PDA

View Full Version : A Vizier's Motivation?



Shadowleaf
2010-10-16, 07:09 AM
Hey guys. I'm trying to write up a believeable plotline for the history of a monarch nation.
The turning point of the nation will be when the king's adviser tries to overthrow / succesfully overthrows (depending on the players' actions) and assumes the throne/passes on the throne to someone more worthy.

Now, my question for you guys is: What would motivate an adviser to do such a thing?

He is a born and raised noble, with a good education and good life. He is Lawful Good, borderlining Lawful Neutral. He believes in the good of the nation, and will do everything to protect it. He cares a great deal about ideals and such.

The king is Lawful Neutral, leaning more on Lawful Good than Evil. He believes in the nation as it is, and most of his actions goes towards weeding out the nation - removing evil cults, clearing the roads of bandits, etc.


The rest of the details are changeable, as are some of the details written here. Really, I am looking for something believeable, not just "Adviser is evul, he does it for the lulz", but rather a proper intrique plot.

Ravens_cry
2010-10-16, 07:33 AM
Maybe the ruler has sweeping ideas that will change things if put into action and the Vizier, who was very loyal to the Old Ruler and the Old Ways, fears that the actions will cause chaos and calamity, and that's if they work.

mucat
2010-10-16, 07:40 AM
There is a dire threat to the nation, and they disagree on how to resolve it. They both want what's right for the nation, but the vizier believes the king's chosen course is foolish and will doom them.

Perhaps an aggressive nearby power is arming rapidly for war. Of the king and the vizier, one wants to prepare to fight the apparent aggressor, one wants to strike an alliance with them.

Perhaps the land is gripped by famine; one wants to spend what little remains of the treasury to import enough grain for the people to survive the winter, while the other wants to spend it on an attempt to break the ancient curse that caused the famine. They each think the other's plan will result in mass starvation.

Or if you've played the game Dragon Age, there was a good example there. (Loghain was more of a jerk than either of the guys you're talking about, but the plot would have worked even if he were not such a bastard...) Country A had for generations been colonized by a more powerful neighbor, Country B, and just won its freedom a few decades ago. Now, Country A is under dire threat from a standard-issue Sealed Evil Released on the World. The king wants to strike an alliance with their old enemy Country B, and invite them to send troops to help destroy the Sealed Evil. The king's adviser/top general, the same military genius who in his younger days led the fight to expel the colonizers, believes that if Country B's troops are allowed to cross the border, they will take over again...so he engineers the king's death in battle and puts his own daughter on the throne, confident that they can defeat the Sealed Evil without outside help.

dsmiles
2010-10-16, 07:55 AM
Maybe the ruler has sweeping ideas that will change things if put into action and the Vizier, who was very loyal to the Old Ruler and the Old Ways, fears that the actions will cause chaos and calamity, and that's if they work.

That's good. Maybe I'll steal that one.
*YOINK!* :smallbiggrin:

Coidzor
2010-10-16, 08:05 AM
Well, there's always the bit where the guy's got a horrible monster for a son or heir and the older he gets, the more people will surround him and become invested in getting him on the throne. Better the family line should end than have a monster or a full blown civil war when a bit of black lotus could lead to a transition into a strong, respected regency and new heir.

Like quietly offing Arthur and Mordred through surreptitious methods so that they couldn't destroy the entire country by fragmenting it into tiny pieces if there were anyone else to put up for the position.

Amphetryon
2010-10-16, 08:08 AM
The vizier truly believes that the king's most recent clearing out of a bandit camp was done while he was under a suggestion or similar compulsion effect. The vizier has a long-lost uncle/cousin/brother who was in that camp, and can't imagine his king willfully killing one of the vizier's family members otherwise....

Tyndmyr
2010-10-16, 08:12 AM
He's a vizier. He can't help being horribly evil. It probably comes from the goatee.

Aux-Ash
2010-10-16, 08:16 AM
Might I suggest that the king is trying to actively change the social order of the nations higher echelons and that the vizier is convinced that this will completely break the stability of the nation and plunge it into not only a civil war, but a war with it's neighbours as well. That the change is, do the unitiated, rather subtle and trivial but if the players study it they will find that it is a very complex part of the social machinery (so not something huge like trying to remove the power of all the nobles or somesuch).

The advantage is that it will be practially impossible to tell which one of them is actually right.

Coidzor
2010-10-16, 08:38 AM
Might I suggest that the king is trying to actively change the social order of the nations higher echelons and that the vizier is convinced that this will completely break the stability of the nation and plunge it into not only a civil war, but a war with it's neighbours as well. That the change is, do the unitiated, rather subtle and trivial but if the players study it they will find that it is a very complex part of the social machinery (so not something huge like trying to remove the power of all the nobles or somesuch).

The advantage is that it will be practially impossible to tell which one of them is actually right.

Or, on the other hand, the king is too devoted to preserving the status quo and the nation is in need of (insert reform here, crib a note from the real world, they've got over a bajillion to choose from) or endemic unrest will eventually lead to rebellion of the full-blown nation-destroying civil war variety.

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-16, 08:49 AM
To become Sultan instead of the Sultan...?

...

Sorry, it had to be said.

But it's good for alahf though, right?



(I'm totally expecting no-one to get the reference, mind...)

Kaeso
2010-10-16, 09:01 AM
To become Sultan instead of the Sultan...?

...

Sorry, it had to be said.

But it's good for alahf though, right?



(I'm totally expecting no-one to get the reference, mind...)

Argh, :smallsigh: ninja'd.
Also, how could I not get the reference? It was one of my favourite cartoons back in the day :p

Coidzor
2010-10-16, 09:01 AM
Considering that most of us would probably start thinking about Robin Williams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd07uvkTeKo) after reading that, you're right, not many of us are going to get the reference.

Tengu_temp
2010-10-16, 09:04 AM
(I'm totally expecting no-one to get the reference, mind...)

Iznogoud. You expected wrong.

I'm gonna get ninja'ed here, I know.

Aotrs Commander
2010-10-16, 09:16 AM
Considering that most of us would probably start thinking about Robin Williams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cd07uvkTeKo) after reading that, you're right, not many of us are going to get the reference.

Apparently we're both wrong...

Me being wrong. Huh. Well, law of averages I guess, bound to happen eventually...

(I note though, Coidzor, you are perhaps the wrong side of the pond compared to myself, Tengu_temp and Kaeso. Iznogoud may not have spread very far in either book or cartoon form over your end.)

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-16, 09:21 AM
Ah, the Grand Vizier. Listed in the Monster Manual as "Always Lawful Evil."

Yora
2010-10-16, 10:11 AM
"I want to be Caliph instead of the Caliph!"

Ravens_cry
2010-10-16, 10:46 AM
That's good. Maybe I'll steal that one.
*YOINK!* :smallbiggrin:
I am glad you approve. Oh, the fun when players are faced with a case where both sides are right, and you let them decide who to support.

Binks
2010-10-16, 11:38 AM
How about the 'was once controlled' route? The king, at one point, was briefly put under a suggestion (or similar spell) by an evil mage. He managed to resist when told to do something horrible for the nation, but the fact that he'd been put under that spell makes the adviser paranoid, not only that it could happen again, but that it might have never ended. He starts seeing all the king's decisions in a poor light and gathering evidence against him, eventually deposing the king and taking over for the good of the kingdom (seriously believing that the king is being controlled by an evil force, with plenty of evidence).

It would be trivially easy to get evidence that a king's being controlled by evil forces. Just think of a half dozen tragedies that could have happened. No matter how he handles it you can turn it into a horrible evil act with a little work. Example - There's a famine, the king rations food but the kingdom does okay (stored up beforehand). After the famine he:
1. Keeps the rations partially in place to build up food for the next famine (he's trying to take over the normal people's food supply to control them!) or
2. Restores food to its normal levels (he's emptying in the reserves so that people will starve during the next famine!)

Continue for 5-6 events and eventually the adviser's going to be sure the King is controlled.

Valameer
2010-10-16, 12:26 PM
That's what Viziers do.

That and steeple their fingers and say "yeeeesssss..."

Om
2010-10-16, 12:43 PM
1) The Vizier has been running the show/government for many years now with the Sultan/Caliph as a mere figurehead. However the new Sultan/Caliph is energetic/dynamic/modern and is starting to get involved in governing, as opposed to eating sherbet from the navals of nudible young ladies. The Sultan is, perhaps with the aid of the PCs, in effect building a new powerbase that indirectly challenges the Vizier's traditional tools. Perhaps the Vizier tried to smack the young monarch down, gently of course, but this failed and he now faces marginalisation and ultimately dismissal

Edit: This might even have a class base. Maybe the Vizier represents the landed aristocracy while the Sultan is getting close to the merchant caste. Or something similar

2) Personalities matter. Maybe the Sultan took the Vizier's beloved as his own? Maybe the two were childhood friends who fell out over something petty? Maybe their families are rivals? Maybe an associate of the Sultan killed or insulted an associate of the Vizier? Maybe there's an affair going on? Remember that people are fundamentally people with their own quirks and friendships that aren't captured by 'Lawful Good' or the like

3) A Lich King placed a spell on the Vizier and only the PCs can save the day by collecting the three shards of the 'Crown of the Mistrusted Goat' that has been scattered to dungeons across the land

Urpriest
2010-10-16, 01:50 PM
From my Eunuch Warlock thread: the empire's policy is such that top advisers to royalty must be eunuchs, to ensure that they will not steal the kingdom for themselves. The Vizier, a longtime adviser to the King while he was a prince, was required after the coronation to undergo the procedure. While he told the king that he had done it, secretly he faked the result using Alter Self. Now a powerful Eunuch Warlock, he still resents the king for humiliating him by requiring him to become an eunuch, even though it was simply the law of the empire. Now he plans to raise his bastard son to found a new dynasty in revenge.

Accersitus
2010-10-16, 02:03 PM
Maybe the king has been a bit too hard on his policy of cleaning up the country (or someone else have been a bit too extreme, but it seems to everyone that it is on the kings orders).

If the vizier has started noticing innocents being harmed by the kings policies, he could be convinced he has to do something to secure the security of the people.

This could also lead to the plot line where the kings aggressive policy actually is important for the stability of the country (think warhammer 40k inquisitors), and becoming more lenient results in an increase in disruptive activities.

This way, if they side with the king, the next step would be to try and deal with the root of the problem (evil cults/bandits), and bringing stability through that.
If they join the vizier, they would effectively break part of the system keeping the bandits/evil cults suppressed, having to spend more time on damage control. Maybe having to deal with the root of the problems attacking them and the vizier more openly, and trying to take control of the country.

Greenish
2010-10-16, 03:24 PM
(I'm totally expecting no-one to get the reference, mind...)It's pretty bleedin' obvious. (I'm just mad you beat me to it.)
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/iznogoud.jpg

LibraryOgre
2010-10-16, 04:21 PM
The king is old, and while he was known as "The Good", he's starting to slip. He has no heir (or the heirs are absolutely horrible people), and the decisions he's making are getting worse and worse. The Vizier overthrows the king, not for power, but to preserve the kingdom from the king's madness/infirmity.

OOOH! Tied to this: The kingdom magically reflects the health of the anointed king, and the king reflects the health of the kingdom. The king is slipping, physically and mentally, leading to the kingdom growing weak and frail... but the king will not abdicate, even for the good of the Kingdom (LG but slipping, remember). Maybe he's waiting for his young son to be ready, or some other, reasonable cause, and is missing the damage being done by his ill-health. The Vizier overthrows the king to save the kingdom... but what of the son?

Tiki Snakes
2010-10-16, 04:40 PM
Hmm.

Personally, I'd recommend the following;
The Vizier is part of the Nobility, but a relatively mediocre, not-quite minor house. He's also a second or third son, and pretty much had to do the unthinkable for decades prior to becoming the Vizier.

Earn an honest living.

The King, on the other hand, is the hereditary leader of the Kingdom, born knowing that whatever he does, he'll get the power and authority eventually reguardless. He is essentially well meaning, but though he can indeed out-think a ripe turnip, he is still essentially just not up to the job. He devotes his time to the small crusades that catch his attention, routing out bandits and cults and similarly exciting things. Meanwhile, the Nobility is allowed to run amok, the tax system is in shambles, and the only thing keeping it in check is the Vizier, who is unable to take the steps required to fix the situation due to the importance placed in Tradition and the Status-Quo by the King.

Perhaps, to echo one of the above posts, he's also familiar with the King's son, who shares his fathers mediocre intallect, but lacks his essentially benevolant outlook in favour of an even more developed sense of entitlement.

Quite simply, the Vizier seeks to take over because someone has to, and if you want a job done right...

Of course, parts of the Nobility may have already got word that there are elements in the city that are discussing heretical concepts such as democracy or republicism... Perhaps, supporters of both sides are already raising armed forces in secret. For extra kicks, both secret armies are being raised without the knowledge of the two main players, the Vizier and the King, by people who would if allowed seek to hijack the movement/s for their own much less benevolant ends.

Skeletor
2010-10-16, 07:54 PM
To get the princess? Everyone likes to get a princess now and then and it's so awfully cliche it just might work. Nothing like a good save the princess from the evil advisor plot line.

Greenish
2010-10-16, 07:58 PM
Nothing like a good save the princess from the evil advisor plot line.Except if you don't want the advisor be evil.

Though it doesn't really matter: once the players hear he's a "vizier", he could be a saint paladin and they would assume he's evil, and no matter how often you describe him as clean-shaven, your players will be convinced that he has a goatee.

Ormur
2010-10-16, 09:19 PM
The king really is an incompetent nincompoop. The vizier is a progressive, modern man with big ideas about efficient administration and financial stability as opposed to the corrupt and decadent nobility the king represents. The king frustrates him at every turn by his wasteful habits and pandering to idiots while the nation suffers. He gathers support among the rising bourgeoisie and plans to seize power.

flabort
2010-10-16, 09:34 PM
Hmm... The Vizier could very well be the king's own nephew.
"Uncle, are you sure we want to do this? I mean, we've been allies with the Orc tribes for hundreds of years. If we imprison their prince, even if he was mooning the high cleric of Pelor, and even if the body found was made by him, the next thing you know it will be a declaration of war."
"Hmm. War. War is bad, is it not?"
"Yes, uncle. Very bad."
"But to moon a high cleric of Pelor! And I was there. I saw it myself. Mooning is bad. Very bad. I demand we Imprison the guilty party Immediately!"
"But uncle! There is no way in the 9 layers of the Abyss that we could survive a war with the Orc tribes!"
"Are you saying I, the king, am wrong? Gaurds! arrest the Vizier immediately! Put him in the same cell as the Orc prince! And shave his goatee."
"Uncle! That's suicide! And you can plainly see I don't have a goatee! I'm clean shaven! GET THAT RAZOR AWAY FROM MY FACE! Noooooooo!"

Or some such junk.

Envision the king as a cross between A) spider-man's boss, rejecting his pictures as junk, then using them and under-paying, and from a whole 'nother series, B) Agent 86, Smart, an utter nincompoop but clever at the same time. Insists on using the faulty Cone of silence.

Therefore, the king is:
a nincompoop, outdated, focuses on the wrong things, and rude, but on the other hand, clever, thrifty, and well intentioned.

Now envision the vizier as a cross between spider-man himself and agent 99.

That would make him:
Timid, flattering, ditsy, and on the other hand, the real brains, responsible, and level headed.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-10-16, 09:46 PM
A Vizier's primary motivation, in this case, will be the Good Of The Nation. Which is not always the good of the King, mind you.

Actually, there's a Webcomic you may wish to look over for a somewhat more complex Vizier-Takes-Over scenario called The Dreamland Chronicles (http://www.thedreamlandchronicles.com/)

Basically, the King wanted to do something which the Vizier was absolutely convinced would lead to ruin. And then the Vizier was lead down the Primrose Path by some People In The Shadows to be convinced that, in order to save the kingdom as a whole, he had to foil the King's plans. Which left the Vizier in charge.

The Vizier could well have the best interests of the nation at heart, but either be manipulated by The True BBEG in a Xanatos Gambit, be honestly mistaken, or actually be correct in that the actions of the King really would cause ruin. Or maybe he's just too short-sighted to realize that the short-term ruin which will occur is far outweighed by the longer-term benefits. Or maybe he is looking to the long-term ruin that will occur as a result of the King's decision which is immediately beneficial.

There's a lot of different ways to spin this. You could be seeing a plan-within-a-plan-within-a-plan, where logical iterations go asymptotic and the player's brains curdle trying to figure out which is really 'right', if indeed either of them are right. The fact that they disagree does not indicate that either of them actually have the correct answer. Have them arguing over two completely wrong things and the PC's have to then realize that both solutions are wrong and to find the right answer, then convince both of them that it really IS right. Assuming it really is, of course.

Jack Zander
2010-10-16, 11:17 PM
Actually, there's a Webcomic you may wish to look over for a somewhat more complex Vizier-Takes-Over scenario called The Dreamland Chronicles (http://www.thedreamlandchronicles.com/)

I hate you. My entire night, devoured.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-10-16, 11:27 PM
I hate you. My entire night, devoured.

Could be worse. I didn't link a single one of the mentioned Tropes... it could have been a Wiki-Walk.

Jack Zander
2010-10-16, 11:51 PM
Could be worse. I didn't link a single one of the mentioned Tropes... it could have been a Wiki-Walk.

Ya, I ended up lost on that site too after revisiting this site in another thread. Except it was me who linked the trope and I caught myself in my own trap (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HoistByHisOwnPetard).

Blast! I did it again (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OhNoNotAgain)!

Om
2010-10-17, 05:26 AM
To be honest I don't think its convincing that a LG Vizier (if we are dealing in alignments) would overthrow his monarch simply because he thinks he could do a better job. The Sultan would have have to be a atrociously bad ruler - as in bringing the kingdom to the brink of collapse and rebuffing all peaceful attempts to moderate his power - before a palace coup seems plausible. Think Nicholas II of Russia

Of course in this case you really have to ask why the PCs should be expected to save this buffoon

Tiki Snakes
2010-10-17, 11:07 AM
To be honest I don't think its convincing that a LG Vizier (if we are dealing in alignments) would overthrow his monarch simply because he thinks he could do a better job. The Sultan would have have to be a atrociously bad ruler - as in bringing the kingdom to the brink of collapse and rebuffing all peaceful attempts to moderate his power - before a palace coup seems plausible. Think Nicholas II of Russia

Of course in this case you really have to ask why the PCs should be expected to save this buffoon

The coup is supposed to be a bloodless one, swift and merciful. With no atrocities and no martyrs, he can better get on with the vital work at hand rather than spend a few months dealing with the repercussions.
It is only the involvement of unwelcome allies that will threaten to turn it into a costly bloodbath.

It's not so much about doing a better job, as the idea that the King is incapable of doing what has to be done, and his Son will be infinately worse. The entire monarchial system has been devalued and exposed in his eyes, and he seeks to establish a meritocratic / democratic system in it's place.
Just means he's going to have to rule in the interim period, in theory. The unwanted allies, meanwhile, are sharpening their headsman's axes and getting ready to start a proper revolution, which will only end in tears, as the people who profit most from the King's behaviour and essential weaknesses are likewise mobilising.

The idea is, you have two layers of activity. The Vizier and his King are on relatively good terms, with differing views of the way things need to be to deal with the current situation. Neither of them would see the other harmed overly much. But whichever side the PC's decide to empathise with, still has the second layer of intruige as a complication, because both side's supporters are horrible pieces of work with anything but the country's best interests at heart.

Om
2010-10-17, 01:44 PM
It's not so much about doing a better job, as the idea that the King is incapable of doing what has to be done, and his Son will be infinately worse. The entire monarchial system has been devalued and exposed in his eyes, and he seeks to establish a meritocratic / democratic system in it's placeYou're talking about a revolution. I don't see any establishment figure (ie, the product of the nobility itself) taking such a radical step unless a) the Sultan has allowed the situation to deteriorate to a desperate degree, or b) there are, as I mentioned in my post, underlying forces as work with both the Sultan and the Vizier representing different power factions

None of which means of course that any suggestion will definitely not work - any excuse will do if its spun in the right way. I just think that you'd have to be an exceptionally good storyteller if the reason essentially boils down to 'Yeah, forget about centuries of traditional and the whole feudal/vassal system... I could do his job better'

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-10-18, 10:29 AM
You're talking about a revolution. I don't see any establishment figure (ie, the product of the nobility itself) taking such a radical step unless a) the Sultan has allowed the situation to deteriorate to a desperate degree, or b) there are, as I mentioned in my post, underlying forces as work with both the Sultan and the Vizier representing different power factions

None of which means of course that any suggestion will definitely not work - any excuse will do if its spun in the right way. I just think that you'd have to be an exceptionally good storyteller if the reason essentially boils down to 'Yeah, forget about centuries of traditional and the whole feudal/vassal system... I could do his job better'

How about little birds whom keep to the shadows whispering in the Vizier's ear how much better a job he could do? Manipulated behind the scenes by individuals who want to see a revolution go off so they can take advantage of the situation for themselves?

I would give a real world example, but that borders on Real World Politics which would get the mods rather irate with me.

Tiki Snakes
2010-10-18, 12:13 PM
I don't see the idea of a philosophically motivated, bloodless revolution that unlikely.

Especially as it will be hijacked anyway, in what I would consider an inevitable manner, by less philosophical people, who will portray the King as badly as possible, and so on.

Off the top of my head, I do not believe that all the stories about how horrible the french aristocracy was are still believed to be true as such, but were rather basically pro-revolution propaganda.

So you'd have the Vizier at the core of essentially a scholarly coup, possibly even intending to simply use obscure legal loopholes to remove the king, (Perhaps involving having him Abdicate and using a loophole to stop his Son inheriting the throne?) and a group of much more hardcore, violent revolutionaries attempting to steal his momentum and simply 'kill them all' instead.

I can't give examples, but it's my suspicion that most of the kind of figures you'd get leading such a revolution would likely have ties to the nobility anyway, (often disguised or downplayed). See the mexican revolution subplot in Red Dead Redemption, or the Who's Won't get fooled again for details, I guess. :smallsmile:

I see it as quite likely, and much more fitting to the kind of morally grey, good people in bad times kind of situation the OP seemed to be fishing for. Plus it would be nice to have even the potential for once of a storyline like this that didn't default to the idea of monarchy being a good and admirable thing for it's own right. :smallwink:

Eorran
2010-10-18, 12:38 PM
As an alternative, perhaps there's another faction at court that has been working to strip authority from the King for their own power (barons, clerics, wizards). The Vizier is simply better at long-range planning and subtlety than the King, but has been losing ground lately, and the latest round of maneuvers is threatening the stability of the Kingdom.

As he runs low on options, the inconceivable may become the plan of last resort - use the enemy's own plan against him, seize the authority of the crown to put down those conniving traitors.

Om
2010-10-19, 06:10 AM
How about little birds whom keep to the shadows whispering in the Vizier's ear how much better a job he could do? Manipulated behind the scenes by individuals who want to see a revolution go off so they can take advantage of the situation for themselves?I don't mean to set myself up as some sort of arbitrator of plausibility here (:smalltongue:) but that could work. Depends on how much the OP wants the Vizier himself to be the main antagonist


I don't see the idea of a philosophically motivated, bloodless revolution that unlikely. Examples? And no, France is really not a good illustration of what you are proposing :smallwink:

The basic problem with this is that you have someone who has come up through the system, prospered in the system, and knowing nothing but the system suddenly proposing to overthrow the system. You might occasionally find nobles in the revolutionary ranks but people at the top, for obvious reasons, very rarely lead revolutions against themselves. Coups, yes, but not revolutions

So let's not forget that we're talking about a Vizier here - the second most powerful man in the kingdom and head of day-to-day governing. Or at least up there in the higher reaches of government. A revolution would, as I've mentioned, overturn the entire system of patronage/feudalism/lordship that he has worked through for his entire career and which underpins his authority/legitimacy. In short, it would, in a stroke, destroy his position and render him obsolete

There's good reasons why revolutions have historically been so shocking. They turn the world upside down and challenge every assumption. Which is why authority figures really, really hate them

Now you could spin a story in which the Vizier seeks to harness a popular revolt to increase his own power/position, but this would place him as an arch-manipulator betraying both the Sultan and the revolution. It would be, IMO, a great story but not one that would fit with the OP's characterisation

huttj509
2010-10-19, 06:43 AM
Hmmm, noble good man, comes from a powerful family, and cares about the country.

Then he discovered that the Caliph was planning to execute him for an alleged affair with the Caliph's sister, but really because the Caliph felt threatened by the noble family's power, and felt that it would destabilize the country.

The vizier also discovers that his name shall be taken and passed down through history as a shorthand for the evil advisor, and figures the Caliph has lost it, and must be replaced.

Genre savvy Ja'far ibn Yahya al-Barmaki with divination spells?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Tiki Snakes
2010-10-19, 09:34 AM
I don't mean to set myself up as some sort of arbitrator of plausibility here (:smalltongue:) but that could work. Depends on how much the OP wants the Vizier himself to be the main antagonist

Examples? And no, France is really not a good illustration of what you are proposing :smallwink:

The basic problem with this is that you have someone who has come up through the system, prospered in the system, and knowing nothing but the system suddenly proposing to overthrow the system. You might occasionally find nobles in the revolutionary ranks but people at the top, for obvious reasons, very rarely lead revolutions against themselves. Coups, yes, but not revolutions

So let's not forget that we're talking about a Vizier here - the second most powerful man in the kingdom and head of day-to-day governing. Or at least up there in the higher reaches of government. A revolution would, as I've mentioned, overturn the entire system of patronage/feudalism/lordship that he has worked through for his entire career and which underpins his authority/legitimacy. In short, it would, in a stroke, destroy his position and render him obsolete

There's good reasons why revolutions have historically been so shocking. They turn the world upside down and challenge every assumption. Which is why authority figures really, really hate them

Now you could spin a story in which the Vizier seeks to harness a popular revolt to increase his own power/position, but this would place him as an arch-manipulator betraying both the Sultan and the revolution. It would be, IMO, a great story but not one that would fit with the OP's characterisation

Well, perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, but I find the idea of a highly educated, competant and scholarly minor noble deciding that the system of Aristocracy is fundamentally flawed and/or immoral, and attempting to change the system from within to be quite plausible.

Note - It isn't a revolution so much from the Vizier's point of view. It is very much a coup, intended to be completed almost entirely via paperwork and careful manipulation behind closed doors, causing the minimum of disruption to the workings of the City whilst he initiates major change in the system.

It only takes on the flavour and danger of a revolution when the third party faction gets involved, seeking to use the excuse for a general, destructive power-grab with little concern for the ordinary people or philosophical concerns involved. They'd likely, if successful, actually go on to prevent the true goal (removing the Aristocratic system and replacing it with a republic). The Vizier would be allowed to rule briefly as a figurehead, only to be assassinated and directly replaced before he could do any such thing, so they could effectively sieze the throne at their leisure rather than let the Vizier remove the throne.

I don't think it's any less plausible than a good man falling for insidious whispers, or devilishly evil heir's, or any of the otherwise excellent suggestions in the thread. Perhaps it doesn't fit with the way you prefer a world to function, or you could see difficulties in running it, or just dislike the story it could lead to. That's fine, it's your perogative and it's just a suggestion. The OP will either use it, or not, at his leisure.

Perhaps if we're lucky, he'll even drop back through his own thread and let us know if any of our suggestions are useful. :smallwink:

sebsmith
2010-10-19, 11:11 AM
First, people generally only want to change the system when it isn't working for them, and almost by definition a system is working for you when it allows you to become the second most powerful person in the realm.

But actually what I think might be an interesting motivation is that the king wants to change the nation's most important deity (new deity probably isn't even evil) and the vizier and much of the nation don't want him to. Another would be that the king wants to emulate the governance model of a neighbor who is cabinet or bureaucracy based, and the vizier is working against this because of the threat the new system is to his station.

Tiki Snakes
2010-10-19, 11:36 AM
From the OP's description, I just don't see him motivated by personal gain in that way, though, Seb. Sure, the usual way to motivate a 'vizier' is by personal gain or threat of personal loss, but I get a very different vibe from the OP's post, personally.



He is a born and raised noble, with a good education and good life. He is Lawful Good, borderlining Lawful Neutral. He believes in the good of the nation, and will do everything to protect it. He cares a great deal about ideals and such.

Aux-Ash
2010-10-19, 06:50 PM
I would advise against such sweeping changes as shifting from aristocracy to bureaucracy in a single event. At least if the purpose is to choose between the vizier and the king and that the players should't see which one of them is "right".

Most cases of court intrigue and coups aren't that fundamental but is the choice between one court faction who favours details being handles this way as opposed to another court fashion tht favours details that way. In this case: A choice between wether the king's designated heir (or just that the king remains on the thone) or the vizier's appointee (which may be himself) will become king.

Subtle changes. Nothing that will change the entire social structure of the kingdom in a lifetime (meaning that the true effects of the decisions will be a century or so away). Like the dwarves in Arcanum says: Humans are often too short-lived to see the consequences of their actions.

Coidzor
2010-10-19, 07:22 PM
But actually what I think might be an interesting motivation is that the king wants to change the nation's most important deity (new deity probably isn't even evil) and the vizier and much of the nation don't want him to.

Heh. A Pholtus-like deity, LG but completely intolerant of the other gods because he refuses to acknowledge their existence as divinities, and the king wants to allow freedom of religion. Which doesn't set well with hardline, orthodox Pholtesians. Yeah, that could work.