So my party has been making some odd friends, and they're keen on putting them into positions of power. Next session will start with the establishment of their kingdom, and I'm a little torn on how to handle some of their NPC leaders.
It's worth noting that the party is almost entirely evil (the one exception being the oracle, who started as neutral good but I've ruled has shifted to chaotic good based on his actions). Aside from the fact that they're probably going to kill Bokken for not helping them fight a shambling mound that attacked them at his hut, they haven't really done anything particularly evil (other than try to build up a power base...which is kind of the point of the campaign anyway).
So they're evil, but it mostly has manifested in their attempts to recruit everyone they run across.
They befriended the grig and the faerie dragon, although it hasn't occurred to them to look into their stats as NPC leaders, though mostly because they don't seem interested in the affairs of the "bigginses." Same goes for the Boggard, whom they actually took to Jhod to cure his mangled limb. They recruited Kressle right out of the gate, who was the only surviving bandit from the first battle or the Thorn River Camp (and thus I used as the source of all the info against the Stag Lord). They got Chief Sootscale to swear fealty to them, and likely would have kept Tartuk around (they liked the nefariousness of his plans) were he not already suicidal.
They recruited Howl-of-the-North-Wind before they even got to the Stag Lord's fort (I just filled in the entire Greenbelt, since it looked like they might explore some of the hexes from RRR before going to face the Stag Lord. Literally the main thing they wanted to know from their Knowledge: Nature rolls was, "Is it sentient?" and then they just started talking/rolling diplomacy. The summoner in the party has a pretty high diplomacy modifier, and a trait allowing rerolls if he misses by more than five. Even starting at Hostile, they've managed to roll/role-play their way to some improbable allies.
They befriended Auchs before the battle (while dressed as bandits), used Kressle to get to Akiros and befriend him, and after killing the Stag Lord, they're trying their hardest to recruit his dad (although they don't know that he's the Stag Lord's father).
Anytime they discover that the NPC is cruel and vicious, that's precisely whom they want to recruit.
And really, all that is fine for me. Frankly, they're offering power to people/sentient beings who would likely be willing to accept it. But things like having Auchs be the General, Howl-of-the-North-Wind as the Royal Assassin, and a sadistic old man they found naked in a cellar be Marshal seem a little ridiculous.
I don't want to arbitrarily say that evil cannot cooperate, because that's dumb, but I'd like some good ideas for complications (above and beyond the event rules). The reality is that the party hasn't been capricious, only meting out death to those who (by law) have earned it, or who refused to join them. Nugrah the Decrepit is a good example. After defeating him, they healed him (back to 0 HP, as it turns out), and he used stone shape to retreat into a cocoon of stone (and fall to -1 HP and stabilize there), but they just dug him back out, tied him up, and healed him some more. They have been wholly unsuccessful in their attempts to intimidate him, Charm Person him, and have only slightly moved the meter from Hostile with Diplomacy. But they've told him the Stag Lord is dead (and he doesn't seem like he'd mostly be relieved his son is dead), and they're offering him a chance at a real life (and power) again. Who could turn that down? It seems really dumb to have a second guy turn down the offer because he really just wants to die (Tartuk being the first).
So what should I do (knowing that I am not going to make it unworkably hard to have these guys as leaders)? I don't want to negate the fact that my players really are putting in both the role-playing and skill use to recruit these guys. It's a lot of effort (especially for them), and it makes sense. But still, I'm thinking maybe increasing the DC of any negative events that roll up. I'll definitely have some NPCs refuse to work with others as leaders (but it doesn't look like they're going for any of the standard ones like Oleg or Svetlana anyway, so I'm not sure they'll even notice). Obviously when Grigori shows up, he'll have a field day, although knowing my group, they'll just spin it as him being intolerant of other races like kobolds and worgs and kill him to promote unity within their society. I'm not sure Nugrah will be able to stay loyal, but we'll see.
|
The biggest and most crippling complication would be the opinions of the swordlords in Restov. This isn’t happening in a vacuum. The PCs are not building a kingdom on their own, especially at the beginning. Kingmaker relies heavily on big-time patronage from Restov to start up and in terms of initial advice and whatnot. Absent that, it’s a pretty big poop-storm out there.
The original charter specifically said to hang or kill bandits. Maybe you convince the swordlords that all those bandits saw the error of their ways. Maybe. But a worg? Some of these others?
You want complications, here is a big one. :D
On one hand, what's the complaint? It sounds like an awesome and clever group, and they've clearly put in the effort. I'm a big believer in not punishing people who are out for diplomacy and alliance, even if it's a rather weird one that they're making. I see the cutscene among the Swordlords where one of the bosses starts asking "who choose these guys? Was anyone vetting whom we sent out on these missions? Do I have to do all the work around here?"
However, the difference I see in terms of good vs. evil leadership and control is that evil is better when the going's good; it tends to fall apart swiftly when things turn south. So long as the going's good, it will just be a quirky (actually, a particularly open-minded) sort of kingdom.
Actually, as an aside, that could be one of the challenges. A One-Of-Everything sort of leadership is going to tend to draw lots of everything, presuming that they've found a fellow soul and place where they can meet with acceptance. You know, bandits think that, since there are bandits in the power hierarchy, bandtry has the imprimatur, threatening trade and potentially leading to war with other nations, much less what some of the more monsterous forces might think.
But, in evil, self-interest is king. Any weakness shown by the actual king, or any turmoil or difficulty that the land faces, may be looked upon by the advisors more as opportunity for advancement. So it's less increased unrest, and more difficulty when those rolls fail.
To my thinking, the law/chaos spectrum has a much greater effect on the long-term feasibility of leaders. Chaotic NPCs as rulers might claim to uphold the same values as the PC leaders, but they're far more likely to waver, to pursue their own agendas, or simply just stir things up for the hell of it.
My PCs have also made some odd choices, and some of them have already blown up in their faces. They recruited Kressle (NE) as spymaster, but she's more interested in keeping her own skin intact than gathering information. Akiros (CN) is their marshal, and he's out there reaping all sorts of problems in the wilderness.
On the other hand, they made Kesten Garess the warden. He's listed as CN, but his proximity to the (lawful) PCs helped to sway him slowly towards law, and he is now LN (except when he's drunk).
Rico, part of the reason your PCs are recruiting all these weirdos is the relative shortage of normals in the campaign. If you're concerned about Nugrah's role as marshal, then introduce a new NPC (someone of your own design, if necessary) who better fits the bill. Your PCs might still favour Nugrah...but then, Nugrah might get squished by trolls on his first day on the job, too. :)
Get the River Kingdomes sourcebook... your campaign sounds like you are building a River Kingdome. And they are just next door. They are kingdomes that are build by and fore Neutral and Evil self serving Kings and they attract all kinds of citizenry and trade. So Kobolds, Orcs, Half Orcs, Half Elves, Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halflings, People trying to make a new life, people trying to escape their past, bandits, pirates, crusaders, robin hoods, Hobgoblins, assassins, goblins, ogres, ogrekins, could all conceivably live in town :)
Interesting game. Seems there have been quite a few who follow the evil path attempting Kingmaker, if you follow these threads. Some of them have ended in disasters, for predictable reasons. If people are really roleplaying evil (as opposed to just being evil in alignment because they believe that allows them to do whatever they want with no consequences, which is what I see more commonly), Kingmaker will be very challenging for them.
Remember that this is a kingdom being formed by immigrants. Why would immigrants come to join a wilderness kingdom with known and obviously evil rulers? I can see that might be attractive to certain people like the criminal element, but those aren't really the kinds of people that make a kingdom grow. For that you need shopkeepers, farmers, miners, craftsmen, etc. Those people tend to want stability and benevolent governments. Players actively being evil probably can't/won't provide that.
Also, humanoids tend to be most comfortable around their own kind, so aren't likely to appreciate/follow monstrous leaders. On the other hand, it might attract monsters to join your kingdom.
And neighboring kingdoms will be uneasy with an obviously evil kingdom arising on their borders, particularly if it is led or populated with "monsters".
+1