Alignment change for realms

[Bearcat]

I think that the alignment of a kingdom is not neccessarily the same as that
of the ruler. I also agree with those that say that changing a kingdom's
alignment would be a gradual process.

To acomplish this I would try playing around with the laws of the land. If a
regent were to pass laws that encourage individual freedom and a goodly
amount of self rule then we would see a large amount of CG rise in the
community, those who are not of that alignment would most likely change or
leave the disorganization. Likewise creating a huge set of rigid and
inflexible laws would in time result in a rigid lawful neutral society.

Of course we are talking about maybe a generation before anything really
tangible changes begin to appear. And the regent will have to deal with
constant rebellion from the people who liked it better the old way. In the
end I don't think that we can come up with a set of fast rules for this
situation, we must instead roleplay it through.

All of this is MHO of course,


Bearcat
lcgm@elogica.com.br
Come visit Bearcat's Birthright Homepage at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6204

[Bryan Palmer]

I'd have to agree that anything as drastic as an alignment change for an
entire realm population would take a great deal of time to occur
(possibly 5 years or up), unless it is accomplished by some magical
means. That's the beauty of working in a "fantasy" setting, you can do
things that are not realistic. However, a magical change of alignment
for an entire population would be one incredibly powerful priest or mage
realm spell! I know I wouldn't allow for a spell that powerful in my
game without a great deal of obstacles (almost impossible ones) to
overcome.

In a realistic setting, the alteration of a population's alignment would
occur through changes in those aspects of society that directly
influence the day-to-day activities of the populace, such as local,
state, and national governments. And simply changing the government
from say a democracy to a dictator does not ensure a speedy reduction of
resistance by the population to the dictator. Either large or small
groups of people are going to resist that change until they are either
eradicated or forced to leave. Once the more obvious resistance has
been eliminated, the new government can begin to shape and evolve its
organization and power to fit a new scheme of governance. It takes a
good deal of time for political cronies of the old government to die out
and new bureaucrats to take their place. Once the new laws are in place
and the population has had adequate time to adjust to the new ways of
the society, then you'd start to see definite changes in attitude.

[James Ruhland]

>
> I'd have to agree that anything as drastic as an alignment change for an
> entire realm population would take a great deal of time to occur
> (possibly 5 years or up), unless it is accomplished by some magical
> means.
>
Not nessicarily. Take a realm that's currently Lawful Neutral, with a
strong King ruling the land. He gets assassinated (or did he? some dude
claiming to be him appears in a distant province, saying his double killed
him). The assassin also kills most of the people in line to the throne, but
isn't able to hold the capital/palace, so flees to his home province and
base of support, and now claims to be rightful King. A somewhat distant
relative to the King takes power in the capital, but some of the lords
won't obey him, either, because their is a rumor that he, not the main
assassin, murdered his own older brother so that he could take the throne.
Result: Chaos. And, almost overnight, a Chaotic Neutral realm split into a
variety of factions.
(Btw, what I described actually happened in a game universe. No prize to
whoever knows which one. It should be obvious. Similar things have happened
in real life realms, too). Remember the national alignment doesn't
nessisarily describe the "general" alignment of the population as a whole
(though it likely, but again not nessisarily, reflects it). Rather, it
describes how people will experience life in that country, or in their
dealings with it. A unstable govennment which shifts policies on a seeming
whim will make a realm CN, even if the population is LN; eventually,
agreed, either the alignment of the populace will shift to reflect the new
reality, or the government will fall (however, the fall of the unstable
government won't nessisarily mean a shift to a unitary, LN state; perhaps
the CN govermnent was "ligitemate", under the control of a legal, but
deranged, ruler. Now that he's gone there are many claimants. . .)

[Glenn Robb]

You have it pegged, Byran. It would take a huge amount of time for change to
occur if nature was left by itself.

— Elton Robb

Bryan Palmer wrote:

> I'd have to agree that anything as drastic as an alignment change for an
> entire realm population would take a great deal of time to occur
> (possibly 5 years or up), unless it is accomplished by some magical
> means. That's the beauty of working in a "fantasy" setting, you can do
> things that are not realistic. However, a magical change of alignment
> for an entire population would be one incredibly powerful priest or mage
> realm spell! I know I wouldn't allow for a spell that powerful in my
> game without a great deal of obstacles (almost impossible ones) to
> overcome.
>
> In a realistic setting, the alteration of a population's alignment would
> occur through changes in those aspects of society that directly
> influence the day-to-day activities of the populace, such as local,
> state, and national governments. And simply changing the government
> from say a democracy to a dictator does not ensure a speedy reduction of
> resistance by the population to the dictator. Either large or small
> groups of people are going to resist that change until they are either
> eradicated or forced to leave. Once the more obvious resistance has
> been eliminated, the new government can begin to shape and evolve its
> organization and power to fit a new scheme of governance. It takes a
> good deal of time for political cronies of the old government to die out
> and new bureaucrats to take their place. Once the new laws are in place
> and the population has had adequate time to adjust to the new ways of
> the society, then you'd start to see definite changes in attitude.
> ************************************************** *************************
> >

[Ed Stark]

At 02:41 PM 2/10/98 -0700, you wrote:
>I'd have to agree that anything as drastic as an alignment change for an
>entire realm population would take a great deal of time to occur
>(possibly 5 years or up), unless it is accomplished by some magical
>means. That's the beauty of working in a "fantasy" setting, you can do
>things that are not realistic. However, a magical change of alignment
>for an entire population would be one incredibly powerful priest or mage
>realm spell! I know I wouldn't allow for a spell that powerful in my
>game without a great deal of obstacles (almost impossible ones) to
>overcome.
>
Hmmm. It's always been my understanding (and this is the persepective from
which I've written it) that the alignment of a realm reflects the "official
policies" of the area, not necessarily the people in it. A Lawful Evil
realm may have more evil, or more lawful, people in it than a CG realm, but
the reason the LE realm earned its alignment is because of the way it
presents itself to the world. There's fascism, oppression, and/or "the
state before all, and curse the all" government tactics and everyone must
march to the beat of the same drummer or find themselves in deep varsk
excrement.
Similarly, a Lawful Good realm has lots of good people and has an
officially lawful and good way of treating its people and other realms, but
that doesn't mean there aren't a few, or even a lot, of evil people there.
They are discouraged and prosecuted, but, depending on how well the law is
controlled, they may actually be solidly a part of the realm.
Changing the alignment of a realm in BR probably starts with the rulers.
Rulers tend to make their realms reflections of themselves. If you can
replace a bunch of the regents in a realm with regents of a different
alignment, you'll probably see a realm alignment shift fairly quickly--a
few domain turns; a year, even. Of course, that doesn't mean everyone in
the realm shifts over--a CE realm taken over by a bunch of LG characters
will probably still have some holdovers causing trouble, and a lot of
confused and frightened peasantry, but the shift can occur quickly.
Just a thought.


-- ->-- ->-- ->--@
Ed Stark
Game Designer, Wizards of the Coast/TSR Division
Asst. Brand Manager, BIRTHRIGHT/GREYHAWK/MARVEL Group
TSR Website: http://www.tsrinc.com
(soon to be http://www.tsr.com)

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

On tue, Feb 10, Jim Cooper asked about domain alignment. Neil, and
others, find realm alignment to describe government policy. Others,
myself included, have seen realm alignment describing the popular response
to, "day to day activities of governments," (Bryan Palmer); policies of
regents of all kinds (myself); catastrophic events like civil wars,
assassinations, pretenders to the throne, &c (James Rhuland).

While Neil is certainly right in using realm alignment as he has described
(foreign policy guide), I think it can be used for much more than that.
But first I have to describe what realm alignment is and what it is not.

It really must be something different from the ruler's alignment. First
and most obviously, there is no need to have separate listings for the
same thing. Let's take law- neutrality-chaos first.

1) The most important consideration is the law holding regent, or their
appointed chancellor. Whoever actually oversees the law, perhaps the
lawful chancellor of a chaotic regent, has the most profound influence.

2) The priest regent, who preaches on one of these points
is next most important. The power if the pulpit is
second only to the power of the bench in this regard.

3) The guilder regent may conduct their operations
according to lawful practice (resolving disputes in
courts rather than back alleys, favoring contracts and
their enforcement, promoting private property), or
according to chaotic (resolving disputes in
courts rather than back alleys, favoring contracts and
their enforcement, promoting private property), or
according to chaotic (resolving disputes their own way,
disavowing agreements that don't suit them, believing
that possession is more important than title), or some
combination or admixture of these both.

4) The prince regent who does not directly administer his
law holdings may intervene in their operations, overturning cases,
granting pardons, altering sentencing, &c, or may let the chancellor
have free reign. The more the prince intervenes, the more their
alignment must be taken into account. Though even the most hands-off
prince will still effect the realm alignment by example.

Before going on, I should say that good government is lawful government.
Law holdings only benefit from lawful administration. Arbitrary justice
is bad for the realm. Eluvie Cariele of Coeranys is a fine example of a
bad regent. The principle responsibility of a regent is to provide
protection and good justice. Failure results in the realm's nobles rising
up to rule in place of the regent. This happened in England under Edward
II, Richard II, and Henry VI. As Randax pointed out in his posts of 28 Jan
and 31 Jan, "If Daouta sits around doing nothing, while the High Priest of
Life and Protection is casting realm spells, leading the armies and
embarking on kingdom-saving adventures, this Lt. is the de facto regent
and should be made such." In principle he is correct (my quibble was with
the requirement to be an epic hero), failure to do your job gets you
bonked. In Coeranys, two other regents, Medhlorie Haensen, High
Hierophant of the Life and Protection of Avanalae, and Diirk Watershold of
the Royal Guild of Baruk-Azhik prop up the realm. They are LG and NG
respectivly. Stjordvik is another realm with poor government.

Using realm alignment: Random events can be tailored to realms by the use
of alignment. Unrest/rebellion and Great captain are a natural
consequence of a disorderly/chaotic realm. Lawful realms need more
explanation and backstory to explain these events. A poor harvest is
always good for a traditional uprising, implementation of a new tax,
divided loyalties, any crisis threatening the legitimacy of the current
regent.

Also, its important to recall Ed Stark's point that alignment is not
uniform throughout a realm, and to return to Jim Cooper's original
question, alignment does change. Failed policies of any kind will tend to
lessen respect for law, and hence give comfort to the forces of chaos.
Individual disregard for the law will increase.

Good-Neutral-Evil:

Very similar to above, except the order of importance is:

1) Priest regent's teachings

2) Alignment of the god(s) favored. Cuiraecen is CG, but
may have CE priests. So while a CE priest regent will
teach ruthless destruction of all enemies, many in the
realm will not buy that bill of goods.

3) Law holdings enforcement and regulation of murder,
feuds, and other kinds of killings.

4) And to a lessor extent the actions of guilds and the example set by the
prince regent.

I hope this are useful ideas.
Kenneth Gauck
C558382@showme.missouri.edu

[James Ruhland]

>
> Before going on, I should say that good government is lawful government.
> Law holdings only benefit from lawful administration. Arbitrary justice
> is bad for the realm.
>
I tend to agree. . .but then I'm a Roman at heart, and the Law has always
been a pillar of ours (not that we had Lawful governments at all times, but
just that this was the ideal). However, a fairly decient case could be made
that good government is chaotic good government; "that government which
governs least govern's best" and all that; a few laws, light law holdings
(mainly to keep others out of it), and lots of personal/individual freedom.
I'd counter by saying a LG government can have lots of personal freedom,
that L just means the laws are enforced in a non-arbitrary fashion, not
that there is a law for everything and no freedom. But I await the
responses of people with chaotic philosophies. . .

[James Ruhland]

>
> We live in a society of regulation absolutly unknown before the twentieth
> century. Since 1900, the Progressives and subsequent regualtion have
> created laws about things no one ever thought to regulate before.
>
Oh, I don't know. Take a look at Dioclecean's laws in the late Roman
empire. Practically everything was regulated to try and keep everything
stable (of course, it didn't work, just like today's overegulation of
everything won't help the center hold, either). But point is societies of
regulation did exist before the 20th century.

[c558382@showme.missouri.]

There is a difference between regulation and the phenominal growth of
the state after industrialism, and its power of regualtion. The Greeks
firmly belived the needs of the polis were greater than those of the
individual, and made laws to that end. Nevertheless, the Byzantines could
did in their back yard, drain swamps on private land, kill rare birds.
Look at the size of government as well. The Byzantines had specific laws,
but we have specific laws covering everything. Consider food labeling.
We live in a more complex society and complexity demands regulation. We
have more regualtion by far.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu