Karasend and the Murkmire

[Kindling]

you need a new group

[sparkletwist]

Truthfully, I'd play on that sense. Give the PC nation a fascist, racial supremacist outlook, intermixed with a healthy amount of paranoia. The whole thing could be tied into weird religious dogma, like Warhammer 40K's Terrans. Then, their behavior would be completely justified, in that mentality.

Of course, the problem is that they might not realize the irony of it all. ;)

[Raelifin]

The problem with that is that there is a conflict with how the nation has already been set up in-game.

This looks like a job for creative thinking! How could one take an already described nation and add an element that allows for a group of "normal" individuals to be pleased with atrocity?

The "normality" is the hardest part, as they can't belong to any sort of special-interest group.

[sparkletwist]

Really? I didn't see anything in what had already been written that would conflict. EE had said details were vague, and there is a lot about the setting that hasn't been fleshed out yet.

The idea of the forest full of all sorts of strange creatures would fuel the sense of paranoia. The whole thing of breaking contact with their homeland could've been the start of the fundamental religious dogma: perhaps they were puritans or the like, leaving the heresy of their homeland behind.

That said, any references to the land being "noble" or "tolerant" could also simply be their own way of thinking of themselves. Obviously, not everyone in the country is going to be evil. Still, there could be something like the SS etc. that is both officially sanctioned and quite pleased with atrocity (or at least, certain atrocities that it doesn't consider atrocious at all, but rather, things it's doing for the greater good).

[Ninja D!]

Wow...so I take it they destroyed your plans?  That's rough and I don't know how you get around it without changing much of what you have.

Burning children...wow.

[Xeviat]

Yeah, there's an amount of change you can do to a race to reflavor them and make them your own, but when you turn Dwarves into bad guys (which I really liked) and orcs into good guys (I also like, but I like slightly different things), some players are going to be confused.

As a DM, you are perfectly within your right to interrupt player actions if they're being made under the wrong assumptions.

By the way, I really like the region's history. The endlessly growing forest which couldn't be populated till the Azer burned it down is really cool.

[Kaptn'Lath]

i would suggest revenge on the PCs from a story point of view, obviously killing orc children (maybe a caravan of noble orc children not just rich merchants?) deems some revenge. Maybe one of the kids was an Orc Prince? and instead of big mean orcs comming for revenge (bucking stereo-type again) they act like rich sembian (FR referance) merchant lords and just put a bounty on them, gives you an open excuse to have random side treks during your main story. also having the orcs as the secretive "behind-the-scenes" type bad guys instead of in your face barbarians kinda drives it home...

just from what i can see from your orcs... i wouldnt want to imagine the punishment for burning alive an orc prince or count-to-be... :)

[Ninja D!]

Lath has some good ideas.  That is, assuming you still plan to run this setting.

[Xeviat]

I would actually talk to your players out of game and explain to them what you truely intended with the setting. How Orcs were humans allies in the last struggle, and how such an action from their characters was not in character at all. Offer to restart the campaign for them, since you only went in one session.

[Raelifin]

[quote Oakspar]I started the campaign, like I do all others, with a list of questions about what type of game that your group would like to play. Why? Because DMing is like refereeing a game. It is fun, but you are not part of the game. Too many DMs want to think of themselves like the coach, tellling others what to do by dictating a world to them, or heaven-forbid, like a player, by inserting their own uber character into the world to play along (the dreaded DMPC or uber NPC). The game world should reflect what your players want to play in, NOT the super detailed world you drew out in algebra class you want to show off.[/quote]

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=471897

I'm going to respectfully disagree.

[Xeviat]

Who were you responding to Rael?

[Ninja D!]

Who were you responding to Rael?

I was confused about that post, too.

[Xeviat]

I think he was responding to my post. I was saying that, in the world presented, the players killing orcs randomly like that didn't fit. If the players were intending to play evil racists, then that's fine. But I don't think that's the game EE signed up for, or do I think the DM should have to run a game they don't like.

The DM is there to have fun too.

[Ninja D!]

I agree that a DM shouldn't have to run a game that they do not like.  However, I think that the DM's primary job is to make the game fun for the players.  A DM who helps the players have fun and has fun at the same time is doing it right.

[Xeviat]

Definately. It isn't the DM's game, the DM is just running it. When I started my new game, I explicitly told my group of players that it was going to be character driven and at times RP heavy. It's also going to be player driven, in that I'm not going to have as much things happening on their own; things are going to happen in response to their actions, or at least because they decided to do something.

I'm having fun because they're helping me develope my setting through play, and the players are happy because they really like their characters and feeling part of an organic world. If I had sprung this game on a different group, they may not have enjoyed it as much.