Providing a Good Argument for the Brotherhood of Bones (possible spoilers)

[Aishama]

Hello all who have run or are currently running Crimson Throne:

I am about to start running the revised AP in a few weeks. I have already ran this adventure before, though in the old 3.5 version, and while I'm fine with most things, there is one aspect that I'm worried about. Namely, the Brotherhood of Bones.

It's a long story, but the short version is that the first time I ran this AP, the party was very "detect evil, kill it if it's evil, ask no questions and ponder no consequences." So, when the party encountered Laori at Salvatore Scream's house, they immediately attacked her. I barely even got the words Zon-Kuthon out of my mouth before they were on her. I never got the chance to introduce her "character" (that she's a bubbly, happy masochist - much fun could have been had!). Any time she so much as came near the party, they went at her like rabid dogs.

So, needless to say, I pretty much backed off on everything related to her, as well as the later Ally/Enemy angle in Scarwall (I later had Sial approach the party by himself; things went more civilly since the main problem player had left, but the party still wanted nothing to do with him. I kinda' just quietly removed him from the scene and handwaved the whole encounter as being a weird non-sequitur.) Clearly, my previous party had no taste for "enemy of my enemy" situations.

Fast forward several years to now. This is an entirely different group, one that has a better handle on roleplaying and being open to alliances with NPCs. However, I predict that at least one of our players will have a problem allying with evil - not so much for the sake of "Kill all evil," but more for the fact that he tends to play very justice-oriented characters and is unlikely to find much value in the Brotherhood's reasoning for an alliance.

SO, I want to make absolutely sure I do my best to give the Brotherhood a good argument for working together. Ultimately if the PCs decide not to work with them, that's fine - but since this was a prior failure for me, I want to give it my best shot this time, so that it's at least the party's decision to not work together, and not me failing to explain myself properly.

From what I understand, the Brotherhood's argument for wanting the Crown of Fangs is because they want to collect the relics of Kazavon for themselves, in order to keep Kazavon from being resurrected because the church of Zon-Kuthon/the country of Nidal considers Kazavon a dangerous zealot who will draw a lot of unwanted attention to the faith. They might even hate Kazavon just as much or more than the PCs do, given the political ramifications to Nidal (and their faith as a whole) should he ever return.

So, my questions are:

1.) Is this interpretation of their desires correct? Is there anything else I can add that might make it more believable for appealing to PCs? (I'm considering having them be okay with the relic's destruction instead of recovery, though I'm not sure if the Brotherhood is actually okay with that?)

2.) How honest are they with sharing that goal? Should I have them make up a lie instead first, and only reveal their true motivation after some prodding?

3.) For those of you who successfully got your parties to work with the Brotherhood, is there anything in particular that you think helped facilitate that?

Thanks for any input you may have. Again, I'm okay with the party not allying with this group if they ultimately don't want to. I just want to make sure I give it my best.

[Nicolbolas Cage]

1) That pretty much hits the nail on the head. Kazavon built himself up to be a tasty target for all the crusader types, and for the most part did more harm than good to the greater faith of Zon-Kuthon. That's not to say that he didn't have Z-K's favor; he certainly did, but many living Kuthites feel that painting a giant "crusade me" sign on your back is a quick way to get part of the faith wiped out.

2) Laori and Sial are fairly honest with the players. At the start of chapter 5 there's a mention that they've been sending promising, yet inaccurate reports back to the Brotherhood. They don't want the BoB to learn about the Crown of Fangs until they have it in their hands, because otherwise the BoB might send a strike force in. Laori and Sial are interested primarily in the glory that would come with recovering the Crown themselves. They absolutely would try to assuage the fears of PCs, who will likely suspect that the evil characters will inevitably backstab them. In fact, the pair of Kuthites legitimately want to work with the PCs towards the same goal, and make sure the Crown never falls into the wrong hands again.

3) I'm just about to wrap up chapter 4 with my group, but I anticipate my party accepting their offer. They already enjoyed Laori's company in chapter 3 (in part due to nobody in the group having Knowledge: Religion, and thus nobody knowing who or what Zon-Kuthon was), and have a penchant for making deals with unsavory characters to achieve their goals (Devargo, "Glorio"). The best way to make your PCs trust NPCs is to not portray them as overtly nefarious. Laori is a happy-go-lucky elf who just happens to like giving enemies hugs of death, and keeps her torturous sadomasochism mostly to herself. Sial's a grumpy old man who wants those damn kids to get off his lawn, who just so happens to be a high ranking worshipper of the Midnight Lord. Both of these NPCs are out to save Korvosa as their primary goal, and they should try to convince PCs of this.

Hope this helps.

[NobodysHome]

Nicolbolas makes a lot of good points, but the one that got the parties to accept Laori and Sial in both my campaigns is that Zon Kuthon is a Lawful[i] Evil diety, and both Laori and Sial (by my recollection) are [i]Lawful Evil. They'll keep their word, and they will not out-and-out lie to achieve their goal, though they may obfuscate the truth through careful word choice.

This made a HUGE difference in the first campaign, which had a paladin of Iomedae in the party. He got Laori to stop practicing any form of cruelty to others for as long as she was with the party (leading to absolutely lovely roleplaying as she took out all her frustrations on herself, forcing him to lay hands on her with some frequency), to swear that she was indeed not attempting to bring Kazavon back, etc., etc. The only way she survived our first group was her Lawfulness (or at least her god's, and her willingness to swear to things in his name).

The second campaign was a lot easier because the party is borderline neutral-evil anyway, but again the Good-aligned party members were assuaged by knowledge that Zon Kuthon was Lawful.

So starting off with a lie and then coming forth with the truth later? Not a good approach, in my experience.

[CorvusMask]

I think it also helps if players realize that followers of same god can have different opinion about what the god wants without god rejecting either of them.

Like, none of churches in pathfinder are unanimous, you can see that in Crimson Throne with Abadarans who want to help people instead of asking for payment first and clearly Abadar doesn't dock their cleric powers for that reason even though its not according to their teachings.

(And later on when they meet that nightshade in scarwall, you can get another interpretation of what ZK wants: soul of his champion not being used as tool by petty queen.)