Hi Veeky Forums. In the homebrew campaign me and my friends were playing we have just beaten the empire...

Hi Veeky Forums. In the homebrew campaign me and my friends were playing we have just beaten the empire, composed of the unification of several neutral aligned races. The emperor was a warmonger who tried to conquer the world by making a pact with the darkness, but was finally defeated by our race (a naturally good one) thanks to our superior tactics.

Now we are making the surrender terms. First, keep in mind that our race has been constantly bullied over the ages because of our refusal to defend ourselves. We were almost wiped out, only managing to survive because of a revolution who gave us permission to fight if it was in self defense. Also that worshiping the darkness almost destroyed the world, especially when the emperor started bombing everything because he was a sore loser.

With this out here are the terms:

>return of the sacred capital
Our original capital who was taken in an ancient war, which still holds power.

>return of every piece of land took from the light over the previous wars
Each war we lost in the past we lost territory, until we were pushed into a island at the sea.

>desmilitarization of the empire and former provinces
The guy who suggested this said that was the only way to ensure our security.

>reparations as aggressors from war
He said that was costumary of war.

>dismantling of the empire into smaller countries
Another PC said that breaking the empire into smaller pieces would ensure they wouldn't become a threat again.

>destruction of all the dark churches and altars of sacrifices
My edict, because of the almost destroyed the world bit.

>destruction of all unholy artefacts and books Complemention of the previous rule.

>outlaw worship of the dark gods
This one I'm not so sure, in fact I have no idea how we would do that. But I think it's important to consider the option.

Are those terms too harsh? Too lenient? Should I add something else? Keep in mind that we are a good race so it should be just and not vengeful.

Not hardcore enough. You're going to be fighting this war over and over again if you don't squash them now.

In the USA, after the Civil War, the KKK rose up to continue the cause of the Confederacy in a terrorist campaign for decades. The war never ended for them, even though the Union tried to play it off like it was nothing, or just banditry. It was a fucking guerrilla insurgency in our own backyard for decades.

In Germany after WWI, wounded pride and bitter resentment at losing a big war when they're supposed to be some kind of badass warrior culture resulted in the rise of the Nazis. The Nazis tapped into that anger and turned Germany into one of the most dangerous, bloodthirsty regimes to ever exist. They pulled the whole world into a SECOND world war out of pure bitter spite and the desire to balm their wounded ego.

All these things you have sound like a great way to have a KKK/Nazi-style militant resurgence kick in within a few years because they're too soft. You're talking about a militaristic collection of races who, historically, have kicked the shit out of yours, and now suddenly lose once. Their wounded pride and bitter resentment will drive them to an extremist war of revenge.

What you should do is purge the Empire of anyone too fanatical, and impose hardcore mental re-education to basically brainwash everyone else into submitting to your agenda. You're in a war not only with a people right now, but with an idea, the idea that the Empire ought to fucking murder your guys. You need to kill both the idea and anyone who believes in it. If you don't, and just trust that people "will just get better", you're going to be sorely mistaken.

Or at the very least, you can have all this as a potential future storyline. That would be cool, seeing how an otherwise good race becomes kinda evil itself in trying to crush an evil ideology.

Hmm... that's actually a point. If we are too soft it will be just an intermission for a new year.

Still, our race is naturally good. Like good in the sense we fought crying about enemy civilian casualties. Maybe demand reeducation classes? Not brainwashing, but a duty like obligatory voting?

What resources are at your disposal? If you've got magic or whatever at your disposal, perhaps there are spells like "change alignment" or something?

Brainwashing, like change aligment are considered one of the ultimate sins so no-no.

But mass murder via war is permissible? You see what I mean? I'd rather brainwash people than kill them.

Hmm. Still, it was determined permissible to fight back in a council meeting only on the context of self defense, and only because they determined if we were wiped out so would our light disappear from the world and thus nobody would be able to protect neutrals from falling into darkness.

This definitely seems like an interesting roleplay scenario. Maybe have some wild-eyed radical NPC suggest these methods in the next session, see how the PCs react.

Nice revision of history faggot.

...

...

>KKK
Destroyed by social pressure because the rest of society didn't like their faggotry.

>Nazis
Their rise had far more to do with the absurdly predatory Treaty of Versailles which was going to bankrupt Germany for generations. That and a very justified fear that communists would take over and murder all the Christians like they had done/were doing in Russia.

Draconian measures create insurgency, they don't eliminate it. You're an authoritarian faggot who doesn't understand history, and probably a commie too.

So hum, more opinions about the terms?

>So hum, more opinions about the terms?

It's a FANTASY, knucklehead. Those terms will either succeed or fail based on the GM's needs and not because they work or not.

Yes, but what I want to know is if they are fine, too tight, too soft for a good aligned race.

Don't listen to this guy.

How widespread is the knowledge of the dark worshiping almost destroying the world?

Ah thanks for asking.

Basically the dark became the official religion of the empire when the current emperor (now deceased) agreed to sell his soul in return of eternal youth. He then began to purposely spread the dark (who is very corruptive) through the creation of several dark churches and sacrifices, turning a lot of neutral races into demoniac versions of them.

The dark and it's corruptive influence always existed, in fact there were crusades against it earlier into years: usually by a warlord or sorcerer who made a devil bargain. It had never spread on history to such a level before the emperor however.

That's also one of the reasons the light decided to remove his no killing neutrals rule: because the neutral races free will was under threat by this huge spread of the dark. The rate of conversion into twisted beings was out of the control. Before this addendum we could only destroy demons since they lost their capacity of goodness.

>Yes, but what I want to know is if they are fine, too tight, too soft for a good aligned race.

Your question is NONSENSE. Understand? The setting, the war, the reasons for the war, the results of the war, all of it is MAKE BELIEVE.

Whether the treaty is hard, soft, good, bad, or whatever doesn't matter when the GM can wave his hand and make all of it not matter.

So... yeah, it's very spread.

But it's actually mostly their priests that conduct the rituals for twisting and summoning demons. They were the first to turn twisted and a good deal of them were destroyed when we attacked the capital, so those who remain must be probably rushing to go underground or disappear into the more inner lands.

In a way you are right user, it all depends on the DM. That doesn't stop me from trying to roleplay it through.

This is a child's understanding of conflict, power, and history. Holy shit.

The only way to be sure another country doesn't start a war is to eliminate that country. This is solely the result of them being beyond your control if they are actually a sovereign country. It is up to the leaders to determine how willing they are to spend resources insuring control over the defeated or to risk whatever happens due to not being in control. Resources here being anything and everything: money, manpower, territory, morals, future diplomacy, etc.

The only "good" solution is to rule them better then they could rule themselves. This would probably includes giving them more freedom then they had and more prosperity, even at your own expense. Remove any reason they have to wage war on you.

Justice versus vengeance will always be subjective, and you are wrong if you think it provides any sort of guidance.

You mean annexation?

I dunno, we are very distinct races. I don't think the race I belong would be suited to control their pecularities.

For example, my race literally gets affected by bad thoughts. Consider that every time you think or feel something bad you generated evil energy, that evil energy would actually make my character feel uneasy. Like for example if you could see everything people feel every second of it, all their worst most cruel and disgusting thoughts alongside all their most nicest and most soothing thoughts. A mixed bag if you will.

As for justice and vengeance, I think the distinction is to act in accordance than the deed. Vengeance is mostly excessive. It's subjective as you said through, but I think that's a good distinction.

>>return of the sacred capital
>>return of every piece of land took from the light over the previous wars
Are you not annexing them? Or are going to deport everyone there too?

inb4 West Bank 2: Occupation Boogaloo.

This piece was actually added by one of my friends in name of his order. The idea was resettlement to other neutral territories and changing those territories back to a light ecosystem, like they were before they were taken away in wars of expansion.

A light ecosystem is a bit like the holy woods in Dwarf Fortress, the Hallow in Terraria or holy woods in Age of Wonders. Basically is a territory where light creature reside, neutrals have a hard time living and dark creatures are literally wiped out. So if we change them back to be suitable to us it would make it unsuitable to them, so a resettlement to another 'neutral' area would be ideal.

It doesn't naturally expand through, so it's a controllable and safe process. We then can fit it with light walls which not only would make the territory safe but also ensure that wanderers won't get hurt (because of the constant holy damage those lands inflict).

>Each war we lost in the past we lost territory, until we were pushed into a island at the sea.
That's not going to go over well with the people who live there now/have lived there for years (and who might have had anything to do with those particular wars).

>My edict, because of the almost destroyed the world bit.
>This one I'm not so sure, in fact I have no idea how we would do that. But I think it's important to consider the option.
Generally, forcing an ideology underground only makes it more radical and harder to track.