how can a good pc be a conqueror? [Archive] - Wizards Community

how can a good pc be a conqueror? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
coob of highmoor
11-15-07, 09:39 AM can a good pc be a conqueror for the goal of starting his own country to bring his good laws to reign, the land around me is lawless with some self made barons and lords some good some very bad. i am a lawful good wizard/cleric (helm) my own perosnal goals at to stop slavery and a lot of it goes on around me. i am a epic level pc with a standing army of 15000 men and 200 wizards to back me in my plans. but i dont want to rush in and say it is all mine, or can i?! am i going against my aligment by just invading and taking over?

i tried this before against a priate town and went in sword showing. took over the town released all the slaves but the leaders were good trying to get the town to stop slavery and so i changed alignment cos of it ( by dm), but i did goin to the town with all guns firing. surrounds the town with my army and went in taking out all the leaders (not killing them)
so i what is the best way to make you own country. i would be the strongest in my area.
:confused:
FrostWolf
11-15-07, 10:14 AM Well I'm willing to bet that the people under the bad lords won't think of you as a conquerer, but more as a liberator. I'd start by liberation one of these areas, then declairing that you would like to help they other people being oppressed by tyrants. You might end up taking out/on some of the good areas due to political ties, or they might get taken by the tyrants when they see you are gunning for them.
ObscureInfo
11-15-07, 11:05 PM It looks like your DM is upping the stakes on you. This is not going to be the mega battle/war game you were expecting. This is going to be "accomplish your goals without compromising your morals" campaign. You have a noble task, you are establishing a lawful good country. You want to abolish slavery and protect the innocent from those who would exploit or harm them. You are doing this because there is a need in the land for a good, strong central government to keep the local lords in line and also to protect them from threats from without. (monsters, invaders from other countries, etc.) You have said that this land has several local rulers, some good, some bad. You need to figure out which is which and devise a separate strategy for each.

Yes, with the bad lords, you will most likely have to wage war against them and overthrow them. But you need to have a plan in place for afterwards. How are you going to organize this new country? Will there be representation or will it be a feudal kingdom? Will the common people have rights and privileges? What makes your "country" better than what they have now? OK, you freed the slaves, great, but they are still peasants with no land, what are you going to do about that? Once you conquer a place, you will need to establish your kingdom there. You will need to set up the foundations of the land you want it to be. Otherwises, you are just a bully with an army. This is the challenge of epic-level play. It is more than just laying waste to an army or conquering a city. It is world-building, fundamentally changing the campaign world for good or ill. Expect delays, challenges from all sides. You need a name for this country, something inspiring. A standard, a flag to fly over every city and village. You need a proclamation that outlines your country and what it stands for. (A Declaration of Independence sort of thing, not a Constitution) You have got to get the people you will be ruling on your side. Marching your army through their lands and burning their cities won't cut it.

Now for the good rulers. This will require some diplomacy. Without marching your army up to their doorsteps and trying to intimidate them, lead a small envoy to meet with their rulers. (This is probably what the DM wanted you to do with the "pirate" town) Find out about them. Let them know what you are doing and why you are doing it. If they are truly good, you will have a lot in common (shared goals, shared motivations). They will initially be wary of any offers, but let them know what they will gain through the formation of this new country. First, they will get the help they need to protect their citizens. They will also benefit from expanded trade between cities, since you are going to protect the trade routes and eliminate monsters and bandits between towns. Let them know that you are not going to replace them or try to change their style of governing. They will still be the regional lord, answering only to yourself or whatever ruler you establish (whether a king, a council, or whatever). Diplomacy is the key. If they are an embattled good ruler in the midst of a lawless land, they will most likely welcome the establishment of a good central government, provided that they are treated with respect and insured that they will benefit from this arrangement and that it is not a threat to their way of life.

Sticks and Carrots. You have to have both. Sticks for the bad people, carrots for the good. Before you go on your holy crusade, you will want to establish your kingdom, on paper. Think about how it will be run, what sort of laws will you be establishing? The more you "flesh out", the more likely the good people of the land will rally to your cause. Expect resistance, even among good people. It is hard for people to change and they are used to being disapointed. Perhaps if a good town or region will not join, just start patrolling around their lands as if they had. Once they see how well you are governing the other parts of this new country, they might just change their minds. But the same is true for if you govern poorly.

Good luck. Nation-building is hard. So is epic-level play. There is more at stake and more challenges to overcome than in a regular game. But you are the great ________ and you will overcome.
JulesCARV
11-16-07, 12:17 AM I'd say responding to aggression is clearly justified, and can lead to conquest, like the allied occupation of Japan and Germany after WW2. Y'know, "they started it, but by Pelor, we'll finish it." In addition to direct aggression against you, responding to aggression against an ally or even neutral party might also justify a response of war which leads to conquest.

Also justifying war can be extreme forms of oppression of the "slaughter every halfling in my domain" sort.

More mundane forms of oppression, of the sort like "subjects are forbidden from criticizing their ruler," "taxes leave people in poverty," "people have to worship Hextor and are forbidden from worshipping any other gods," etc, are all bad, but I'm not sure they'd actually justify aggressive conquest.

I don't think that "I want to conquer a country to rule (benevolently), so I'll find some places to invade that aren't very nice anyway" is a good motivation, but not all of a good character's actions have to be good. You can do some bad stuff, so long as it isn't too bad and you don't do it too often.
Brooks86
11-16-07, 04:46 AM Well, as a good pc you do infat have a difficult task ahead of you. It is very hard for somebody to install themselves above another government without seeming evil. The evil countries are somewhat easier because, as stated above, you would be seen as a liberator in most cases.

With the good principalities you reach somewhat of a stumbling block. How does one gain the current rulers fealty? If the current rulers are ineffective it could be as simple as offering aid where they are deficient in exchange for an oath of loyalty. It isn't unreasonable for lawful rulers to insist that debts be repaid. And if your actions save their country then they owe you services equal to the value of their land and people. With that kind of loyalty you could demand military favors, economic policies that benefit you, provided of course that they help the other country. Effectively, but not technically, their supreme ruler. You also would be able to serve as an advisor, equal in power, to that country's sovereign. And if you prove a friendly ear and voice you gain a partner in whatever trials face you in the future.

If they are effective there is almost no way to convince a ruler to give up their power without cause. What you may consider is sitting back and governing your country and/or those that you conquered. Then should some disaster befall one of those lands in which you're interested, you would be in a perfect position to defend them and in return gain their loyalty. Also you could use the strategy described above. Get to know the ruler. Gain their trust. Advise and guide them. All in return for greater admiration and friendship.

As a good ruler you understand that leadership isn't about how much land you control or how many people you govern. Leadership to you is more an understanding that your actions and the actions of your friends draw people to you. Those people honor and revere you. And they listen to you. Either through bonds of friendship or piety. Leadership to you is understanding that people don't follow you because they have to but because they want to. It doesn't matter whether your title is higher than somebody else's provided they recognize and follow you.
Voran
11-16-07, 06:16 PM Conquering type adventures can be fun, so many moral choices to make. Sure its nice when its cut-and-dried "uniformly CE population!" to raze, its more fun to throw in curve balls, like "Taking over a LE population that isn't all LE." Which can lead to fun things like "In war, you've killed some LN guys just defending their homeland, and now their NG kids want you dead. You bastard."

:)
Dei
11-16-07, 08:05 PM Unless you ruthlessly slaughtered those good leaders and/or the townsfolk I would say your DM was totally unjustified in changing your alignment. Unless you were unusually harsh or violent in taking over (and from the sounds of things you were the opposite) what you did was more like taking over the reigns from someone who was ineffective. You saw that this town was perpetrating a great evil and stepped in to stop it. The fact that you interrupted people who were also attempting to stop it does not make the act of stopping it any less a good act. Sure it might make you impatient or perhaps even brutish for brushing aside their authority as you did but the fact remains, you halted the slave trade in the town and established a just authority.
Voran
11-16-07, 08:39 PM More specific to the example posted, I would say, as a character, your Good aligned PC did a poor job in getting a sense of the situation before he decided to take matters into his own hands.

I can understand that perhaps the DM is trying to stress the idea that your character, with his great power, should show a bit better judgement and thought into his actions.

Like (in this case) checking to see if there were already forces trying to achieve the goals, before, yknow, unleashing your wrath on them all.
Radijs
11-17-07, 06:59 AM I believe that diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggy" until you can find a big stick.

Assuming that a few conditions are met I wouldn't have any trouble with a Paladin-warlord taking a few legions to lay the smackdown on some evil tyrant. Its a lot like going there with a rag-tag bunch of adventurers to kill the tyrant. All that differs is the scale.

The conditions I mentioned are the obvious pitfalls of adhering the rules of war regarding prisoners, looting, rape etc.

In the same way I wouldn't think it troublesome to go to some wicked town with your legions, parking them outside the city and striding in to the local lord and telling him that its your way or the highway. Why would I grant any evil or corrupt bastard favours while I have the power to dethrone him with threats alone?
JulesCARV
11-17-07, 01:27 PM Given that you're a cleric/wizard of Helm, a lawful neutral deity, it seems like maintaining a strictly "good" alignment isn't really that big a priority for you for mechanical reasons anyway. Do you just want to maintain good alignment for RP reasons?
metalmayhem80110
11-20-07, 05:46 PM I personally don't think that taking over evil lands is evil at all. If any of my characters have the chance to assume leadership of one of these places, they will in a heartbeat.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
coob of highmoor 11-15-07, 09:39 AM	can a good pc be a conqueror for the goal of starting his own country to bring his good laws to reign, the land around me is lawless with some self made barons and lords some good some very bad. i am a lawful good wizard/cleric (helm) my own perosnal goals at to stop slavery and a lot of it goes on around me. i am a epic level pc with a standing army of 15000 men and 200 wizards to back me in my plans. but i dont want to rush in and say it is all mine, or can i?! am i going against my aligment by just invading and taking over? i tried this before against a priate town and went in sword showing. took over the town released all the slaves but the leaders were good trying to get the town to stop slavery and so i changed alignment cos of it ( by dm), but i did goin to the town with all guns firing. surrounds the town with my army and went in taking out all the leaders (not killing them) so i what is the best way to make you own country. i would be the strongest in my area. :confused:
FrostWolf 11-15-07, 10:14 AM	Well I'm willing to bet that the people under the bad lords won't think of you as a conquerer, but more as a liberator. I'd start by liberation one of these areas, then declairing that you would like to help they other people being oppressed by tyrants. You might end up taking out/on some of the good areas due to political ties, or they might get taken by the tyrants when they see you are gunning for them.
ObscureInfo 11-15-07, 11:05 PM	It looks like your DM is upping the stakes on you. This is not going to be the mega battle/war game you were expecting. This is going to be "accomplish your goals without compromising your morals" campaign. You have a noble task, you are establishing a lawful good country. You want to abolish slavery and protect the innocent from those who would exploit or harm them. You are doing this because there is a need in the land for a good, strong central government to keep the local lords in line and also to protect them from threats from without. (monsters, invaders from other countries, etc.) You have said that this land has several local rulers, some good, some bad. You need to figure out which is which and devise a separate strategy for each. Yes, with the bad lords, you will most likely have to wage war against them and overthrow them. But you need to have a plan in place for afterwards. How are you going to organize this new country? Will there be representation or will it be a feudal kingdom? Will the common people have rights and privileges? What makes your "country" better than what they have now? OK, you freed the slaves, great, but they are still peasants with no land, what are you going to do about that? Once you conquer a place, you will need to establish your kingdom there. You will need to set up the foundations of the land you want it to be. Otherwises, you are just a bully with an army. This is the challenge of epic-level play. It is more than just laying waste to an army or conquering a city. It is world-building, fundamentally changing the campaign world for good or ill. Expect delays, challenges from all sides. You need a name for this country, something inspiring. A standard, a flag to fly over every city and village. You need a proclamation that outlines your country and what it stands for. (A Declaration of Independence sort of thing, not a Constitution) You have got to get the people you will be ruling on your side. Marching your army through their lands and burning their cities won't cut it. Now for the good rulers. This will require some diplomacy. Without marching your army up to their doorsteps and trying to intimidate them, lead a small envoy to meet with their rulers. (This is probably what the DM wanted you to do with the "pirate" town) Find out about them. Let them know what you are doing and why you are doing it. If they are truly good, you will have a lot in common (shared goals, shared motivations). They will initially be wary of any offers, but let them know what they will gain through the formation of this new country. First, they will get the help they need to protect their citizens. They will also benefit from expanded trade between cities, since you are going to protect the trade routes and eliminate monsters and bandits between towns. Let them know that you are not going to replace them or try to change their style of governing. They will still be the regional lord, answering only to yourself or whatever ruler you establish (whether a king, a council, or whatever). Diplomacy is the key. If they are an embattled good ruler in the midst of a lawless land, they will most likely welcome the establishment of a good central government, provided that they are treated with respect and insured that they will benefit from this arrangement and that it is not a threat to their way of life. Sticks and Carrots. You have to have both. Sticks for the bad people, carrots for the good. Before you go on your holy crusade, you will want to establish your kingdom, on paper. Think about how it will be run, what sort of laws will you be establishing? The more you "flesh out", the more likely the good people of the land will rally to your cause. Expect resistance, even among good people. It is hard for people to change and they are used to being disapointed. Perhaps if a good town or region will not join, just start patrolling around their lands as if they had. Once they see how well you are governing the other parts of this new country, they might just change their minds. But the same is true for if you govern poorly. Good luck. Nation-building is hard. So is epic-level play. There is more at stake and more challenges to overcome than in a regular game. But you are the great ________ and you will overcome.
JulesCARV 11-16-07, 12:17 AM	I'd say responding to aggression is clearly justified, and can lead to conquest, like the allied occupation of Japan and Germany after WW2. Y'know, "they started it, but by Pelor, we'll finish it." In addition to direct aggression against you, responding to aggression against an ally or even neutral party might also justify a response of war which leads to conquest. Also justifying war can be extreme forms of oppression of the "slaughter every halfling in my domain" sort. More mundane forms of oppression, of the sort like "subjects are forbidden from criticizing their ruler," "taxes leave people in poverty," "people have to worship Hextor and are forbidden from worshipping any other gods," etc, are all bad, but I'm not sure they'd actually justify aggressive conquest. I don't think that "I want to conquer a country to rule (benevolently), so I'll find some places to invade that aren't very nice anyway" is a good motivation, but not all of a good character's actions have to be good. You can do some bad stuff, so long as it isn't too bad and you don't do it too often.
Brooks86 11-16-07, 04:46 AM	Well, as a good pc you do infat have a difficult task ahead of you. It is very hard for somebody to install themselves above another government without seeming evil. The evil countries are somewhat easier because, as stated above, you would be seen as a liberator in most cases. With the good principalities you reach somewhat of a stumbling block. How does one gain the current rulers fealty? If the current rulers are ineffective it could be as simple as offering aid where they are deficient in exchange for an oath of loyalty. It isn't unreasonable for lawful rulers to insist that debts be repaid. And if your actions save their country then they owe you services equal to the value of their land and people. With that kind of loyalty you could demand military favors, economic policies that benefit you, provided of course that they help the other country. Effectively, but not technically, their supreme ruler. You also would be able to serve as an advisor, equal in power, to that country's sovereign. And if you prove a friendly ear and voice you gain a partner in whatever trials face you in the future. If they are effective there is almost no way to convince a ruler to give up their power without cause. What you may consider is sitting back and governing your country and/or those that you conquered. Then should some disaster befall one of those lands in which you're interested, you would be in a perfect position to defend them and in return gain their loyalty. Also you could use the strategy described above. Get to know the ruler. Gain their trust. Advise and guide them. All in return for greater admiration and friendship. As a good ruler you understand that leadership isn't about how much land you control or how many people you govern. Leadership to you is more an understanding that your actions and the actions of your friends draw people to you. Those people honor and revere you. And they listen to you. Either through bonds of friendship or piety. Leadership to you is understanding that people don't follow you because they have to but because they want to. It doesn't matter whether your title is higher than somebody else's provided they recognize and follow you.
Voran 11-16-07, 06:16 PM	Conquering type adventures can be fun, so many moral choices to make. Sure its nice when its cut-and-dried "uniformly CE population!" to raze, its more fun to throw in curve balls, like "Taking over a LE population that isn't all LE." Which can lead to fun things like "In war, you've killed some LN guys just defending their homeland, and now their NG kids want you dead. You bastard." :)
Dei 11-16-07, 08:05 PM	Unless you ruthlessly slaughtered those good leaders and/or the townsfolk I would say your DM was totally unjustified in changing your alignment. Unless you were unusually harsh or violent in taking over (and from the sounds of things you were the opposite) what you did was more like taking over the reigns from someone who was ineffective. You saw that this town was perpetrating a great evil and stepped in to stop it. The fact that you interrupted people who were also attempting to stop it does not make the act of stopping it any less a good act. Sure it might make you impatient or perhaps even brutish for brushing aside their authority as you did but the fact remains, you halted the slave trade in the town and established a just authority.
Voran 11-16-07, 08:39 PM	More specific to the example posted, I would say, as a character, your Good aligned PC did a poor job in getting a sense of the situation before he decided to take matters into his own hands. I can understand that perhaps the DM is trying to stress the idea that your character, with his great power, should show a bit better judgement and thought into his actions. Like (in this case) checking to see if there were already forces trying to achieve the goals, before, yknow, unleashing your wrath on them all.
Radijs 11-17-07, 06:59 AM	I believe that diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggy" until you can find a big stick. Assuming that a few conditions are met I wouldn't have any trouble with a Paladin-warlord taking a few legions to lay the smackdown on some evil tyrant. Its a lot like going there with a rag-tag bunch of adventurers to kill the tyrant. All that differs is the scale. The conditions I mentioned are the obvious pitfalls of adhering the rules of war regarding prisoners, looting, rape etc. In the same way I wouldn't think it troublesome to go to some wicked town with your legions, parking them outside the city and striding in to the local lord and telling him that its your way or the highway. Why would I grant any evil or corrupt bastard favours while I have the power to dethrone him with threats alone?
JulesCARV 11-17-07, 01:27 PM	Given that you're a cleric/wizard of Helm, a lawful neutral deity, it seems like maintaining a strictly "good" alignment isn't really that big a priority for you for mechanical reasons anyway. Do you just want to maintain good alignment for RP reasons?
metalmayhem80110 11-20-07, 05:46 PM	I personally don't think that taking over evil lands is evil at all. If any of my characters have the chance to assume leadership of one of these places, they will in a heartbeat.