Chapter 2 - Problems with NPC rulers

[Papa-DRB]

Near the middle of Chapter 1 the group consisted of a Paladin, Wizard, Druid, Ranger and DM NPC Cleric (player requested!), and into Chapter 2. The Paladin became the Baron, Cleric the Councilor, the others and the NPCs as appropriate and all was well.

As the Paladin was a widower before the campaign started, I wove a thread into the campaign where the sister of Maegar Varn was an ambassador to the PCs barony and the Baron wooed her and they are getting married, and the two Baronies have set up friendly relations, which eventually will lead into Chapter 3 when a trade caravan reports that Varnhold is empty except for monsters.

Now the problems.

Problem 1: The player of the Paladin had to leave the group, so the Baron and Baroness-to-be are both NPCs.

Problem 2: I rolled an assassination attempt, and rolled randomly against the rulers and dang if it didn't end up with the Baron.

Now it it is successful, I know the rest of the players and they will be very suspicious of the Baroness-to-be and perhaps break off the alliance with Varn and throw the Baroness-to-be out of the kingdom unless there is a *very* obvious clue that it wasn't her.

If it is not successful, I still have Problem 1, ie. two NPCs leading the Barony.

Any suggestions, thoughts, etc? Should I "fudge" the roll one way or the other? Help!?

-- david
Papa.DRB

[James B. Cline]

Have her grief stricken npc self jump from the castle. Tragic... . or have her remarry one of the PCs.

[M P 433]

The assassin could murder both. The designers wrote it so an NPC shouldn't be the ruler, so the assassination is a proper mechanism to get things back in order.

Or, let it play out and see where the party's suspicions take them.

[Philip Knowsley]

...or, does any of it matter?...

By that - I mean that there's a huge potential for all sorts of things
to happen, is that necessarily bad? I don't think so. NPCs can be rulers,
hence 'Kingdom in the Background'...just because 2 NPCs are in the main
power slots on the Council doesn' t mean you can't still have fun with it.
You can then maneuver all sorts of plot & have it come from them. Because
it's not one of the PCs you can introduce stuff you mightn't otherwise
get away with...

If you think it's going to be a real hassle, but still want the Baroness,
have the assassin carry a lock of green hair (hint, hint), or a device
of some other sort - e.g. Gyronna's holy symbol... Work the assassin in
with a recurring villain in your game, so that blame is shifted away
from the baroness...

Hope that helps. :)
Philip

[Fluff Master]

IMC we had an NPC ruler, yet as most of the rulers they are more "honorary" than executive, so the players in the other ruling position took most of the decisions.

[Diego Rossi]

Actually having a NPC as the head of the Barony could be positive. if he/she stay at home and mind the Barony affair while the PC are away minding the different adventures you can be more lenient on the time spent managing the kingdom and the maluses for the empty positions.

Having to spend 1 week out of 4 managing the kingdom can sometime tie up the PC. If the ruler and a few NPC members of the council are always there you can allow the PC to be late at the monthly council meetings without applying the full effect of a vacant seat in council.

About the problem with the probable reaction of the players, they really will be capable to oust the ruler so easily, without a trial?
It seem the perfect recipe for trouble in the kingdom, loss of support from Restov and other problems. Grigori will love it.

[3ntf4k3d]

No plan survives contact with the enemy.
And no plot survives contact with the PCs.

As for the fudge: It is really a question of what your group thinks about it.
I do fudge the dice from time to time, but mostly when it has not too much difference on the outcome anyway (e.g. the villain may strike one last non-lethal attack). But I wouldn't make the outcome of signicant events like an assassination dependend on a single die roll anyway.

My suggestions:

(1) Involve the players in the assassination attempt. Don't just say "news of the day: the baron is dead!". Try to stage the assassination at a place and time where the players have a chance to interact and influence the actual outcome.

(2) Think of a good reason WHY the assassination takes place. Such attempts happen for a good reason. That should also prevent your players from suspecting the future spouse of your baron as the primary plotter. I don't know why they would have to suspect her anyway, since she has the most to gain from being married to the paladin anyway. Best build a small sideplot around the assassination. Maybe something like the Girona-cult sidequest from RRR.

(3) If you still fear that your players will accuse the baroness, prepare to play out the confrontation (and, if that does not disperse their suspicion, the trial). If the baroness feels at least a bit of affection, she should be pretty devestated by the event - and the PCs should be able to notice the fact that she is not lying with sense motive checks.

(4) Should the PCs still insist to put her on trial, they should really come up with a good reason *why* the woman is guilty. The fact that someone is "not guilty until proven otherwise" is an old RL principle that dates back to the Romans, so I guess it should be a widespread principle in Golarion, too. Also expect that Varn will come to aid his sister and prove her innocence.

Should the PCs really convict the women without any reasonable proof, that decision should surely result in public unrest against their rule. Merchants who trade with Varnhold would protest against the judgement in fear or revenue loss if Varn should stop trading with the player's barony, any law-abiding clerics should be angry about the obvious arbitrariness and the common folk should sympathise with the bride that lost her future husband. If the PCs fabricate a proof, Varn should be smart enough to find out inconsistencies with his own investigation of the issue.

If the players really try to banish the woman without a trial, well, then they should better start a good propaganda campaign to either cover up the issue or fix their reputation. Barons have to abide to the law, and in that case you should decide if their barony is de-jure and de-facto part of Brevoy and if Brevoy's laws apply.

In any case, the unrest caused by such an outcome should not die down with a stability check during the next kingdom phase. Some actions should have long-term effects aside from actual unrest. In my campaign I created a "temporary modifier" for the kingdom stats, so if my players go down the tyranny route to solve their problems, loyality and stability start to deteriorate until they fix their problems.

In addition, Varn should be quite displeased if the PCs convict or banish her sister, so that should cause severe damage to the relations between the two baronies.

(5) As for your "two NPC rulers" problem: A NPC ruler is not that bad. My campaign has the same problem : the paladin PC was the ruler and married an NPC (a human bard), but the player wanted to change his character, so his character was send to the world wound. With the paladin gone, his spouse is more or less ruler of the kingdom. But: That doesn't mean that she can reign like an absolute monarch. In order to keep a somewhat democratic approach that allowed each player to raise his voice, we decided that one player should be ruler, but that that he has mostly a representative function.

All important decisions are decided by a council with majority vote. The council consists of the most important positions in the realm:
(1) The ruler(s)
(2) The field marshal (high commander of the army)
(3) The chamberlain
(4) The magister (highest authority of the mages/arcane spellcasters)
(5) The high priest (highest authority of all clerics/divine spell casters)
(6) The grey eminence

In addition, once the kingdom is large enough, there will be a representative from the burgers, the church (probably replacing the high priest), the aristocrats (including all vassals) and the merchants.

The ruler has only a single vote, like every other member in the council, but if a vote should tie, he is allowed to resolve it as he pleases. You could also think about granting both ruler and his/her consort a vote, but only one of them is allowed to decide ties.

Maybe such a council would be an interesting idea for your players, too? It also has the advantage that new characters can easily work their way up in the council and become eligble voters. Should make PC death a bit less messy for the player.

[Papa-DRB]

Thank you all for the ideas. I need to come up with something, probably a minion of the troll leader, and have it be a bit public. The green hair ring will be a nice touch.

I have lots of things to think about now, and thanks especially for the thoughts on having two NPCs run the barony.

-- david
Papa.DRB
The site was down to me yesterday, so just saw this today.....

[Gethsemane]

Something I have been thinking of as I set up my own campaign is the inclusion of Skin Stealers that are introduced in the Carrion Crown Campaign path, they represent the Fey Assassins of the First World and could perhaps be linked to the BBEG.