What kind of kingdom will it be 3.5

[Stormageddon]

So my DM informed me that my character will end up being the queen of her people by the end of the next campaign. She is a CG scout with a lot of sassiness to her. I've been trying to figure out what kind of ruler she will be. What happens when you put a rebel in charge? Any suggestions?

[Tsotha-lanti]

Alignment says nothing significant about character. Two characters with the same alignment are quite likely to be radically different.

Most modern democracies (especially the western European ones with socialized healthcare and such) are theoretically Chaotic Good; the individual is more important than the community, personal freedoms are core, individual expression is encouraged, and so on.

Typical elven societies in D&D are CG; communities are loose and small, and usually self-sufficient; rulers only give out orders and decrees in times of crisis; government is de-centralized and localized; but when the chips are down, they come together.

A CG ruler would probably rule with a light hand, but firm principles, in general.

[AKA_Bait]

stuff.

Sounds about right to me. I'd also expect an emphasis on loose laws that are only enforced when there offender is causing actual, obvious harm to another person.

[only1doug]

that really depends on the character, would she really want all the hassles of looking after a kingdom? might she install a decent government and then wander off to do her own thing rather than get bogged down in a leadership role she doesn't want?

[Zeta Kai]

My only question is this: what self-respecting DM is telling you what going to happen to your character during a future game session? Even if it's really good news, it's still crude railroading & blatant Monty-Hall-ism. Where's the suspense? The pay-off? The drama? Bad form, I must say.

[Stormageddon]

My only question is this: what self-respecting DM is telling you what going to happen to your character during a future game session? Even if it's really good news, it's still crude railroading & blatant Monty-Hall-ism. Where's the suspense? The pay-off? The drama? Bad form, I must say.

Well he's a new DM to the game. Doing a good job so far, but as the most experienced player in the game he sometimes asks for input into what he's doing just to make sure everyone is having a good time, and tips on how he could be doing things better. He just wanted to make sure that's something I would be into as being a so not to ruin his plot line. Not that he let's us in on all his plans fall from it.

It used to be railroading hell when he first started to be DM, you couldn't even imagine. I advised him to lay off a bit and him did. He's getting really a lot better.

[Kizara]

Reminds me of Alexandra, my Rogue/fighter/Pof (least optimized character for me EVER) of a goddess based off of Aphrodite.

A very memorable campaign indeed. She was the last daughter of a moderately powerful house that rebelled against her social expectations and ran off. A rather deep campaign with alot of character development ensued from that cliche'd begining. She had alot of Sassiness at the start as well, but she became alot more altruistic and practically exhalted in her CG alignment. It was interesting RPing her keeping her head and spirits up out of a selfless desire to help others in spite of incredible adversity and personal trial. She kept a bit of her sassiness too, it mainly came out when she was with friends and was able to relax again. :)

She eventually started her own community, drawing back on her title and building a small keep. It was a very sexually liberated, happy and kinda hippyish place. She also progressed her knightly order (Order of the Scarlet Hand) greatly and rose to its head (being a relatively small and loosly organized order, this wasn't incredibly hard).


I hope my nostalgic moment may provide some inspiration for your RPing, cause it certinally made me warm to recall it. :)

[Devils_Advocate]

What happens when you put a rebel in charge??

She makes lots of changes? Probably? I would presume that people tend to favor the elimination of things that they rebel against.

She might prefer to lead through inspiring speeches rather than edicts. Perhaps she would favor the decentralization of power, and the phasing out of any official hereditary positions in favor of representative or meritocratic government.

[TheElfLord]

What happens when you put a rebel in charge? Any suggestions?

They sell out and become the new establishment. Make some minor changes but keep the major things the same.

[Oracle_Hunter]

CG suggests a ruling philosophy that emphasizes individual justice over group justice, and helping out those in need. However, the actual government that comes out of that philosophy depends on the character!

- Chaotic characters generally dislike setting up general codes, leaving it more to the individual to make decisions. If the character is a micro-manager, she may insist on being the high and low justice; if the character is more relaxed then she will probably pick people she trusts and give them things to do. They will have autonomy in their sphere of action, unless the Queen personally objects.

- Good characters like making governments that serve the needs of others. I would expect an attempt to implement reforms that aid those who were formerly downtrodden. An involved Queen will select those programs specifically, and may just aid people directly, probably selecting who to help via personal petition. An uninvolved Queen will select people she trusts to Do Good, possibly just giving them sacks of gold and sending them out.

If your Queen is a good judge of character, then she will pick people who won't abuse their power and may actually do good. If she is a poor judge of character, then she will have to constantly correct "bad" actions.

That's how I see it, anyhow.

[bosssmiley]

They sell out and become the new establishment. Make some minor changes but keep the major things the same.

Rich is evil. Powerful is evil. If you take the throne you inevitably succumb to the corrupting seduction of power. METAL!

[Teron]

On a different tack, the first thing that comes to my mind is that a common wilderness scout (or so I assume) wouldn't make a very effective queen. Unless the campaign is at the end of the Sliding Scale where a ruler only needs good intentions to win the hearts of her people and usher in a golden age, she'd probably make a mess of things. If you want to play up the CG, freedom-loving angle, your character might cause anarchy and injustice by giving her subjects too much leeway, and/or try to keep more of her own freedom than a responsable monarch can afford. A little problem-solving of both the political and hands-on varieties, a little character growth, and I think you'd have a pretty fun and satisfying campaign, personally.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Sounds about right to me. I'd also expect an emphasis on loose laws that are only enforced when there offender is causing actual, obvious harm to another person.

Indeed. A CG justice system would probably have a very heavy burden of proof required to convict, and would largely rely on ethical and wise judges dispensing punishment proportionate to the crime. (Good-aligned justice systems in general would likely put the focus on rehabilitation, too.)


John Sheridan would probably be a CG leader.

[Woot Spitum]

Indeed. A CG justice system would probably have a very heavy burden of proof required to convict, and would largely rely on ethical and wise judges dispensing punishment proportionate to the crime. (Good-aligned justice systems in general would likely put the focus on rehabilitation, too.)


John Sheridan would probably be a CG leader.

I disagree. A lawful society would be very careful about evidence and procedure, and would trust a strong, stable justice system to hand down a decision not based on the emotions of the community at the time. Only under a lawful society would criminals be considered to have any sort of legal rights. Only under a lawful society would a person be considered innocent until proven guilty.

In a chaotic society, the community at large, rather than a system of laws, would be trusted to protect the people. Vigilante justice would be the norm, as there would probably be little, if any, official police force. Volunteers would protect the community and hunt down fugitives. Justice would be based on the general consensus of the community instead of formal courts. A chaotic community is not going to be concerned with little things like proof and precedent. If someone is "obviously" guilty, then they should be punished.

Now in a chaotic good society, this sort of frontier justice would be strongly tempered by mercy. Everyone would think good and hard about things before making a decision. But the basic philosophy would remain the same.

[Riffington]

I think you have to play a certain Who song at the start of the session...

[Ossian]

Speaking of planning too far ahead...

I would have possibly phrased it like this "look, I have this potential plotline in mind, and there is a chance tht I will be thinking of your character becominga ruler, or something, near the end of the campaign. Howver, I don't want to railroad that. I mean, not that it is happenening, and I will be changing my mind anyway just so many times during the campaign, but anyhow I was just wondering, does it fit your character concept? Because if you have something entirely different in mind, well, I would like to know, so I can factor it in..."

Juggle 3 rubber balls, a scythe and 4 clubs while you say it, and you should exact the info you need without giving away too much.

Besides, what kind of character will your rogue BE in...whatever time it takes to earn queenship? Will it take 1 year? (wow, pretty eventful 12 months). 10 years? (unlikely, given you DM, but still...).
There will be a coup to gain power overnight? Or the road to that Castle will be paved with the corpses of those who will help you and oppose you? (I am looking at you, Griphis/Phemt!). That should be quite important when figuring what kind of leader you will be. And leader of how many? Hundreds? Many many many thousands? Will you have advisors? (these tend to get sleazy and shady, save for the only principled one who usually dies just before warning you of the conspiracy set to stab your PC in between the shoulder blades).

Ah, so many things to do, and so little time....(the Joker, TB's Batman)

[Devils_Advocate]

I disagree. A lawful society would be very careful about evidence and procedure, and would trust a strong, stable justice system to hand down a decision not based on the emotions of the community at the time. Only under a lawful society would criminals be considered to have any sort of legal rights. Only under a lawful society would a person be considered innocent until proven guilty.

You mischaracterize Law, I think. Law is: honesty, authority, tradition, honor, obedience, judgment. It's not about having a bunch of formally codified, rigid, specific rules. A Lawful society can work like that, sure, but that's not what Law is about.

You could have a government where the extent of a judge's power is specified by written law, and it's his job to interpret the law, and the law says how he's supposed to go about doing this. You could also have a government where the king is granted absolute authority over everybody else by a god, and the king in turn delegates this authority to his lords and so on and so forth, so that everybody in power can do as he sees fit and Must Be Obeyed because this is so ordered by someone who Must Be Obeyed, all the way up the hierarchy to the guy who Must Be Obeyed because he can smite you as a free action.

Law isn't about having a specific type of government. Whether it's ruled by a pervasive bureaucracy, a hierarchical dictatorship, a tribal council of elders, a charismatic clergy, or a pure democracy, what makes a society Lawful is that the people take the government's rulings and edicts seriously and do their best to obey them. At least, that's one way a society can be Lawful.

In a chaotic society, the community at large, rather than a system of laws, would be trusted to protect the people. Vigilante justice would be the norm, as there would probably be little, if any, official police force. Volunteers would protect the community and hunt down fugitives. Justice would be based on the general consensus of the community instead of formal courts. A chaotic community is not going to be concerned with little things like proof and precedent. If someone is "obviously" guilty, then they should be punished.

Now in a chaotic good society, this sort of frontier justice would be strongly tempered by mercy. Everyone would think good and hard about things before making a decision. But the basic philosophy would remain the same.

Again, I think that you mischaracterize the situation. If you want to keep innocent people from being coerced, then you're going want to stop anyone who's screwing over innocent people, but you're also going want to avoid coercing innocent people yourself. You try to act against bad people, but not act against people who aren't bad. You're concerned about evidence because it helps you to sort out who's bad and who isn't. Reluctance and eagerness to punish aren't ultimately fundamentally opposed impulses that must be balanced against one another, they're the results of one fundamental principle manifesting itself in very different ways.

(This is really fairly standard for D&D. Good characters want to help innocent people, and every once in a while this is most efficiently done by hunting down and beating the crap out of decidedly non-innocent people.)

To put it another way: If someone genuinely is obviously guilty, that means that there's proof of his guilt. If there is no proof, then his guilt isn't obvious. Aside from that, rationalizing that the person you're beating up deserves it isn't Chaotic Good; if anything, that's probably Lawful Evil. Good avoids beating people up unless doing so will actually help someone, and Chaos isn't much concerned with "justification".

[Woot Spitum]

You could have a government where the extent of a judge's power is specified by written law, and it's his job to interpret the law, and the law says how he's supposed to go about doing this. You could also have a government where the king is granted absolute authority over everybody else by a god, and the king in turn delegates this authority to his lords and so on and so forth, so that everybody in power can do as he sees fit and Must Be Obeyed because this is so ordered by someone who Must Be Obeyed, all the way up the hierarchy to the guy who Must Be Obeyed because he can smite you as a free action.

Obeying the law because you fear the consequences of breaking it does not make you lawful. It's what you do when the consequences can't, or at the very least unlikely to affect you that determine whether you are lawful or not. If whoever is in charge of things isn't under the law the same as everyone else, it's hard to call their society lawful.

Law isn't about having a specific type of government. Whether it's ruled by a pervasive bureaucracy, a hierarchical dictatorship, a tribal council of elders, a charismatic clergy, or a pure democracy, what makes a society Lawful is that the people take the government's rulings and edicts seriously and do their best to obey them. At least, that's one way a society can be Lawful.

Only if people take the government's rulings seriously because they are (at least for the most part, it's unrealistic to expect someone to agree with everything their government does) wise and just, not because they really would like to avoid being thrown in prison.

Again, I think that you mischaracterize the situation. If you want to keep innocent people from being coerced, then you're going want to stop anyone who's screwing over innocent people, but you're also going want to avoid coercing innocent people yourself. You try to act against bad people, but not act against people who aren't bad. You're concerned about evidence because it helps you to sort out who's bad and who isn't. Reluctance and eagerness to punish aren't ultimately fundamentally opposed impulses that must be balanced against one another, they're the results of one fundamental principle manifesting itself in very different ways.

(This is really fairly standard for D&D. Good characters want to help innocent people, and every once in a while this is most efficiently done by hunting down and beating the crap out of decidedly non-innocent people.)

Maybe to a certain extent, but a chaotic person is likely to believe that if you can't trust your instincts, you wouldn't have them. To the chaotic viewpoint, it's better to trust people who have been around and seen a lot of life, than it is to trust a set of rules.

To put it another way: If someone genuinely is obviously guilty, that means that there's proof of his guilt. If there is no proof, then his guilt isn't obvious. Aside from that, rationalizing that the person you're beating up deserves it isn't Chaotic Good; if anything, that's probably Lawful Evil. Good avoids beating people up unless doing so will actually help someone, and Chaos isn't much concerned with "justification".

Beating someone up because they deserve it is more of a mark of good and evil than it is of law or chaos. A lawful person will beat them up if the law says they deserve it. A chaotic person will beat them up because in their own opinion, that person deserves it. A good individual will take more care to make sure they really deserve it regardless.

[Devils_Advocate]

Obeying the law because you fear the consequences of breaking it does not make you lawful. It's what you do when the consequences can't, or at the very least unlikely to affect you that determine whether you are lawful or not.

I guess that depends on how and whether one sees motivation playing into alignment.

If whoever is in charge of things isn't under the law the same as everyone else, it's hard to call their society lawful.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "under the law the same as everyone else" here. Doesn't being in charge mean, by definition, that you special privileges? You get to direct people's actions in ways that others do not.

Only if people take the government's rulings seriously because they are (at least for the most part, it's unrealistic to expect someone to agree with everything their government does) wise and just, not because they really would like to avoid being thrown in prison.

Woah there, cowboy. Being able to recognize that some people give good advice, and consequently following said advice, is basically one of the many ways in which one can refrain from being an idiot. And Chaos is not a special form of stupidity.

If you want to associate a particular motive for obedience with Lawfulness, it should be a sense of duty, a belief that those in power have a special right to boss you around. After all, it is easy to serve a good master. The true test of loyalty comes in serving a bad one.

Maybe to a certain extent, but a chaotic person is likely to believe that if you can't trust your instincts, you wouldn't have them.

I dunno. I think that a lot of people might wind up Chaotic out of a fundamental reluctance to trust anything. "All things are unreliable, but some things are more unreliable than others."

To the chaotic viewpoint, it's better to trust people who have been around and seen a lot of life, than it is to trust a set of rules.

I'm having trouble imagining a Chaotic person who favors a seniority-based government. I'd expect them to be down on all the old fogies who cling to the past. "Those dudes are totally out of touch with the modern world. They're holding us back, man."

A lawful person will beat them up if the law says they deserve it. A chaotic person will beat them up because in their own opinion, that person deserves it. A good individual will take more care to make sure they really deserve it regardless.

Hm. Agreed. However, I still think that Lawful Evil is the alignment most likely to rationalize violence, due to favoring both hurting others and behaving in an ostensibly appropriate manner.