Originally Posted by
paladinofshojo
Putting aside the fact that I loathe the idea of the “good king” archetype as a symbol of legitimate authority. There are two reasons why I won’t go this route.
1) If you have a benevolent monarch that is actually competent, chances are your setting is idealistic where there is little to no corruption or abuses of power, no infighting, no turf wars between nobles. And that just sounds way too boring. Why would a stable nation need morally compromised mercenaries?
2) This is supposed to be a sandbox game where the players decide their own stories, if I introduce some “big good” character then it stops being about the player characters and starts being all about the “big good” character and how they plan on creating change to establish more equality and justice for all.
I’ve had a Robin Hood styled rebel leader of peasant soldiers and yeoman that had been shafted by the wars they fought in the name of their lords and king appear at least once or twice in my campaigns.
But instead of joining them, the party usually sides with the King…