|
I'm as asking as the GM, if this is a good or bad ideal for GMing and story.
And what should I do in this situation?
My party wants to have the party wizard's familiar (Lyrakien azata) be the replacement ruler of their country. Via a Hat of Disguise.
The current ruler's slot is vacant after the ruler player had to leave the game due to other commitments.
The party wants to make use of the Lyrakien azata, as it has a high Cha stat of 20. (Rulers add their Cha modifiers to any one of the 3 main kingdom stats.)
While this make some sense from a mechanical standpoint, I'm very hesitant to allow this, both from a GMing standpoint; 1) I feel it cheapens the ideal of having PCs if the party has a NPC companion in such a role. And also from a story point of view, as 2) the Lyrakien azata is from a wizard's Pact Wizard archetype's True Form ability and not just a normal improved familiar. The Pact Wizard's patron being Desna. While she is a CG goddess, she doesn't seem to be the type of goddess that would support having a servant of her's outright lying to a nation. The Lyrakien azata after all is a servant of Desna's.
(A Pact wizard is an archetype where the wizard forms a pact with an outsider for power.
"Some wizards make bargains with beings from other realms in order to gain arcane power. These pact wizards have unparalleled access to extraplanar allies, but these bonds never come without strings attached.")
I'm considering the following options.... but are there any others I should consider?
No to Familiar as Ruler -
1) Have the Lyrakien azata outright deny being used in such a role. (As a servant of Desna.)
2) Consider have the Lyrakien azata LEAVE the wizard.
Yes to Familiar as Ruler -
3) Allow the Lyrakien azata to become the ruler, but play out the possible issues with this setup. Example, the Lyrakien azata's disguise being just an illusion is unable to touch anything.
4) Allow the Familiar to be ruler, but have the party and nation take alignment hits for doing so. I'm considering a drop 1 step to chaotic and maybe 1 step down to evil. Its really possibly more a chaotic then really evil action tho.
What should I do?
--
Some extra info:
The Party's country alignment is NG
Party:
LG Paladin
NG Druid
NG Wizard
NG Cleric
NG(?) Barb (New)
If you are wondering why not just get the Paladin to be the ruler?
The Paladin player has expressed that he does not want to be a ruler.
My opinion is that it would cheapen the heroes' story.
For example, watch the Minions movie. This is exactly what happens. You will meet "King Bob." Now, the familiar will probably not be as silly as a child's cartoon character. But, you can get a feel for the kinds of things that might happen.
Then again, maybe the minions are CG
Personally i dont see any issue with a CG being lying to anything at all , servant of desna or not.
While i could understand if a servant of desna refused such a position since it would ground them and usually her servants are beings that adore to travel and explore.
If your PCs are using the cheaper hat of disguise , the one that is an ilusion instead of alter self , then NPCs to begin with would get a WILL save against it i believe , it would be better if your PCs got the better hat.
Personally i dont see much issue in it , since the rules consider using NPCs in the positions and honestly , a familiar is a loyal being so all this did is make your wizard the "actual" ruler and the one who know should be tossed questions over.
PS: And yes , probably more and more people of said kingdom would keep discovering this trade , how good or bad it would be i guess it depends on you.
|
|
@raven1272,
That is exactly what I'm afraid of.
Also since the Lyrakien azata is also not exclusively under the Pact Wizard's control, as GM I fear I may have to have it do things that would go against the party's decisions which would bring the GM and Party into conflict. (And not the good type)
@Nox Aeterna,
But do you think such an action (lying to a nation on the nature of their ruler) can be considered good?
*The nation does have a fae, Kobold and other non-human/oid population, but as a whole the population would likely not support a Lyrakien azata as a ruler. Not to mention the nation's patrons who gave the party the charter to start a nation in the first place is a human nation.
@Duiker,
Thanks for reminding me to ask the players why their Characters would want to take such an action.
Sometimes I tie the players so strongly to their characters, I take their actions as one and the same.
I am strongly considering allowing a familiar as ruler and just let the story play out.
For story/fun this could be a good thing, as long as it is temporary. Could make for a humorous chapter in the story. However, I see that they want it for the mechanical benefit of a high Charisma. Not so good. I would not allow it. Perhaps the familiar could serve in another less vital position.
Lying as a good action? Easily.
"Why yes, the king is TOTALLY FINE. He came back from his adventuring in the dead of night, when no one saw it except me. He has Adventuring Flu and is currently resting in bed, and no, nobody can see him because they'll get instantly infected and die. See, only the king is strong enough to withstand Adventuring Flu. That means Evil Lord Buttmouth, the king's brother and heir apparent isn't king right now."
Lying about the nature or status of rulers has been a fantasy staple, both good and evil, forever.
Having a puppet ruler to inspire confidence and loyalty among the people? Yeah, that's not evil, unless the PCs are already planning on abusing that loyalty. Neutral at worst. And not every action Good people take have to be good. Everyone does tons of neutral things every day.
If the kingdom rules cause the PCs to take ridiculous actions (like appointing a familiar to be ruler), don't blame the PCs, blame the rules. And fix them.
My question is about "The current ruler's slot is vacant after the ruler player had to leave the game due to other commitments.". I understand that players sometimes have to leave games, but that the player leaves does not necessarily mean that the character they played pops out of existence. They will clearly shift to the background, but they still exist in the setting unless written out.
So what I would say is that unless you already wrote the former ruler out of the story, you should resist doing so. Being in charge is a good gig, and people throughout history have not readily wanted to give it up.
So the observations I would make is that the character who has been the ruler won't step down just because they're no longer piloted by a player (unless that behavior would be really out of character, maybe) and if they do step down, it's not like the PCs are the only people who have a say in who the next ruler is. Even if the players do successfully replace the monarch with a particularly charismatic outsider, that's not going to last forever. I mean, an extraplanar being is simply not going to understand everything that would be common knowledge to someone from this plane, and no matter how charismatic they are, eventually they will slip up and make people suspicious and then it's only a matter of time.
Personally, I would be inclined to let them get away with it for a while, because it's kind of funny, but ensure that this is a temporary state of affairs and there will be repercussions when the ruse is eventually unraveled. I would advise more capitalizing on the party's inevitable trepidation about the likely outcome of being implicated in what is basically high treason, than actually punishing them harshly. "So-and-so is the Wizard who replaced our monarch with a puppet" is the sort of thing that's going to make you unpopular with the masses, though.
|
|
My question is about "The current ruler's slot is vacant after the ruler player had to leave the game due to other commitments.". I understand that players sometimes have to leave games, but that the player leaves does not necessarily mean that the character they played pops out of existence. They will clearly shift to the background, but they still exist in the setting unless written out.
So what I would say is that unless you already wrote the former ruler out of the story, you should resist doing so. Being in charge is a good gig, and people throughout history have not readily wanted to give it up.
So the observations I would make is that the character who has been the ruler won't step down just because they're no longer piloted by a player (unless that behavior would be really out of character, maybe) and if they do step down, it's not like the PCs are the only people who have a say in who the next ruler is. Even if the players do successfully replace the monarch with a particularly charismatic outsider, that's not going to last forever. I mean, an extraplanar being is simply not going to understand everything that would be common knowledge to someone from this plane, and no matter how charismatic they are, eventually they will slip up and make people suspicious and then it's only a matter of time.
Personally, I would be inclined to let them get away with it for a while, because it's kind of funny, but ensure that this is a temporary state of affairs and there will be repercussions when the ruse is eventually unraveled.
The previous ruler has indeed been written out of the story. There may be a mission to save him one day, but that would have to be story for another time.
|
It sounds kind of fun to me. Maybe give the NPC a bit more personality now. Or make her just a mouthpiece for the PC's. They set some general guidelines and she rules in their absence or something.
I really think you should let your players do this. It'd add a memorable piece to your campaign, make your city stand out even more and make for extra room to develop plots as rumors of the azata's true form start to surface.
Honestly, all you have to lose here is the chance to let your players do something fun.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they insist then let them make the reluctant familiar king, just remind them that is *is* an NPC and thus you decide what it does, not them, if they still go ahead... let the new king start to make the decisions *it* thinks are best. Sure it listens to the council of the players but really, it has to accept responsibility for the choices so it does whatever it believes is needed. See how long they like that ;)
More sensibly, if the player has been captured or such as you imply, surely his familiar would want to go and try to find a way to rescue him not hang around telling humans how to behave? Have the familiar go off to find its master and should the player return you have a ready built method to deliver the info as the familiar comes back for their help.
If they insist then let them make the reluctant familiar king, just remind them that is *is* an NPC and thus you decide what it does, not them, if they still go ahead... let the new king start to make the decisions *it* thinks are best. Sure it listens to the council of the players but really, it has to accept responsibility for the choices so it does whatever it believes is needed. See how long they like that ;)
If you're going to passive-aggressively punish your players for entrusting a good aligned outsider with governance then you should probably just not allow this at all
|
|
If you're going to passive-aggressively punish your players for entrusting a good aligned outsider with governance then you should probably just not allow this at all
No need for melodrama, if the players specifically decide to place an NPC and an Outsider on the throne of a mortal kingdom after being made aware exactly what this entails then I think them dealing with the desires of an entirely different type of creature could lead to some excellent roleplay.
If they insist then let them make the reluctant familiar king, just remind them that is *is* an NPC and thus you decide what it does, not them, if they still go ahead... let the new king start to make the decisions *it* thinks are best. Sure it listens to the council of the players but really, it has to accept responsibility for the choices so it does whatever it believes is needed. See how long they like that ;)If you're going to passive-aggressively punish your players for entrusting a good aligned outsider with governance then you should probably just not allow this at all
"Things don't go exactly as the players intended them to go because NPCs have agency and make decisions that are in keeping with their values and perspective, and aren't simply beholden to the will of the PCs" is not punishing the players. If anything, the game is less fun if everything goes as planned.
|
|
The Familiar (or any other NPC for that matter) having their own egos and are not just mindless creations is one of the matters that I will remind the players about, when they finalize their decision.
I don't like to misinform players.
@Arachnofiend, I also do not punish players for their decisions. Some actions however do have reactions in the story and the players will have to live with the outcomes of their actions.
As others have mentioned, NPCs are people in the story and not the mindless slaves of PCs.
If NPCs playing their roles = passive-aggressively punish the PCs, then what is the point of the story at all?
Why not have all NPCs just give up, roll over and become the slaves of the PCs?
By the way...
Is "Making a Puppet Ruler" a bad or good action?
Cos that term has been spoken, typed out and traded around the party for quite a while.
Just want to know if you think such an action has any consequences on alignment?
Its definitely a decidedly chaotic action (since it disregards protocol for filling a vacant spot in government instead just doing what the players deem expedient or beneficial), but I don't think it's necessarily a priori good or evil.
|
|
By the way...
Is "Making a Puppet Ruler" a bad or good action?
Cos that term has been spoken, typed out and traded around the party for quite a while.
Just want to know if you think such an action has any consequences on alignment?
It really depends a huge amount on *why* they feel that's a good idea and what their motivations for it are, if it's so they can be insulated from unpopular actions like raising taxes and say, "It was that guy, I'm not to blame!" or to keep them safe from assassins who go after the NPC instead, etc then it's very definitely selfish and possibly evil depending on how Machiavellian they're being about it all.
If they're doing it because they truly believe that the kingdom will suffer great harm otherwise and it is in the best interest of the people, probably not evil, especially not if they would *like* to rule but are choosing not to for in character reasons (because they have a low Cha score is very definitely not an in character reason ;)).
Is there any reason why the lyrakaen has to lie/disguise to rule? I mean, why would anyone have a problem with a servant of Desna being in charge?
A puppet ruler wouldn't get to add its Charisma mod to everything.
|
|
Is there any reason why the lyrakaen has to lie/disguise to rule? I mean, why would anyone have a problem with a servant of Desna being in charge?
This is what the party said they were planning to do.
As far as GMing is concern, there may be political and unfortunately racial reasons for a Lyrakien azata to take over.
1) She isn't on the current or past government. She is effectively a stranger to everyone. (Which the party may or may not want to disguise her further into someone specific; like the past ruler.)
2) Lyrakien azatas are tiny... which makes it like... Think the story Peter Pan... would the lost boys follow Tinkerbell instead of Peter Pan?
3) The charter for founding a new country is given to them by a human nation (which is also their main trading partner)
4) Their nation has a human majority and most of those are simple country folk from the river kingdoms.
Yes, it IS kinda racist, but I got to keep it real. Their kingdom is not founded in Heaven.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, reading up on Azatas... I can't see the creature ever agreeing.
As much as they seek to spread the cause of freedom and joy, azatas realize that they cannot enforce such virtues throughout the multiverse. Without darkness there can be no light, and without struggle there can be no victory. Understanding this, these celestials remain removed from the majority of mortal conflicts, preferring to act as advisors in such situations rather than champions, granting goodly mortals ownership over their own triumphs.
It seems to go against the creatures nature to serve as a ruler and as an Outsider the Azata is incredibly strongly bound to act as it's nature dictates.
A puppet ruler wouldn't get to add its Charisma mod to everything.
I like this idea; that the familiar isn't an especially good ruler as long as the Wizard keeps a tight leash. If the Wizard wants to let the familiar to rule to the best of its ability, it kind of has to let it be something other than a puppet, in which case it probably won't do exactly what the Wizard would prefer it do. Let the party decide how much they value competency versus control.
I mean, the fluff explicitly states "these bonds [with the extraplanar being] never come without strings attached" which more or less points to how the relationship between the Pact Wizard and the familiar is a two way street, and the two might not see eye-to-eye on everything (it's simply a mutually beneficial arrangement).
One thing that would be helpful to know is what sort of personality does the familiar have? It's not a mundane animal that got uplifted to something more through a relationship with the Wizard, it's a being that was already intelligent with thoughts, feelings, goals, dreams etc. that entered a bargain with the Wizard. If it's not yet much of a character, it's time to make it more of one.
I didn't see it anywhere in your posts, but a Hat of Disguise can only change your appearance up to 12", so how tall is the familiar's wizard?
Other than that, sure. Why not! Plenty of reasons cited above from a variety of different angles. I would only do it as a temporary measure as it is best to have a player be the ruler.
I refuse to read this thread. The answer is fantastic idea.
Well if they have a kingdom why don't they find a new Ruler (puppet ruler) in their kindgom. I'm sure there could be an NPC with a high Charisma and one that could be persauded to live a life of wealth and secruity in exhange for being nothing more then a figurehead.
It would require an adventure to find them, earning the stat bonuses and the potential is always there for the figurehead to rebel which is another good way to keep it from just being a stat bonus for them and be forgotten.
I'd say let them do it, if only to have an excuse to test the bonds between the wizard and the familiar. I can't imagine it'd be easy on either of them, since the wizard would have to leave her familiar behind, and the azata would have to fill a role she doesn't feel comfortable with. But it'd be an interesting story element, wouldn't it?
Going on Caligula, Judge Caligula had Judge Fish has head chief so it could work. Sherrif Hamster!
I think the AP recommends a PC occupying the ruler position.
Thanks for the update.