the Great War between Good and Evil. There is freedom, room growth and hope...

erikun
2017-06-09, 04:21 PM
These are setting details, not system details. That's nice. It means that you could certainly run both settings as the same game system - especially since the core concepts, of infusing people to grant them powers - is still available to generate new PCs. I don't see anything mechanically which wouldn't work, between fighting the Dark Lord and dealing with Lord Minor Darkness.

I think you might be shortchanging the simple plot a bit. There are plenty of things to fight, even with the Dark Lord around. PCs would be required to be part of a rebellion, meaning that the kingship would either be actively working against them or supporting the party in secret - and that means the party would need to be EXTREMELY secretive of where they are getting supplies from. Some people and/or monsters might be working with the Dark Lord, and so will actively hunt down the party whereas cowardly kings might not bother. And the Dark Lord might take a particular interest and throw some custom-designed monsters at the party, something which wouldn't make much sense outside that situation.

As others have said, it's mostly personal preference which one you want to do. None of the options are wrong (indeed, they all could be done well) so go with whichever one you feel you can design the best. The biggest question after the Dark Lord's fall should be: How long afterwards? Several days afterwards, or even several minutes afterwards, sets a very specific tone and can have things suddenly start progressing, but it might be difficult to set certain aspects of the setting up that way - everything is very literally up in the air, from the first minute of the campaign. Setting things several months or years after the Dark Lord's fall with give the setting some consistency, what with the evil Lord Minor Darkness working from the Swamp of Darkbad, and will make things a lot easier to present and lay out.

DeTess
2017-06-09, 04:30 PM
A potential source of inspiration could be the first Mistborn Trilogy, as it uses an idea similar to what you've described here at a certain point in the books. I'll say no more, as I'm getting into mild spoiler territory already (shoot me a PM if you want to know more and don't care for spoilers). It's a pretty good series as well, so I really recommend reading it.

Cluedrew
2017-06-09, 08:12 PM
These are setting details, not system details.True, but I think the more you can intertwine those the better. For instance after the Dark Lord's defeat means it might be worth creating rules for how you can influence the factions, take roles in the new society and so on. Very different from the rebellion stealth combat game before the fall. Even the a simple thing like rules for hunting criminals, before the fall you are the criminal and are being hunted, after the Dark Lord is defeated you are hunting for criminals, the enforcers of the old regime.

To goto124: You're still around? Great, I thought you had quit roleplaying because of some problems with your group.

Spamotron
2017-06-09, 08:21 PM
A fun NPC might be the Hero of Light who struck the Dark Lord down. He's immensely powerful, brave, kind and selfless. All the common people want him to be the new king. But his personality and mindset is completely unsuited for political intrigue. He'll be reduced to a puppet figurehead in short order unless someone more savvy acts to teach him the ropes. The PCs could become the cunning advisors who turn him into the true King the country needs or the secret puppet masters themselves.

Vitruviansquid
2017-06-09, 08:48 PM
A fun NPC might be the Hero of Light who struck the Dark Lord down. He's immensely powerful, brave, kind and selfless. All the common people want him to be the new king. But his personality and mindset is completely unsuited for political intrigue. He'll be reduced to a puppet figurehead in short order unless someone more savvy acts to teach him the ropes. The PCs could become the cunning advisors who turn him into the true King the country needs or the secret puppet masters themselves.

Honestly, I was already writing it so the leader of the rebellion was assassinated at the victory celebration. :o

Anonymouswizard
2017-06-09, 09:47 PM
A potential source of inspiration could be the first Mistborn Trilogy, as it uses an idea similar to what you've described here at a certain point in the books. I'll say no more, as I'm getting into mild spoiler territory already (shoot me a PM if you want to know more and don't care for spoilers). It's a pretty good series as well, so I really recommend reading it.

I personally didn't like the take on it. It seemed too optimistic an outcome for the world, even though the world was not as dark a place as it pretended to be. Although I honestly wasn't overly impressed with the trilogy as a whole, I much prefer the new series.


In regards to the thread's question, it's not better or worse, just different. Even a black and white morality 'heroes versus the evil overlord' series can be complex and engaging, and a grey and gray just after the dark lords defeat can be boring. There is, as has been mentioned, the option of 'just before the dark lord' which can vary even more wildly in tone.

On that note, even if there's just one dark lord, the setting during his reign does not have to be black and white. Assuming he's long lived and we've had enough time for at least a couple of new generations there will be a decent number of people who will antagonise the party because they don't want it any worse. Then there will be a bunch of people with a cushy position either with the dark lord or in the criminal elements (especially those not aligned with the resistance) who don't agree with the party and the resistance and want to stop them. Then there's the power jockeying in almost every element it can worm it's way into (even within the cowardly new nobility). Then there will be the people in the dark lords power structures who support the PCs for whatever reason. It leaves a lot of room for a complex but focused story.

If we move to the after the fall stories, there is a lot more potential variance, which may lead to an unfocused story. The party should generally have a goal. Then there's the time since the dark lord was defeated (influences how developed the local power structures are), the people who defeated the dark lord (might not wish to make themselves publicly known, might be closer to assassins rather than heroes, ect.), the leader of the uprising (assuming they are different), the new nobility (I'm sure they'll have a few crafty and power hungry sons among them, and are in the best position to manipulate what remains of existing power structures), the old criminal underground, the remains of the dark lord's monstrous army, the remains of the dark lord's nonmonstrous army, the remains of the dark lord's spy service, the dark lord's friends, the dark lord's lover(s), the dark lord's enemies, the dark lord's family, potentially even the dark lord's kitchen sink (we seem to have everything else in the world EDIT: I mean, the dark lord's dinner plates were washed in there, I'm sure it's got the dark magic to summon a demon for six thousand if it wants to), that all affect the setting's tone and events. But it's possible for this to me a much more hopeful and simple game than the 'during the dark lord' game, especially if you focus on restoring order.

oxybe
2017-06-09, 11:57 PM
Between power vacuums among the Dark Lord's remaining retainers?Bolgar the Fleshshredder VS Mordred the Defiler's views on how to proceed.

Soldiers who are unsure where to ply their skills :all these armed and trained men and women who are now out of work.

And what of potential territorial disputes? Does Duke Farnsworth or Duke Rodriguez get the land Farquad the Bloodspoiler had taken over.

What about the war economy? The people who relied on the massive requests for iron, lumber, food and other resources are now seeing themselves out of work.

What about the organizations that relied on moving those resources around? Merchants and land owners who make a killing on taxes and setting high prices for resources that are now in much smaller demand?

Crooked churches and other public organizations who would request or demand from their followers money to support or fund their campaigns into supporting the war on the Dark Lord?

And that says nothing about the normal "Adventurer Business" stuff like killing goblins and orcs who are too close to settlements, or a rogue Bulette that decided hamburger would make a lovely meal.

Like many campaigns you need to ask "where are the player characters in all this?" and have your session 0 to discuss this.

TheCountAlucard
2017-06-10, 01:51 AM
A game I have long talked about running, but never bothered to develop, I jokingly called "Bastille Day"... aka July 14th, aka 10 days after Independence Day.Shouldn't more or less all life on Earth have been wiped out by that point? We're talking about the mothership - an object almost six hundred kilometers long and one-quarter of the moon's mass (making it denser than osmium!) - smashing straight into the Earth from orbit. Even fragmenting like it did, the impact alone should have done all sorts of Bad Science Stuff.

(Incidentally, this also logically would've stopped the sequel from occurring, so I'm in favor of it.)

goto124
2017-06-10, 05:20 AM
To goto124: You're still around? Great, I thought you had quit roleplaying because of some problems with your group.

I stopped for a long while, but then returned to these forums because talking to people about roleplay is fun. Even if, for some reason, I find that roleplay itself isn't fun.

Back on topic, it all comes back to what type of game you're aiming for. A political game is very different from a save the world game, and both require players with very different wants and mindsets.

Jay R
2017-06-10, 07:59 AM
Everyone had put aside their differences to defeat the dark lord.

Now, suddenly those differences come back full force, and there's an empty throne in the mix.

Three years later, things are far worse than they ever were with the dark lord. Civil Wars, rebellions, raiders, etc.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-10, 08:04 AM
Shouldn't more or less all life on Earth have been wiped out by that point? We're talking about the mothership - an object almost six hundred kilometers long and one-quarter of the moon's mass (making it denser than osmium!) - smashing straight into the Earth from orbit. Even fragmenting like it did, the impact alone should have done all sorts of Bad Science Stuff.

(Incidentally, this also logically would've stopped the sequel from occurring, so I'm in favor of it.)

A dead Ewoks scenario.

Velaryon
2017-06-10, 10:18 AM
If I may draw an analogy, the situation posed in this topic is kind of like deciding whether to set a Star Wars campaign during the Rebellion era (the original trilogy) or the old Expanded Universe stuff that took place in the New Republic era. Leaving aside all opinions re: the quality of various Star Wars media, the galaxy was in many ways a different place depending on which period the game would be set.

If you had it during the Rebellion, players were most likely going to be involved with the Rebel Alliance in the "overthrow the Empire" story, whether they were involved in the main stuff (the events of the movies) or involved in smaller missions (prevent Admiral Steve from destroying planet Fuzzbucket and enslaving the Floppykins, or recover an ancient Jedi relic from the abandoned temple on the planet Midichloriansarestupid. Players had other options as well, such as getting involved with the Hutts or what have you, but that requires a conscious decision not to engage with the big bad overlord and his evil Empire.

By contrast, if you look at the books and comics that took place after the original trilogy, you had:
-invasion from an outside force (the Ssi-Ruuk in The Truce at Bakura;
-loyalists from the old Empire trying to carve out or hold onto their own power base (Ysanne Isard in the X-Wing books, Warlord Zsinj in The Courtship of Princess Leia;
-struggles to build a new government and keep groups who previously worked together from splintering and pursuing their own interests (a common theme in most of these books, best exemplified by characters like Borsk Fey'lya)
-the previously unknown loyalist returning from a faraway place and trying to restore the evil Empire (Grand Admiral Thrawn);
-the resurrected evil overlord trying to reclaim their kingdom and possibly corrupt the heroes that defeated them before (the Dark Empire comics);
-secret weapons of the previous overlord being found (the Sun Crusher and prototype Death Star in the Jedi Academy trilogy);
-ancient, powerful but forgotten threats being awoken (Exar Kun, again from the Jedi Academy trilogy);
-people trying to bring back institutions from the past that were suppressed or destroyed by the evil overlord (Luke, in founding the eponymous Jedi Academy of said trilogy).

And all that's just within the first seven or eight years after Return of the Jedi. Regardless of how you feel about any of those works, it illustrates the vast number of directions one could choose to go with a game set after the fall of a powerful dark lord. The key is to figure out which ones sound interesting to you and your players, and then running from there.

Another option might be to do a campaign in which the dark lord is defeated, then do another campaign set a little while later with different characters, exploring the fallout of the first game. That has the added potential of getting the players to take more of an ownership stake in the world, as they see how their old characters have reshaped and changed it. It all depends on what you think your group will have the most fun with.

Mendicant
2017-06-10, 08:46 PM
I personally love "aftermath"-style campaigns because they're IME better suited to the conventions of RPGs. There is no reason they havr to be unfocused--just because there are a lot of conflicts running simultaneously doesn't mean the players can't be focused on just one of those. Quite the opposite--the threat can grow and evolve alongside the players, and by the time the climactic battle happens it's a true grudge match for both sides.

That said, moral shades of grey are definitely available even in the context of an overarching single bad guy. The first season of Colony did this pretty well--everyone has believable motivations, and no human faction has a monopoly on virtue or villainy, even though one side is a really unsubtle nod to Vichy France.

If the bad guy is that powerful, and resisting him means a lot of collateral damage, then a lot of people will look at rebels as self-righteous psychopaths.

sktarq
2017-06-10, 10:35 PM
Is it better? That's a complex question.

For a setting I would definitely say so but for a single campaign there is more ability to build the world around an expected plot line.

I know it would interest me far more. It won't necessarily be political - opening trade routes between places that the law disallowed, raiding the bases of the old order abandoned (or not) as dungeons, etc. . . so many options. While shades are grey are far more available it doesn't mean that pure black evil isn't available; various lackeys that were just as bad as BBEG trying to make a move for example.

But is it too many options? Too many options can be an issue all its own. It takes a different set of skills by the DM to keep people focused, to build a party that will naturally hold together, etc.

I think would very much be better for someone like myself. I know I find single bad guy emperor type stuff as rather boring instead of dramatic.


A dead Ewoks scenario. Since Endor is a forest MOON I figured the main planet would be the primary gravity well and that would absorb the various death star bits.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-10, 10:56 PM
Since Endor is a forest MOON I figured the main planet would be the primary gravity well and that would absorb the various death star bits.


Some of it, but DS2 was in close orbit above the moon and the explosion was... energetic. A lot of really energetic debris, including bits of the highly dangerous reactor, probably rained all over that forest. :smallwink:

scalyfreak
2017-06-10, 11:01 PM
So what do people think about a setting that takes place after the dark lord has been defeated?

I think that if you're looking for ideas, you might want to read the last few chapters of The Return of the King. The ones that deal with the hobbits' return to the Shire, and what has happened there while they were away.

Max_Killjoy
2017-06-10, 11:04 PM
I think that if you're looking for ideas, you might want to read the last few chapters of The Return of the King. The ones that deal with the hobbits' return to the Shire, and what has happened there while they were away.

Good call.

Deliverance
2017-06-11, 03:01 AM
To anybody who doesn't think intrigue, doublecrossing, backstabbing, and general faction fighting has a place before the dark lord is defeated because people have a common goal, I recommend reading the first three volumes of Steven R. Green's Deathstalker series.

Either that or history books: Disunity in the face of overwhelming danger and perceived evil is the norm rather than the exception.

That's not to say that a morally clear us vs them setting can't make for a great adventure with choices made easier for the players, but having a big bad "ultimate evil" type of Dark Lord in a setting only has to be a simple political landscape if you design it that way; It is not inherent to the concept at all.

Hopeless
2017-06-11, 05:49 AM
I'd be tempted to reveal their "Hero" didn't kill the big bad, he simply made it look like he was killed and left having fulfilled his promise to the previous King to restore order to the realm and insure the King's heir was ready and able to assume the throne.
The real problem is that the heir is an idiot surrounding himself with the same sort of power hungry maniacs that caused the previous King to get the Big Bad to assume the throne.
So your players are eventually recruited by the former Big Bad to prevent history repeating itself?!

Jay R
2017-06-11, 08:22 AM
The latest Star Wars trilogy is taking place after the death of the emperor.
Five of the Narnian books take place after the death of the White Witch.
The Scouring of the Shire occurs after the death of Sauron (and the entire Lord of the Rings takes place three thousand after the defeat of Sauron and several decades after the defeat of the Necromancer).
All Cold War spy thrillers take place in the aftermath of World War 2, which itself took place twenty years after the end of World War 1.
The Battle of Waterloo was fought a year after Napoleon's abdication and exile.
Babylon 5 won the Shadow War in the third year of a five-year run.



Saving the world is like cleaning house. You have to keep doing it.

Bohandas
2017-06-11, 12:10 PM
I could see this being a thing. The dark lord falls and all the unaffiliated evils that were previously repressed and subjugated by his rule are no longer conyrolled and start wrecking havoc. All of he cults and bandits and things like that. Fantasy Saddam is replaced by fantasy ISIS.

Mendicant
2017-06-11, 12:48 PM
I could see this being a thing. The dark lord falls and all the unaffiliated evils that were previously repressed and subjugated by his rule are no longer conyrolled and start wrecking havoc. All of he cults and bandits and things like that. Fantasy Saddam is replaced by fantasy ISIS.

This is actually the organizing principle of my own default setting. Well, no dark lord, but something similar: the glorious empire that's usually either a faded memory or the primary antagonist in most settings is right in the last stages of decline and collapse in mine. Everybody wants to tear off their piece, settle old scores, finally get their unpaid wages through banditry or mercenary work, and finally unleash that doomsday plot the emperor's inquisitors kept foiling.

Jay R
2017-06-11, 04:40 PM
In the 2e game I started awhile ago, there are ages of heroes - periods when the dark forces try to break through into the PC's world, nd heroes appear to stop them. These alternate with periods of peace.

When the PCs started, there had been peace for over eighty years, and there are almost no high levels in the entire world. At 3rd level, they have become legends in their own region.

MasterMercury
2017-06-13, 09:38 PM
If you want inspiration on how to do this, the idea of a kingdom falling apart after a revolution is basically the plot of Game of Thrones. Everyone wants the Throne, and the nation is one big bloodbath. A bit mainstream, to be sure, but it shows that it could definitely work.