|
For good reasons, within my campaign, lines are currently being drawn and there may be an attempt to overthrow the ruler of the PC's kingdom or, at least, get him to abdicate. This gets interesting because the coup is being led by a PC (at least one, at this point). He has good reasons. One other PC hasn't declared a side but I think he would join the coup. The last PC seems to be waiting to see what causes the least damage to the kingdom, as a whole - but hopes it doesn't involve abdication or overthrowing the current ruler.
This isn't a PvP problem, at all. Its a well thought out and developed plot line created by the players. The ruler knew there was something about his PC what would upset the Paladin. The player incorporated it into his PC specifically for that reason, not to upset the Paladin's player but to create the plot (well.. maybe to get a little rise out of him but mostly for the story). Both players are ok with it even if their characters might not be (a benefit of my players having 20+ years of experience playing together).
So... has anyone had a civil war in their PC's kingdom?
Has anyone had more than one PC kingdom in their campaign?
The logistics behind the game, going forward, look really weird if they do split. The only path I might try to put them on is one where they become a confederated nation of some sort - the two act as one kingdom for most things but there are lines (political, moral, ethical, etc.) that each kingdom is free to develop individually.
I might be jumping the gun. They might work this out peacefully... but I'm still interested in being prepared.
tl;dr - How would you handle there being more than one PC ruled kingdom in your Kingmaker campaign?
I've tried to come up with some advice, but I run into a problem. I'm having trouble picturing any scenario where the PCs divide into two separate kingdoms, but continue traveling together as one adventuring party. Because if they're no longer a single adventuring party, then one of the PCs would be out of the campaign regardless, wouldn't they?
If they're willing to work together as adventurers, then surely there's some way to keep the kingdom intact.
Can you supply a bit more information about what is driving the conflict? Also, it would help to know if the two PCs have groups loyal to their separate interests - are there larger groups that would push for separate kingdoms?
I agree with Cintra, most APs assume ONE party and Civil Wars rarely are, civil that is.
I'm curious, what is there about the ruler that would cause a Paladin to potentially start a civil war that is not pvp? And if it is that strong, how could they have ever adventured together in the first place?
|
|
Sure... As vague as the rails might have been in the sandbox, we've left them fairly far behind. My players didn't like the exploration side of the AP's so I replaced all that with a bit more drama and let them hire NPC's to do exploration and report back interesting sites they might find. It takes longer to explore, reduces their loot, etc. but those are compensable.
The ruler is a bard named Lucandro. His player decided that, somewhere after level 6 or so, he would be headed into Dragon Disciple.
I wasn't sure how the normal folk would react to their ruler starting to mutate into something other than what he started as. Its a fantasy world so maybe they'd be more forgiving but there are a lot of extenuating circumstances that make this sort of thing just not good. Defintely working against the PCs is the fact that the kingdom is only a few years old. Its not like this is happening to a leader whose bloodline has ruled the lands for generations on end and the kingdom's subjects have enjoyed prosperous generations of history under their rule. This is a nation of hodge-podge immigrants with barely developed patriotism. Most of the people just turned out of Brevoy to avoid THAT political chaos. So... it just doesn't seem like it would sit very well at all. There's more than just this but this is the foundation that everything else sits upon.
Lucandro has the ability to fix it... with the rest of the Council's support, of course. Initially, at least, things would get difficult and it would take work and nothing's guaranteed. As it turned out, there was something of a harbinger to the difficulties ahead when Reincarnation was almost involved. Everyone looked at the chart and felt that certain results were just unacceptable for a character in any of the leadership roles.
The paladin feels very strongly that the population simply won't accept it and that forcing it upon them would cause too much damage. The Gyronna cult in our campaign is more than just a nuisance so there's already been some attacks on the community's psyche. This would be another blow and he feels it would be too much. To make matters more interesting, the Paladin is Lucandro's cousin. Lucandro was adopted by a noble of House Orlovsky, the Paladin *is* a noble (3rd born son, nothing to inherit) of House Orlovsky... the Paladin has a bit of a stick lodged where it comes to how nobles should act, etc., as well.
The Paladin prefers that his cousin recognizes the situation and abdicates. I'm sure that Lucandro wants his puncher's chance. The Paladin's player has already let me know which NPC's he would be approaching for support if the excrement makes forceful contact with the oscillator. One PC is undeclared. The other is likely to side with Lucandro...
And yes, it would be hard to get them to adventure together. That's why I would guide them toward the confederation idea. If they act as joined nations, just with their own governments, then there's still hope for things to be able to continue.
|
|
I agree with Cintra, most APs assume ONE party and Civil Wars rarely are, civil that is.
I'm curious, what is there about the ruler that would cause a Paladin to potentially start a civil war that is not pvp? And if it is that strong, how could they have ever adventured together in the first place?
I didn't mean that this wasn't PvP... just that the overall problem wasn't really about the player conflict. I can think of DOZENS of ways that the whole situation is resolved without conflict. So that's not the issue. The issue is what happens if, by one of those methods, we don't have a single, happy kingdom any more.
IMHO this is a magical fantasy world and the people have just immigrated into a frontier situation so everything is new and unusual. I would think an unusual ruler, like a bard/DD, would be more acceptable, not less. Just my opinion.
|
|
IMHO this is a magical fantasy world and the people have just immigrated into a frontier situation so everything is new and unusual. I would think an unusual ruler, like a bard/DD, would be more acceptable, not less. Just my opinion.
Yeah... we're free to disagree. That's not really what the question is. Seeing as we disagree, putting that aside, what's next? The reasons notwithstanding, there's a possible schism in my PC's kingdom. How might that be handled?
"The paladin feels very strongly that the population simply won't accept it and that forcing it upon them would cause too much damage."
Frankly, I would ask the Paladin to justify this. Is it based on some real facts he has at hand, or just his "feeling"? Has he (or anyone else in the party) tried using Divination, Augury and/or Commune spells to ascertain if the Paladin's 'feeling' is justifiable? What 'damage' does the Paladin feel will be done to the Kingdom?
Triggering a potential civil war (and the potential loss of life involved) just because the Paladin feels a certain way isn't exactly Paladin-like, IMO - it is very much *selfish*. He appears to be setting himself up to champion the people's cause - but I see nothing that confirms his cause is actually "just" or that "the people" want/need that championing.
A few divination queries SHOULD be the group's next step - and from there the DM can decide whether or not the Paladin's position is correct, or not. A responsible Paladin would have a host of facts/divinations at the ready to back up his position. Anything less would be rather less than lawful, I think, and put his Paladinhood in jeopardy. Triggering a civil war on what I see are flimsy pretexts is a sure "loss of Paladinhood" move in my books.
|
"The paladin feels very strongly that the population simply won't accept it and that forcing it upon them would cause too much damage."
Frankly, I would ask the Paladin to justify this. Is it based on some real facts he has at hand, or just his "feeling"? Has he (or anyone else in the party) tried using Divination, Augury and/or Commune spells to ascertain if the Paladin's 'feeling' is justifiable? What 'damage' does the Paladin feel will be done to the Kingdom?
Triggering a potential civil war (and the potential loss of life involved) just because the Paladin feels a certain way isn't exactly Paladin-like, IMO - it is very much *selfish*. He appears to be setting himself up to champion the people's cause - but I see nothing that confirms his cause is actually "just" or that "the people" want/need that championing.
A few divination queries SHOULD be the group's next step - and from there the DM can decide whether or not the Paladin's position is correct, or not. A responsible Paladin would have a host of facts/divinations at the ready to back up his position. Anything less would be rather less than lawful, I think, and put his Paladinhood in jeopardy. Triggering a civil war on what I see are flimsy pretexts is a sure "loss of Paladinhood" move in my books. Seriously! If the bard has been an acceptable leader thus far, why would the paladin allow his opinion wrack the kingdom. I think this is very 'chaotic' behavior. It sounds like he just wants to be king and is making a very flimsy reason to make it happen. It definitely is unlawful!
I might also add that having someone morph into a Dragon Disciple is probably not as jarring to immigrants from Brevoy as you might think. After all, Choral the Conquerer and his draconic allies have a pivotal place in Brevic history, and ruled that country for 200 years.
I honestly think that a sorcerer dragon disciple is not as far fetched OR as unusual to the common folk as you indicate - with 200 years of House Rogarvia history in Brevoy as a backdrop.
Lucandro choosing to become a DD might play into that (for better or worse), especially if he goes with a Red Dragon for his bloodline, OR goes with a silver or gold choice instead to show how much better the new "heirs to Choral's legacy" can be. And how would the Paladin react to that then?
I'll agree with PJ above also - the Bard has been acceptable to the population thus far. Until there is ACTUAL UNREST generated by the Bard's choice of becoming a Dragon Disciple (and the physical changes don't really start to add up until a few levels in), I don't think the Paladin has a leg to stand on, when it comes to justifying his position.
Now, as a suggested alternative - and one that my group may eventually go with: Each player will eventually "run" his own city. The group rules the Kingdom as a whole, adventures together, etc, but each player manages one of the cities as they see fit (they probably split up BP's in an equitable way for each city to use/develop and contribute collectively to the defense/armies). The Paladin could have his little LG community, and Bard the capital, etc... Even the other players get a community to "play with" too (eg/everyone wins).
That option would allow for theoretical confederation WITHOUT the detrimental side effect of having two smaller, less capable, Kingdoms that will face some challenges in the future modules and may be less able to do so.
|
|
I'll agree with PJ above also - the Bard has been acceptable to the population thus far. Until there is ACTUAL UNREST generated by the Bard's choice of becoming a Dragon Disciple (and the physical changes don't really start to add up until a few levels in), I don't think the Paladin has a leg to stand on, when it comes to justifying his position.
Now, as a suggested alternative - and one that my group may eventually go with: Each player will eventually "run" his own city. The group rules the Kingdom as a whole, adventures together, etc, but each player manages one of the cities as they see fit (they probably split up BP's in an equitable way for each city to use/develop and contribute collectively to the defense/armies). The Paladin could have his little LG community, and Bard the capital, etc... Even the other players get a community to "play with" too (eg/everyone wins).
That option would allow for theoretical confederation WITHOUT the detrimental side effect of having two smaller, less capable, Kingdoms that will face some challenges in the future modules and may be less able to do so. Having to share BPs is going to be tough especially in the beginning. BPs being at a premium.
|
|
Now, as a suggested alternative - and one that my group may eventually go with: Each player will eventually "run" his own city.
Thanks for the suggestion. I wouldn't push them toward it but its definitely something I'll let them know about if they get to that point.
Regarding all the opinions that the population should be more accepting or that the Paladin is out of line, etc. I understand your points of view. We've strayed far from the original plotline of the Kingmaker AP so I can see how no one could really know this.
The original plot is still out there but, in my campaign, that nuisance Gyronna cult is a major player in the destabilization of Brevoy. Right now, the focus is on the civil war in Brevoy which, unless somehow averted, is only a few months from starting in earnest (to some, the skirmishes already being fought are inficators that the war has already begun... but they aint seen nuthin yet).
A vampire anti-paladin servant of Gyronna is the BBEG at this stage of the campaign. She and her doppleganger assassin are causing trouble without directly engaging the PC's all to make them dependent on Restov only to have Restov cut ties due to the growing unrest in Brevoy. Being cut off led to the PC's ruler marrying a Varnhold leader to create a strong diplomatic tie between the two fledgling nations for mutual protection...then the the PC ruler, Lucandro's sudden metamophosis and, at the same time, a request from House Orlovsky, Lucandro's own family, that his kingdom be a distraction to Surtova once the war begins so Surtova will divert resources south...
Lots of intrigue, lots of roleplaying, lots of drama... so things like this potential schism aren't really distractions. They're a part of the campaign. I wholeheartedly imagine that, even if there is some kind of separation, it will only be temporary... but that'd be a plotline for further down the line.
If I could detail the whole campaign, it would take so long but, suffice it to say that this isn't something happening in a vacuum. There are other events that play into the Paladin's feelings about the population's reaction. In a nutshell, he's right and if he didn't have as much (correct) reason to suspect, I would certainly have told him so. You can't get much more unlawful than a coup against a Lawful Good government without there being a lot to justify it.
Sounds interesting. I love lots of political machinations and they can be a blast with a crew of players that you've been gaming with for a long time.
Given the hints, perhaps let Lucandro do what he plans, but as he "morphs" more and more into something less than human, perhaps Unrest points start to accrue - thus giving the Paladin the justification he needs. If the Paladin is on the right side of the equation (as you suggest he is), then, time for some changes!
Why I like "city" management (each player directs the growth of a city) - well, people unsettled by the current ruler can migrate to a city run by the Paladin. People not bothered by it can stay put. Because the "conflict" is relatively muted within the leadership of the nation, the party should still be able to justify adventuring together. Not unlike State/Local government vs Federal. Is City X leadership not to your liking, but you still value living in the country? Move to City Y, whose Lord is cut from a different cloth.
Then the group just has to share BP's month to month so that each city gets its fair share of growth.
My own KM campaign is also less and less "by the book" too - so, how much backstory ends up on a message board often dictates the discussions.
Cheers!
Okay, that explains a lot.
One thought that occurs to me is that a civil war in the PC's fledgeling kingdom really plays into the hands of the adventure path's BBEG. (This assumes you're still building toward the BBEG in the final volume, of course.) She might have some agents currently acting to increase the likelihood of civil war - and the PCs might be able to uncover evidence of this conspiracy.
If the PCs realize some unknown enemy is working so hard to destabilize their nation, it might at least encourage them to find a way to keep the nation intact when they resolve the issues you describe. It might also lead to questions regarding if that same mysterious adversary is encouraging the crisis in Brevoy.
If nothing else, a bloodless coup leading to a new leadership in the PC's nation would be far better (for your campaign's fun factor and for eventually defeating the BBEG)than two separate and grudge-holding nations.
|
|
One thought that occurs to me is that a civil war in the PC's fledgeling kingdom really plays into the hands of the adventure path's BBEG. (This assumes you're still building toward the BBEG in the final volume, of course.)
As far as the AP is concerned, the "official" plotline is still moving ahead (it isn't on a clock at this point so it'll wait for the PC's to get back to it).
My players HATED the exploration aspect of the AP as written so they've actually taken to hiring NPC's to do that for them. Much of the other filler stuff I'd created started as an exercise to keep them "at pace" so that major events didn't get too difficult if they fell behind the expected level of the adventure... but a few of those plot lines grew their own legs.
I assume they will get around to facing my custom BBEG but I won't script when or how. I just give the NPC motivations and methods and the PC's own actions determine how they might get involved or interact... either by reacting or preempting.
She might have some agents currently acting to increase the likelihood of civil war - and the PCs might be able to uncover evidence of this conspiracy.
She does... well... did. They found out a baker in town was a cultist. She had a few little cultlings with her.
Not long after, the girl was found murdered and the druid implicated. The anti-paladin had killed the girl but left clues pointing to the baker. The baker had run out of use to the anti-paladin and was about to get hung out to dry with just one more job: get an Amulet of Inescapable Detection, given to the baker, onto a ruling council member. The baker didn't have to live to accomplish it...
Once the PC's had followed the trail left for them, they went in to arrest the baker. Of course, there was a fight, though it wasn't much. They found the amulet in her loot (no questions as to why she wasn't wearing it...heheheh) and fell short of id'ing the curse. As luck would have it, its currently worn by Lucandro PURELY by the PC's choice ("Best we protect the Duke from scrying!")
I really couldn't have arranged this better if I tried. Who needs tracks??? The PC's are running their own railroad!
If the PCs realize some unknown enemy is working so hard to destabilize their nation, it might at least encourage them to find a way to keep the nation intact when they resolve the issues you describe. It might also lead to questions regarding if that same mysterious adversary is encouraging the crisis in Brevoy.
They're really right where she wants them at this point... but that's becoming tenuous.
She's been leaving them alone since getting the amulet into Lucandro's hands... or around his neck, as it were. Her fiendish servant was at the Duke's wedding (invisible, off on a wall, watching from a distance) just to keep an eye on things when Lucandro's physical change manifested... the player asked for that event to be dramatic. The servant had no clue what was going on and thought something was attacking Lucandro. It popped in to DEFEND him... of course, the PC's turned on it so it made a hasty exit but that only served to make them think that the cult was somehow behind Lucandro's physical change (the player had kept his class choice a secret... though they've since figured it out).
If nothing else, a bloodless coup leading to a new leadership in the PC's nation would be far better (for your campaign's fun factor and for eventually defeating the BBEG)than two separate and grudge-holding nations.
I agree. I really think that Lucandro will step down... perhaps temporarily. He'd hand the reigns off to his new bride.
My players are just showing up for tonight's game... thanks for giving me a chance to actually talk about this with someone!
|
|
I thought someone might be interested in an update...
I think the schism was avoided. Once the players had gotten together at our game session to discuss the situation, cooler heads prevailed. The Paladin, Vlad, still thinks the results will be bad but is willing to let Duke Lucandro have the chance to prove him wrong. Things got a little tense when it came to outlining the procedure for removing the ruler, or any other council member, from power.
There's a lot of other game-drama going on (good story and roleplaying drama.. not the kinda drama you'd get told to save for your mama).
Lucandro was asked, by his adopted father - taking Lucandro's change as a sign - to ally with him when he makes a move to oust Surtova from the throne in Brevoy next spring. The fact that the southern border of Brevoy is all but unprotected hasn't gone unnoticed by the visiting Orlovsky lord. He proposes that a feint, a strike that looks like it might be aimed toward Restov, might get Surtova to overreact and shift resources from where they would actually be needed giving Orlovsky and the allies he's secretly been gathering to strike. Th Council voted against involvement in the war and Lucandro has to go back to tell his father... who will be displeased, to say the least.
The Duchess is biding her time but she's unhappy with the Council in the PC's kingdom. She sees each Council meeting become arguments... plus...
And... the Magister resigned under accusations that she summoned (or is!) a demon... despite tons of logical reasons given by other PC's that she isn't, Lucandro went with his gut and tried to trap her in a lie then made the accusation in front of the Council.