War for the Crown with DM Vayelan

Game Master vayelan

I was thinking about sending Greenly a message asking if they would like to rejoin the game.
Would there be any objection?

I say yes!

As a GM, I never allow players that significantly ghosted a game back unless it was for a medical emergency or similar. I GM too much to have patience for that stuff anymore.

As a player though, I would happy to have Greenly back.

It's your call, GM, but I think we have enough players as is. No ill-wishes to Photine or Greenly, I just think that having too many players can limit the game's potential. Not only does it require the GM to invest more time into keeping the game challenging, but it's also harder to bring a group into agreement. If we're needing to manage anything like in Kingmaker or Hell's Rebels, having more players could really slow it down.

That being said, I don't know how this adventure plays out, and I trust your decisions.

As a new player my opinion is not as useful here, but I'll go with the majority. Whatever that ends up being. I will note that larger groups tend to bog down play and create holes in the game as people wait for them to respond/act. As long as you are not afraid of those things (or are willing to act for those who cannot) then its fine.

In the end either way is fine by me as long as we can continue.

Thank you for your feedback.

After thinking it over, even though Greenly was a great character and player, I've decided it would not be best to invite her back right now. We have a full party of great characters, helmed by great players, so it would not be fair to take away from that by letting the group get too large.

I think that's a solid decision.

Dro'gan, do you want to play the guy with the gavel that shouts Order in the Court! Order! and then introduce the defendant and list all their crimes?
Otherwise I could do it.

Are we going for vote majority like a jury, or should only Chana and Amandine have final say. Where does Bartolo fit in this, since he's of noble blood, but he has no claim over this land?

I think we should probably present it as a joint Chana-Amandine decision to the town, but in private we should give everyone in the party a vote on the verdict.

A SECRET COUNCIL?!?!?!

I like it.

I was hoping to remain in the background for now...trying to dig up the truth.

I think usually it works like this: Oldest 'family-person' makes the decision, or can designate someone else in the family to do it for them. Council can be given, taken, or ignored at their whim. However, they are usually the one with the responsibility too and anything that results from that decision. The point of nobility IS dictatorship in the end. NOTE: A 'Benevolent' Dictatorship is still a dictatorship. So who is oldest? Chana or Amandine?

Better its Amandine, I think!

I find it amusing that two of the people who'd had to suffer through the decisions of nobility are now the ones who get to make the decisions.

Irony has many faces.

Is this trial written already simulated, or should we design it ourselves? I want an opportunity for the charged to defend themselves, and the commoners get a bit of a sight to see.

How far is our home from Stachys? We could hold court in the manor. Otherwise I guess it would be in Pisscum's (what a name) tavern?

How I'm seeing it:

Step 1: Chana and Amandine are seated at the head. Commoners either stand or are seated along the walls.

Step 2: Bartolo addresses the crowd, and the nobles. Make a show of it.

Step 3: Olivia enters with prisoner in manacles.

Step 4: Bartolo or Olivia lists the prisoner's crimes, then gives the prisoner an opportunity to defend themselves or ask for forgiveness.

Step 4.1: We could even have the crowd give their opinion with boos or cheers. Dro'gan might be able to influence here.

Step 5: Recess. The prisoner is guarded while the nobles consult their advisors.

Step 6: Chana and Amandine deliver the sentence

Your home is only about a 10-15 minute walk from Stachys.

The AP does not provide a layout for the trial. It simply describes the crimes, the accused's defense, details that turn up during investigation, and the results of different potential verdicts.

Thus, you are free the design the trial how you would like. Even if the commoners may resent the nobility, they are resigned to the fact that they determine how such affairs are carried out.

Since we can take this however we want to do it, then do we want to drag this out for the fun of it (I used to watch all the Law and Order shows all the time) or do we make it quick, make a decision, and move on?

All I ask is that we talk to the prisoner and see what she says in her own defense. If you want Dro'gan to do that, I can, but I still feel a female (nobility or not) will get more from her than a male. But that's just a gut feeling that could be wrong. If nothing else the prisoner should have an advocate (lawyer) appointed, even if it is just a lay-person filling in the role. Can't have people say we didn't give her the benefit of a defense.

What say you all? Lady Vernisant has presented a nice format we can use/add to if needed.

NOTE: Building an official 'city hall' eventually probably wouldn't hurt either. Appointing a local sheriff to handle the local problems too is another on the to-do list probably?

I think Onora's name comes from 'fish' or 'pisces'. But I may have been immature enough to laugh.

I mean, her defending herself is a part of the trial we've discussed above. Bartolo would love nothing more than to make a show, since it's important that we do look at least a bit official, but he's pretty serious in doing things right once they fall on his plate.

I don't think we oughta leave that to the crowd and their approval, since that's pretty bad long term, and we wouldn't want to become Galt.

I think we should stick to Olivia's 9 point plan, but we should talk to her, first and foremost, prior to the whole affair. If stuff starts to become less obvious as time goes on, we'll decide it from there.

Agreed, we should first talk to her to see her angle on things. Then, rather than a trial, this is more of a public hearing. We can bring everyone together at our manor and get everyone's complaints and perspectives. Then Amandine and Chana can drop a crowd-pleasing judgement. Basically Olivia's plan sounds good to me.

Hey everybody,

I'm sorry for going missing on you. It's been a very hectic couple of weeks. At work we had two back to back short notice and short deadline extra projects added on top of our regular work. With what free time I've had I really needed to do other things than sit in front of a computer yet more.

Things should be getting back to normal now, and I'll be catching up on reading up to date on posts and posting myself. Within a day or two I should be all caught up and back in the flow.

Welcome back. I don't think you missed much. We've been debating about what to do a fair bit.

To clarify for Dro'gan and Bartolo, the Persona system tracks the PCs' reputation in six areas (Charm, Genius, Heroism, Sacrifice, Sagacity, and Subterfuge). As their reputation increases, they attract "agents" that can be sent out on various operations - such as gathering information, creating distractions, or filtering rumors.

While this system does not replace the Leadership feat, the AP does offer a variant on the feat called Coalition Leader. This variant feat still provides a cohort, and it lets you use your highest persona facet rank in place of your Charisma modifier to determine your Leadership score. You do not gain followers, although it does grant a free use of the "recover agents" operation during each persona phase.

Well Sacrifice and Subterfuge would be Dro'gan's better reputations in most prospects.

Are we starting with 'clean slate' here since we came in late to the game?

GAME NOTE: I'm not trying to draw this out. I'm just having fun role-playing...and I think I've been slightly damaged since I started binge-watching Hannibal the TV series.

Dro'gan is not a Sociopath or Psychopath, but...he's not far. His devotion to Taldor is really all he has and keeps him sane. The question will be in the end: What will Taldor BE after all this is over? Better or worse? Will he care as long as it still stands?

Anyway...On to the trial! I don't envy your decisions here ladies!

I'll be honest, Dro'gan's plan is basically something the evil villain of a scenario would think up. Its textbook Lawful Evil, grooming and shaping someone into serving you like a lapdog within an established legal system. I think there's no place for a sociopath in our generally altruistic group.

He's a spy trying to collect assets. Nothing more. He has no intention of a 'lapdog' status. Just forced community service really without someone there to monitor her actions constantly. If she were to ally with us eventually it would be her decision, hopefully based upon doing good deeds , patriotism, and similar altruist reasons. Nothing forced or groomed is intended. What do you think 'rehabilitation' is? This is merely occupational rehabilitation. In the end it might not work or help her at all. But at least there's a chance it might. This kind of rehabilitation seeks to assist both offenders and society. By treating offenders, they hope to give them the attitudes and skills to avoid crime and live a productive life.

Dro'gan's plan is very much within the standard spycraft playbook for recruiting assets, and we are spies.

Amandine has already done arguably worse. She ran a honeypot entrapment and blackmail scheme to put a senator under her thumb. He will vote and speak as she tells him to or suffer the consequences. He's not even a voluntary or willing asset.

Touche'

=)

I as a player am A-Okay with any decision. I'm playing a flawed character.

It's so much more fun, isn't it?

=)

As a player, I find it in very bad taste and definitely not the kind of game I want to play in. Since it looks like I'm the only one that feels that way, I'm going to go ahead and bow out of this game.

Thanks all for the gaming thus far and I hope you guys enjoy the rest of the AP!

Ouch. My intention was never to alienate anyone. Chana has history here. I would rather quit than deny her the game for any reason.

Well...when I went to bed early to get enough rest for an early day at work, I wasn't expecting to wake up to this.

If the matter of punishment for Mag's crime is such a divisive issue, we do not need to roleplay the specifics.

We can say Mag spent two weeks helping with farm renovations, under the supervision of an NPC bailiff hired as part of the investment cost of improving the farms. After that, she will likely slink away to hide out and nurse her wounded pride. We can thus leave that as the end of Lucinia Mag's story as far as the party is concerned.

Mag was the catalyst, but I don't think dissolving the scene changes the cause.

I'm attempting to speak for Chana, so take this with at least one grain of salt.
The problem is that Chana saw this game as a group of good-hearted, non-corrupt heroes combating the corrupt establishment, and found that several of the party members were playing characters who believed that the ends justify the means. When she found out that the majority were either in favour or indifferent to unscrupulous actions, she figured she could no longer play an altruistic character, felt alienated, and left. It would be a similar feeling to playing a pacifist character in the midst of murderhobos.

I don't believe skipping Mag's scene is going to change much. I think it will only delay the inevitable: What actions are we, as a party, going to use to reclaim authority in Taldor? What tactics are deemed too immoral and unethical that we would never use them, even if it meant failing our objective? How do we ensure that we do not become the enemies that we seek to destroy? Chana took the stance that the ends do not justify the means, that morality and ethics are crucial in that we are not just protagonists, but heroes in this adventure. Others have not.

I am playing a character that is trying to uphold morality and ethics, but also has serious bias and hypocrisy. She is willing to gradually bend her oath for the "greater good", and thus presents an opportunity for a tragic fall. As a player, I do not care what happens as long as the story reflects our actions. If we choose dishonourable actions to achieve our success, I expect there to be consequences. If we choose to maintain our honour and dignity, then I expect there to be different consequences. But, if we all make very different choices, I do think someone is going to be dissatisfied, especially if they lose the vote of majority frequently.

Well...whatever happens I never meant any offense. The game is supposed to be fun, not upsetting. I was just trying to play my character concept as best as I could. Since the game is mainly about politics and intrigue I assumed that was what was called for. Maybe I went to far. I don't know.

Me, the player, was also thinking of a similar concept to Dro'gan, but that'd not be anything remotely close to what Bartolo would think of doing. He's not disinterested with the idea of punishment, but he'd be the first to admit that he's not got the mind of a statesman, and besides, he's not the noble of these lands.

I do like the moral dilemmas one needs to do to do spycraft, though. Especially if we do have those dilemmas voiced in character!

I do like facing the moral dilemmas as well. It can often be the biggest difference between roll-playing and role-playing to me really especially at my age.

I could have just taken the Leadership feat (or the facsimile) later and gotten a cohort from it, but ROLE-PLAYING a potential cohort was...more fun to me. The methods were beside the point, just a possible means to that end, but I never thought it would upset anyone.

Thanks Olivia. I'm very surprised by all this. I didn't even realize we were having an argument about anything.

I thought we were fundamentally on the same page, if not exactly at the same place on it, on the subject of how to approach playing the AP. From the very beginning I created Amandine to be underhanded and manipulative. She's not exactly a terrible person, but she's hardly heroic in the standard mold.

I was taking my cues from the Player's Guide sections on character tips and alignment, which sets the WftC to be a morally gray adventure. My understanding has been that's what this AP exists for. It's less a struggle between good and evil than one over what direction Taldor will take. WftC seems to me the closest thing to an alignment-free AP Paizo has ever published.

It's contents actively encourage an "ends justifies the means" philosophy within some boundaries. The Senate missions given out my Martella are a grab bag of low blows and dirty tricks. We were given a box of toxin doses to erase memories along with a syringe by our boss on the way to Meratt. The boundaries are more about avoiding unneeded violence than being upstanding or forthright. We've never been anywhere or done anything on assignment that didn't involve deception in presenting ourselves as something other than we are at a minimum.

To me at least that's very much part of the appeal of this AP. I can play heroic characters of various kinds in lots of adventure paths. In this one I can play someone who is fundamentally good, but also terribly compromised.

I feel bad about it if Chana was wanting something different, more heroic characters who lead by example. But I don't see how that needle can be threaded given what we're asked to do. Declaring ourselves and being straight shooters would lead to failure. We have to manage the balancing act and do what we can. I sincerely believe that is not my opinion, but an underlying design element of WftC just as much as one can't really play Skulls and Shackles if one doesn't want to be a pirate.

When I originally did S&S I played a 1/2 orc LN monk pirate. People kept asking me how I could be a pirate and LN at the same time.

For my guy it was about loyalty to his ship and crew-mates, the pirate codes, and revenge against the main antagonist of the AP. He never broke a pirate law or dishonored his word to anyone.

Alignments are great pen and paper guidelines, but each character itself...you have to ask WHY they would do such things? Where do they come from?

That's what I did with Dro'gan. He's LN, and a spy: Dedicated to the IDEALS of Taldor, but understanding he has to work on the edges of breaking the law constantly (and breaking people) to protect it well enough for the greater good.

He's not sadistic or evil, although I can definitely see where some people would see him as possibly such.

I would prefer to keep playing, but as I said I'm more than willing to step out if she wants to come back.

I actually first interpreted this game as something like a Hell's Rebels 2.0: Lawful edition. Protest, chivalry, inspire, help the downtrodden, manage laws, convince nobles, eventually end up at the head of an army and charge into battle.

When we started working underhanded, I was forced to adapt Olivia into something that outwardly resembled a knight in shining armour, but inwardly was more like an inquisitor. She's still bound by the paladin Oath, but we'll see how lenient Iomedae is feeling.

I have plenty of character ideas if things go south, and as a player I don't mind one bit.

If y'all can stand a Star Wars analogy, WftC isn't like either set of the trilogy movies. It's like Rogue One. We're not Luke and Lia, we're Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor. Although hopefully there won't be so much dying at the conclusion. :p

I didn't see it, though I heard it was very good. Technically the ending was written back during "A New Hope".
"Many... *insert species name* died to bring us this information" or something to those effects.

The point is (I think) that this is meant for bards, rogues, investigators, inquisitors, sneaky smart charismatic people. Not overt paladins or brutish barbarians. Subtlety is key. Adaptable morality is key. The conversation revolving around "the greater good" is key.

Am I on the right track there, Amandine?

Oh! you should check out Rogue One Olivia! It was really good! Yes, it's the immediate prequel to A New Hope.

I mean yeah, that's the way I see it. The list of classes you give are the ones I'd consider obvious go-to choices. But I don't think any classes would need to be excluded. Anything could work with some creative or flexible thinking.

The couple of passages below from the Player's Guide were key for me when I was thinking about character creation.

"At its core, War for the Crown is a campaign for people who want to fix a broken system, not take it over for their own gain or tear it all down in bloody revolt. This difficult course means learning to blend in among those whose rule you seek to undermine, rather than upturning their world and starting from scratch. It means compromise and subterfuge and keeping up the appearance of loyalty to various despicable sorts even as you work behind the scenes to undermine them."

"The characters in War for the Crown fight on behalf of a neutral good candidate, and while their purpose is to get their hands dirty on her behalf, characters with good or neutral alignments will have an easier time navigating challenges and achieving goals. Lawful characters shouldn’t feel beholden to tradition, as the laws of succession end up in uncharted territory as War for the Crown begins, while chaotic characters should take some solace that Eutropia’s long-running goals include overturning corrupt and unfair systems for the betterment of all."

I guess to complete the Star Wars analogy, Hell's Rebels tracks more with the trilogies. It's an uprising or revolt against an external occupier. The PCs and their crews are partisans or La Résistance. The setup is closer to asymmetrical warfare and encourages "strike and hide" strategies. A direct confrontation between two clear sides is taking place.

WftC has no such clear lines drawn. It's a "strike and mingle" campaign.

I see how that makes sense now. Yes I definitely interpreted it differently when I first read it. It screams 'undercover cop'. I originally thought it just meant 'don't be evil, don't be chaotic neutral'.

Yeah 'undercover cop' is a perfect way of thinking about it in my opinion.

I also highly recommend Rogue One.

...

On to more serious matters, after some private conversations, it seems that we will be continuing without Chana. She has been a great character, and her player will be missed, but they need to do what they feel is best for them.

Despite this unfortunate turn, I hope that we can continue to have fun and tell a good story with this AP.

Yes, Farewell.

I am ready to continue. Do we require a new character to join us? I see some potential niches that could be explored, but role-wise I think we are reasonably equipped.

OK..moving on then.

Still...the last thing I wanted was to be a catalyst for someone quitting a game. It's against my nature to rub people the wrong way if I can help it.

Wasn't there someone recently who wanted to try and step back in? If we need another person, could we see if they still want to come back?

I'm sad Chana has left. She was really great to have in the game.

I guess it's my turn to post so I'll get things moving again.

Now I get the documentary video you suggested. That makes more sense now.

Yeah, the AP gives no information about Lucinia Mag's background. It describes her as a violent drunk and petty criminal with a long history of trouble with the law. It doesn't provide any reason why, beyond implying that she's just a bad seed.

I took a little time to think about how to develop the character further, and drew some inspiration from the McElroy story.

Wasn't there someone recently who wanted to try and step back in? If we need another person, could we see if they still want to come back?

Since the situation has changed, should I contact Greenly about rejoining the game?