Creating Conflict

I've been considering lore and storyline a lot lately while I script, and one of the things I keep returning to is creating compelling conflict in the world. There's several things to keep in mind while creating conflict for S&S.

First, I want the conflict to be realistic. In the real world, though we like to think in terms of good guys vs. bad guys (we Americans are especially notorious for this), conflict is complicated. There are heroes and villains on both sides of every conflict and, though history is generally written by the victors, there's no "right side" in realistic conflicts.

From the beginning, one of the guiding principles of Shadows & Silver has been that there would be no overarching good vs. evil conflict, so it doesn't work to have traditional goblin raiders or the dragon that terrorizes the countryside. Rather, who you root for will depend on your perspective. A good example here is the War of Burdean Sovereignty. From the perspective of Burdeans, Burdea's sovereignty was more important than the political unity of Adunay. The belief in the ability of small states to govern themselves compelled them to action against what they perceived to be an oppressive regime. This is contrasted by the other Adunean states, which believed the strength of a united Adunay was more important than the rights of any individual state. As a character in the world, your viewpoint likely comes down to whether you see yourself as a citizen of Adunay or of your state. Burdeans, for example, are fiercely protective of their independence, and see themselves as Burdeans first and Aduneans second.

Burdea versus Adunay is a representation of the conflict of political identity, but also of security versus liberty. Most soldiers on either side of the war did not sit down to think about where they stood on the individual issues. Rather, the source of their national pride determined how they reacted to the different conflicts the War created.

Second, history is not linear, not just a series of events. Rather, it is a complex web of ideas, actions, and consequences. The effects of any action can be felt across the centuries, just as a butterfly beating its wings in the Pacific causes a hurricane in Florida. It's the way of the world, and the way of a realistic setting.

In S&S, the war with Burdea had consequences that continue to this day. For one, it caused unrest and political dissent in the populace at large on both sides. Social upheaval became a daily occurrence. The infighting also weakened the security of Adunay, making it vulnerable to those both within and without. The old monarchies fought for control even as the coalition devolved into chaos. In reaction to that, a wave of conquests swept Adunay, culminating in the establishment of an Adunean Empire ruled by martial law. Power and wealth lead the Empire to attack its neighbors, and the resulting war with the northern Krunags led to the Empire's fall, once again plunging the land into chaos. Today, though the Confederation has nominally established control over Adunay, but the revolutions continue. Hundreds of factions pull the government this way and that, others seek its downfall entirely.

Thirdly, it's important for the players to have lots of adversaries, but no real villain. Even if the PCs were to put aside their differences and pursue a common goal (how unrealistic is that?), there shouldn't be a Big Bad Evil Guy™ to focus on. Remember, conflict is not found in bad guys; it's found in ideas you oppose.

For a real world example, consider the Palestinian vs. Israel conflict. The conflict is not between people but between ideas. It's not a good guys versus bad guys conflict or a terrorists versus democracy conflict. It's not Hamas versus Mossad. It's one ethnic group's nationalism versus another group's nationalism. It's an idea versus an idea. So, while the idea you support has opponents, there is no "bad guy" to focus your attention on. To win the conflict, you have to unseat an idea, not a leader.

In S&S, a similar conflict can be found in the colonization of former Nerath by the Aduneans and Salicians. These countries see themselves as bringing civilization to the backwards people of the eastern Plain, and they inevitably find themselves in conflict with the native peoples, who don't take kindly to being treated like the scum of the earth. The real conflict here is in the ideas. The West believes that, because of its technological superiority, it has the right to the resources of the East, and that spreading their civilization to them and ridding them of the "Brown Menace" is more than payment. The East believes its ways are its own, regardless of any technical inferiority, and that its lands are not open for exploitation by Western powers.

Finally, conflict exists independently of the PCs. It's not there so the PCs have something to fix. It's there because that's the way things are. If the PCs want to jump in and try to fix things, great. But if their shortsightedness simply messes things up more, even better. National and ethnic conflict is not easily settled, especially when it has lasted for centuries, and creating the illusion of true conflict within the game world requires a lot of forethought.

Think about the role you want conflict to play in your setting. Do you want bad guys versus good guys, or do you want something more fluid, more dynamic? How do you plan to complicate things? Do you want to try to teach the players a lesson as they unravel conflicts into their component ideas? Or do you want a sort of sandbox for them to deal with real-world conflicts within the game?

For those of you participating in S&S, what conflicts would you like to see played out? Most interested here in conflicts of ideas as listed above, but perhaps you have ideas for various factions that might vie against each other?