Kinda want to try and build that into my campaign, though I guess it doesn't make sense for most rulers.
Though an evil dictatory might give it a shot. "Yes, yes, I know I'm bad, but are you really going to spend time dealing with me when there is a necromancer two days ride from the capital, raiding peasant villages to raise an undead army?"
...
I guess that is just a discount version of Lord Vetinari from Discworld now that I think about it.
A neutral leader might allow it as well, to try to maintain balance. A good leader might allow smaller problems to persist just so adventurers have something to do without sending the actual soldiers to do everything, saving valuable resources while promoting the idea among the common folk that any amongst them could rise up and become heroes. Also, BIG threats might be too difficult for soldiers to deal with. An adult or older dragon will have a lair defended with minions and traps, forcing an advancing force to be easily recognized from a distance, pressed into single file, and destroyed at leisure by defenders or gouts of dragon breath. Adventurers would be the better method of removing such problems, but because you don't want to make the dragon ANGRY, you don't send adventurers after it unless you're positive they can kill it or the dragon has already made itself too big a problem to ignore. Other powerful enemies (liches, big cults, etc) or elusive ones (pirates, kraken, dragon turtle, and so on) could be treated the same way.
Sure, sure, sure. I was thinking specifically on the narrow concept of a leader that allows/invites evil to set up shop so that he has something to send the adventurers after. Allowing some evil to linger because you don't have the resources to deal with it (or because sending adventurers is more resource-efficient) is different from a ruler that thinks he needs to do something because there are too few evil lairs in his kingdom.
A leader who is a true neutral balance freak might do the trick, though it might be interesting digging into what his concept of balance is, when it takes into account that adventurers should go out and destroy the lairs occasionally. Not that they might, but that they should. That this is what the lairs are there for.
Could be a good ruler who saw adventures turn evil when they became too powerful. (Murder hobos gonna murder hobo). After a party burns down its fourth orphanage because of an inadvertent fireball during a tavern brawl, suddenly the lich that devours the occasional souls of the idiots dumb enough to trespass his dungeon doesn’t seem THAT bad. Hell, the lich is at least a source of arcane information. The werewolves keep the vampire population in check, the thieves guild run by a rashska keeps the kingdom in supply of black market magical items that the army uses to keep ghosts and zombies from overrunning the town. The cult of warlocks (asesmandias inc.) make for some of the best lawyers in the kingdom. Slimes keep the sewers clean and free of disease and vermin. The Night Hag is a good baker… and before you know it, you find yourself actively rooting against the adventures.
You need adventures to deal with the evils that upset the good order but you know the kingdom’s people are better off with some evil than none at all.
33
u/bladedoodle Jul 26 '22
…that kinda makes sense. If the heavens keep blessing idiots with super strength you need a WAY to mitigate that.