That's what I mean - we are all equally ignorant.
>I agree with Joerg. The detail of the Politics is best left vague so
>that individuals can tailor the specifics to their campaigns tastes.
Sure, my intention is to outline the structure so that the GM can take what they want and get ideas. We know there are conflicts between different Lunar factions - this is a broad picture of why.
>Here is the technique I used for politics in my Whitewall game (no
>rocket science here folks, so excuse if I am teaching granny to suck
>eggs) With my campaign I listed out the known characters and then
>thought up conflicts between those characters that I could insinuate
>player characters into. Most of this was extrapolted from stuff that
>had been in Tradetalk, Wyrms Footprints, conversations at cons, on
>the net, private email discussions and anything I thought would make
>a darn good yarn.
This is a lot easier to do with the Orlanthi. There's more published about them and their politics are pretty simple - it's all about personal loyalties and disagreements. With the Lunars I want to set out the base - major characters and what drives them and the organisations they head.
>I then set some scenario's (thanks Bruce, Jane) against this backdrop
>of seige and hotbed of scheming politics. This resulted in one of the
>players being thrust forward as leader of Whitewall when Broyan was
>incapacitated following the defeat of the Crimson Bat by Kallyr
>Starbrow outmanouvering her foes.
>
>As you can see Starbrow was a heroic character in our camapign. She
>may be a force for evil in other peoples. Flavour to taste.
Yes, there should always be scope for emphasising the hero or the anti-hero aspects of an NPC. Tatius could be depicted either as a ruthless schemer with no care for anyone, a man dedicated to improving the Empire and the people living there or anything in between.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail