Does anyone else feel that their players kinda fetishize Royalty?

[paladinofshojo]

Okay so I have been DMing for almost a decade now and I seem to notice that whenever the party is introduced a king/queen then they immediately grant them more leeway, is that normal for most gaming groups or is it just mine?

Several examples include the following:

1) My party had killed many a Robin Hood type thief in at least four different settings that I remember, two of the times they didn’t even do it for a reward but rather to “restore order”

2) I’ve once had one campaign where the main antagonist was an Evil Empress who bathed in the blood of children and made pacts with demons. When they finally confronted said Empress, she would give the usual “evil villain monologue” about her “divine right to rule” and how without her, her “Empire will fall apart” and off about social order and the need for a class hierarchy. Keep in mind, this sorceress consorted with devils and BATHES IN THE BLOOD OF CHILDREN, but after she “explained herself” everyone but the Paladin were tempted to take her side, and I am pretty sure that the Paladin player would have tried to join her too if I didn’t threaten him with an automatic fall.

3) On two separate occasions, my party had absolutely no problem on destroying entire communities of peasants if a king told them to, they literally killed women and children because they refused to pay taxes/harboring magic users. I was once planning on starting a campaign loosely based on the American Revolution or the German Peasant’s War but I decided against it because I feel like I know which side my players will lean towards.

4) There was one encounter where a King once had my party “deal with” a Count who refused to pay his taxes… This Count was objectively richer than anyone else in the Kingdom due to literally having a goldmine on his land, when the party confronted said Count, he offered to pay triple what the King was offering if they spared him, but nope… they didn’t even humor the Count, they decapitated him and offered his head to the King.

There are a couple more examples I can name, but you guys can get the gist right? Is this normal behavior? Granted my players are pretty normal in their lives and they never act like sociopaths whenever they are fighting regular monsters. But for some reason whenever I introduce a concept of a feudal social order to the game they will immediately throw all morality out the window in the name of the King.

[Lord Raziere]

No my experience is that players I play with give royalty and nobility and authority in general no respect whatsoever and are liable to kill them at the drop of hat if they do something less than morally upright.

[The Glyphstone]

Maybe they just like playing Lawful characters, or at least characters uninterested in defying the social hierarchy when that rarely results in massive phat lewt?

[Batcathat]

I don't think anyone I've played with have done that (at least not to such a degree that I've noticed it), but I do think fantasy in general tend to be rather royalistic (as long as it's the rightful monarch, of course. Which usually means the one with the right parents) so maybe your players are influenced by that?

[Xervous]

When in elf games the queen can have the strength and skill to turn you inside out with her bare hands, or has a magic lapdog who can accomplish the same thing by uttering profanity, players tend to walk carefully around those that inspire fear and/or offer great power.

Ye olde monarchy worked as a cascading series of social obligations wherein Lord A feared the king only because he knew lords B-X would make an example of him if the king ordered it. Make the king superhuman, or the queen a sorcerer, and this all changes. You’re not in the room with an individual whose power comes from the cooperation of their peers. You’re in the room with the guy who will crisp you with lightning before elbow dropping you into a crater for asserting that he isn’t a demigod blessing the people with his presence. That or he’s the good cop normal dude and his witch sister who hates being distracted from her studies is the bad cop.

Even ignoring the fantastical stuff, lord A is probably quite dead if he stabs the king without support of lords B-X. Players understand threatening the system will mobilize the entire system against them, which may be suicidal and/or campaign wrecking.

[Berenger]

Have you given thought to the possibility that maybe you kinda fetishize unlawful underdogs?

I am under the strong impression that you and your players operate under different genre conventions. More precisely, black-and-white morality and romantic fairytale or superhero genre conventions on your part and shades-of-grey morality and a notion of "gritty realism" on their part. Both are totally valid for an RPG, of course, but maybe you should talk about that with your table to better manage expectations for specific campaigns.

[Mastikator]

Many players have moral blind spots where suddenly everything is OK. I've seen players sell the souls of their enemies for a small profit when the enemies stole from the PCs employer, but when a devil offers huge quantities of gold for a VIP it's out of the question and no amount of gold is worth it.

However I don't think I've ever seen a monarch get special treatment from players.

[Slipjig]

Your examples don't seem THAT out of bounds for normal PCs. The whole "bathing-in-blood" thing is pretty extreme, but there is a strong tradition in contemporary fantasy that sometimes the Lesser Evil is the best option (or is at least a valuable tool against the Greater Evil).

As for the Count, attempting to bribe the PCs in order to spare him sounds like standard villain behavior. I'd actually think less of the PCs if they took him up on his offer. If he'd argued that the taxes were unjust it would be a wholly different matter...

[Satinavian]

The only slightly strage one is number two. Bathing in children's blood is a bit excessive for non-villains to accept. The rest seems like regular "loyal servants of the crown" roleplaying which, while not the only option, is certainly a viable and attractive one.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, rejecting the Count is probably the 'correct' choice for most PCs, and most PCs who'd seriously consider earning the monarch's wrath probably aren't taking the quest.

The Empress of Blood is weirder, but still not the most evil alliance I've seen s player agree to. Plus every player is secretly a follower of Khorne anyway, and he cares not feel where the blood flows (most of the time).

[Vahnavoi]

This is completely normal... for Lawful Evil people who prioritize keeping society stable in manner that keeps the right people at the top and the wrong people at the bottom. So congratulate your players for playing that alignment right.

I rarely see this in my players. It's more common for my players to be principled anti-authoritarians or completely uncaring of social stability, so often they're planning assassination or overthrowing of royalty, nobility or whatever other force in their way.

[Segev]

Maybe they'd enjoy a game where The Good King has a Beautiful Noble Daughter and the kingdom needs heroes to save them from the ravages of the demon-worshiping hordes?

[Telok]

I rarely see this in my players. It's more common for my players to be principled anti-authoritarians or completely uncaring of social stability, so often they're planning assassination or overthrowing of royalty, nobility or whatever other force in their way.

Mine are unprincipled anti-authoritarians who are completely uncaring of social stability, start wars, run away from consequences, and deny responsibility to the point of blaming the victims.

[Anonymouswizard]

This is completely normal... for Lawful Evil people

Who decides what is evil? Heck, one of the more popular gaming settings out there managed to justify the sacrifice of thousands of people daily just for more efficient interstellar travel.


Honestly, most of them people I've played with kind of don't care about authority, in the way that the characters will get their orders and then only bother to check in if they have something to report or need anything. The most interaction we've ever had with royalty was when the GM of one group agreed a druid GMPC to the group who just happened to be a prince of the kingdom.

The group was split over how to deal with druidprince. I favoured slitting his throat in his sleep, the rest of the party favoured getting into his will and then slitting his throat in his sleep. Although honestly that was more the whole GMPC thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Have you given thought to the possibility that maybe you kinda fetishize unlawful underdogs?

THere's a lot of that going around in books, comics, movies, TV shows, video games, etc.

Many players have moral blind spots where suddenly everything is OK. I've seen players sell the souls of their enemies for a small profit when the enemies stole from the PCs employer, but when a devil offers huge quantities of gold for a VIP it's out of the question and no amount of gold is worth it.

However I don't think I've ever seen a monarch get special treatment from players.

Me neither, unless the in-context consequences of incurring the monarch's wrath (most kings had assassins on their payroll) give the PCs pause.

In my brother's campaign, we are working to overthrow the monarch ... who we see as the usurper ... and help put the "rightful" king back on the throne. Along the way, however, it's been tough to get to the capital as we keep getting side tracked in our search for loot and combat, and, because the DM has not yet put together the whole bit about where the king and his grand vizier are.

But we are getting there.

[icefractal]

Three possibilities:
1) The players are actual monarchists.
2) The players have decided that since their characters live in a feudal world, they should strongly believe in "divine right of kings" for accuracy. An oversimplification, but not absurd.
3) The players don't really care who rules the fictional world, they just want to Do The Quest™. The king gave them a quest to kill Robin Hood? Great, let's do it. Maybe if the Robin Hood type had given them a quest first then they'd do that instead.

Is it typical? IME, sort of, although your players seem more loyal to the crown than most.
Many players are happy to be loyal knights as long as the royalty is telling them to do things they're already willing to do. Go kill this dragon, and be rewarded? Great, long live the king!
As soon as the royalty throws their weight around in a way that's detrimental to the PCs (collecting significant taxes from them, not letting them carry weapons, telling them to do things they don't want to, telling them not to do things they do want to), then they quickly become anarchists. Down with the tyrant!

So if you want them less king-friendly: "That's an amazing magic sword you have - so amazing it should be part of the royal arms. Hand it over." might very well lead to anti-monarchist feelings.

[ngilop]

stuffs.

Sounds like you have a pretty standard group of lawful neutral people.

[paladinofshojo]

I don't think anyone I've played with have done that (at least not to such a degree that I've noticed it), but I do think fantasy in general tend to be rather royalistic (as long as it's the rightful monarch, of course. Which usually means the one with the right parents) so maybe your players are influenced by that?

Ohh another point, the party had at one point ended a civil war against the “rightful” king who basically acted like Joffrey from Game of Thrones….. against his uncle who actually had the best interests of the people in mind and a member of the Lawful Good clergy.

They sided with the tyrant because his claim was “more legitimate” never mind the fact that he was starving the peasants and unjustly executing members of his court on a whim.

Like who does that? I thought it would be a nice deconstruction of the “rightful king” trope but all it did was shown that my party simply double downed on their character’s beliefs in monarchy.

Hell, in another adventure, a king hired them to hunt down a group of “disloyal nobles” who in reality were tired of unjust taxes and had sent the King a Magna Carta Charter. Once the Party met with the leader of this Rebellion, they were given the choice to join them, the party refused and at the end of the adventure, they killed all the nobles and presented their heads to the king who rewarded them with all the titles and lands of the nobles they vanquished.

[Iamyourking]

One way you could determine if they are specifically monarchists or just generally pro-authority would be to introduce a rival monarchy and republic that are pretty much morally equal. If they still consistently side with the monarchy, then you have your answer.

[Quertus]

I can't say I've seen it to that extent, but… yeah, it's a thing.

Myself, I'll usually work with the temporal powers… and overthrow the celestial ones.

Maybe they'd enjoy a game where The Good King has a Beautiful Noble Daughter and the kingdom needs heroes to save them from the ravages of the demon-worshiping hordes?

Indeed. Sounds like the game you should run for those players.

[GeoffWatson]

I usually see the opposite.
No respect at all to nobles or royalty. Which isn't good for the setting.

Especially at higher levels - Why should they respect the king, when they can defeat the king and all his armies easily?

[paladinofshojo]

I am under the strong impression that you and your players operate under different genre conventions. More precisely, black-and-white morality and romantic fairytale or superhero genre conventions on your part and shades-of-grey morality and a notion of "gritty realism" on their part. Both are totally valid for an RPG, of course, but maybe you should talk about that with your table to better manage expectations for specific campaigns.

I feel like it’s kinda the opposite here, my players seem to justify their actions with the Disney concept that the “rightful king deserves to rule” when I try to put them in a world where the “rightful” monarchs don’t always have the best interests of their people at heart…. I kinda want them to rebel against monarchy or at least advocate for someone morally deserving instead of whoever has the right bloodline.

When they get involved with conflicts the main factor that decides their action is “who has more authority”. If a Lord tells them to put down a bunch of rebelling peasants or exterminate a town carrying the plague, the party will do so without hesitation.

Interestingly, they use more restraint when interacting with non-humans, as when there was hostility with an Orc clan in the mountains on the borders, instead of going in and killing indiscriminately like I expected, they tried to solve the issue diplomatically instead.

When I asked about that, the party said that “since they aren’t part of the kingdom they cannot attack them without it being seen as a war crime”… when I asked about how they at that point already destroyed entire human towns for less, the paladin (who is now fallen btw) said “that’s different, they are part of the kingdom and had displeased their rightful king”.

I usually see the opposite.
No respect at all to nobles or royalty. Which isn't good for the setting.

Especially at higher levels - Why should they respect the king, when they can defeat the king and all his armies easily?

That’s honestly what I was expecting… but apparently my party prefers to roleplay as fascist goons instead of anarchic psychotic murderhobos…..

I am wondering what’s up with that. It doesn’t seem like something a “normal group” would do… is it my campaign or is it something else?

[Vahnavoi]

Like who does that?

Already told you. Lawful Evil people do that. Excusing social misery by social stability, prioritizing the right sort of people over the right sort of behaviours - they're a textbook case.

So maybe it isn't what you expected. Maybe you expected them to be goody-two-shoes who prioritize elimination of suffering and happiness for all the people, or chaotic folks who prioritize their individual sense of morality over social stability, or egoist mofos who only chase short term gains for their own selves. So? There doesn't seem to be any actual problem here. As far as I can tell, your players happy little Stormtroopers batting for Team Empire. Do you need them to change?

[Ameraaaaaa]

I feel like it’s kinda the opposite here, my players seem to justify their actions with the Disney concept that the “rightful king deserves to rule” when I try to put them in a world where the “rightful” monarchs don’t always have the best interests of their people at heart…. I kinda want them to rebel against monarchy or at least advocate for someone morally deserving instead of whoever has the right bloodline.

When they get involved with conflicts the main factor that decides their action is “who has more authority”. If a Lord tells them to put down a bunch of rebelling peasants or exterminate a town carrying the plague, the party will do so without hesitation.

Interestingly, they use more restraint when interacting with non-humans, as when there was hostility with an Orc clan in the mountains on the borders, instead of going in and killing indiscriminately like I expected, they tried to solve the issue diplomatically instead.

When I asked about that, the party said that “since they aren’t part of the kingdom they cannot attack them without it being seen as a war crime”… when I asked about how they at that point already destroyed entire human towns for less, the paladin (who is now fallen btw) said “that’s different, they are part of the kingdom and had displeased their rightful king”.




That’s honestly what I was expecting… but apparently my party prefers to roleplay as as fascist goons instead of anarchic psychotic murderhobos…..

I am wondering what’s up with that. It doesn’t seem like something a “normal group” would do… is it my campaign or is it something else?

Technically they could monarchist goons rather then fascist ones. There are some differences philosophically speaking. Both ideologies do suck tho.

So yeah i agree with icefractal on the possible whys and with iamyourking for the possible way of finding out. Though honestly I'd just ask the players about why they always side with the monarchy.

[Vahnavoi]

Who decides what is evil?

For their game, the original poster does, duh. I'm just pointing out the obvious judgement call based on alignment guidelines.

Heck, one of the more popular gaming settings out there managed to justify the sacrifice of thousands of people daily just for more efficient interstellar travel.

Most people who play in that setting are perfectly fine with saying that in the grim darkness of the far future, there are only bad guys.

[The Glyphstone]

It definitely sounds like you keep trying to run a plot that your players aren't interested in, and doubling down ever harder on how evil the kings are isnt going to fix that any time soon.

[paladinofshojo]

It definitely sounds like you keep trying to run a plot that your players aren't interested in, and doubling down ever harder on how evil the kings are isnt going to fix that any time soon.

Technically I am a firm believer of sandbox campaigns… And most of the time when my party is doing “small scale” adventuring like say… fighting bandits that are terrorizing towns in the countryside or delving into dungeons they tend to behave more or less like a typical party, almost Lawful Good.

It’s only when they begin involving themselves with the larger political power structures within the world that they tend to move towards their monarchists world view….

[Hytheter]

Who decides what is evil? Heck, one of the more popular gaming settings out there managed to justify the sacrifice of thousands of people daily just for more efficient interstellar travel.

Which setting is that?

[paladinofshojo]

Which setting is that?

Warhammer 40K I believe

I am assuming they are referring that to keep the comatose Emperor alive and able to hold up the psychic interstellar webway which allows them to use “hyper space” to travel the universe….. that they have to sacrifice millions of psychic humans to the machine keeping the Emperor alive.

[Mastikator]

Which setting is that?

Warhammer 40k, which is super evil. Like a lot evil. Mega evil. Double giga evil. Not even remotely "morally grey", just over the top evil.