|
Post by Daos on Oct 18, 2011 17:20:06 GMT -8
I don't have much on this subject, just some vague notions that need fleshing out.
I mentioned before, the idea of Octhania not having a strong central government. Rather, it is composed of numerous independent city-states. These city-states can band together in a time of crisis, but usually spend more time opposing each other than anything else.
I also mentioned the idea of a large trading guild (possibly started by the dwarves) that is attempting to take control of all of the islands using economic muscle, but isn't fairing too well on that front so far.
But that's about all I've really thought on. Does anyone have anything they want to add to any of this?
|
|
Airellian
Elite
Sunny Greenhaven
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Airellian on Oct 18, 2011 17:59:37 GMT -8
What are the governments of the city-states like?
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 18, 2011 19:24:30 GMT -8
Good question.
I guess we should first consider if they should all be the same or should be different from each other. For instance, maybe some are dictatorships and some are democracies, or what have you.
|
|
Airellian
Elite
Sunny Greenhaven
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Airellian on Oct 19, 2011 2:57:39 GMT -8
Well, I suppose there's no reason to detail the governments of each individual city-state. Just decide on a few general types of government and the vague outlines they would take, and then fill in the details as the party starts adventuring near each city.
As for whether the governments of the city-states should have the same general form, that really depends on the outlook and philosophies of their citizens. A person who lives under a dictatorship and one who lives under a democracy would think very differently.
In the end, I don't think it would matter too much in the game, unless the campaign specifically generated conflict with the local city-state government. I think it's probably more worthwhile to detail this guild, which would be the driving force behind a lot of the conflicts in Octhania.
I think the guild shouldn't be focused so much on the acquisition of territory as the exploitation of resources. They would be everywhere, trading away. Their villainy wouldn't be so much that they're conquering everyone like a warlord, but that they're exploiting everyone and everything, making everyone trade with them at their prices, dumping useless cargo on unsuspecting natives, and so forth. It's a bit less black and white that way, but it could be interesting. On the one hand, they might provide some good, but on the other hand, they piss off a lot of people.
Maybe later, depending on how the campaign goes, if they get a lot bigger, they can transition into world power status, and start conquering folks like a real villain.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 19, 2011 17:43:42 GMT -8
I like that idea, although I want to emphasize that the guild may not necessarily be a 'villain.' I mean, it could be, if the party is opposed to it. But it's also possible the party could be working for them. In other words, whether the guild is good or bad for the islands is best left up to the PCs themselves. On one hand, it brings stability and order, on the other hand, it can hinder freedom and possibly form a monopoly.
|
|
Airellian
Elite
Sunny Greenhaven
Posts: 1,284
|
Post by Airellian on Oct 19, 2011 18:19:36 GMT -8
While that's true, in order for that to work, I think the PCs would have to overlook a lot of the activities that the Guild would be engaged in, or at least actively work to change its policies. The guild would be primarily a money-making enterprise. It wouldn't be focused so much on building up stability and order, except as a means to make more money. It's true that stable environmental conditions provide fruitful economies, but so does chaos. You only have to look at the Opium Wars to know what sorts of sordid things a trade empire will engage in.
The PCs could steer the guild into altruistic works like building up infrastructure, engaging in fair trade, defending against pirates, et cetera, but the guild shouldn't be taking that stance in the beginning, and only as a response to actions from the PCs. On the whole, I think the organization should start off neutral, and the PCs can swing it towards good or evil during the game, though the guild should trend towards evil over time if the PCs don't do anything to swing it up towards good. This is because more conflict makes the game more interesting, and it's a lot easier for a large bureaucratic guild to engage in evil than in good.
And maybe, depending on how much time passes between campaigns and how many campaigns there are, the guild can be on one end of spectrum in one campaign and on the other end of the spectrum in a later one.
|
|
|
Post by Daos on Oct 19, 2011 21:14:45 GMT -8
I like that, too. In fact, Heather made a comment earlier about the PCs working for the guild, also. That may be a good basis for the first campaign--the party are people hired by the guild for certain tasks. But they have some freedom in deciding how to accomplish those tasks. Could make for some interesting scenarios.
|
|