PDA

View Full Version : Questions of Conquest and Civilization (4e)



Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-25, 10:36 PM
I was thinking recently about the ethical implications of conquest and expansionism in Dungeons and Dragons, especially in regards to the deity Erathis, and nations like Netheril in the Forgotten Realms.

I'm having trouble reconciling playing a character as good, and yet patriotic. Throughout D&D's history, they've had a strong bias against expansionism. Cutting down trees in an elf-tended forest is BAD and it is the job of the heroic PCs to defend the sacred, natural beauty of the forest from the soulless city-folk who want to build their ugly cities and walls. A country seeking to expand its own territory through conquest is BAD and it is the job of the heroic PCs to defeat The Evil Empire and maintain the status quo.

Empires and civilization in general seem to get a bad reputation, at least from what I've seen. Whenever there's some sort of war of expansion, the conquering nation is painted as the bad guy. Whenever there's a unified empire, it's either decadent and corrupt, or totalitarian and evil. Whenever there's a conflict between settlers who want to build cities and indiginous nature lovers, the settlers are bad guys who can't appreciate the beauty of nature for what it is.

I think a prime example of this is with Netheril in the Forgotten Realms. The developers of Forgotten Realms have taken great pains to paint Netheril in a neutral light, even allowing a background trait for people who want to play a Netherese character while leaving out background traits for omore obviously "good" nations *cough*Rashemen*cough*. But at the same time Netheril's state religion is of an evil goddess who wants to destroy the world out of sheer spite, and the "good" nations of Cormyr, Myth Drannor, and the Dalelands are its bitter enemies. Hard to play a good Netherese who isn't some sort of rebel under those circumstances.

I've been wondering what it'd be like to play a goodly aligned character dedicated to civilization and expansion (At the moment I have the idea for a human warlord later becoming a Dujun of Erathis). But everywhere I go, there seems to be this odd hippie philosophy to the world where civilization and expansion is evil, while preserving nature and the status quo, thus causing stagnation, is considered good.

Has anyone else noticed this? Does anyone have advice on how to play a patriot and still be a good person? Note that this discussion is about D&D politics only. No real world politics or history whatsoever.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 10:40 PM
The easiest way is to go The Civilizer route. Expansion is not repressive, it is enabling; you are freeing peasants from their unjust rulers and giving them a chance to live in a better society, as members of The Empire.

You won't be "civilizing" elves or anything; you'll be helping the repressed of other, less enlightened societies.

I'm not particularly up on FR, but that's a good place to start.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-25, 10:41 PM
How does one do that without sounding condescending? And you have to take the elves into account sooner or later. They are the world's favorite race after all.:smallannoyed:

afroakuma
2008-11-25, 10:42 PM
If your character believes he is doing good (read: patriotic, for example) then he's good. If he cares about being good, he's good.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-25, 10:48 PM
But will the world agree? Have there ever been any quests involving lumberjacks and elves where you weren't guilt-tripped into taking the elves' side because elves can do no wrong and therefore the lumberjacks are the ones in the wrong?:smallannoyed:

afroakuma
2008-11-25, 10:54 PM
But will the world agree?

*shrug* It's your alignment.


Have there ever been any quests involving lumberjacks and elves where you weren't guilt-tripped into taking the elves' side because elves can do no wrong and therefore the lumberjacks are the ones in the wrong?:smallannoyed:

There certainly have. There will be again. Elves are elitist xenophobes when it comes to "their" forests. Disallowing trade, mutualism and a certain amount of diplomatic leeway for humans who don't possess druidic magic of home-growing doesn't stir sympathy.

Jasdoif
2008-11-25, 10:56 PM
How does one do that without sounding condescending?Don't worry about sounding condescending. I'm sure there are plenty who will insist one is condescending, regardless of what is said or done.

But will the world agree? Have there ever been any quests involving lumberjacks and elves where you weren't guilt-tripped into taking the elves' side because elves can do no wrong and therefore the lumberjacks are the ones in the wrong?:smallannoyed:You seem especially bitter about elves.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 10:58 PM
But will the world agree? Have there ever been any quests involving lumberjacks and elves where you weren't guilt-tripped into taking the elves' side because elves can do no wrong and therefore the lumberjacks are the ones in the wrong?:smallannoyed:

:smallconfused:

What kind of Paladin are you? A Paladin couldn't get out of bed in the morning if he wasn't confident that his Code was the Right Way To Do Things. If the elves disagree, then be respectful of their beliefs but note that your actions are for The Greater Good.

Besides, a Paladin who isn't condescending? Really? :smalltongue:

afroakuma
2008-11-25, 10:59 PM
Now, myself, I've always believed that your average elf weighs the same as a duck.

The logical extrapolation has never failed me.

toasty
2008-11-25, 11:01 PM
But will the world agree? Have there ever been any quests involving lumberjacks and elves where you weren't guilt-tripped into taking the elves' side because elves can do no wrong and therefore the lumberjacks are the ones in the wrong?:smallannoyed:

I'm not a forgotten realms person but there are ways to (easily) make the elves the bad guys.

Perhaps the Lumber Jacks were willing to only take a few trees and plant new ones, not cutting down the whole forest, but just taking a few trees from the edge of the forest. The elves disagreed and starting killing (unarmed) lumberjacks, starting a bitter feud/war thing. In this instance,the lumber jacks are only doing their job, while the elves are murdering them for no real reason.

Also... large powerful empires, by nature tend to be corrupt and rotten at some point. The bigger a nation is, the easier it is to become corrupt. That being said, perhaps the players are trying to stop that corruption. Maybe they are fighting for the rights of the recently conquered because they know that equality will make the nation greater. Maybe they have the support of a small (but somewhat powerful) group of nobles, or something along those lines.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-25, 11:01 PM
:smallconfused:

What kind of Paladin are you? A Paladin couldn't get out of bed in the morning if he wasn't confident that his Code was the Right Way To Do Things. If the elves disagree, then be respectful of their beliefs but note that your actions are for The Greater Good.

Besides, a Paladin who isn't condescending? Really? :smalltongue:

This isn't about paladins. It's about warlords who worship Erathis and jingoistic shadow mages.

afroakuma
2008-11-25, 11:05 PM
I fail to see your problem

If you could explain what kind of character (including class) you are playing and what circumstance you are in, I could probably offer better advice.

Otherwise, elves weigh the same as a duck. Extrapolate to the amusing 5th level solution.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 11:09 PM
This isn't about paladins. It's about warlords who worship Erathis and jingoistic shadow mages.

Hey, if it works for Paladins, it works for any other LG type.

Besides, you worship a Goddess of Civilization. Of course you think Civilization is Good. You don't need to rationalize this; it's an article of faith!

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-25, 11:12 PM
I'm posting this primarily for the sake of discussion, not because I have a specific character in mind. That said, I had worshippers of Erathis in mind. While Erathis herself is Unaligned, that only applies to clerics and paladins. A warlord who worships her can be Good or Lawful Good. Erathis exhorts her followers to spread civilization everywhere for its own sake, taming the wilderness and cutting down forests. This would piss off elves, Melora worshipers and hippies in general.

My main problem is that it seems expansionism in any form in D&D is evil by default. Whenever environmentalism is brought up in an adventure you're immediately guilt-tripped into taking up the cause of Nature's sacred, savage beauty against the ugly, uniform, soul-crushing forces of civilization. Whenever a nation attempts to conquer another nation, the invader is always evil by default because the status quo should be upheld when the ivading nation may well need new territory because it got jipped with the latest treaty. THroughout D&D and fantasy literature in general, there is a bias against civilization and conquest. You never see anything through the perspective of the invading army, and you NEVER side against the elves who want you to save the rainforest for them. /rant

afroakuma
2008-11-25, 11:14 PM
I most certainly do.

The problem, as stated, is that expansionism is an easy plot for DM's to concoct a greedy or tyrannical villain behind.

Myself, the first adventure I ever wrote was a fight to push back/destroy encroaching wildlife on a barely civilized front to maintain a trade route and bring new settlers to the area.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-25, 11:15 PM
Um... how about you believe otherwise? The "Nature is God" thing isn't universal in fantasy by any means, and Civilization can often be quite good. You can liberate the oppressed, or defend innocents from the predation of the aloof and inhuman elves.

I guess this is Sci-Fi, but read The Lensman Series if you need to see how a conquering civilization can be Good.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-25, 11:20 PM
I mean, of course part of my argument is the fact that when you look at them, elves are indeed elitist xenophobes. Scrawny elitist xenophobe hippies who impose their unrealistic beliefs that people were not meant to eat meat and that we should all live in trees and wear grass skirts on the world and yet EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE ONE! WHY?! WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO PLAY A MEMBER OF SUCH A DESPICABLE PEOPLE, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE SKINNY AND YOU'RE NOT!?:smallfurious:

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-25, 11:25 PM
Sorry, I got a little off-track there. What I was trying to say was elves seem almost universally environmentalist, and it seems like everyone always takes their side simply because they're supposed to be the prettiest and most perfect race around.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-11-25, 11:26 PM
My solution: kill all the Elf fanboys. Or failing that, ignore them.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-25, 11:31 PM
Wouldn't that eliminate, like 99.9% of the entire fantasy-related subculture?

afroakuma
2008-11-25, 11:32 PM
Sorry, I got a little off-track there. What I was trying to say was elves seem almost universally environmentalist

Makes the ones that aren't that much scarier.


and it seems like everyone always takes their side simply because they're supposed to be the prettiest and most perfect race around.

I've never encountered this in gameplay.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-25, 11:36 PM
Never encountered it? It's been a staple of fantasy since Tolkien!

Jasdoif
2008-11-25, 11:37 PM
Wouldn't that eliminate, like 99.9% of the entire fantasy-related subculture?But see, that's the basic problem: With an overwhelming majority they decide what the majority of the world believes!

afroakuma
2008-11-25, 11:45 PM
Never encountered it? It's been a staple of fantasy since Tolkien!

It helps to be the DM. :smallamused:

More to the point, I've never encountered people "siding with the elves" constantly, or resistance to frontier expansion, even as a player.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-25, 11:49 PM
It's specifically mentioned in Races of The Wild, under the description of the example Ruathar character, trying to negotiate between the elves in the forest and human loggers, and the PCs are recruited by the eeeeeevil human leader to take him out.

afroakuma
2008-11-25, 11:54 PM
*shrug* One adventure.

Not to mention capitalism is a more human trait than elven.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-26, 12:22 AM
And I haven't really seen any villainous elves.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-11-26, 12:35 AM
The Elves in Arcanum: Of Steamwork and Magick Obscura are kind of dickish, but most of the truly evil ones split off to form the Dark Elves (which are, at least, just a separate city-state rather than an entirely different species like drow).

Elves in Eberron are either Proud Warrior Race Guys or White Necromancers. Stupidity of positive energy-powered "undead" aside, they're not really any more or less evil than other Khorvairian cultures. Notably, Eberron drow aren't Always Chaotic Evil, just primitive and violent.

Oh, in the Warcraftverse, Elves are complete ****ing morons, especially the environmentalist Night Elves. The Regular Elves weren't that bad until they had their civilization wrecked, and now they're downright evil as the Blood Elves. Blood elves are the most villainous "standard" elf culture you're going to find.

afroakuma
2008-11-26, 12:37 AM
And I haven't really seen any villainous elves.

Elaith Craulnober of the Forgotten Realms. Eeeeevil.

RTGoodman
2008-11-26, 12:38 AM
And I haven't really seen any villainous elves.

Well, for a WotC-based example, look at the (Magic: The Gathering) Lorwyn block - the Elves in Lorwyn are OBSESSED with perfection and beauty. Here's a quote from one of the designers:


If you think you know elves, you might have to reevaluate it all while you're here in Lorwyn. Although these elves live in forests and interact with nature just like other planes' elves do, their attitude and outlook are very different. Lorwyn elves are obsessed with beauty and perfection; social status and societal power are entirely determined by physical looks. These elves are not afraid to twist nature into more beautiful shapes of their choosing, and they claim complete ownership over all that is beautiful, even sentient beings. The worst thing any being can be is ugly, and elves, in their arrogance, rarely (if ever) see other races as anything but hideous. In fact, the ugly, known as eyeblights to the elves, are shunned at best, and at worst are actively hunted, enslaved, even killed with the potent toxin moonglove.

I love my elves to be xenophobic almost to the point of genocidal. I mean, it's a possible natural next step that a race that considers itself the only "perfect" race would perhaps moves against those horrible humans and halflings and such. I think there're probably examples in other sources, too, but I can't think of them off-hand.


Erathis exhorts her followers to spread civilization everywhere for its own sake, taming the wilderness and cutting down forests. This would piss off elves, Melora worshipers and hippies in general.

I disagree with part of this - just because you're spreading CIVILIZATION doesn't mean you have to be spreading INDUSTRIALIZATION or anything. Elves (sorry for the example :smalltongue:) might live in the woods, but they're perfectly civilized and have their own ordered society, rules, and territories. (Look at the Qualinesti Elves from Dragonlance for example.) On the other hand, you've got those darn orcs out there running amok not conforming to notions that, you know, you shouldn't just kill innocent farmers to take their food/gold/women. THOSE are the guys the Erathis followers should be going after, not the elves in their forest kingdoms.

Dervag
2008-11-26, 12:39 AM
How does one do that without sounding condescending? And you have to take the elves into account sooner or later. They are the world's favorite race after all.:smallannoyed:You don't go into the forests where the elves live. Surely the elves don't live in all the world's forests. Or if they do, then they'll be in constant conflict with everyone who needs wood for things like keeping their families warm in the winter. In which case the elves are probably xenophobic suspicious bastards who have been embittered out of their Good alignment.

You do go into the areas ruled by ferocious warlords who reduce everyone else to slavery. Or to the cities ruled by the priest-kings of a bloodthirty pantheon of gods who demand dozens of human sacrifices daily.

You can beat up those guys all you like without ever doing anything that really registers on the evil-meter.


Otherwise, elves weigh the same as a duck. Extrapolate to the amusing 5th level solution.I'm sorry; I'm thick. I don't get it.
_________


Sorry, I got a little off-track there. What I was trying to say was elves seem almost universally environmentalist, and it seems like everyone always takes their side simply because they're supposed to be the prettiest and most perfect race around.Elves aren't environmentalists; they just like trees. There's a difference. Do you see elves demanding that fragile desert habitats be undisturbed? Or complaining about how poor farming practices on the human plains are leading to topsoil erosion and salinized soil? You do not.

That's because elves don't care about the environment generally; they care about their environment. And they should. They're nearly immortal. They can literally see what happens if you don't manage the local ecology carefully. They can go to Grandpa Estoril, who will tell them about how the human Kingdom of Regalburg rose to glory and then collapsed because they overfarmed their cropland and wrecked the soil. He was there from start to finish; he remembers the whole thing.

An elf confidently expects to still be around next century. If someone starts doing something in his backyard that will make living conditions in his neighborhood worse in the next century, he's going to object. Who can blame him?

That's why elves are 'environmentalists' when it comes to their own environment. They have to be; they're reasonably smart and they live long enough to directly experience the consequences of stupid environmental policy.
__________

As for why they only protect trees: Elves like trees, which stands to reason. They live in trees, and living in trees gives them most of their defensive advantages. If someone starts cutting down trees, the region of land elves can defend against a possible enemy shrinks. Individually, they're no tougher than anybody else outside their forests. And they breed a lot slower, so they'll lose in the long run if forced to live on the plains.

Elves don't have to be environmentalists to think they have a right to control the forest they live in, and to oppose anyone who starts cutting down the trees at the edge of the forest. Those trees mark the border of the land they can reasonably hope to control, and anyone who pushes back the forest is pushing back their control.
___________


And I haven't really seen any villainous elves.You aren't looking hard enough.

Mewtarthio
2008-11-26, 12:53 AM
And I haven't really seen any villainous elves.

Oh really? (http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=990321)

BobVosh
2008-11-26, 12:54 AM
Wouldn't that eliminate, like 99.9% of the entire fantasy-related subculture?

It was the weak part of that subculture


And I haven't really seen any villainous elves.

Try looking underground. Lots o em down there.

That said I hate dragons and elves. Espically dragons. I feel your pain.

afroakuma
2008-11-26, 12:57 AM
I'm sorry; I'm thick. I don't get it.

Well, if they weigh... the same as a duck... they're made of?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-11-26, 01:03 AM
Well, if they weigh... the same as a duck... they're made of?

Then they must float... like wood (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU).

afroakuma
2008-11-26, 01:09 AM
Ah, and what else does wood do?

BobVosh
2008-11-26, 01:17 AM
You don't go into the forests where the elves live. Surely the elves don't live in all the world's forests.
Like hippies in that South Park episode man.


Or if they do, then they'll be in constant conflict with everyone who needs wood for things like keeping their families warm in the winter. In which case the elves are probably xenophobic suspicious bastards who have been embittered out of their Good alignment.
Except elves follow dieties like Obad-Hai (or realms equilvent, I don't know realms gods much) As someone said, its not evil, its religion!


You do go into the areas ruled by ferocious warlords who reduce everyone else to slavery. Or to the cities ruled by the priest-kings of a bloodthirty pantheon of gods who demand dozens of human sacrifices daily.

You can beat up those guys all you like without ever doing anything that really registers on the evil-meter.

I'm sorry; I'm thick. I don't get it.
Not too many of these around, to the best of my knowledge.
_________


Elves aren't environmentalists; they just like trees. There's a difference. Do you see elves demanding that fragile desert habitats be undisturbed? Or complaining about how poor farming practices on the human plains are leading to topsoil erosion and salinized soil? You do not.
Actually, yes you do. There are sand elves in realms, gold skin fools that roam around the desert. Water elves in the oceans, rivers and ponds. I'm pretty sure there are dirty mountain elves somewhere in some book, most likely a dragon/Dungeon.


That's because elves don't care about the environment generally; they care about their environment. And they should. They're nearly immortal. They can literally see what happens if you don't manage the local ecology carefully. They can go to Grandpa Estoril, who will tell them about how the human Kingdom of Regalburg rose to glory and then collapsed because they overfarmed their cropland and wrecked the soil. He was there from start to finish; he remembers the whole thing.
Probably the best arguement I have heard for them yet. The problem comes in that all environment has a form of elf. Usually.


An elf confidently expects to still be around next century.
Not if I had something to do with it....

If someone starts doing something in his backyard that will make living conditions in his neighborhood worse in the next century, he's going to object. Who can blame him?
The issue usually arrives from outside of elf territory, but close. Also elves seem to have problems with understanding borders when it comes to things like this.


That's why elves are 'environmentalists' when it comes to their own environment. They have to be; they're reasonably smart and they live long enough to directly experience the consequences of stupid environmental policy.
No further comment
__________


As for why they only protect trees: Elves like trees, which stands to reason. They live in trees, and living in trees gives them most of their defensive advantages. If someone starts cutting down trees, the region of land elves can defend against a possible enemy shrinks. Individually, they're no tougher than anybody else outside their forests. And they breed a lot slower, so they'll lose in the long run if forced to live on the plains.

Elves don't have to be environmentalists to think they have a right to control the forest they live in, and to oppose anyone who starts cutting down the trees at the edge of the forest. Those trees mark the border of the land they can reasonably hope to control, and anyone who pushes back the forest is pushing back their control.
We push because we love and want to be close :smalltongue:

Seriously though, this is the standard arguement. However, nothing supports it. They like longbows and elven swords. Longbows are much more effective out of trees, and in plains. Elven swords are great for infighting, espically in buildings. The only reason they live in trees is they can't be too similar to humans, or else Tolkienism would fail. I am thankful elves aren't as well statted as they are in LotRs.

Anyway, back to territorial abilities in the trees, they have a +2 dex. That doesn't help climbing, they don't have a climb speed, so they are just as pathetic as humans when it comes to trees. -2 con doesn't help when it comes to falling out of said trees, but not really an issue.

Trapdoor spider-senses. I don't have a clue how many trapdoors you can possibly have in a treehouse, but sure. Why not.

Lowlight vision: Hardly matters where you are, but I can see arguements for trees blocking light.

HAH! I just remembered this is 4ed. I don't remember the statbumps perfectly, but they are similar I believe so I won't erase this.
___________


You aren't looking hard enough.

I concur.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-26, 01:24 AM
Oh really? (http://www.sluggy.com/daily.php?date=990321)

Uh, I don't get it.

And elves don't have a +2 DEX -2 CON in 4e. It's a +2 DEX +2 WIS.

Behold_the_Void
2008-11-26, 01:26 AM
Here's a thought. The elves start blathering on about sacred nature and you start talking about the wonders of INDOOR PLUMBING.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-26, 01:31 AM
It's the Middle Ages, wouldn't everyone draw water from a filth-polluted well?

Dervag
2008-11-26, 01:31 AM
We push because we love and want to be close :smalltongue:

Seriously though, this is the standard arguement. However, nothing supports it. They like longbows and elven swords. Longbows are much more effective out of trees, and in plains. Elven swords are great for infighting, espically in buildings. The only reason they live in trees is they can't be too similar to humans, or else Tolkienism would fail. I am thankful elves aren't as well statted as they are in LotRs.

Anyway, back to territorial abilities in the trees, they have a +2 dex. That doesn't help climbing, they don't have a climb speed, so they are just as pathetic as humans when it comes to trees. -2 con doesn't help when it comes to falling out of said trees, but not really an issue.

Trapdoor spider-senses. I don't have a clue how many trapdoors you can possibly have in a treehouse, but sure. Why not.

Lowlight vision: Hardly matters where you are, but I can see arguements for trees blocking light.I'm not sure I made myself clear.

The defensive advantages elves get from living in a forest aren't because of their stat block.

They come from other things. Mainly:
-A native of any given forest can move faster in that forest than anyone not native to that forest. Elves, who are native to a forest and have had hundreds of years to get accustomed to it, can outmaneuver their enemies and pick the best spots for ambushes. If the enemy comes after them with an army too big to stop, they can run away faster than that army can crash through the underbrush and follow them. Then they can start ambushing scouts and pickets, setting traps, and generally making life miserable for the invader.

-Trees provide plenty of cover and concealment. While they don't let the elves fire their bows at extremely long range, they do let the elves pick locations where they can strike their enemy at relatively short archery range. You never know where an elven marksman is hiding in the forest. He may not be able to kill you from as far away as he could out on the plains. But he has a much better chance of getting into range, of avoiding detection, and of escaping to fight another day after putting an arrow through your throat. In real life, snipers are very dangerous in forests for this reason.

-Trees provide habitats for lots of species of magical creatures that are traditionally the elves' allies. Like treants and certain kinds of fairies. Those creatures will help defend the elves' homes in a war, but will be much less useful away from the forest. And if the forest is destroyed, those creatures go away, and the elves lose valuable allies.

-Forests lend themselves to hit and run tactics, which preserve the lives of the elves fighting the battle. Since elves are immortal and breed slowly, their ideal fighting style is one with a low risk of getting killed; they can't win a war of attrition. If they move out onto the plains or into the caves or something like that, they will be forced to fight wars of attrition against enemies with much greater numbers than they have.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-26, 01:42 AM
Also, the elf issue aside, what about the faithful of Erathis and the faithful of Melora. The two goddesses seem to be written deliberately to be enemies, since the last tenet of each directly conflicts with the other.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-26, 01:42 AM
Out of vague curiosity, Dervag, have these arguments been justified in a setting somewhere? It just seems odd for genre staples to make sense.:smallannoyed:

Dacia Brabant
2008-11-26, 01:47 AM
Ah, and what else does wood do?

Heh, let's make bridges out of elves. :smallbiggrin:


On-topic, I play an Erathis-worshipping Warlord who's all about spreading civilization at the point of a sword. He's not Good though so I'm not dealing with any sort of moral quandry there, but then when your campaign world is using the Points of Light method--small pockets of society surrounded by the monsters of the Outer Darkness--there's not much need to worry about whether you're justified in your fight to advance civilization. That sort of thing pretty well justifies itself, and even empire-building in the fantasic equivalent of the Dark Ages isn't the same as Manifest Destiny when the territory you're taking is run by demons.

Netheril is a little tougher matter though, to play a Good-aligned apologist for the Empire of Shade. Leaving actual Shar-worshippers and Shades out of it, it's conceivable that a Netherese commoner might not know about the Mistress of the Night's influence over his government, and he may just perceive it as bringing order and stability to the world in the aftermath of the Spellplague. He might look at the history of small kingdoms and city-states in Faerun as enabling chaos and strife to continue, where a unified empire wouldn't have that in-fighting between cities and that energy could be directed at more existential threats. For such a character to find out some of Netheril's dirty secrets might be an interesting plot hook.

chiasaur11
2008-11-26, 01:48 AM
How does one do that without sounding condescending? And you have to take the elves into account sooner or later. They are the world's favorite race after all.:smallannoyed:

Simple. Ask them politely.

If that fails, well, someone else could be the world's favorite race if the elves were to have "unfortunate accidents".

I, as usual, nominate Kobolds. Everybody loves Kobolds!

Behold_the_Void
2008-11-26, 02:02 AM
It's the Middle Ages, wouldn't everyone draw water from a filth-polluted well?

Obviously you underestimate the power of gnomish ingenuity.

Dervag
2008-11-26, 02:16 AM
Out of vague curiosity, Dervag, have these arguments been justified in a setting somewhere? It just seems odd for genre staples to make sense.:smallannoyed:The military aspect comes from one of the ancillary texts made by the same guy(s?) who wrote the Dungeonomicon. Races of War, I think. They portray the elves as a magocracy, and the other reason for elves to live in forests and use hit and run tactics is because it keeps them alive long enough for the powerful elven wizards to invent a strategy for defeating the invader.

The environmental aspect is mine, though. I'm familiar with some examples of human societies that burned out their ecosystem and suffered terribly. Easter Island is the worst case, for instance. But it occured to me that elves live long enough that they can see this kind of thing going on in their own lifetime without everyone thinking they're just a bunch of stupid old coots for saying stuff like:

"When I was your age, everything was covered with trees! We had all the wood we needed, and fruit was everywhere. It was great. You guys need to cut down fewer trees..."
________


It's the Middle Ages, wouldn't everyone draw water from a filth-polluted well?Indoor plumbing was invented during the classical period. The Cretans had it back in 1300 BC or so.

Yeah, I know, they were technically the Minoans. I just think it's funny to call them the Cretans.

Anyway, almost everyone draws water from a filth-polluted well, except the people your empire has already conquered. You're bringing clean drinking water to the masses!

Artanis
2008-11-26, 03:01 AM
Back off the topic of elves and to the original one...

I'm surprised Thrane, from Eberron, hasn't been mentioned yet. The country is as theocratic as it's possible to get, following a "god" that is pretty much an incarnation of the very concept of What Paladins Do.

...and they've been know to commit full-blown genocide for the greater good.


So yeah, "conquering people to civilize them" is pretty well within the bounds of DnD :smallbiggrin:

Crow
2008-11-26, 03:28 AM
Here's a thought. The elves start blathering on about sacred nature and you start talking about the wonders of INDOOR PLUMBING.

I've seen a fair amount of that airbrushed fantasy artwork, and you hardly ever see an elf taking a dump...

Behold_the_Void
2008-11-26, 03:32 AM
I've seen a fair amount of that airbrushed, fantasy artwork, and you don't see too many elves taking a dump...

The fact that you see any at all is the surprising part here.

To hit that vein a bit more seriously though, the way to play a good pro-civilization character is to play up the fact that civilization is awesome. I like having beds. And places to bathe. And chairs and stuff.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-26, 01:34 PM
I've seen a fair amount of that airbrushed fantasy artwork, and you hardly ever see an elf taking a dump...

Yes, but in that airbrushed fantasy artwork you also hardly every see a barbarian taking a dump. Or a princess. Or a wizard. Or a dragon. Or pretty much anything.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-26, 01:36 PM
A friend of mine on another forum mentioned using diplomacy and showing people how great your nation is will get them to join you. Is this true? I don't really recall any empires being formed through diplomacy alone.

Artanis
2008-11-26, 02:10 PM
{Scrubbed}

Crow
2008-11-26, 02:27 PM
Yes, but in that airbrushed fantasy artwork you also hardly every see a barbarian taking a dump. Or a princess. Or a wizard. Or a dragon. Or pretty much anything.

You guys are hopeless. It was a joke.

hamishspence
2008-11-26, 02:41 PM
there was that elven faction in Faerun that opposed human expansion with violence- lots of it. The Victorious Blade of the People, their name translated as. "Evil organization that thinks their every act is in the service of good" in Champions of Ruin.

but yes, thats more a 3.0 thing, before then one of the Harpers' main aims was- oppose formation of empires, keep kingdoms small.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-26, 05:18 PM
And the reason for this was?

JBento
2008-11-26, 07:22 PM
The reason for this is that Harpers are meddling bastards who stick their nose everywhere, and they manage to get away with it because they count members such as Elminster, the Blackstaff and at least half of the Seven Sisters as their own. Also they're friends with the, you guessed, the elves. :smallyuk:

Guess what, Harpers? 4E is here! Elminster is down for the count. So is Blackstaff. AND half of the Seven Sisters. I'm gonna make rivers out of your blood and then cross them using bridges made of elves (seeing as they weigh the same as a duck)! :smallmad:

EDIT: Or I would, if I played FR. I don't. I despise the setting with every fiber of my being AND some fibers borrowed from other beings...

Dacia Brabant
2008-11-26, 07:51 PM
there was that elven faction in Faerun that opposed human expansion with violence- lots of it. The Victorious Blade of the People, their name translated as. "Evil organization that thinks their every act is in the service of good" in Champions of Ruin.

Well when the Faerunian elves' term for other races roughly translates to "Non-Persons", yeah it's pretty likely that they'd think that.


before then one of the Harpers' main aims was- oppose formation of empires, keep kingdoms small.

To be fair though wasn't that because everyone who was trying to build an empire was doing it through force and fraud? I'm looking at you, Zhentil Keep. Then again, the Harpers were for the most part a bunch of dirty Chaotic Good hippies so nevermind.

On the other, other hand, they didn't oppose the formation of the Silver Marches--and hey, there's an example of a quasi-empire (well more of a confederation of kingdoms) formed strictly diplomatically, and between multiple races to boot. Of course everytime the humans, dwarves and elves of the North get together to have a party the orcs have to come in and crash it. :smalltongue:


Guess what, Harpers? 4E is here! Elminster is down for the count. So is Blackstaff. AND half of the Seven Sisters. I'm gonna make rivers out of your blood and then cross them using bridges made of elves

Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. :smallbiggrin:

(I did always like Khelben though, at least he was a pragmatic sort. Too pragmatic for the Harpers, it turned out.)

Doomsy
2008-11-26, 08:24 PM
There is a reason why elfin civilization seems poorly documented. Sure, they love the woods. But they also have massive cities in Faerun. Magical up the wazoo, to be sure, but someone had to cut and mine the stone, forge the support beams, smith the metal that their blades and arrowheads and armor come from, and cut and carve the wood for their vaunted bows. And supply all of those arrows. And kill the birds to supply the fletching.

So you basically should have elf miners, smiths, industrialists, and other stuff traditionally associated with you know, industry.

It is just they have this wonderful fantasy hippy tree hugger image that contrasts sharply with ANY civilization making it past the tribal stage.

And face the facts here - regardless of how good or evil it is, a more advanced civilizations that needs the resources under the control of a far less sophisticated race wins. Numbers, organization, and technology count for a lot more than good intentions. If the elves are as advanced as the other civilizations, they have to be using some of the same methodology, or they are magickin' it out of their backsides in the proud ol' Tolkien methods.

Even then - unless they are living in very small, very mobile tents and camps, the elves are seriously altering the environment around them, often negatively. You have to clear space for a city and permanent habitat. You have to displace a lot of local ecology, and have farmland - when is the last time anyone saw elves farming, by the way, in fantasy? - and you have to have a lot of support and organization.

This is just Tolkien mythology biting us on the ass in the face of pragmatism again. Tolkien was a linguist, not an economist or sociologist, but his work influenced all fantasy that followed and set the stereotypes. So a lot of them are just flat out unreasonable if you poke at them. Either roll with it or fluff it out yourself.

My call is that elves are either civilized, developed, and thus safe from being encroached upon by other civilizations without risk of a real war, or they are the natives who soon encumber the land they previously occupied in the face of cold hard math and the fact that some things can't be resolved too diplomatically if neither side can give.

As for Erathis - I need to check what alignment that is. I'd honestly make a diety of civilization more or less utterly unaligned. Cities and their needs aren't evil or good by themselves, it is just how they are expressed their people. They just are. It's how people in them justify things that leads to expansion being either good for them or good for them and bad for the people expanded into. Civilizing other people can take a lot of forms, and I think we're actually missing some possible very plausible interpretations of Erathis.

For one, it might be just fomenting civilization and organization in any respect, not just for a particular advanced nation, is their clerics divine calling. So they could be just as likely to be helping to organize a dozen jungle tribes into one unified nation through diplomacy as clearcutting a forest to help the local city expand - and forcibly integrating the local tribes as a byproduct. Bringing civilization to savagery can be justified in either way and it could be a good roleplaying hook to actually that particular 'church' constantly at odds with each other as they champion their own pet projects.

Dacia Brabant
2008-11-26, 09:22 PM
This is just Tolkien mythology biting us on the ass in the face of pragmatism again. Tolkien was a linguist, not an economist or sociologist, but his work influenced all fantasy that followed and set the stereotypes. So a lot of them are just flat out unreasonable if you poke at them.

I want to defend Tolkien on this charge but...I just can't. The hero of the story was a bloody gardener who rejected power, if that doesn't say how much he mythologized agrarianism I don't know what does.

Then again, nature=good/cities=bad is probably the third-oldest story ever told, after In The Beginning and War Between The Sexes, so I think he can be forgiven that.


As for Erathis - I need to check what alignment that is. I'd honestly make a diety of civilization more or less utterly unaligned.

Yup, she's very much Unaligned--I'd rather say Lawful Unaligned, but maybe that's too confusing.

And yeah, a deity of Civilization should support all forms of civilization, from tribal coexistence to global super-powers, from bubble kingdoms to evil empires. However there's an implicit bias within not just Erathis' dogma but really anyone coming from the mindset of the modern nation-state that says, when it comes to regimes, bigger equals better. That might be true but there are valid arguments that say civilization is better preserved in smaller quantities.

But those are just philsophic debates; really I'd think that she'd just want her followers to do whatever's most effective for their civilization to prosper.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-26, 10:36 PM
There is a reason why elfin civilization seems poorly documented. Sure, they love the woods. But they also have massive cities in Faerun. Magical up the wazoo, to be sure, but someone had to cut and mine the stone, forge the support beams, smith the metal that their blades and arrowheads and armor come from, and cut and carve the wood for their vaunted bows. And supply all of those arrows. And kill the birds to supply the fletching.

So you basically should have elf miners, smiths, industrialists, and other stuff traditionally associated with you know, industry.

It is just they have this wonderful fantasy hippy tree hugger image that contrasts sharply with ANY civilization making it past the tribal stage.

And face the facts here - regardless of how good or evil it is, a more advanced civilizations that needs the resources under the control of a far less sophisticated race wins. Numbers, organization, and technology count for a lot more than good intentions. If the elves are as advanced as the other civilizations, they have to be using some of the same methodology, or they are magickin' it out of their backsides in the proud ol' Tolkien methods.

Even then - unless they are living in very small, very mobile tents and camps, the elves are seriously altering the environment around them, often negatively. You have to clear space for a city and permanent habitat. You have to displace a lot of local ecology, and have farmland - when is the last time anyone saw elves farming, by the way, in fantasy? - and you have to have a lot of support and organization.

This is just Tolkien mythology biting us on the ass in the face of pragmatism again. Tolkien was a linguist, not an economist or sociologist, but his work influenced all fantasy that followed and set the stereotypes. So a lot of them are just flat out unreasonable if you poke at them. Either roll with it or fluff it out yourself.

My call is that elves are either civilized, developed, and thus safe from being encroached upon by other civilizations without risk of a real war, or they are the natives who soon encumber the land they previously occupied in the face of cold hard math and the fact that some things can't be resolved too diplomatically if neither side can give.

As for Erathis - I need to check what alignment that is. I'd honestly make a diety of civilization more or less utterly unaligned. Cities and their needs aren't evil or good by themselves, it is just how they are expressed their people. They just are. It's how people in them justify things that leads to expansion being either good for them or good for them and bad for the people expanded into. Civilizing other people can take a lot of forms, and I think we're actually missing some possible very plausible interpretations of Erathis.

For one, it might be just fomenting civilization and organization in any respect, not just for a particular advanced nation, is their clerics divine calling. So they could be just as likely to be helping to organize a dozen jungle tribes into one unified nation through diplomacy as clearcutting a forest to help the local city expand - and forcibly integrating the local tribes as a byproduct. Bringing civilization to savagery can be justified in either way and it could be a good roleplaying hook to actually that particular 'church' constantly at odds with each other as they champion their own pet projects.

:smalleek: I must bow down and worship you sir!

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-27, 12:32 PM
A friend of mine said this on another forum, and I thought it was more than valid.


Patriotism simply means you believe your country is a great place. As for expansionism that can be connected to it but they are not parts of each other.

Expansion for patriotisms sake is rather rare. More often then not the patriotism in that even is used for another reason. The people incharge having egos bigger than the country they ruled.(Rome might be a good example if everything I heard about it was accurate.)

Other than that most explansionist wars are economic in nature. Slaughtering people for nothing but profit probably falls under the evil catagory. If you take the assassin as the definitive example it definately does.

If you want good, patriotic, and proexpansionist is a possibility.

Namely having an empire near the evil civilizations which basically gives you two character possibilities.
1. Crusader attempting to cleanse the land of the foul monsters.
2. Colonist attempting to civilize them by force if necessary.

Although they could also be combined in the case of things like civilians which probably shouldn't be slaughtered regardless of race. Well most of the time. A mindflayer civilian is still a creature that needs to eat your brain. So there probably acceptable to leave out of the don't slaughter non combatants thing

Note - Before anyone compains about the by force if necessary comment there are plenty of sources that basically say that its a good act to brainwash people into being good. Chaotic good characters and maybe some neutral good ones might disagree with it ethnically but morally in D&D there are ways to make forcing someone to be good against their will a good act.

Also as for the nature lovers. You have to remember just because there not building things doesn't mean there not harming the area either knowingly or unknowingly. This issue can be solved fairly easily by negotiating with a group of druids beforehand. Remember humanoids are still part of the natural world so the building things isn't always unnatural. It only reaches the bad point when it starts to despoil things.

In a low technology high magic world theres plenty of room for civilization and nature to intertwine. Instead of leveling the whole thing they could find areas that will cause the least harm when removed and simply use the rest for something else. Perhaps one or two of the 'forests' could be used to obtain wood by clearing out the smaller(younger) trees and a few of the bigger ones. The civilization gets the woods and the druids get to keep the trees properly nurished by making sure other trees don't block too much sun light.

Other areas could also be set aside for hunting and simply rotate every so often.
Druid Council - "The bear population is too high."
::a few hours later."
Aristocrat - "I officially declare it bear season."

Although this assumes that you care about what the nature lovers think. Morally and ethically killing plants and animals is completely netural. It would probably be a bad idea to get rid of all of them due to the oxygen issue but then again its entirely possible to set up a gate to the plane of air to allow fresh air thought and use magic to summon food so a no nature world is possible in a D&D setting. Although getting to that point would be tricky regardless of who the villains and protagnoists are.

The only thing that really makes its a problem to expand into a natural environment is that you have to wonder three things. Were those nature lovers given the forest by some higher power that will get pissed off if you try to steal the gift it gave them, are they a horde of barbarians that will leave you alone if you don't piss them off but could cause significant problems if you do, and could they potentially transfrom into dragons, living fires, and other creatures that could wipe out cities.

Really there is no moral issue unless the conquest involves genocidal behaivor. It's mostly a religious issue. Except for the barbarians in which case its an issue of. Do we want to piss off the people that gain superpowers by getting pissed off?


Anyone else think this is accurate?

Dervag
2008-11-27, 12:57 PM
And yeah, a deity of Civilization should support all forms of civilization, from tribal coexistence to global super-powers, from bubble kingdoms to evil empires. However there's an implicit bias within not just Erathis' dogma but really anyone coming from the mindset of the modern nation-state that says, when it comes to regimes, bigger equals better. That might be true but there are valid arguments that say civilization is better preserved in smaller quantities.I like my polis!



A friend of mine said this on another forum, and I thought it was more than valid...

"Other than that most explansionist wars are economic in nature. Slaughtering people for nothing but profit probably falls under the evil catagory. If you take the assassin as the definitive example it definately does."Also, keep in mind that the economics is often bad economics. People sometimes conclude that they face an economic necessity when in fact their logic is full of holes.

For example, you might attempt to invade and conquer the Ukraine and drive its population onto reservations so that there'd be room for some of your people to spread out on colonial farms and grow enough food for the rest of your people. Which is stupid, because you're better off keeping your people at home and making stuff to trade with the Ukrainians for food.

As to why I chose the Ukraine specifically, it's because someone actually tried that.

Likewise, you might invade Indonesia for the oil because no one is willing to sell oil to you... because you insist on fighting unprofitable colonial wars in other parts of the world. Quitting the colonial wars would get you an oil supply, and be less risky than invading a whole new region to secure one.

Again, I chose Indonesia specifically because someone actually tried that.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-27, 01:47 PM
I'm trying to avoid discussions of real-world politics though.

RPGuru1331
2008-11-27, 01:54 PM
I'm trying to avoid discussions of real-world politics though.

There isn't any. Economics isn't politics, though the former can drive the latter.

Doomsy
2008-11-27, 05:00 PM
You know, no matter how you slice it this really should end up with Erathis clerics being on opposite sides of conflicts fairly often, both with very reasonable reasons for fighting on their side.

Seems like that should either result in a code of conduct regarding treatment of each other - a gentlemans agreement like officers in the early part of the century - or really nasty head to head no holds barred beat downs depending on the personalities involved.

As for economic reasons being evil because they are for greed - well, war is a crime too. D&D likes to overlook that and you can see why in a game where it is perfectly okay for a high level hero to murder the hell out of hordes of lower level enemies that while armed have as much chance of bringing him down as reaching the moon. Also, you should keep in mind that 'greed' is relatively neutral. There is no harm inherent in wishing to better your own people and yourself. It is your methodology that leads to it being viewed negatively or evil. Also keep in mind that in feudal and pre-modern societies sometimes war was a necessity with scarce resources. If it comes down to your (or your people) or the other guy (and his people), and there is not enough to go around - you know what happens. Life isn't fair or nice sometimes.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-27, 10:16 PM
And proactiveness is considered evil? A friend of mine in another forum said the crux of the issue is that heroes are reactive, while villains are proactive.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-11-27, 10:43 PM
Has anyone else noticed this? Does anyone have advice on how to play a patriot and still be a good person?

Well being a patriot doesn't necessarily mean that you want your country to expand its borders. That's being an imperialist. Anyway, yes it is easy to play a Good patriot/imperialist in D&D--just be selective about where your country expands into. Expanding into the territory of other goodly [or sorta goodly] races is a no-no, but luckily D&D is filled with all kind of races who really would just slaughter you and your family and then take your stuff. Orcs, goblins, kobolds, the list goes on and on. So as long as your patriotic battle cry is "For the King, purge the Evil-doers!" instead of "For the King, purge everyone who looks marginally different than us!" you're a Good patriot/imperialist.

TS

Doomsy
2008-11-27, 10:46 PM
Well being a patriot doesn't necessarily mean that you want your country to expand its borders. That's being an imperialist. Anyway, yes it is easy to play a Good patriot/imperialist in D&D--just be selective about where your country expands into. Expanding into the territory of other goodly [or sorta goodly] races is a no-no, but luckily D&D is filled with all kind of races who really would just slaughter you and your family and then take your stuff. Orcs, goblins, kobolds, the list goes on and on. So as long as your patriotic battle cry is "For the King, purge the Evil-doers!" instead of "For the King, purge everyone who looks marginally different than us!" you're a Good patriot/imperialist.

TS

Quoted for truth. Remember kids, it is not a war crime if you do it to evil people. Well. In D&D at least.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-28, 12:16 AM
Or non-believers. Civilizing the land in the name of Erathis, remember?

Tequila Sunrise
2008-11-28, 12:34 AM
Sure, Erathis' code of conduct might be used to justify imperialism at the expense of Goodly races, she being Neutral and all. It just doesn't work that way for Good priests of Erathis.

TS

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-28, 12:35 AM
I thought Erathian priests had to be Unaligned, like her. Or was that paladins?

Arakune
2008-11-28, 06:21 AM
ops, already saw all the previous posts.

Mercenary Pen
2008-11-28, 08:49 AM
I thought Erathian priests had to be Unaligned, like her. Or was that paladins?

Incorrect in 4e.


If a deity is unaligned, your alignment doesn't matter, so a deity such as Melora has good, lawful good, evil, chaotic evil and unaligned clerics in her service.

Tequila Sunrise
2008-11-28, 12:16 PM
I thought Erathian priests had to be Unaligned, like her. Or was that paladins?
It really doesn't matter either way because, by RAW, divine characters get their powers through a mortal ritual not directly through their diety. So a CE dude could convince the church of Bahamut to ordain him and never have to worry about losing his divine powers. Yeah, it's absurd, I know. But that's what 4e is all about; making alignment meaningless. :smallannoyed:

TS

Yahzi
2008-11-28, 12:18 PM
My main problem is that it seems expansionism in any form in D&D is evil by default.. THroughout D&D and fantasy literature in general, there is a bias against civilization and conquest.
Watch "The Life of Brian" for the famous scene where they're discussing "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

The expansion of Rome was tyrannical, but only because they enslaved their foreign subjects. Eventually, though, the provinces would become more and more Roman, which was basically a good thing, if you assume that being governed by distant laws is better than being governed by the closest thug with a sword.

In D&D, with its objectively identifiable Good and Evil, a Good expansion is clearly good. Invading a country, killing its evil rulers and the thugs who work for them, and replacing the government with Paladins who go around curing disease and lifting oppression, is clearly good (event to the rulers being killed, who, after all, already know they're evil. They can cast detect alignment too.)

The real hard part in D&D is not making conquest and expansion good, but making evil viable at all. Why would anyone choose to follow an evil good if they could get exactly the same benefits by following a good god? Isn't the cooperative spirit of good always going to defeat evil, especially when good can a) detect evil, b) enforce pure justice (thanks, zone of truth!), and c) do everything evil can.

Usually in games there's some kind of trade-off. In Civilization, you can be fascist, which helps your war but hurts your research; or you can be democratic, which does the opposite. In D&D, there's no particular trade-off for being good, other than "you can't do anything you want anytime you want." While this may be enough to cause adventurers to be evil, it isn't enough for whole societies, who after all are comprised of people who don't really get to do what they want most of the time. Remember: adventurers are the people who don't have jobs. Everybody else already has a boss.

My best take is that Evil is viewed as stronger than good and more able to defend people against the monsters. So they put up with the rule of strength because its better than the rule of gnolls/orcs/whatever, and they are afraid the Paladins are too busy being nice to be truly dangerous.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-28, 01:26 PM
If Rome's rule eventually became more and more accepted, then why did the Galactic Empire in Star Wars, depsite being formed by simply changing the government rather than outright conquest and being even applauded when it was first created, become almost universally reviled? One would think that over time people would have gotten used to the Galactic Empire, but by the time of A New Hope it's got almost no approval rating and they spend their time making planet or star destroying superweapons rather than actually governing.

Artanis
2008-11-28, 01:55 PM
Remember that it was almost two decades between the prequels and the original trilogy. A government with a penchant for atrocities is bound to piss off somebody. With as many well-populated planets as there were in the Galactic Empire, that adds up to a whole lot of people.

Dervag
2008-11-28, 03:02 PM
The expansion of Rome was tyrannical, but only because they enslaved their foreign subjects. Eventually, though, the provinces would become more and more Roman, which was basically a good thing, if you assume that being governed by distant laws is better than being governed by the closest thug with a sword.Most of the people the Romans conquered actually had their own law codes. In Western Europe, the law was rather wobbly and government by biggest swordsman wasn't uncommon... but Egypt and Phoenicia had had lawful government when Rome was a collection of huts.


In D&D, with its objectively identifiable Good and Evil, a Good expansion is clearly good. Invading a country, killing its evil rulers and the thugs who work for them, and replacing the government with Paladins who go around curing disease and lifting oppression, is clearly good (event to the rulers being killed, who, after all, already know they're evil. They can cast detect alignment too.)"Of course we're evil! Even our house pets are rather evil..."


Usually in games there's some kind of trade-off. In Civilization, you can be fascist, which helps your war but hurts your research; or you can be democratic, which does the opposite. In D&D, there's no particular trade-off for being good, other than "you can't do anything you want anytime you want." While this may be enough to cause adventurers to be evil, it isn't enough for whole societies, who after all are comprised of people who don't really get to do what they want most of the time. Remember: adventurers are the people who don't have jobs. Everybody else already has a boss.

My best take is that Evil is viewed as stronger than good and more able to defend people against the monsters. So they put up with the rule of strength because its better than the rule of gnolls/orcs/whatever, and they are afraid the Paladins are too busy being nice to be truly dangerous.My theory is that the supernatural beings of Evil meddle in the world more than the supernatural beings of Good. There are a number of explanations for why that might happen, from a theological or ethical standpoint, but the practical result is the same:

If you're an unscrupulous person and you want immediate power to do something, you go to the evil guys. Assassins will kill people for money. Evil clerics will summon demons or armies of the dead to destroy the cities of your enemies. It doesn't much matter to them whether your enemies are good, evil, or neutral. They aren't picky.

That gives evil a niche in the world. Evil leaders can use many of the same tools of magic to create powerful evil governments that Good leaders can to create powerful good governments. People who are not themselves strongly ethical will encourage evil people to act on their behalf, because evil can get results.

Of course, good can get results too, but it's less likely to give you the result you personally desire just because you're willing to pay for it.
_________

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-28, 03:59 PM
Remember that it was almost two decades between the prequels and the original trilogy. A government with a penchant for atrocities is bound to piss off somebody. With as many well-populated planets as there were in the Galactic Empire, that adds up to a whole lot of people.

Then why did the Rebellion have to hide and dodge the Empire at every turn? If the entire freakin' galaxy had to put up with Palpatine's rule for twenty. Long. Years. Then wouldn't the Rebellion have garnered enough support to go all French Revolution on the Empire? Heck if Coruscant's population alone marched against Palapatine he wouldn't have stood a chance.

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 04:03 PM
that was what Palpatine built the Fleet for.

I get the impression that most of the force was used on less prosperous planets, and the brutal suppressions of these discouraged the rich ones from going rebel.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-28, 04:31 PM
And what about Netheril? Almost every nation in Faerun considers them a menace.

Doomsy
2008-11-28, 04:52 PM
And what about Netheril? Almost every nation in Faerun considers them a menace.

You have to have bad guys that exist for some reason. The real issue with evil in D&D is that it is so clear cut.

Netheril is clearly evil. Why not gang up and invade it no matter what the cost in men and supplies, smashing it to pieces before it can invade or spread its cancer to other places?

A. This is why you invent fluff or claim the good guys aren't strong enough despite the fact they can hold their ground competently against the evil empires.

It gives the heroes something to do.

Contrasting this are the Inspired from Eberron, which could probably storm the Five Kingdoms by force but prefers to fight its battles subtly. And they don't go around being obviously horribly malevolent. And nobody actually listens to the Kalashtar. An evil empire, of course, but their empire is actually quite benevolent to those beneath it and goes to great lengths to make their peasantry content and believe they are happy. Compared to most evil empires and a lot of good ones, it is Utopia- which is the whole point.

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 04:57 PM
netheril is evil all right- but it takes places over more subtly. And it has had 100 years to do so. Maybe the surronding nations had problems, and rivalries, of their own, that discourage them from attacking a nation that has been focusing inward, on rebuilding the nation from the desert.

th climate change issues- flooding, crop failure, etc they can be angry about, but they might not be ready for full war, instead trying to keep thei own farmers from starvation.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-28, 05:20 PM
I do remember much of Netheril's "war-effort" involves Sembian spies, dignitaries and assassins, as well as recovering ancient Netherese items and sites. But then why allow it as a region for PCs (giving it a region benefit and everything), when they're clearly supposed to be "the bad guys?"

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 05:23 PM
Sometimes people just want to play Drizzt clones :smallbiggrin: expatriates from an evil society like Thay or Netheril.

Dervag
2008-11-28, 05:23 PM
I do remember much of Netheril's "war-effort" involves Sembian spies, dignitaries and assassins, as well as recovering ancient Netherese items and sites. But then why allow it as a region for PCs (giving it a region benefit and everything), when they're clearly supposed to be "the bad guys?"Because there are a lot of reasons why it can be fun to play a PC from Badguyland?

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-28, 05:35 PM
Isn't the whole "rebel against his evil society" idea overdone like a Thanksgiving turkey forgotten in the roaster for a day?

hamishspence
2008-11-28, 05:39 PM
true, but there is also the Loyal but not malevolent- the LN thayan NPCs fit this.

Dacia Brabant
2008-11-28, 06:54 PM
Y'know, there's one thing that always gets overlooked when people start bashing Netheril--if it weren't for the Shades and their Shadow Weave Magic, who else could have defeated the Phaerimms?

I think this all comes down to the tension between freedom and security. Is it better to be ruled by a dictator who has strong laws and enforcement, or live in a loose confederation with high internal freedom but may be susceptible to conquest or worse, annihilation?

Of course the lore in the Forgotten Realms is heavily biased toward the Chaotic Good point of view, so we know what its answer is going to be. Then again, how many of those happy hippies survived the latest Realm-Shattering Event and didn't have their homes overthrown in the ensuing chaos?

Doomsy
2008-11-28, 07:03 PM
Y'know, there's one thing that always gets overlooked when people start bashing Netheril--if it weren't for the Shades and their Shadow Weave Magic, who else could have defeated the Phaerimms?

I think this all comes down to the tension between freedom and security. Is it better to be ruled by a dictator who has strong laws and enforcement, or live in a loose confederation with high internal freedom but may be susceptible to conquest or worse, annihilation?

Of course the lore in the Forgotten Realms is heavily biased toward the Chaotic Good point of view, so we know what its answer is going to be. Then again, how many of those happy hippies survived the latest Realm-Shattering Event and didn't have their homes overthrown in the ensuing chaos?

You do make a point there. Far as evil empires go in Faerun, Netheril is by far the less evil. The Arboleth city-state of doom is pretty much literally full bore flying apocalyptic evil and the others are either completely monster ridden heck-holes or the ruled-in-secret-evil deal.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-28, 07:25 PM
The phaerimms?

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-28, 07:29 PM
You do make a point there. Far as evil empires go in Faerun, Netheril is by far the less evil. The Arboleth city-state of doom is pretty much literally full bore flying apocalyptic evil and the others are either completely monster ridden heck-holes or the ruled-in-secret-evil deal.

If there are greater threats, then why is there an alliance between Myth Drannor, Evereska, The Dalelands and Cormyr that's basically an anti-Netheril club. To look at the stuff on those nations you'd think Netheril's reappearance was the worst thing to ever happen to the Realms.

Why does the Realms have such a Chaotic Good viewpoint anyway?

Dacia Brabant
2008-11-28, 07:49 PM
If there are greater threats, then why is there an alliance between Myth Drannor, Evereska, The Dalelands and Cormyr that's basically an anti-Netheril club. To look at the stuff on those nations you'd think Netheril's reappearance was the worst thing to ever happen to the Realms.

Protip: Those allied nations recruited the Shades to fight against the Phaerimms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaerimm), pretty much the baddest of the big bad monsters of Faerun.


Why does the Realms have such a Chaotic Good viewpoint anyway?

Ed Greenwood is a hippy treehugger. :smalltongue:

Deme
2008-11-28, 08:12 PM
Sorry if someone's said this: I sort of starting tuning out during the Star Wars talk.

The reason most people follow an evil leader is simple: they will kill you if you don't, and for the most part, there is nothing you, the peasant with the straw hut, can do about it. You try to leave? you'll probably get killed, if your evil overlords have any concept of border security. Your children grow up (assuming they grow up), aware that the only way to get anywhere is to be strong and capable of killing people and taking their stuff. Some use that and become evil soldiers, or simple thugs, highway bandits, or ect. The ones that don't learn that, or refuse to play by the rules, don't change much from the lives their parents lived, if they live at all.

And there you go: a kingdom/empire/tribe/city-state/what-have-you, pretty much evil.

Mind you, some of the children use that important life lesson and become adventurers...and then you have the cliche "rebel against the evil homeland." But someone has to do it, really.

Doomsy
2008-11-28, 09:08 PM
If there are greater threats, then why is there an alliance between Myth Drannor, Evereska, The Dalelands and Cormyr that's basically an anti-Netheril club. To look at the stuff on those nations you'd think Netheril's reappearance was the worst thing to ever happen to the Realms.

Why does the Realms have such a Chaotic Good viewpoint anyway?

Well. For one.

Because they can fight the Netherese head on, in their own way.

There is no way in hell they can conventionally hit the Arboleths flying city of insanity. Just not going to happen.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-28, 09:53 PM
Sorry if someone's said this: I sort of starting tuning out during the Star Wars talk.

The reason most people follow an evil leader is simple: they will kill you if you don't, and for the most part, there is nothing you, the peasant with the straw hut, can do about it. You try to leave? you'll probably get killed, if your evil overlords have any concept of border security. Your children grow up (assuming they grow up), aware that the only way to get anywhere is to be strong and capable of killing people and taking their stuff. Some use that and become evil soldiers, or simple thugs, highway bandits, or ect. The ones that don't learn that, or refuse to play by the rules, don't change much from the lives their parents lived, if they live at all.

And there you go: a kingdom/empire/tribe/city-state/what-have-you, pretty much evil.

Mind you, some of the children use that important life lesson and become adventurers...and then you have the cliche "rebel against the evil homeland." But someone has to do it, really.

But if you get enough people pissed they're gonna revolt. It's not like Palpatine could fry every individual Rebel.

Dacia Brabant
2008-11-28, 11:12 PM
But if you get enough people pissed they're gonna revolt. It's not like Palpatine could fry every individual Rebel.

Yeah but I don't think he would even need to. I seem to remember it iwas heavily mplied that Palpy only lost because he didn't anticipate Vader turning on him in order to save Luke, and that the only possible way he could be killed was if he couldn't foresee it and thereby prevent it. If he weren't otherwise preoccupied with Luke and Vader he could have Force-swatted the Rebel ships and Force-killed the Rebels on the moon; he only even allowed them to attack just to crush Luke's spirits and make him more susceptible to the Dark Side.

I don't get why the Emperor even needed an apprentice at that point anyway, either Vader or Luke. He had greater foresight than any Jedi and was the most manipulative Sith Lord ever, he could extend his lifespan indefinitely, was for all practical purposes unkillable and had achieved the ultimate goal of the Sith by ruling the galaxy. Once you're at that level, you don't need an apprentice to keep the Sith tradition going, you can do that all by yourself--especially since that tradition calls for the apprentice to kill the master and take his place. Who needs an apprentice when you have a Death Star to enforce your rule?

I know, I know, don't think too hard about Star Wars. :smalltongue:

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-28, 11:47 PM
But foreseeing something doesn't neccessarily mean you can stop it. And Palpatine's on foresight failed him at least once, since Vader sensed Luke on the Endor moon while Palpatine did not.

Anyway, steering the topic back on to the original question, I mainly brought up the Empire because it seems to be the archetype of all large governments and empires in fantasy literature. A megalomaniacal leader, columns upon columns of faceless goons, industrialization devouring the virgin wilderness and a zero-percent approval rating the world over. I want to create a character who could plausably create an empire, and I want to avoid those stereotypes because I want to play a Good or Lawful Good character, despite worshiping an Unaligned deity.

Shadowtraveler
2008-11-29, 02:57 AM
How do elves build their tree homes, anyway? Doesn't that require wood? Where are they getting it? :smallconfused:

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-29, 12:28 PM
I thought they used druidic magic to shape the trees as they grew, so they had home-grown homes.

vicente408
2008-11-29, 01:29 PM
How do elves build their tree homes, anyway? Doesn't that require wood? Where are they getting it? :smallconfused:

They only use wood from naturally fallen sticks, twigs, and branches, of course. :smallwink:

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 01:30 PM
Arms and Equipment Guide does mention a building material called Living Wood- for when you are fighting inside such a building, or want to pay to have one made.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-29, 03:10 PM
Been thinking, what about conquering the opposite number of the elves, the orcs? There's no moral quandary, but how do you deal with the orcs after you beat them? Genocide is obviously a no-no, but orcs are the textbook definition of uncivilized. Wouldn't any attempt to culture them ultimately fail?

Dacia Brabant
2008-11-29, 04:04 PM
But foreseeing something doesn't neccessarily mean you can stop it. And Palpatine's on foresight failed him at least once, since Vader sensed Luke on the Endor moon while Palpatine did not.

For Palpy yeah, it would mean he could stop it, and this is what's called writing yourself into a corner and needing a way for the overpowered BBEG to lose. But yeah, enough of that topic.


I want to create a character who could plausably create an empire, and I want to avoid those stereotypes because I want to play a Good or Lawful Good character, despite worshiping an Unaligned deity.

I don't see what's stopping you, other than potentially DM fiat, since by RAW you can have followers of any alignment for any deity. Just use Good or Lawful Good means to promote civilization and create that empire. Negotiate traeaties and trade in good faith, create alliances through intermarriage, cross-migration and ethnic-cultural-religious similarities or exchange, fight honorable battles against each other's enemies, give generously to each other in times of need, and don't override each other's local customs and laws unless they're outright Evil--in which case they probably shouldn't be in your empire until they get their act together.


Wouldn't any attempt to culture them ultimately fail?

That depends, are they Tolkien orcs or Blizzard/WoW orcs?

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 04:16 PM
I wonder- would a Confederation evolving into an Empire fit? with the governments of allied nations over time becoming subordinate- subdepartments of the central government.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-29, 05:09 PM
That depends, are they Tolkien orcs or Blizzard/WoW orcs?

They're D&D orcs. Blizzard/WoW orcs are honorable warriors who were corrupted by demons and struggling to redeem themselves. Tolkien orcs were mutated elves who were slaves to the BBEG. D&D orcs are semi-animalistic tribesmen who rely on rading to survive and worship a god who exhorts them to slaughter everything they can, including each other.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-29, 05:10 PM
I wonder- would a Confederation evolving into an Empire fit? with the governments of allied nations over time becoming subordinate- subdepartments of the central government.

Sounds like what happened in Star Wars.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 05:14 PM
yes- but it was well befor it took that actual title Empire. When every nation in the Confederation has a vote, and a certain amount of autonomy- its less overtly Imperial.

DSCrankshaw
2008-11-29, 05:28 PM
I think it bears repeating that in a Points of Light setting, Erathis being seen as good (even if she's technically unaligned) just makes sense. It's a dark, terrible world out there, filled with things trying to kill you, and the only safe places are the civilized places. The villages, and towns, and (more rarely) cities. The interesting thing is that in this setting, as defined by the core rulebooks, elves count as civilized, even if they're supposed to be nomadic. They were incorporated into the empire of Nerath (which is pretty universally treated as decent in the books, even if far from perfect), and elves still live among humans and dwarves and all in many parts of it.

Expansion in this case means spreading that civilization, connecting the towns and cities together in wide swaths of land where travel is safe and trade is common. And elves clearing dangerous creatures such as orcs and worse from their forests is just another form of expansion--expanding the area under their control and their protection. This is the sort of expansion even druids can get behind. Now, the way this expansion is done isn't always good. Are you annexing the towns, conquering them, or offering a pact of mutual protection? What happens when two expanding civilizations bump up against one another? They could set a boundary and enter into treaties with one another, or, probably more likely, go to war. But it doesn't take an imperialist mindset to see the spread of civilization as a good thing.

Now if you're not playing core, and you already have a bunch of civilizations controlling vast swaths of land, then maybe it looks like the only way to spread civilization is to conquer land from somewhere else. That's usually not the case, even in the Forgotten Realms. There are still dark and dangerous territories that could benefit from civilization. And civilized areas are always fighting off the encroachment of dangerous enemies. There's plenty of ways good characters can argue for the value of civilization.

hamishspence
2008-11-29, 05:31 PM
typical Meloran might go:

"They civilize left, they civilize right
Till nothing is left, till nothing is right
They civilize freedom till no-one is free
No-one except- by coincidence me!"

(with apologies to Paint Your Wagon)

Dervag
2008-11-29, 06:08 PM
Been thinking, what about conquering the opposite number of the elves, the orcs? There's no moral quandary, but how do you deal with the orcs after you beat them? Genocide is obviously a no-no, but orcs are the textbook definition of uncivilized. Wouldn't any attempt to culture them ultimately fail?The traditional way of dealing with conquered people you can't incorporate into your society is to drive them off onto land you aren't interested in.

Or, from their point of view, they run away from the conquering army into lands the conquering army can't or won't follow them into.

Rockphed
2008-11-29, 07:01 PM
I want to create a character who could plausably create an empire, and I want to avoid those stereotypes because I want to play a Good or Lawful Good character, despite worshiping an Unaligned deity.

Diplomacy is a must. Unite people not by the sword, but by negotiating treaties where both parties feel like they come out ahead. When other nations attack, conquer them and set up benevolent Dictators. Within your lifetime, the empire might not get very big, but your grandchildren will rule a large domain.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-29, 11:15 PM
So fight with words instead of swords. I like, I like.

What I don't get is why every Empire that shows up except for in the Elder Scrolls is considered evil.

BardicDuelist
2008-11-29, 11:53 PM
I just want to point out that while you cite Tolkien as the cause for the "elf-love," one of the best examples of villainous elves is inThe Hobbit. Remember Mirkwood?

What about expansion into the Underdark? For minerals, etc. "The Underdark is evil" probably trumps "expansion is evil."

What about expansion in the far north?

If you simply want to advance civilization, then it can been seen as evil to encroach on another civilization (including the elves that live in trees), but advancing in the wilderness, unknown regions, etc. can be seen as very good.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-30, 12:23 PM
I thought the Mirkwood Elves were merely trying to protect their realm and saw the dwarves as interlopers.:smallconfused:

vicente408
2008-11-30, 01:37 PM
I thought the Mirkwood Elves were merely trying to protect their realm and saw the dwarves as interlopers.:smallconfused:

Now who's the elf sympathizer? :smallwink:

Kidding. Though, the Mirkwood elves were certainly in a much more antagonistic role than the Elves we see in LotR.

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 01:39 PM
they seem fairly Neutral : self-centred (or should that be elf-centred?) but not malevolent, whereas the elves of Rivendell were more CG.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-30, 02:04 PM
Now who's the elf sympathizer? :smallwink:

Kidding. Though, the Mirkwood elves were certainly in a much more antagonistic role than the Elves we see in LotR.

I'm perfectly willing to accept elves when they're portrayed more realistically, which they were in Mirkwood. Antagonists, but not villains. Villains implies actually wanting to hurt people, while antagonists implies they're an obstacle, but not necessarily malevolent.

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 02:06 PM
in The Silmarillion, elves vary at lot, from overly vengeful "heroes" like the Sons of Feanor, to out-and-out villains like Maeglin (though he didn't Turn Evil till late)

vicente408
2008-11-30, 02:29 PM
Elves, like many of the staple creatures and races of modern fantasy, have their origins in mythology. Elves and other "fey" creatures are traditionally much more malevolent and sociopathic. The "fair folk" would be just as likely to bless you or curse your family, depending on how well they were treated. The name "fair folk" is meant to flatter the creatures to avoid their wrath; you never know when they are listening to you.

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 02:36 PM
yes- Terry Pratchett's elves are The Fair Folk at their worst. Lords and Ladies, Wee Free Men, Science of Discworld 2: The Globe.

it does seem that they get nerfed a bit, from nearly beating Granny Weatherwax to being defeated by a nine year old girl (though a powerful one) is a bit of a comedown. though it could be an element of their Glamor being to cover their own fragile nature.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-30, 06:27 PM
There's no denying that of course, but the eladrin and elves in D&D, along with most of the other non-human races except tieflings seem to be "the good guys."

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 06:32 PM
eladrin are creatures of the Feywild, and descriptions of Noble Eladrin seem to suggest they are more Neutral and Alarming than Good.

in Worlds and Monsters, eladrin villages are described as "Not points of light" not safe for ordinary people to go there.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-30, 06:46 PM
Really? I didn't read Worlds And Monsters.

hamishspence
2008-11-30, 06:48 PM
its actually got more detail on some things than PHB + MM + DMG.

Archpaladin Zousha
2008-11-30, 07:37 PM
I dunno. They're kinda cost prohibitive. They don't have nearly the same amount of information as an actual splatbook and they cost just as much.