[Dark Knight]

as you can tell from the title i am new at DMing but i do have some vets. in my group that can help me along. Right now i am starting a war campain where the PCs start as Mercs then slowoly as the game goes on become loyal to the king that hired them and become his knights. What i am looking for are some possible subplot ideas or tips on how i can make the game better. ty

[ladyofdragons]

hmm. How about a little more info? What type of war is being fought? Who is the enemy? Why are they fighting? How long have they been fighting? How close is peace? What type of king is he? Are there any other factions within the king's regime that might be in conflict? How about unrest within enemy ranks? Why are the PC's mercinaries? Are they in it solely for the money? Could they be bribed to the 'other side?'

Basically, if you can answer the above questions, you're starting to fill out the information necessary to make subplots. While it's not particularly a good thing to write out the campaign storyline in detail (your players will inevitably want to go another direction), the more background you know about the people involved, the more you'll know how to quickly react to situations and come up with details and subplots for the characters.

Be sure to continually ask yourself questions about your campaign. Explore the details and you'll be much happier with your campaign world, as will your players. Don't be afraid to ask your players their opinion of the why's and wherefores, they may have ideas that can spin you off into a whole new direction.

This is advice I learned from the greatest DM I've ever known, who continues even now after 7 years in his campaign world to surprise and delight me in-game because his mind is constantly thinking about his campaign world.

[Doomdreamer]

Also remember that when thinking of a Campaign, ANYTHING can be a sub-plot. If your PCs visit the same tavern over and over again, and the bar tender is in fact, a 5th level fighter/rogue/whatever, Why is the bartender this class. Why is this Bartender not adventuring or using his original trade. Take this Bartender thats a Level 5 Fighter, a very easy, sub-plot would be easy to introduce. Have him comment on a party members weapon like, "Thats a nice Battle Axe you got there. I bet its weighted just right to do some real damage. I used to carry a battle axe myself, named her old Fly swatter. Want to hear how she got the name?" Then make up a tale about the Dude fighting some Stirges and how he just couldn't miss them, and cleaved through the whole bunch of em. Soon, your PCs will not only have a very personable NPC to relate to, but then will ask why this man isn't adventuring anymore. This bartender could go on to say that he was in this dungeon, and they were looking for X item, and his party was overwhelmed. He could have even lost Old Fly Swatter in the dungeon running away. Easy sub-plot. The whole thing could last most of a session, easily help gather money and XP for a party, as well as the aquisition of Item X. After its done, there are no other side links and the PCs can go back to being Mercinaries, unless you want to tie it in.

Thats just one example of a side-plot, but remember, ANYTHING can be a side-plot. Have a favorite weapon store get robbed, and the rogues Short sword was stolen while it was being built, though the rogue even already paid. Have the party's cleric's church become engrossed in a ritual to banish a daemon and the cleric is needed as back up against the creatures it will summon. Latter on, the same daemon could come back, but on the side of the other army.

Those are some examples, but side-plots generaly are PC driven. If you flesh out the NPCs that are minor in the story, but are frequently interacted with by the party, side-plots become easier and easier. Try it out a couple times and you will see what I mean.

[Dark Knight]

Well to answer a couople of the questions you asked ladyofdragons i have 3 kingdoms that are on the same island and two of them are about to go to war, one is good and the other is evil. i plan to have the PCs go and try to have the third city join their side in a session that happens later on. Also i have made up a reoccuring enemy that will constantly be attacking or trying to trick the party. The war that is being set up hasn't started yet ... i decided to get the party right into the thick of the battle when it happens. i am still trying to decide if i am going to put the PCs on the side of good or evil. What i am thinking is that if i put them on the side of evil they will want to stay there... stupid 'lets kill everything attitude'.

I have also devised a ranking system that may add some intrest. What i did was have them roll 3d6 drop the lowest and /2 and that gives the rank. what the rank does is gives them money (one rank will give 100gp bi-weekly)

As for the "Are they in it solely for the money" i think that i will leave that up to then to decide ... who better? If they want to be bribed ...fine but they may end up fighting the other PCs that chose not to be bribed.

Doomdreamer do u mind if i use your idea almost exactly? i may just change the weapon around and make it the inn keeper but basicly the same.

[Doomdreamer]

No, go right ahead Dark Knight, consider anything I post on this website open to use. If I didn't want anyone to use the ideas, I wouldn't post it.

[Axel]

"evil" and "good"? excuse me? No one is every entirely one or the other. You need to flesh out the kingdom history. Why are they fighting? Who started the war? Whose the leader of the two nations? Why is the third neutral? What's different about them? What's the same?

[Dark Knight]

but if you read my last post you would have known that the war has not started and the way the war will start will be on the PCs shoulders. as for the usage of "good" and "evil" i am using those loosly ... don't mock my spelling... the good is a king of the people, one who only trys to do what is best for his people. while "evil" is one who thinks he should be ruler of the world.... kinda the USA against Canada in early history (look it up if u don't belive) ... he he he we won (Canada that is). The third kingdom is neutral b/c of how far off the battle line he is... basicly he doesn't know what's happening. As for the same and different parts i havn't thought of that so i will get on it right away

[Hob]

also on the "good" and "evil" subject that is part of what is attractive about fantasy role playing and the entire field of fantasy fiction.

In our every day lives good and evil may be hard to define, but we can read tolkien and know Sauron is Evil. King Arigorn is good.

Most every one inbetween has there shades of grey but it is nice ot have a corner of the my life where I can point and say "THIS IS THUS"

That is part of the fun of D&D to me. If it wern't so I could never hack an orc in good concious.

[Doomdreamer]

The seperation of what is good and evil is very defined and built in to the game statistics. I mean, there is a tangible statline where you write XGood, XEvil, or XNeutral on your sheet. There are people running around who can tell if you are good or evil. There are spells specificly targeting those who are and your only protection is ambevolance. (Neutrality anyone?) If you wish to have a more grey shading in your games, you may want to take out alignmen, or spells that target alignments and divine them. Otherwise, a king can have clerics roam around the country detecting evil and then smiting it. I mean honestly, if you rule a country, and evil is something you can detect, why not have a police force that hunts down evil people.

As for fleshing out your campaign, yes! But not exactly in the way most people are hounding you to do so. First, find out why they are fighting, and make it so odd, your players will be pissed at the countries for fighting. I mean seriously, look at why most wars are fought. Helen of Troy, just cause some pervet wanted some play, we had a Trojan war. Napolean Bonepart wanted to see the world, Rome wanted to make sure they were rembered, Sparta needed new slaves, China's many wars to lower the amount of angsty single men running around in their country because female children are drowned at birth so a family can have more sons (If you do not believe me, look it up, I would start with Amnesty International. Infantcide is all too common around the world).

The whole basis of why they countries are fighting will actualy drive what happens in the game. I would also flesh each side's commanders, even going so far as to sheet them and write a back story about them.

In anycase, happy gamming.

[Axel]

I consider alignment something very, very loose. Especially in reference to nations. How can you call an expansionist nation "evil" if part of their expansion involves building roads, schools, hospitals, colloseums, bringing law, order, security, culture? Would you say Rome was evil? They were conquerers, but the conquered nations were usually better off with the Romans than they were before.
You can't say "this nation is good, this is evil. so they fight." That doesn't capture anything. What happened before the war started? How did it start? Was the "good" nation completely blind to the mobilization of their foe, or did they have spies behind the lines? Was it a sneak attack, or could any idiot see that war was inevitable?
What of the neutrals? Do they have plans? Perhaps after the other nations desimate each other the third plans to conquer what's left?

oh btw, such a police force would constitute an evil act. it would be self contradictory. And evil very rarely considers itself so, no evil ruler would use such a force to route out good.

[Doomdreamer]

I don't know Axel, Paladins do it every day. You have to consider a world where evil and good are tangible. Destroying all evil is the goal of most Good gods, why can't the servants carry out a deity's wishes?

[Axel]

Because character and NPC alignment should not be considered in such a manner.
First, no evil person ever considers himself so. Do you really think Hitler thought he was wrong? The "good/evil" alignment applies much more to how much, or little, the character cares for the good of others. The Machiavellian ruler is the prime example of lawful/evil, but he works for the good of his nation. His ruthlessness is matched only by his loyalty.
Second, any "truly evil" being would be almost by deffinition supernatural. There should be no other reason for it to be detectable, Clerics cannot read a person's heart anymore than the person themself. True a paladin (or dark paladin) may, because of his single minded devotion and powers, be considered a supernatural being in his own right, but most people will not fall into this category. Most people believe they are good, at least most of the time, and really are very far from totally good or evil.
Third, you most also remember that everything has a reason. On a national scale wars do not simply happen. Even the meaningless squabbles of medieval princes had sparks. Something had to begin the fighting, and something has to be keeping the countries at war. "Good vs. evil" sounds good in progoganda, but you'll find both sides refer to themselves as good.

[Doomdreamer]

Axel, you are right, when you consider the persepective on a real world moral system. In the D&D morality conception, Good and Evil are very clear cut. Thats why it is on the character sheet. If it was like it is in real life, there would be no stat, it would be an add hoc item you earned. So in the D&D universe, a Detect evil spell would register a peasant who just doesn't care about anyone but himself, but has never commited a crime. It is true that there are varrying degrees of Morality, from those who just don't care about anyone but themselve, to those who champion all things vile and consort with Demons and Devils. But in the end, Dungeons and Dragons has clearly defined for the players what is evil, what is good, what is Chaos, and What is law.For everyone else, there is Neutrality. Also, from a Philisophical standpoint on Machiavelli, he would be Lawful Neutral, He understood the diffrence between good and evil, and considered the "prince" a ruler, to be above such things and part of the political machine. In the book, "The Prince" he knew "What ought to be" (Excerpt) as good, and "What is" (excerpt) and knew that things would opperate a certain way. A neutral train of thought.

In retrospect, I would admire some one who understands the true greyness between all aspects of morality, unfortunately, with the D&D system as it is, there is no current place with the alignment system. Now, if you were to impose house rules to change this state, you could argue greyness in morality.

[Axel]

If you keep that black and white system in reference to people and nations you are living in a childish dreamworld. All nations are essentially neutral, indeed with your overly simplified interpretation of alignment almost everything is neutral.

[Doomdreamer]

I think you may actualy be getting the point Axel, in a round a bout way. I understand how an actual geo-politcal stratum works in real life Axel, but this is D&D a game for all a large variety of ages, so the system has to be black and white.