Osoerde Plot

[Stephen White]

As the list is quite quiet, I'd thought I'd ask you guys about the
following:


Here's an overview of the plot for an adventure I've been thinking about
working on for my new Aerwenwean-based campaign.

Does it seem plausible?


*** Osoerde Plot Overview ***
(Quotes from Ruins of Empire, p68)

Duke Jaison Raenech has usurped the throne and is heavily taxing the
populace whilst "building castles along the kingdoms borders".

William Moergen, the rightful ruler, "attempts to build and army to
retake his throne".

"The Duke has proven to canny to fall into Moergen's traps - almost as
if the usurper knew of them in advance."


**********

Now, my premise is that William is in fact evil (I don't use PC
alignment in my campaigns, but these can be easily covered with magic of
trickery). William plotted with Jaison to help kill his father and for
Jaison to take over the kingdom. Each alone could not assassinate the
king, and William has the perfect alibi to cover his treacherous deed.
The two are working on the following plan:

Duke Jaison will tax the populace into rebellion, but getting a lot of
revenue from it. He is spending the money on raising armies and
fortifying the country, as well as stockpiling GBs.

Once the country goes into rebellion, William will lead a successful
revolt and retake his Kingdom. Jaison will escape with a large portion
of the stockpiled GBs.

The benefits of this plan are:
Jaison wins a fortune in GBs for a fresh start wherever he wishes with
his own warband.
William wins a fortified kingdom, a large pool of GBs, and a large
standing army. He also has an incredibly loyal country, which he can tax
heavily to "repair the damage done to the country by the evil Duke
Jaison".

Just think how my players will feel when, after having helped William
retake his throne (assuming they do), they realise how much they have
been duped by an evil neighbour with lots of money, troops, and castles!

I'm having trouble working on an incentive for Jaison to stick to the
plan. Don't forget that William would have been very young and naïve
when he discussed this with his father's loyal lieutenant.

Jaison does seem to be fulfilling his side of the plan, though. Perhaps
Jaison has a plan for after he leaves Osoerde. Any ideas?


Yours,


Stephen.

[Olesens]

I like it. Unexpeted stuff like that is important in holding players intrest.
Perhaps you get the PCs a little farther on Moergen's side and they actually
attack Duke Jaison beifly. Scarring him in the battle of course. Then he'll
have a bone to pick with the PCs and can reappear to ruin/hurt the PCs
adventure (permently seal the cave with all the riches in it) and occasionally
confront them alone or as the bad guy's ally. Then maybe William can lend the
PCs a hand with Jaison (after all, the PCs did help him and he hasn't been
*that* evil so the PCs should be willing to accept his help) maybe by issuing a
bounty on Jaison's head. Then Jaison gets mad at William and there is a civil
war in Osoerde. The PCs could then step in as peacekeepers (Should they feel
so inclined) and install themselves as the good regent (if they want to) or
find someone who will be regent and isn't evil, kinda like the Chaimberlain's
job but they're looking for a Duke not an Emperor. Hope that sparks some
ideas.

Stephen White wrote:

> As the list is quite quiet, I'd thought I'd ask you guys about the
> following:
>
> Here's an overview of the plot for an adventure I've been thinking about
> working on for my new Aerwenwean-based campaign.
>
> Does it seem plausible?
>
> *** Osoerde Plot Overview ***
> (Quotes from Ruins of Empire, p68)
>
> Duke Jaison Raenech has usurped the throne and is heavily taxing the
> populace whilst "building castles along the kingdoms borders".
>
> William Moergen, the rightful ruler, "attempts to build and army to
> retake his throne".
>
> "The Duke has proven to canny to fall into Moergen's traps - almost as
> if the usurper knew of them in advance."
>
> **********
>
> Now, my premise is that William is in fact evil (I don't use PC
> alignment in my campaigns, but these can be easily covered with magic of
> trickery). William plotted with Jaison to help kill his father and for
> Jaison to take over the kingdom. Each alone could not assassinate the
> king, and William has the perfect alibi to cover his treacherous deed.
> The two are working on the following plan:
>
> Duke Jaison will tax the populace into rebellion, but getting a lot of
> revenue from it. He is spending the money on raising armies and
> fortifying the country, as well as stockpiling GBs.
>
> Once the country goes into rebellion, William will lead a successful
> revolt and retake his Kingdom. Jaison will escape with a large portion
> of the stockpiled GBs.
>
> The benefits of this plan are:
> Jaison wins a fortune in GBs for a fresh start wherever he wishes with
> his own warband.
> William wins a fortified kingdom, a large pool of GBs, and a large
> standing army. He also has an incredibly loyal country, which he can tax
> heavily to "repair the damage done to the country by the evil Duke
> Jaison".
>
> Just think how my players will feel when, after having helped William
> retake his throne (assuming they do), they realise how much they have
> been duped by an evil neighbour with lots of money, troops, and castles!
>
> I'm having trouble working on an incentive for Jaison to stick to the
> plan. Don't forget that William would have been very young and naïve
> when he discussed this with his father's loyal lieutenant.
>
> Jaison does seem to be fulfilling his side of the plan, though. Perhaps
> Jaison has a plan for after he leaves Osoerde. Any ideas?
>
> Yours,
>
> Stephen.
> ************************************************** *************************
> > 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.

[WILLELA@aol.co]

Maybe I'm just too simple a guy, but conning the PCs to follow a [evil]
leader doesn't thrill me. [Granted, it happens all the time in real life,
but in fantasy we can at least pretend there are good leaders.]
In fairness to the players, you should give them some hints about what
is going on.
Lurker Above
willela@aol.com

[Alaric]

WILLELA@aol.com wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm just too simple a guy, but conning the PCs to follow a [evil]
> leader doesn't thrill me. [Granted, it happens all the time in real life,
> but in fantasy we can at least pretend there are good leaders.]
> In fairness to the players, you should give them some hints about what
> is going on.
> Lurker Above
> willela@aol.com
>

Not that I've got any room to talk, since I had my PCs follow an evil
leader player, but I would say that usually it's in the DM's best
interest to give the players plenty of clues that they couldn't possibly
figure out short of a spark of insight bordering on genius; that way all
the DM's plans come to fruition and the players get the satisfaction of
being almost honestly tricked (honestly, they seem to not mind being led
if it makes a good story, at least IMC, even with my power hungry
constantly complaining players)...you know the scenario: "Ah, we should
have seen X and Y that showed us that our glorious leader was indeed an
evil bastard, but we were blinded by the shiny objects he thrust in our
faces (insert proper X, Y, and shiny object). Dunno, just my opinion.
Thx,
Alaric

[Stephen White]

In message , Complete Systems
writes
>Now that's tasty :~)
Thank you.
>
> Perhaps Jaison had always felt that the regent was
>weak-willed and saw in William the ruler he had always wanted to follow.
>Perhaps a short while after William takes the throne, Jaison returns as his
>adviser - constantly cloaked and hooded for disguise.
Use loyalty as a reason. A nice idea.

> Perhaps Jaison is
>actually unblooded, contrary to RoE and is actually William's lieutenant,
>playing a role.
Having a useless memory, I was trying not to contradict with anything in
the official Birthright line. Could Jaison really have pulled it off,
ruling as a lieutenant? (limited actions, RP expenditure, etc.?)

> The latter could perhaps involve the two swamp mages being one
>and the same person (there's one for the conspiracy fans) - it's amazing how
>much power you can accumulate by appearing to be two separate competing
>entities.
I hadn't worked out the Swamp Mages' part in the plot. This would be a
great idea, as he would be working for "both sides" (as there is only
one side).

Of course, otherwise the Second Swamp Mage could be in for a bit of a
shock when he helps William get his country back. (Goes to the PCs for
help?)

> There is also the possibility that Jaison is the good guy, saw the evil son
>assassinate the father, was framed for it, but still manages to save the
>country (most of it) from the evil William.
Interesting, but how could Jaison's later actions be explained?
>
> May your players be ever chasing their tails in an attempt to watch their own
>back :~>
I suppose its my job to give them tails and get them chasing :-).
>
>Regards,
>
>Doyle
>
>************************************************** *************************
>>- --
Stephen White

[Stephen White]

Thanks for the comments. I did write "assuming they do" in my
description of the plot, referring to the characters helping William.

I was going to work in a few hints but if they don't bother
investigating and take everything at face value, they will find
themselves helping someone who will surprise them later.

To reiterate, I take great pains to keep my bias out of the game and
"conning" the players is something I would hate to think I do. NPCs
conning *characters*, however, is another matter, and should be expected
(especially in a Birthright game!).

As a GM, I will break with realism to provide a reasonable chance of the
players finding out what is going on before it is too late.

Again, thanks for the comments.

In message , WILLELA@aol.com writes
>Maybe I'm just too simple a guy, but conning the PCs to follow a [evil]
>leader doesn't thrill me. [Granted, it happens all the time in real life,
>but in fantasy we can at least pretend there are good leaders.]
> In fairness to the players, you should give them some hints about what
>is going on.
> Lurker Above
> willela@aol.com
>************************************************** *************************
>>- --
Stephen White

[Tim Nutting]

Not too sure how much of a break in realism it is. Most of the time those
who are evil leave some pretty obvious examples lying around, especially
when they think they are being sneaky. The problem is we just don't like to
point out other folks flaws because it means we have to address those same
flaws in ourselves. It's more comfortable to ignore the responsibility and
put aside the morality because it demands we have self control...

Off my soapbox...

Been away for a while, but this plot is great. I had worked one up myself,
except in my plot I actually did have William a good guy, with the PCs being
the leading/controlling members of the roving mercenary band he hires to
help him with the kingdom back.

I had intended to continue the plot by giving the players the incredible
dilemma of having William be tremendously charismatic, but a horribly inept
ruler, having none of the spirit for the tough choices of rule that a
Machiavellian world demands. (In my worlds, paladins have a hard time
ruling outside the monastary)

Until the Shadow World claims us all

Tim Nutting
zero@wiredweb.com

To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Pieter Sleijpen]

Tim Nutting wrote:
>
> >
>
> Not too sure how much of a break in realism it is. Most of the time those
> who are evil leave some pretty obvious examples lying around, especially
> when they think they are being sneaky. The problem is we just don't like to
> point out other folks flaws because it means we have to address those same
> flaws in ourselves. It's more comfortable to ignore the responsibility and
> put aside the morality because it demands we have self control...
>

I don't see the reason why evil characters would be easily regocnisable
as being evil? Stupid evil persons will not live long (in fact stupid
people don't live long when they are regents, unless they are so stupid
that everybody can use them for their own ends).To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Ben]

> Tim Nutting wrote:
> >
> > players finding out what is going on before it is too late.>>
> >
> > Not too sure how much of a break in realism it is. Most of the time
those
> > who are evil leave some pretty obvious examples lying around, especially
> > when they think they are being sneaky. The problem is we just don't
like to
> > point out other folks flaws because it means we have to address those
same
> > flaws in ourselves. It's more comfortable to ignore the responsibility
and
> > put aside the morality because it demands we have self control...
> >
>
> I don't see the reason why evil characters would be easily regocnisable
> as being evil? Stupid evil persons will not live long (in fact stupid
> people don't live long when they are regents, unless they are so stupid
> that everybody can use them for their own ends).

The most sneaky and evil bad guy I can think of is Senator Palpatine.
Nobody caught on to him until it was way too late...
Make the bad guys look like Mother Theresa until they spring the trap is
what I say!

To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Pieter Sleijpen]

Ben wrote:
>
> > Tim Nutting wrote:
> > >
> > > > > players finding out what is going on before it is too late.>>
> > >
> > > Not too sure how much of a break in realism it is. Most of the time
> those
> > > who are evil leave some pretty obvious examples lying around, especially
> > > when they think they are being sneaky. The problem is we just don't
> like to
> > > point out other folks flaws because it means we have to address those
> same
> > > flaws in ourselves. It's more comfortable to ignore the responsibility
> and
> > > put aside the morality because it demands we have self control...
> > >
> >
> > I don't see the reason why evil characters would be easily regocnisable
> > as being evil? Stupid evil persons will not live long (in fact stupid
> > people don't live long when they are regents, unless they are so stupid
> > that everybody can use them for their own ends).
>
> The most sneaky and evil bad guy I can think of is Senator Palpatine.
> Nobody caught on to him until it was way too late...
> Make the bad guys look like Mother Theresa until they spring the trap is
> what I say!

Ah, but by now you know him as sneaky and evil (I never heard of him).
The most evil sneaky guys, you will never hear about.

Pieter SleijpenTo unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[geeman]

Pieter Sleijpen wrote:

> I don't see the reason why evil characters would be easily regocnisable
> as being evil? Stupid evil persons will not live long (in fact stupid
> people don't live long when they are regents, unless they are so stupid
> that everybody can use them for their own ends).

In AD&D evil is not just a morality judgement, it is a palpable force. If it
wasn't then how could it be detected, protected against or dispelled? Granted,
relatively few people have the ability to detect evil, but for those who do it is
a pretty definable concept. Paladins and spellcasters who can use Detect Evil can
simply sense it about a person or an object. This ability isn't foolproof, of
course, but it still makes discovering who is naughty and who is nice quite a bit
easier than in our world (or the Star Wars univers, for that matter.)

Gary
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line

[Pieter Sleijpen]

GeeMan wrote:

> In AD&D evil is not just a morality judgement, it is a palpable force. If it
> wasn't then how could it be detected, protected against or dispelled? Granted,
> relatively few people have the ability to detect evil, but for those who do it is
> a pretty definable concept. Paladins and spellcasters who can use Detect Evil can
> simply sense it about a person or an object. This ability isn't foolproof, of
> course, but it still makes discovering who is naughty and who is nice quite a bit
> easier than in our world (or the Star Wars univers, for that matter.)
>

Detect evil is not very full proof, now is it? You can only detect those
of purest evil (in my campaign only those who have sold their "souls" to
some outer plannar being or those plannar beings) or those with a direct
evil intent towards the creature casting the spell "detect evil". If an
evil regent is using the PC's to reach some goal and does not plan to do
kill or otherwise directly harm the PC's, then that would hardly
register. Not to mention that there are quite a few low level spells
that can fool those spells. My players have learned the hard way not to
trust on such spells, but to mainly use their own eyes and brains. Even
though they still concider it a usefull guide (I am not the type of DM
that let it be wrong most of the time or unusable).

The protection from evil spell is somewhat more difficult, but it's
effects or not readilly apparent except in the case of magical
creatures. Dispel evil works against clearly supernatural beings, and
not specificly against the common evil thug or villain.

Since I prefer normal humans as villains, who most of the time or not
deeply evil, most of the time only selfish and powerhungry, these spells
do not affect my campaign that much. They are useful against undead and
the horrors from the Shadow World, but as of yet no major villain has
used those forces against them.To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line