Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DougC 10-21-04, 09:50 AM	I'm working on some ideas for a couple of campaign worlds, one of which is becoming very involved and, when complete, will be the most detailed & extensive campaign world that I will have created to date (hopefully :)), and I've been trying to come up with some ideas for some major conflicts (realm vs. realm type stuff) as possible adventure hooks. I like to allow my PCs a number of different options and let them choose which direction to go in and I am trying really hard to get away from the cliche "BBEG wants to destroy the world" plotline. (Although, I was thinking of having an Orc equivelant to Hitler bent on the genocide of all elves.) So, what sort of political conflicts could I include that might cause two or more realms/kingdoms/empires/nations to go to war other than religious or territorial, if any.?* Thanks. :) *Note: I changed the title and original post of this thread because it seemed to have upset a number of people, which is something that I would prefer not to do. It also seemed to have the potential for "inviting" CoC violations, which I apologize for (and, also, would prefer not to do). However, I really would like to get some replies to this question as it now stands. Thanks.
VirgilCaine 10-21-04, 10:05 AM	It's not a good idea to apply alignment to the real world. Really.
jagggar 10-21-04, 10:13 AM	And who's to say that those that think they're doing good can't be evil? How would that orc be different from any other orc? You could use D20 Modern's Alligence system as opposed to the alignment system.
FriendoftheDork 10-21-04, 10:32 AM	I would not use real world villains here, too many will cry if you say that Bush or Bin laden are villains. Stick with pinky, and you're fine.
Cantankerous 10-21-04, 10:48 AM	Alignments are a complete artificiality, so have no relationship at all to real life, but if you mean that according to their supposed actions what alignment would they have been in a game world: 1) Genghis Khan would likely not have rated the term evil. By the standards of his people he was a just and dynamic ruler, many historians have vilified him as the people who conquere YOUR homeland are always evil, even if they did so in the distant past, and Ghengis (Timuejin...sp?...) conquered the majority of the known world in his time. 2) Augustus Ceasar seems to me almost totally unsuited to the term evil. He may have actually been closer to being Good alignment wise, especially after what was written in his supposed diaries. he definately had a very positive impact on history as a whole. 3) Vlad the Impaler is a different story. Since he delighted in torture and was an absolute authoritarian the legendary figure (who knows much about the man behind the legends though) of Vlad Tepes would fit very nicely into Lawful Evil; as every legend I've ever read about him depicts him as diabolic in his cleverness and in his actions and reactions. 4) Napolean is another of those figures that could arguably be fit into a broad definition of lawful evil, could as easily be fit into lawful neutral. Being a conqueror does not make you evil. 5) Hitler would easily fit under the banner of lawful evil again. He was a genoicidal mad man and an ultra authoritarian. His personality would graft itself flawless to any of the arch devils in the D&D version of the Hells that I can think of. 6) Pinky .... you must be joking? Pinky is neutral-stupid with very strong neutral-good tendencies, while Brain is neutral-obsessed with quirky tendencies that swing from almost good to almost evil, never really making it well into either category. :D Isshia
DougC 10-21-04, 10:49 AM	Um, okay... I didn't mention anything about Bush or Bin Laden, nor did/do I expect anyone else to. I was/am refering to long-dead historical figures that may or may not be concieved as "villains," which is why I put the word "villain" in quotes in the thread title. I, personally, don't see any harm in applying alignment to people that have been dead for a long, long time or fictional characters and thought it might make for an interesting discussion, but then, what do I know, I'm apparently looney. :D Also, it is a D&D campaign world and, therefore, I'm not using real world "villains," I just wanted examples that might help me in designing some fictional ones. How about this, then, just some examples of how I might use politics in a game, how wars might get started other than "over religion" or "over land (realm bounderies)"? Something that I can throw in there other than the "Hitler-type" Orc? Thank you for your replies so far. :)
DougC 10-21-04, 10:55 AM	...if you mean that according to their supposed actions what alignment would they have been in a game world.... That is precisely what I mean, thank you. :) And, yes, I was joking about Pinky and The Brain, which is why I used the ;) smily. :) Thank you for your reply. :)
Bartleby_GoC 10-21-04, 11:00 AM	Most real-world leaders have lawful tendancies. My guess would be mostly LN. Running a successful country requires a set of well-established rules. Problem is, alignment doesn't cover even half of an individual personality. Some people are capable of great deals of organzation, but lack judgemetn to impliment it properly. People also change over the course of time. For example, Hitler probably started out N, went to LN, then LE, then CE. The WWII German war machine was impressive. It was very well organized and part of a very strict society. By the end of WWII, however, Hitler was pretty much insane. He gave conflicting orders and had pretty much lost control. The machine fell apart. Think of it like this. Orcs are just as prolific and adaptable as humans. However, they don't organize well. They tend to fight among themselves as much as anything. Thus, because of their chaotic nature, they are not able to mount any military action beyond the mass charge, even if their numbers do happen to make that tactic work now and then. Alternatly, the Empire in Star Wars would be considered LE. They are very well organized, there's strict rules, and they are very effective. Had it not been for the meddling of a handful of epic adventurers, the rebellion would have been crushed. Regardless of good or evil, powerful empires need to be lawful. Without the organization afforded by a lawful society, the idea of empire simply doesn't work. Neutrals can usually manage organization on a smaller scale, like city states or small, rural kingdoms. Chaotics tend towards tribal organization. Remember, Elves may be chaotic individually, but their society is at least neutral, if not lawful. There are definitly laws you just don't break. Bartleby
The Philosopher King 10-21-04, 11:11 AM	I was/am refering to long-dead historical figures that may or may not be concieved as "villains," which is why I put the word "villain" in quotes in the thread title. I, personally, don't see any harm in applying alignment to people that have been dead for a long, long time I take it you've never heard the term Neo-Nazi then? Try asking one of them Hitler's alignment. I doubt you'll find that the last word is 'evil'. Seriously, stay out of the last few centuries. It's better to stay out of real world politics altogether (and that's what it is, dead or not - I was once called a fascist for arguing in favour of Caesar in a history class). It's also more within the CoC. That said, Vlad, from legends, perhaps warrants LE. Napoleon, Genghis, and Augustus - LG? LE? CN? Depends who you ask... alignment is objective. Opinions, subjective.
Vharuck 10-21-04, 11:13 AM	1. Genghis Khan- Hmm... I would say maybe between these two- TN becuase he led a roaming band of marauders and destroyed civilised countries yet still mainained a fair amount of political power or LE with the whole "Follow me to riches not gainable by sitting on our larks as a people!" 2. Augustus Caesar- Caesar, eh? LN. He was greedy, bad-tempered, yet tried to keep the public in mind when making decisions. 3. Vlad Dracul- LE. The man nailed a visitor's hat to his head when the visitor offended him by not removing it upon entering his house. Also, take a guess as to why he's nicknamed "Vlad the Impaler." 4. Napoleon Bonaparte- LN. He completely thought France should be in control. Or maybe LE if you consider that he came after the revolution, preaching about the evils of dictatorship, but thought his was ok cuz he didn't call himself their king. 5. Adolf Hitler- LE. This man came to power with hate, kept power with violence, and overpowered others with endless assaults. 6. Pinky and The Brain- Brain's LE, purely self-serving. Pinky's CN, too stupid to be slef-serving or community serving, yet he just has fun. 7. Any other historical (or even fictional) figure (especially one involved in a major war) that you may be interested in that I did not name here. Ummmm..... Cleopatra? I dunno much about her though. There's also most anyone from the Bible, the last family of Russion Czars, which brings about Lenin, Marx, Stalin, etc etc.
DougC 10-21-04, 11:22 AM	I take it you've never heard the term Neo-Nazi then? Try asking one of them Hitler's alignment. I doubt you'll find that the last word is 'evil'. Seriously, stay out of the last few centuries. It's better to stay out of real world politics altogether (and that's what it is, dead or not - I was once called a fascist for arguing in favour of Caesar in a history class). It's also more within the CoC. That said, Vlad, from legends, perhaps warrants LE. Napoleon, Genghis, and Augustus - LG? LE? CN? Depends who you ask... alignment is objective. Opinions, subjective. Actually, yes, I have heard the term Neo-Nazi (and have seen numerous films on the subject), but didn't think of it when making my original post. I apologize for possibly or potentially offending anyone or viaolating the CoC in any way. The "applying alignment to historical figures" is a game that an old DM friend of mine and I used to play and had a lot of fun with it and I was thinking along those lines, perhaps I should edit my original post and the thread title to something a bit less contraversial then? Thanks for the replies so far. :)
PenderGrass 10-21-04, 11:36 AM	*piff*
DougC 10-21-04, 11:47 AM	3. Vlad Dracul- LE. The man nailed a visitor's hat to his head when the visitor offended him by not removing it upon entering his house. Also, take a guess as to why he's nicknamed "Vlad the Impaler." Being one of my favorite historical subjects (having, apparently, been the inspiration for Count Dracula), I know why his nickname is Vlad the Impaler. :D It is said that he used to have lunch among his impaled victims and drink their blood with his meal. (Not a proven fact, however.) 9. Jim Morrison - CN. The God of Insanity himself, the Bard of Drunken Florida Flashing, Jim Morrison was a great Poet and therefore suspect of any sembalance of being anything other than CN. Another one of my favorite historical figures. I once read in a biography (which was probably a very innacurate one) that when asked by his friend Tom Baker why he did it, Jim replied, "I wanted to see what it looked like in a spotlight!" :D Although, "officially," it has never been proven that he actually flashed that audience in Florida. Thanks for the replies. :) Note: I changed the title and original post of this thread because it seemed to have upset a number of people, which is something that I would prefer not to do. It also seemed to have the potential for "inviting" CoC violations, which I apologize for. However, I really would like to get some replies to the question as it now stands in the first post. Thanks. And, thank you, PenderGrass for a very entertaining reply. :D
SheldonSmith 10-21-04, 12:10 PM	Monte Cook has a site for his "STUFF". Check this out, it is very inspiring: PTOLUS (http://www.montecook.com/ptolus.html)
DougC 10-21-04, 12:17 PM	Monte Cook has a site for his "STUFF". Check this out, it is very inspiring: PTOLUS (http://www.montecook.com/ptolus.html) Thank you. Yes, it is inspiring, isn't it? :)
CzarGarrett 10-21-04, 12:56 PM	Well, it seems like a lot of people missed the point of the original post. He asked for ideas about more campaign world spanning conflicts. Not about applying real life to D&D, although I see no reason why not to have inspiration. Therefore, here's a few ideas. Site of battle between two racial Gods used to be freely visited by both races. Now a new ruler on one side has exiled the other. 3 or 4 kingdoms in a strong alliance. one kingdom's ruler is suddenly assassinated by rebels of one of the other kingdoms. The kingdoms split and the one kingdom is dealing with external and internal enemies. Typical horde- Orcs, Undead, etc. Rebels leave one kingdom and make their own kingdom on the borders of old kingdom and another 3rd kingdom. Famine strikes area. 1 kingdom is able to withstand crop failures, but is now being besieged by other kingdoms nearby. Schism in church. One kingdom takes one side, other takes other side.
SheldonSmith 10-21-04, 01:12 PM	Well, it seems like a lot of people missed the point of the original post. He asked for ideas about more campaign world spanning conflicts. Not about applying real life to D&D, although I see no reason why not to have inspiration. If you were to look at my post PTOLUS has tremendous political intrigue. Monte created an incredibly intense / extensive world setting. The Banewarrens, use this setting as their background. And let's be honest, Real Life is exactly what D&D is all about; that is to say "Someone Else's Real Life."
PenderGrass 10-21-04, 01:13 PM	And, thank you, PenderGrass for a very entertaining reply. :D *piff* PS - You are welcome, I have *piffed* all my posts for causing too much a stir among our delicate readers/browsers and endangering the CoC, no longer will the humor of this Thread persist. Only serious and non-threatening posts from this point forward. I recommend any that have suffered brain damage report to Fixxxer for... uh, fixxxing. ****
Hero of Sshamath 10-21-04, 01:14 PM	You could go for a "cheesy", yet, previously unmentioned plot...For example...a kingdom is undergoing a massive boom in expansion and starts to use up more natural resources in their area simultamiously but, inadvertantly invading the realm of a large (previously unknown or discovered) kingdom in the Underdark...(i.e. Goblins, Drow, Dwarves-any kind) And also, destroying the surrounding forest that houses a group of elves, druids, rangers or what have you or even a temple of Ehlonna, or Obadhia...The way alignment isn't really the issue. Although, it does touch on the "territorial" theme...it is not your flat out "This land was once ours...We come to reclaim it"...At any rate, any of the previously mention kingdom could be of any possible alignment...and still go to war to protect their lands...And it allows for a bit of variety with settings that will cover the Underdark, Deep Forest and Large cities....but, I'm rambling now...:D
artman 10-21-04, 02:04 PM	http://www.fortunecity.com/victorian/byzantium/55/events.zip Check this out. I use it to fill in what is happening around the world, at least the parts that the players are not in. It has many good ideas and things that can become adventures.
Delryn 10-21-04, 02:40 PM	So, what sort of political conflicts could I include that might cause two or more realms/kingdoms/empires/nations to go to war other than religious or territorial, if any.?* One of my favorite ways to start a war is to play on superstision Have a natural disaster coenside(sp?) with a high profile visitor from a neighbouring nation. IE plague breaks out as - visiting clerics leave drought - right before trade conference etc The affected nation will probably assume it was a plot to weaken them (physically, economically), maybe as a precursor to invasion Hope that helps Delryn
Communisto 10-21-04, 03:55 PM	i had this idea for my own campaign world, which me and my players played out well. Seperatism works really well into D&D conflict. Our game had the Lizardmen in the kingdom of Haelm declare their independance. It was fun watching the players choose sides
DougC 10-21-04, 04:09 PM	*piff* PS - You are welcome, I have *piffed* all my posts for causing too much a stir among our delicate readers/browsers and endangering the CoC, no longer will the humor of this Thread persist. Only serious and non-threatening posts from this point forward. I recommend any that have suffered brain damage report to Fixxxer for... uh, fixxxing. Okay, point taken. I'll put mine back if you put yours back. :D (They were too good to do without.) And thanks for the replies everyone. That's the kind of political stuff I'm looking for. :)
PenderGrass 10-21-04, 04:33 PM	(They were too good to do without.) I actually did *piff* them. Sorry. But, mayhaps, it is better that only a few will ever know the real reasons why Lincoln was CN, Shakespeare was LE and why CE and LG are essentially the same thing. Also, forever hidden will be the why of Napolean playing with his pierced nipples made him NE. Alas, so be the power of conformity and censorship..... :weep: ****
VirgilCaine 10-21-04, 05:59 PM	4) Napolean is another of those figures that could arguably be fit into a broad definition of lawful evil, could as easily be fit into lawful neutral. Being a conqueror does not make you evil. Uh, right. Hurting, oppressing, killing? Thats not evil? STARTING a war?
Luminous Crayon 10-21-04, 08:09 PM	Why would two countries go to war? Here's a possibility. Perhaps a third party is manipulating them. Brigands with their own political agenda dress up as soldiers in the uniform of Country A, and start attacking caravans from Country B. Country B sends a messenger to Country A, saying: "Please make your soldiers stop attacking our caravans. Or else." Country A doesn't know about the brigands impersonating their soldiers, and replies: "You're loony. Our soldiers are doing no such thing." Country B gets fed up with the continuing mercenary attacks, and retaliates, attacking Country A. Country A perceives this as unwarranted aggression, attacks Country B in return. Full-blown war ensues. In-game, a campaign for PCs could start them off as a special-forces unit in the army of either warring country. During the course of their mission, they discover clues to an outside involvement, eventually leading them to discover the real cause of the war. They have to stop the manipulating forces from influencing the warring governments, then in the absence of continued outside meddling, convince both sides to stop fighting a pointless war.
Cantankerous 10-22-04, 08:52 AM	Uh, right. Hurting, oppressing, killing? Thats not evil? STARTING a war? Starting a war is not, in and of itself, evil. If a war is started to protect another nation for example, it would hardly qualify as an evil action. (I do NOT include the recent war in Iraq in that statement. I think the reasons for that war were other than noble in any way, but that's immaterial to the subject at hand.) Name me ONE major governmental leader (with the possible exception of Ghandi, although you'll find people able to legitimately argue your point even there) that could not be easily accused of hurting, oppressing and killing. Being the leader of a major nation always carries that onus. Napolean also ended alot of the corruption of the previous regime. It was one of his tickets to power. He instituted laws that did benefit his nation. He was extremely involved in prison exchanges and the like. FOR HIS TIME, he was almost humanitarian in the way he insisted that prisoners of war were to be treated and how enemy wounded who were captured were cared for by French medics, and he also saw to it that the worst excesses of conquering armies through out history were NOT practiced by the majority of his troops. No, Nap was a power hungry bastard, but it could easily be argued that he was morally neutral. Isshia
Primal 10-22-04, 09:49 AM	No, Nap was a power hungry bastard, but it could easily be argued that he was morally neutral. The "power hungry bastard" could mean "a great patriot and national hero" just as easily. Alignment in the real world is mostly subjective. One man's villain is another man's hero in most cases. Besides history is written by the victor, and if Napoleon for example is only argued as evil instead of being considered one de facto even though he lost, I imagine he would be a LG if he had won. :)
Cantankerous 10-22-04, 10:24 AM	Hey, sure, power hungery bastards can be great statesmen. And there is no reason a fully neutral evil Mage couldn't be a national hero and a great patriot. I've had a BBEG in a past campaign I ran that was most definately both. Alignments aren't only subjective (since what really happened can't be known with any great deal of accuracy even by people who were alive in the era in question) but are totally artificial, as I've said many times. Nap WAS a great patriot and national hero to France at one time, was villified to the hilt later and later still became almost as revered as he was during his life, only to be re-villified later. History is like that. ;) Isshia
DougC 10-22-04, 11:05 AM	...(since what really happened can't be known with any great deal of accuracy even by people who were alive in the era in question)... True. Ask ten different witnesses to the same event and you will, quite likely, get ten different accounts of that event. People see and remember things differently. :)
PenderGrass 10-22-04, 11:17 AM	True. Ask ten different witnesses to the same event and you will, quite likely, get ten different accounts of that event. People see and remember things differently. :) Don't tell the writers of most cop shows this. They all seem to think that every witness is a reliable source of info - sheesh :rolleyes: I tried watching one the other night and realized why I don't. ****
ck2001wendt 10-22-04, 12:38 PM	I have happily missed all of the discussion of real world events and alignment, but I'll still respond as someone who does Political Science: All real world poltical conflicts are seen as containing one or both of the following two factors: 1. Greed (lust for natural/strategic resources like timber/gold/oil; lust for national security, like creating a buffer zone or getting ahold of that canal yonder). 2. Grievance (ethnic conflict; ideological conflict; historical conflict like a past massacre...usually relating to the previous two conflicts; personality conflicts/diplomatic incidents/personal strife like assassinating or insulting a leader) As I said, BOTH of these issues can come into play during a political conflict. For example, two countries with deep ethnic conflict (ethnicity can be "tribe, race, religion, region, or caste") go to war. At the same time, there are elements of the political leadership in Country B that want to ensure they don't have to attack Country A again, by securing the mountainous border. There are ALSO profiteers/tacticians, who want to keep strong by capturing/defending precious natural resources used to fuel the war effort.
Dash Branaghan 10-22-04, 01:05 PM	The funniest thing about this thread (and unfortunately the initial change took place before I could respond, but I have an inkling of what it was) is that alignment is subjective. It all depends on what side of the board you are on. People who supported Napoleon or Hitler might view them as LG, while those of us who find their actions abhorent would label them with CE or suggest they play with nipple rings. :P Personally I figure Hitler for LE. If you want to know why, feel free to ask. This could have been a fascinating discussion on alignments of some of the so-called charismatic and historically powerful leaders of the world...I wanted to find out what people thought of the de Medicis, or Richelieu, or Alexander the Great, Peter the Great, Pendergrass the Not Quite as Great as Peter, Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, Richard the LionHearted, Xerxes (pick one), Agammemnon, Rasputin (now there is a cool individual), Charlemagne, Arthur (Yep, Arthur), Shaka Zulu, etc. If you have any opinions on the above (I already have the alignments I feel they are) feel free to post them. If you want to get offended by the suggestion that D&D B&W morality can fit on them, then go read another thread. We are all aware that this is an excercise in imagination, not politics, not religion. Many of us are also aware of that morality is far more grey, hence why a discussion as to which alignment fits best is/was the focus (to my understanding anyway). So, if we want to restore this to the original concept, feel free to join me and let me know what you think the alignment of the above mentioned individuals are. Also feel free to point out leaders who are forgotten (like Bismarck...well, I guess he isn't so forgotten, is he?). Dash PS: I wonder what alignment the various Popes would be.
PenderGrass 10-22-04, 01:27 PM	This could have been a fascinating discussion on alignments of some of the so-called charismatic and historically powerful leaders of the world...I wanted to find out what people thought of the de Medicis, or Richelieu, or Alexander the Great, Peter the Great, Pendergrass the Not Quite as Great as Peter, Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, Richard the LionHearted, Xerxes (pick one), Agammemnon, Rasputin (now there is a cool individual), Charlemagne, Arthur (Yep, Arthur), Shaka Zulu, etc. Damn Peter! Damn Him To Hell!!! *grrr-ARGGGGHH!!!* :twitch: ****
DougC 10-22-04, 04:19 PM	One of my favorite ways to start a war is to play on superstision Have a natural disaster coenside(sp?) with a high profile visitor from a neighbouring nation. I meant to comment on this yesterday, but I wasn't feeling quite well then. I've gotten plenty of sleep since then. :D Being a big fan of coincidence, I like this idea. I like many of the other ideas presented here also and, considering there will multiple continents with many realms among them, both above and below ground, more than one of these suggestions will probably find their way into my campaign world. Alas, so be the power of conformity and censorship..... I used to claim to be a "nonconformist," but then realized that by claiming to be such I was conforming to the idea of being a nonconformist, thereby making me a conformist, kind of like the Rush lyrics, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice," eh? Thank you for your informative and insightful reply, ck2001wendt. It reminds me of a Picket Fences episode I saw long ago where two religious leaders in the town got into an argument and one punched the other in the nose. When the town sheriff reminded them that they were religious leaders who were supposed to set an example, one replied to the sheriff, "Where have you been? All of the greatest wars in history were started over religion." This was, apparently, the only thing these two religious leaders could agree on. :D (I miss that show. :() So, if we want to restore this to the original concept, feel free to join me and let me know what you think the alignment of the above mentioned individuals are. I just wish that I could travel back in time and retrieve Pender's original comments, they were toughtful, insightful, and damn funny. :D Oh well, at least his comments about Jim will live on. :cool: Btw, Pender, I take it from your quote by Jim that you have read his poetry collections, eh? Have you ever listened to An American Prayer? Interesting stuff. And, if anyone is wondering, Napoleon ("officially") always had his hand in his shirt because he was constantly scratching an incurable rash, which, was probably caused by an infection from his nipple piercings. :D