From: David Cake (davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au)
Date: Sat 25 Jun 1994 - 07:41:18 EEST
>>I vote that the KoW turn out to be powerful, well-organized, and
>>dangerous, because even if the PCs are NOT opponents of the KoW it
>>makes the world a more interesting place for them to live.
>
> Like I say, people with "bad guy: kill without moral qualm" written
>on their shields aren't that interesting to me. (One reason why I'm
>getting pretty bored with broos, though they are the best evil species
>I've seen in an RPG)
Just because the Kingdom of War are powerful, well organised, and dangerous doesn't mean that they are uninteresting, or that they are 'Black Hat' bad guys. I see them as an unstable coalition of fighting orders, and these fighting orders as being quite varied. Some of them are even good guys. My Sog City campaign folded before the PCs realised that half the hierarchy of the Humakt temple were secretly Kingdom of War sympathisers, and indeed idolised the Humakti grouo within the KOW as an ideal society, where warriors run the show, and the peasantry are secure from attack. Some of the Humakti within the KOW might even idealistically beleive that they are the good guys, and atacking Loskalm only because otherwise it will attack them. At least no worse morally than Viking raiders. Of course some people in the KOW are psychopathic killers or brutal despots, but the Humakti are only cooperating with them out of necessity (people can rationalise almost anything).
I also see the fatal weakness of the KOW as not its military strength, but its inner politics. I think that if Lord Death on a Horse dies, then the only thing that holds them together is the hope of Loskalmi plunder, and that will only work as long as Loskalmi plunder is acessible. I think that if LDoaH dies, the coalition will be lucky to last weeks.
Cheers
Dave
---------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:35:27 EEST