This kingdom is... you could call it a communist state. Its natural and human resources are stretched thin, and everyone is barely able to survive off of the labors of the "successful" farmers. Most everyone is miserable, but they don't know it. They're happy to support the system that's making everything suck by making sure nobody's left behind. The laws are all put in place to ensure that the system of supporting those who cannot or will not support themselves stays in place
Of course you see where this is going-- everyone who works for the greater good is causing misery and poverty. It's the selfish bastards who are going to make things "right."
Just an idea I've been bouncing off of people lately. What do you people think? Is it workable?
Paladins and Clerics of a church outlaw magic because of it's tendency to corrupt. Rise of Vampires and Necromancers blinds them to the good magic can do. Think Salem Witch Trials meets Inquisition. Best intentions right?
On the flip side (and this is somewhat swiped from Eberron), you could have a benevolent Necromancocracy (yay for made up words). Massive public works projects carried out by the dead. Police force of skeletons or zombies. Undead are unbiased, impartial, and they work for free. If undead were real I can almost hear politicians and talking heads making a case for their implementation now (much like the direction robotics is moving).
In many campaign settings Elves/Eladrin are generally on the decline, having once had a great empire before the rise of man. They've witnessed the rise of all the other mortal races and how their fickle primitive grasps for power have again and again hurt the natural world. Leveling forests, diverting rivers, massive bloody conflicts that have ruined the lands that were once theirs. What if some of the elves decided to be a little more proactive in protecting what was once theirs? Eco-Terrorists of the worst sort using nature magic to consume the lands of humans and dwarves. Towns washed away in floods, Treants marching on castles, great eagles decimating livestock. What does that mean for drow?
Sorry about ending this abruptly but I'm just procrastinating school work. I'd like to see some other possibilities though. This thread has potential.
DnD alignment has the nasty inability of being unable to differentiate selfishness from puppy-punting villainy. You have to ask yourself; is the man who shot the dictator, defeated the demon, and slayed the evil god any less "good" if he did it all because he thought about it and said "Yeah, that's what I want to do?"
Have fun with the campaign. You could definitely play up a religious persectution angle. You could also probably look to Star Wars for help with evilling your "Empire" up. Or just read a history textbook on good old Uncle Joe.
Honestly, your kingdom probably needs a pseudo-messiah figure at its helm. Joseph Stalin and Hitler are both good bases to start with. Fun Stalin Fact: Under his order the secret police had a quota of traitors and dissidents to turn in each day, and most of these supposed traitors and thought-criminals would try and send Stalin letters from the Gulag, begging for his help. Its horrify the crimes that man died without paying for.
Good luck with your campaign.
Since it seems unlikely to arouse very much ire that society consists entirely of very poor people rather than the norm of 90% very poor people or whatever, if you want the government to be well-intentioned but malign, you might look at also adding vectors other than economics, such as coercive attempts to alter culture (We'll ban footraces and sports -- they teach children to be competitive and try to be better than each other!), or other things that make life miserable in non-economic ways.
The thing is, this sounds pretty close to the normal state of affairs in a pre-modern agrarian society. The majority of people living on the edge of subsistence is the normal state of affairs -- for the most part, a state of affairs rooted in technology and economics, not politics. The society you describe differs only in that, rather than have 90% of people living at subsistence levels, while maybe 10% are better off, you have something closer to 100% of people living at subsistence levels.
Since it seems unlikely to arouse very much ire that society consists entirely of very poor people rather than the norm of 90% very poor people or whatever, if you want the government to be well-intentioned but malign, you might look at also adding vectors other than economics, such as coercive attempts to alter culture (We'll ban footraces and sports -- they teach children to be competitive and try to be better than each other!), or other things that make life miserable in non-economic ways.
It could be argued though that, if we're talking say, post-Rome Europe, and the politics (and religion, you really can't separate the two at this point) are what caused this uber-subsistance. Remember how prosperous Rome was only centuries before? The technological set-back from the fall of the Roman Empire was not so great as to make it impossible for people to recover in a relatively short amount of time. Not so great that if people weren't burying axes in one another over which German gets to call himself Roman, the world would have recovered faster. The misery of the Dark Ages was very much political/theological. How are men to achieve when life is but a small hell to endure before heaven?
Note: Dark Ages. Another good place to swipe ideas.
The Romans achieved many great things. They built great roads and aquaducts. They carved fine statues. They produced a fine literary and rhetorical canon. However, life expectency for most people in the Roman empire was about the same as it was in the Dark Ages -- perhaps 35.
Now, you could say that the great works of culture of Rome edified humanity and expressed higher values. Given a choice between 90% of the population living at subsistence levels and 10% being better off and having spare resources to build the Pantheon and the Coliseum and 100% living at subsistence levels, not only is 10% being better off preferable to egalitarian poverty (which I think most people other than hardcore egalitarians would concede), but the fact that the elite 10% can't rise above the subsistence level and create great works of culture and art which express the value of humanity is evil. That seems to be a more distinctly Randian point of view.
However, if you want your PCs to be involved in trying to end the communistic order, willing to risk their lives to end the evils of egalitarianism, then I think they'd have to be somewhat more Randian than most people (like me). Maybe I'd rather have 90% of people trapped in dire poverty and 10% better off than have 100% of people trapped in dire poverty, but it's not really a cause for which I'd be willing to take up the sword.
I should stop typing here because what else really needs to be said right?
I'm torn between making fun of objectivism and actually trying to contribute something, but in the name of self interest, and rational egoism I will get back to studying for my econometrics final instead.
Its probably one of the best books ever written, because I couldn't stop reading it even though I did not agree with what the "hero" of the story was saying. If I picked it up again I would probably read it and not be able to put it down. It's so well written, and such a good story, that it works despite the fact that I thought it's main viewpoint was completely wrong.
I really didn't get into her philosophy at all, but I think she was all wrong about the essense of mankind. There is a higher power, something beyond our ability to perceive. I can't say that I have seen that Power, but I know something beyond us exists. I have seen life's beginning (the birth of my children) and life's end (the death of my mother). Ayn Rand would win an argument with anyone when it came to her philosophical beliefs. I do not doubt her superior intellect. Let me add that Rand was also an atheist and an arch-conservative. I saw an interview of her where she was attacking the Republican Party, because she thought it was being taken over by religious fanatics.
However, I don't think she had the ability to love. I know I do. I saw a documentary about her, and read some articles, and I think she was somewhat psychopathic. By that I mean she didn't have the sense of right and wrong that most of us have. Rand didn't go around killing people for fun, but she did cheat on her husband, and she felt no guilt about it. Hell, she created an entire philosophy defending her right to put herself first.
For me, I have chosen to put my children and family first, because I love them and it just feels like the right thing to do. When I decided to ask my future wife to marry me, it just felt like the right thing to do. If I were thinking selfishly, I would never have married, and therefore never have had children. There was no logical reason for it, other than the fact that it felt like the right thing to do. Love makes life bearable.
AYN RAND
In 4e alignment terms, it'd be G vs LG - since 4e Good is just NG/CG munged together. It'd still work.
The larger-than-life hero is very apropariate, though. The egalitarian empire wouldn't just enforce equality of condition and opportunity, it would have as a central dogma that no one can be exceptional. Heros are myths, not real, only ordinary people selflessly cooperating can accomplish anything of value. So, just by being heroes, in the first place, heroic-level characters would be in conflict with authority.
How are men to achieve when life is but a small hell to endure before heaven?
Nyronus, you've said eloquently what I've felt for years. Thank you sir, and happy trails.
at the top will be a strait out evil guy, who just likes the power, as you go down the ranks people become less corrupt and more hopeful and blind.
On the other hand you have some people who are lazy and simply don't pull their weight, instead of making 10,000 pounds of standard screws, they just make one big 10,000 pound screw (based off a true story).
read up on Russia and China.
you'll have to do some careful manipulation of the story to make their works of selfishness work out for good. Do a mix of being hired to do good things the illegal way, smuggling/stealing medical supplies, some robin hooding, but also maybe protecting some industrialists, or just by the works of fate they raid the people who break the system while they are pursuing other goals.
However, I don't think she had the ability to love. I know I do. I saw a documentary about her, and read some articles, and I think she was somewhat psychopathic. By that I mean she didn't have the sense of right and wrong that most of us have. Rand didn't go around killing people for fun, but she did cheat on her husband, and she felt no guilt about it. Hell, she created an entire philosophy defending her right to put herself first.
You should check your sources before you go saying such things about a person whom you do not know. Most of those articles probably relied on The Passion of Ayn Rand as a source. A book written by a woman who conspired to emotionally manipulate Ayn Rand in order to maintain a brand name, and who wrote the book after Mrs. Rand had died and could no longer defend herself. If you would like, perhaps, a more benevolent perspective on a woman you claim could feel no love, I recommend this site. It was written by two people who worked with Ayn Rand and were her friends. You also seem to display a gross misunderstanding of exactly what Mrs. Rand stood for.
Ironically Ayn Rand once cited that she created her philosophy to make mankind once again worthy of love...
By the way, Matthew? You are welcome. Good luck to you as well.
As a proper anti-Rand antagonists, have your society mandate a 2 year service for young people in the military or public defense militia. It is seen as extremely noble and proper, and deserters are universally shunned and shamed by the entire society, including their own families and loved ones. Have one or many of your PCs be conscientious objecters, who don't object to violence in self defense (they are adventurers, after all) but didn't want to fight in the conflict they were drafted for, or didn't agree that mandatory military service itself was morally defensible.
You could also imbue the society with a pseudo-Puritanical sense of humbleness, whereby everyone is expected to be just as good as their neighbour, but no better. This means that anyone who excels at any task is expected to be very very humble about it, and those that appear to be proud are shunned or even disciplined. Everyone strives to be average at all things because being excellent is regarded as arrogant and destructive of the society's harmony. The state or even the church teaches that a higher power (think karma) measures your acts and intentions, and insures that you receive your just rewards. If you get unlucky, it can always be blamed on your repressed evil desires to be excellent (which everyone has) and you are encouraged to be more humble and more average. Conversely if you prosper then it is assumed that you are arrogantly trying to seek advantage and you are brought low to everyone else's level to ensure equality, and your good fortune redistributed to the state.
Just a few thoughts.
You should check your sources before you go saying such things about a person whom you do not know. Most of those articles probably relied on The Passion of Ayn Rand as a source. A book written by a woman who conspired to emotionally manipulate Ayn Rand in order to maintain a brand name, and who wrote the book after Mrs. Rand had died and could no longer defend herself. If you would like, perhaps, a more benevolent perspective on a woman you claim could feel no love, I recommend this site. It was written by two people who worked with Ayn Rand and were her friends. You also seem to display a gross misunderstanding of exactly what Mrs. Rand stood for.
Ironically Ayn Rand once cited that she created her philosophy to make mankind once again worthy of love...
By the way, Matthew? You are welcome. Good luck to you as well.
Nyronus, I believe I know exactly what Ayn Rand stoof for...herself.
lol, Ayn Rand.
I should stop typing here because what else really needs to be said right?
I'm torn between making fun of objectivism and actually trying to contribute something, but in the name of self interest, and rational egoism I will get back to studying for my econometrics final instead.
Seriously.
Most people who talk about Ayn Rand are just looking for some justification for there douchebaggery. If someone mentions Ayn Rand in a conversation they usually have 10 seconds before I start ignoring them completely.
Actually if you look at 4th edition alignments objectivism is ultimately unaligned, not evil. However it is a very flawed philosophy because it ignores the basic fact that people are often stupid or evil because of greed and a system built on enlightened selfishness would break down the moment someone figured out that unenlightened selfishness would be more profitable for them, even if only in the short term.
This is why we have things like cops, and justice. You know, to remove evil men? Honestly, do you even think this is a good argument?
"Originally Posted by Leafar
Nyronus, I believe I know exactly what Ayn Rand stoof for...herself.
And all that that entails. Including the self of every other sentient being. She stood for the power of the mind and the right of men to live and love free. Is this so evil? So vile? What Ayn Rand stood for is right for men to live their own lives, including her own right to live her own. Its a shame that you and others find this so evil."
Ayn Rand's problem with her philosophy was that she was wrong. Did she ever have children? After having kids, I realized that my own, selfish life had come to an end. To be a good parent I had to put their needs before mine. If I were selfish my children would never have existed. I think that if everyone in the world started to follow Rand's philosophy of Objectism, or whatever it was called, then it would eventually lead to the end of Mankind. A person doesn't have to believe in God to love someone else more than themselves. I can't put myself first anymore.
I don't think the human race would survive if everyone in the world put their own needs first. I remember the two main characters in the Fountainhead, when they finally got together, didn't have children. They were both in their mid 30's when they got together at the end. I don't know. I just know in my heart that Ayn Rand was all wrong, and if you got to actually know her, Nyronus, you would become bitterly dissappointed. She was not a very pleasant or nice person to be around. The further away you are from her the better she looks. I mean that both figuratively and literally.
AYN RAND READING ONE OF HER BOOKS:
A Quote from a private email from Nyronus:
"Originally Posted by Leafar
Nyronus, I believe I know exactly what Ayn Rand stoof for...herself.
And all that that entails. Including the self of every other sentient being. She stood for the power of the mind and the right of men to live and love free. Is this so evil? So vile? What Ayn Rand stood for is right for men to live their own lives, including her own right to live her own. Its a shame that you and others find this so evil."
Ayn Rand's problem with her philosophy was that she was wrong. Did she ever have children? After having kids, I realized that my own, selfish life had come to an end. To be a good parent I had to put their needs before mine. If I were selfish my children would never have existed. I think that if everyone in the world started to follow Rand's philosophy of Objectism, or whatever it was called, then it would eventually lead to the end of Mankind. A person doesn't have to believe in God to love someone else more than themselves. I can't put myself first anymore.
I don't think the human race would survive if everyone in the world put their own needs first. I remember the two main characters in the Fountainhead, when they finally got together, didn't have children. They were both in their mid 30's when they got together at the end. I don't know. I just know in my heart that Ayn Rand was all wrong, and if you got to actually know her, Nyronus, you would become bitterly dissappointed. She was not a very pleasant or nice person to be around. The further away you are from her the better she looks. I mean that both figuratively and literally.
.... *sigh*
There was a very good reason I tried to continue this line of conversation in PM. This was to prevent the thread from devolving into a battle of moronic proportions, but since you insist in publicly throwing down the gauntlet, I suppose I will humor you and comply.
First, I have noticed a rather interesting strain running through your commentary. You feel this, and you feel that, but you know nothing. Unless you propose that your heart (which, by the way, can't know anything as it is not a cognitive organ) is omniscient, you do not have a leg to stand on. You say that Ayn Rand is wrong, that she was mean and couldn't love, yet not once to you cite evidence for this except for your "feelings," which, by the way, tell you nothing. Your insipid emotions hold no value in the realm of knowledge and logic.
Second, do not presume my ignorance. You claim that if I knew Ayn Rand better I would become "bitterly disappointed." You make the assumption that I am ignorant, or perhaps better the accusation that I am ignorant. You have read, by your own admission one book by her and a few articles most likely written or influenced by people who disliked her. I have actually taken time to study and digest her ideas on an academic level. Do not dare try to argue to me that I do not know what I am talking about and what I would "feel" if I was only a little "closer" to the "truth."
You have displayed a gross ignorance of what Ayn Rand was trying to say and who she was. Your appeals to your emotions, your half-formed ideas of human nature, and your god are laughable at best. You are also lacking in any sense of tact as you took what was meant to be a private correspondence and posted it in a public section completely derailing a thread which you had no business in posting in in the first place.
As much good as it would do, I do not have the time or perhaps the ability to penetrate your deep ignorance on this subject. If you really want to know how wrong you are about almost everything you have commented on in this thread, I suggest you go actually try to read her books. Read other books by people who actually know what they are talking about. Do not sit there and expect your "feelings" to tell you anything. Try and understand what the woman was truly saying on an academic level. Perhaps once you have undertaken this endeavour, it would be worth conversing further with you. Until this point and time though, I suggest you shut up.
This is why we have things like cops, and justice. You know, to remove evil men? Honestly, do you even think this is a good argument?
Have you seen the recent economic trouble? It is a case of people causing massive damage to the country through short sighted greed. The damage that greed can cause is not limited to simple burglary and that sort of damage is something best stopped by economic regulation, something that Rand opposed.
Some of these ideas are great, but they kinda conflict with the roles of my PCs. For instance, "violence is never to be initiated" is not something my PCs would agree with, since I promised my players the opportunity to use high-level characters to wreck havoc. Would the death and destruction perhaps be justified, since it's in the name of bringing down the oppressive Lawful society?
Regardless of questions concerning the amoral qualities of Ayn Rand's social contract (if it's accurate to call it that), her philosophy does have specific merits. Besides which, I'm only using it in this campaign because it represents something of a reversal of D&D alignments. That is, Lawful Good causes harm, and Chaotic Neutral (Chaotic Evil in the case of the PCs) makes the world a better place.
Objective philosophy is about weighing the consequeces, as well as ending the idea of martyrdom completely. The white Knight should never make an appearance but the guard are around and ready to stop trouble with anyone who (for this world) doesn't give to others. It causes interesting events when famine comes around and supplies are spread thin.
Mercenary guards? Think cops, they get paid and tey do their jobs for the sense of security it brings for their family and themselves. The don't (usually) initiate violence but they will do it if necessary. There is room for heroism (with violence :D )in Objecivism. It just can't be without purpose.
Admittedly this means that they aren't living strictly by Rand's philosophy, but don't think of that necessarily as a downside. Your campaign could explore the failures of a repressive well-meaning society through the "enemy", but simultaneously explore the shortcomings of Rand's philosophy through the actions and contradictions of the PCs.
As a sidenote, this post exists for those who wish to post ideas for an Ayn Rand campaign. It's not a place for debating that philosophy or her life. I don't agree with her at all, but I'm not wasting time with those arguments because I don't think that I will change anyone's mind, and I think Kazuhiro's idea will at least make for an interesting thought experiment. I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I hope we can keep posts more on topic from now on.
Some of these ideas are great, but they kinda conflict with the roles of my PCs. For instance, "violence is never to be initiated" is not something my PCs would agree with
The key word is 'initiated' - once a group of people decide to act as a unit, and use violence against the PCs, it's open season on the lot of 'em.
Besides which, I'm only using it in this campaign because it represents something of a reversal of D&D alignments. That is, Lawful Good causes harm, and Chaotic Neutral (Chaotic Evil in the case of the PCs) makes the world a better place.
D&D evil is actively malicious, not just selfish. Especially in 4e, where CE is nothing but a sheer force for destruction and death (not even self-preservation particularly figures into it).
D&D evil is actively malicious, not just selfish. Especially in 4e, where CE is nothing but a sheer force for destruction and death (not even self-preservation particularly figures into it).
Actually, I think you might have it backwards; the designers of 4e alignment seem to have made a conscious choice to move the evil alignments away from potentially being twisted ideals or causes and toward being pure, unadulterated selfishness. (I'm not exactly clear on their motivations for doing so, but it definitely looks like a conscious choice, not an accident, and they must have had their reasons.)
In 3.5, the bottoms of the descriptions of each evil alignment had provisions for "idealistic evil:"
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake.
If [a chaotic evil villain] is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse.
In 4e, there are no such provisions for "idealistic evil." Evil and chaotic evil are both about gratification of the self at the expense of others. This is made clear in the descriptions of the alignments.
The Evil Alignment
It is my right to claim what others possess.
Evil characters don’t necessarily go out of their way to hurt people, but they’re perfectly willing to take advantage of the weakness of others to acquire what they want.
Evil characters use rules and order to maximize personal gain. They don’t care whether laws hurt other people. They support institutional structures that give them power, even if that power comes at the expense of others’ freedom. Slavery and rigid caste structures are not only acceptable but desirable to evil characters, as long as they are in a position to benefit from them.
The Chaotic Evil Alignment
I don’t care what I have to do to get what I want.
Chaotic evil characters have a complete disregard for others. Each believes he or she is the only being that matters and kills, steals, and betrays others to gain power. Their word is meaningless and their actions destructive. Their worldviews can be so warped that they destroy anything and anyone that doesn’t directly contribute to their interests.