Quote Originally Posted by Rater202 View Post
If a GM includes oppressive cultures or governments in their setting—especially if they oppress groups that the PCs(or players) belong to—and lets the PCs get to a level of power where the PCs are capable of fighting these governments or cultures and the GM doesn't have plans to either let the PCS do that or explain why they can't beyond just "no, you can't, can't be done," then the GM has failed utterly in their job.

If my Chaotic Good Barbarian gets to level 20 and can't depose the king of so-called civilization who is pressing and hurting innocent people for reasons my Barbarian finds stupid, not just not having the opportunity but being physically prevented from doing so, even if her level 20 Sorcerer, Druid, and Bard friends agree with her, then the GM has made a mistake.

And that goes double if the oppressive King is intended to be seen as a "good guy."
Yeah, that's all true.

But then again, a more realistic scenario would be that the king remains in power because he has even higher level allies, or that the oppression is a systemic aspect of their culture developed over generations rather than being the fault of a few evil monarchs, or that rather than being evil the king has slowly compromised their morals to account for the harsh realities of the world.

Heck, it might even be the theme of the game. For example, I am told that Fable 3 has one of the better twists in gaming history when (spoilers for a decade old game) the entire plot of the game revolves around overthrowing a tyrannical king, only to find out that the reason he was being so tyrannical was that he was secretly trying to prepare the nation to fight off an apocalyptic invasion by a hostile foreign power.

Due note that I am in no way arguing against players being able to change the world, that is literally what the core of my setting is about. But at the same time, it is also about exploring the costs and the consequences of doing so and there being no such thing as a free lunch.

Which can, also, cost you players.

For example, in my long running home game, the PCs have conquered or toppled every major government on the planet in over a decade of play. One player, after (without any prompting on my part) made the decision that the best long term course of action in a region was to commit genocide and wipe out a single tribe to the last child, said that they didn't want to play any more because even though they had accomplished all of their goals they had never once felt like a hero.