Is It Just Me?

[Neon Knight]

Or do a lot of adventurers seem to be defined by their acts of destruction?

I was sitting around, considering what I wanted to do next, when I realized a lot of the groups I've seen and the games I've played have been about evil and its destruction. We slew the evil dragon, we killed the lich king, we slaughtered the death cult, we drove back the barbarian horde.

All of these things often threaten the existing power structure. The PCs defend and protect the existing kingdom, but they never expand it.

I have recently realized that I don't particularly want to destroy the great threat just to return to the status quo. I want to expand it. I want to go to the lawless wastelands and bring order. I want to be the PCs who are not hailed because they kill things but because they have aided in the construction and advancement of civilization.

I want to be a PC where one's reward is not magic swords or gold coins but towns and cities where there was once naught but wilderness. I want to be a member of a group that not only sweeps away the orcish horde, but conquers the orcish lands and brings the brutes to heel, and transforms their primitive culture into a worthwhile civilization.

I want be Caesar! I want to be Romulus, Remus, and the Great Khan!

I want to be the PC that looks at the map, and sees all the warring factions, the competing kingdoms, the selfish kings and queens and nobles, and realizes that so long as the land is divided, his mother, his father, his grandparents, his sister, his brother, his wife, his son, his daughter, and all his descendants will suffer. And the only recourse is to take these many lands of many peoples, this multitude of nations, and form them forge one people, one land, one nation, ONE GLORIOUS EMPIRE!

Anyone ever feel like this?

[JackMage666]

Yeah, the BBEG.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Yeah, the BBEG.

Ohhh, snap!

[Damionte]

Yeah, the BBEG.

Hahahahahahaa BANGARANG !!!

[Neon Knight]

Yeah, the BBEG.

This explains so much.

[sikyon]

JackMage is right, it's a very thin line between good and evil here. What you are talking about is order vs chaos. So you'd have an empire of lawful neutral campaigners. They'd do good things (maybe, a successful anarchist society is chaotic but still good), by using evil tactics. Many evil villans cross this line.

But this would make an awsome campaign. Start the PC's as good and slowly shift alignment as the campain progresses. Final assault is where they realize that they are evil (but too deep in) when confronted by another group of good heroes trying to stop them.

[SpiderKoopa]

Weird, I had a NE character who was most noted for running a small town for a while.
Edit: Sorry, created and ran said small town.

[Wooter]

I'm pretty sure you don't want to be Remus.

[skywalker]

JackMage is right, it's a very thin line between good and evil here. What you are talking about is order vs chaos. So you'd have an empire of lawful neutral campaigners. They'd do good things (maybe, a successful anarchist society is chaotic but still good), by using evil tactics. Many evil villans cross this line.

But this would make an awsome campaign. Start the PC's as good and slowly shift alignment as the campain progresses. Final assault is where they realize that they are evil (but too deep in) when confronted by another group of good heroes trying to stop them.

"A successful anarchist society is chaotic but still good?"

How is old Karl, these days?

EDIT: As well, I'm with Kasrkin. Since you're already buying into the fact that the government is good and needs to be spread, why not spread it? Why not be that crusader, who brings light to the dark places? Once you drink the kool-ade and decide that your country's way is the way, then why not?

[DreadSpoon]

Plenty of adventures can be focused around just "regular" stuff or role-playing. The gamer attitude is usually "kill monsters, get XP and loot, repeat." That's not necessariyl wrong, and that is what D&D is good at - it started out as a party-based tactical war game in dungeon settings, after all. If killing things isn't the focus of your campaign, D&D might not be the best rules, though they certainly will do the job.

However, you'll find that most published adventures, just like most D&D supplements, are targeted at the average gamer. These are the people who play WoW. They don't really care about role-play much. They want to kill things and get loot and XP, and hang out with their friends, and have cool characters that let them forget about their regular mundane boring (possibly even pathetic) lives.

I do a lot of Warhammer Fantasy Role Play gaming, and those adventures are rarely based heavily on combat or destruction. They certainly can be, but the rules are built such that being involved in lots of constant live-or-die combat will generally result in a lot of dead PCs very quickly. Adventures have combat, but they usually focus more on role play, plot deduction, and mystery. Starting characters are rarely combat worthy, as most professions a character begins in are mundane civilian things, not warriors or magicians.

Compare this to what 4th Edition is supposedly shaping up to be, where the designers are intentionally making it even easier for starting characters to slaughter large quantities of monsters. Not a bad thing, per se - it's what D&D is meant to be, and it's what the average consumer wants, and that's what they're going to get. Likewise, that's why most adventurers and adventures, especially D&D ones, are built around killing lots of things and gaining lots of loot and XP to get more powerful to kill lots of even stronger things.

[Xuincherguixe]

I tend to draw a fair amount of attention to the violence myself. It's not just that adventures are defined by violence, but that the violence itself seems to be no big deal. Which if you think about it is pretty dark itself.

My games are generally very free form, and I try to get an idea what the players want. If one particular player was involved, that could very seriously involve shopping for dresses.

Because I'm drawn to violence it means it's going to be fairly frequent (and gruesome ^_^) but theft and deceit are also fun.

[Mike_Lemmer]

It sounds like what you need is downtime. A month or two of downtime & peace for PCs to pursue their own goals is always interesting. And you're not alone; my PC in one game wants to help a beleagured tribe of asherati because they assisted them in passing through the desert. The main reason he's adventuring now is so he can afford to do so.

[Tallis]

JackMage is right, it's a very thin line between good and evil here. What you are talking about is order vs chaos. So you'd have an empire of lawful neutral campaigners. They'd do good things (maybe, a successful anarchist society is chaotic but still good), by using evil tactics. Many evil villans cross this line.

But this would make an awsome campaign. Start the PC's as good and slowly shift alignment as the campain progresses. Final assault is where they realize that they are evil (but too deep in) when confronted by another group of good heroes trying to stop them.

How is building an empire more evil than killing things for money?
If the ultimate goal is to improve the quality of life of the people I don't see how it's evil at all, unless brutal methods are used.
Even if it is done for bad reasons it can still make for a fun game. I've played games before in which the PCs carved out kingdoms, and yes, once, an empire. It was done with the OD&D ruleset which includes rules for mass combat. The current rules are not as well suited for that, but with a bit of homebrewing I'm sure you could come up with a reasonable mass combat system. Or you could get the OD&D companion set and use those rules.

[Anxe]

Nah. I've always been the type of player who wanted to do stuff like Indiana Jones. Lots of fighting and trap-dodging to get the artifact at the end of the dungeon and then some unexpected badass at the end.

[Anxe]

How is building an empire more evil than killing things for money?
If the ultimate goal is to improve the quality of life of the people I don't see how it's evil at all, unless brutal methods are used.
Even if it is done for bad reasons it can still make for a fun game. I've played games before in which the PCs carved out kingdoms, and yes, once, an empire. It was done with the OD&D ruleset which includes rules for mass combat. The currenty rulews are not as well suited for that, but with a bit of homebrewing I'm sure you could come up with a reasonable mass combat system. Or you could get the OD&D companion set and use those rules.

You ever seen Hero? Damn good movie.

[Behold_the_Void]

First off, I suggest finding a group that likes that. Secondly, I suggest Heroes of Battle.

[dyslexicfaser]

Anyone ever feel like this?

Every day of my life.

If killing goblins or whatever can be considered a good act, then so can wiping them out and taking over their territory.

In the name of justice.

[Xuincherguixe]

You know, this is an interesting idea. Rather than going around wading through dungeons, the campaign could be centered around a settlement the players build.

Maybe they get a good deal on a castle, only to find out that it's basically falling apart, most of the town has left, and the ones that are left are rebelling. Yeah there's no one there, but for a long time they haven't been getting good nutrition and it's kind of had a negative affect on their health.

It also might happen to be in close proximity to a particularly large family of dragons (they had the luck of being near dragons that get along with each other), a drow metropolis, a mind flayer metropolis, at least 4 separate cults to dark gods, and underneath the castle is a portal ready to be activated to the far plane so all the good guys want to blow up the castle too. (Best if the players don't find out about that until after they've killed a few waves of Paladins)

[leperkhaun]

I have played several games like that. Unless you take over a kingdom or whatnot building new kingdoms from scratch for all the players is a lot of work. Even if you do give them an established kingdom you have to figure out how other kingdoms will react.

Sure those other places might like those people, but are they ready to let them take power? There is a big difference between those kings liking the party and those kings wanting to see them in such a position.

[Quietus]

Amusingly enough, I hadn't really thought about that much, but my Good characters DO tend to work to beat down the Monolithic Evil of Doom, while my Evil characters seek to expand kingdoms and the like. One, a level 30 Psion/Cleric theurge of sorts, is a follower of Wee Jas, currently fighting with Tiamat because she didn't like the way I fulfilled a deal with her. If/when that fight finishes, assuming he's still alive, he intends to go to a magically radioactive desert, fix the radioactivity, and start up a kingdom there that will take advantage of this desert (Which was originally plains, he intends to make them so again) being a natural trade route and a major link between two other kingdoms. When I was thinking about all of this, it occurred to me that he would likely slide neatly into Lawful Neutral rather than Lawful Evil once he was occupying a seat as head of a kingdom, rather than wandering around killing things and taking their stuff.

[Tormsskull]

Unless I am blind, no one has yet to mention Birthright the campaign setting. This will do a lot of what you want, though you may have to create your own land/continent if you are looking for large tracts of uncivilized lands. Birthright is 2nd AD&D but there is a website around here that has a downloadable conversion pack to 3rd. I looked through it and it is not half bad.

If you aren't familiar with Birthright, here is the long story short version: Bunch of gods, evil god raises army to wipe out races of good, good gods raise good army, armies clash on a mountain. Gods take physical form and fight the evil god (who also takes physical form), all gods are destroyed, their powers wash over the few survivors and go into the land its self. The land is imbued with magic, the heroes of the gods (each gods champions), since they were so close to the destroyed gods, were imbued with so much god-juice that they become the new gods.

Many of the other soldiers on the land inherit some special powers as they were sprayed with god-juice. These people are known as scions. Scions have bloodlines, and most have blood abilities. Scions can increase the power of their bloodline either through ruling a domain, or by killing another scion by stabbing them through the heart.

So its sort of like an Age of Empires meets Highlander game, and with a good DM can be a blast to run.

[Dausuul]

Anyone ever feel like this?

In a word, yes. :)

While this is traditionally the BBEG's role, one could just as easily have a campaign centered around the prophesied king who will unite the divided kingdoms and bring about a new Golden Age--if, that is, the bad guys don't get him first. That king might be one of the PCs, or might be an NPC whom the PCs have to find, protect, and aid in his rise to power.

Actually, that sounds pretty cool. I may have to do that in my next campaign...

[PnP Fan]

No, it's not just you. I am currently running what my group refers to as a "town builder" campaign. It basically revolves around settling an area and bringing civilization to the area, perhaps dealing with invading orcs/lizardmen/whatever, and other adventures in the local area. It also deals with building something (a town) from just raw materials (villagers and natural resources). To avoid the moral entanglements of "stealing land" I've set the campaign in Q'barra from the ECS. Lots of evil lizardmen, dinosaurs, dragons, etc. ... for folks to get their combat on, but also lots of frontier problems (In fact I've started referring to the campaign title as "Q'barra, how the East was Won" to give it an old-west/ post civil war feel.) like personal disputes over land, raiders (a la Magnificent 7 / 7 Samurai), etc. . .

Anyway, just wanted to let you know that this sort of stuff is being done, and it's a lot of fun! It can really motivate players to take a personal investment in the setting and your NPCs. It also allows you to introduce politics, mass combat, resource management, and other things that can't be easily dealt with by cutting things up with a sword. I am using AEG's Empire splatbook to deal with these details. It's got systems for realm management and mass combat that look reasonable (haven't actually used them, the story is still in it's early stages.)

Good luck!

[Skyserpent]

While cool, I don't think this would work for our group...

If they wanted to play SimCity they'd play SimCity, they play D&D to kill things so that they can acquire the means to kill bigger things. Oh, and possibly stop the evil plans of evil organizations, usually through the intellectual thoroughfare of killing.

They are quite a group...

I'd love to play one of those myself, mostly 'cause I suck at SimCity.

[Wraithy]

A Call for Heroes
the corrupt Duchy of unarmedpeasantsland has threatened our kingdom for far too long. join the king's army today and free their people from the evil Duke benevolencio!

there's a little LE in all of us, nurture it, study law

[Calsan]

Nope, it's not just you.

I have a player that wants to take over the world and I mean the whole globe thingie.
Because she thinks it'll be good for the people. Mind you she is LG.
A LG Enchanter Specialist.
She is not at the power level yet that she can actualy do it but still.
She'll find a way....most definately

[Mithhuan]

Building an empire has always been a part of D&D. Back in 1st edition high level characters were expected to build a stronghold and clear the surrounding area of monsters. Bring that idea back into 3.5 by giving those 20th level characters a land grant to retire on. Let their epic adventures be building a kingdom.

[Crow]

I was going to be running a bastardized version of "Base of Operations" from the wizards website next session. The keep is going to be ownerless after they "clean it out", but I'm not sure if the players are going to stop and think "Hey, I can totally live here."

I've taken precautions (like figuring out how much the mine will earn them a year, minimum staff required, and cost to get it all fixed up), and I would love for them to do something like this, but I have the feeling it will go right over their heads.

Even though the group has a 20INT wizard, and a Knight with no holdings, ...they all tend to live for the moment (and the monsters).

[Tallis]

You ever seen Hero? Damn good movie.

I've seen it, loved the style, but something about it just didn't click for me. I've been thinking about going back and watching it again, sometimes I like a movie on the second try that I really didn't go for on the first. I'm hoping Hero is one of those movies.

[Tweekinator]

Nah. I've always been the type of player who wanted to do stuff like Indiana Jones. Lots of fighting and trap-dodging to get the artifact at the end of the dungeon and then some unexpected badass at the end.

"Dr. Jones. Again we see there is nothing you can possess which I cannot take away."

I actually had a character who just bit the dust who wanted found a nation. It was in a homebrewed world in which humans were not only not the dominant race, but were disliked by most of the others and primarily spent their time as refugees and/or slaves. My character was a paladin-ish class and his goal was to build a nation of humanity and eventually rise to immortality and become their new god and watch over them. Unfortunately, he died trying to rescue some companions from an underground orc city.