DM Needs (in-game) Political Advice

[Muz]

Hey everyone! :smallsmile: I'm in need of some in-game political advice, so I figured I'd toss this out into the forumy goodness and see if anyone's got any ideas:

I'm running a (D&D) campaign, and the largest human kingdom on the continent is about to fall into civil war. My problem is I need a convincing way for this to develop. It's not really intended as the primary campaign focus (though if the PCs decided to try to get involved, I'd certainly allow it), but rather something to flesh out the world and make it seem more real in terms of large events happening whether the PCs are looking or not. At the moment, the party is off in one of the smaller kingdoms, but news will reach them of various events that will bring the large kingdom into civil war. :smalleek:

So! Here's the situation thus far: The kingdom in question, which via name-thievery is called Prydain, is the largest of the 3 (primarily) human kingdoms and situated in the central part of the continent. To it's east are wild lands filled with humanoid races that need to be watched and occasionally dealt with along the eastern border. (This is also true of the northern borders, though half of the northern border is shared with dwarves, with whom Prydain is on more or less decent terms.) To the south is the human nation of Treger, the smallest of the three nations but also the most aggressive.


To the west lies the Coallition of Rhyl, a collection of smaller baronies that banded together to form the Coallition about 25 years ago when a border dispute between a Rhyllish city and Prydain spiraled out of control (likely helped along by Tregerian spies) and into a full-scale war. During that war, Treger opportunistically joined up with Prydain in order to grab some Rhyllish lands while they could. Rhyl lost territory to both Treger and Prydain before a peace was brokered (Treger wanted to keep going, but larger Prydain just wanted a stable western border and was happy with the peace, and put pressure on Treger to cease its own aggression).

Rhyl is actually on better terms with Prydain because of this--they fought more honorably and treated Rhyl better than Treger did. Most recently the PCs were even involved with foiling a Tregerian plot to take over a half-finished fortress on the Treger-Rhyl border that's being held by some Prydish priests so that no one can use it. (I stole that whole bit from the history of Caerphilly Castle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caerphilly_Castle)in Wales, if anyone's curious). Treger would love for Prydain to weaken so they can seize more lands.

Which (pauses for breath) brings us to the present. The High King of Prydain has just died of old age. His two sons are non-identical twins, with the older (by two minutes) being the rightful heir. Both sons aren't power-hungry, but the older strongly believes that he is the rightful king. The problem's that he's also kind of stupid and a weak leader. He makes bad decisions, is more into riding off on hunting expeditions and throwing festivals than he is with keeping Prydain secure and together. As such, many of the lesser rulers in Prydain--especially those on the borders who have to worry about invasion--aren't too happy. But he's not an evil man (lawful neutral, maybe?), just a man who believes he is the rightful king.

Many think the younger prince would be a much better leader. He's strong, smart, and just generally has what it takes (and more of the public confidence). On the other hand, he's also (most likely) lawful good. He firmly believes that his older brother is the rightful king, and supports his coronation.

The older brother, though, "wise" man that he is, hears the grumblings of the lesser kings and decides that, just to be safe, he will send his brother off on a quest (with a sizable party of guards and paladins, etc.) to find a legendary sword of rulership that is said to be wieldable only by a rightful ruler and has the power to keep any kingdom from falling so long as it's that leader holds it. (Old relic of a 3000 year-dead empire, ironically enough. The last king who had it likely got eaten whole by a dragon.) This, the older brother hopes, will serve to get the younger out of the capital during the coronation and prevent any attempts to put the younger brother on the throne. (Plus, if the younger actually finds the sword, the older will then have more political clout once it's in his possesion.)

So what I'm trying to do is have things break down into a war with those loyal to the "rightful" king on one side and those who think only the younger would be a good leader on the other. The younger brother would NOT want a war in his name, but as he's now off questing, he can't hold his supporters in check. The coronation went off without a hitch--the older brother IS now the rightful king. But there are rumors of increased humanoid attacks in the east, and talk of a formerly Rhyllish city on the extreme northwestern border of Prydain starting to revolt. How much of this is fed by Tregerian spies looking to sew dissent is anyone's guess (but they certainly are trying. In fact, Treger's made some rather evil deals for some rather interesting and powerful troops for a coming war--but they don't want to tip their hand until Prydain is destabilized).

My problem is that I'm not entirely sure just what events should transpire between now and full-on civil war to make it seem realistic and just plain nifty. I'm not much of a history student, so the nitty-gritty of how things like this begin isn't my forte. Anyone have any ideas? Individual city revolts? A catastrophic failure to defend a border city from humanoid raiding that somehow moves some lesser king to openly support a coup? Tregerian spies stewin' up trouble? I'm mostly looking for major events that would occur, snowballing into the civil war. (eg. First Minor City #12 insults the king, the king withdraws support or increases taxes, the city refuses the increase, troops are sent as a show of non-violent force, they're not well received, there's a minor skirmish, another city throws in, etc.)

Thanks for reading this far--and I'd be grateful for any advice/ideas. ("I've hired you to help me start a war! It's a prestigious line of work, with a long and glorious tradition.") :smallsmile:

[Attilargh]

Why is the Blue Country always the good one?[/idle pondering]

Y'know, this is why assassins exist. Have some smart old folks decide that the Elder would not really be a very good king, and dispatch some elite ninjas. All completely behind the Younger's back, of course, to avoid any nasty accusations. Also, making Resurrection impossible might be a smart idea.

Maybe the Elder could simply be shunted to another plane for easy disposal. Plane of Fire would work wonders.

Now you've got one (1) Assassinated King and one (1) Rightful Heir (assuming the Elder has no children, of course) who is so Lawful he is unlikely to refuse to take the throne. You also have some Scheming Politicians who'd very much like the Younger takes the throne (some because they are Good, others because they think he can be manipulated, etc.) and some Peeved Politicians who miss the Elder (because they manipulated him, were so Lawful, etc.). Then you've got many commoners who liked the Elder, and many commoners who liked the Younger. And lots and lots of accusations, conspiracy theories and underground propaganda.

Add some Foreign Spies and you have a prime-quality political explosion at your hands. The Younger can do nothing, because he's stuck on his quest, and at the same time has to organise the Frontier against the humanoid raids.

What do you think, good enough?

Ædit: Hey, some time after the situation is resolved (say, about 16-20 years), add one (1) or more of Previous Ruler's Bastard Offspring, so that the Peeved Politicians have someone to replace the Younger with. An Evil pair of Twins With Great Power might be rather cool, as they are usually the Goody-Goody protagonists of a fantasy story. (For example, one of the twins a martial adept and the other a primary spellcaster.)

[Truffles]

enter evil advisor.
young king on a quest.
elder, possibly dead.

[Muz]

Not a bad idea, but I'd rather avoid killing either prince off immediately. Eventually, I'd like to have things wind up with Prydain split into two kingdoms.

And even if I do assassinate the older brother and have things all divided politically and ripe for a war (and I certainly like that aspect of your suggestion:smallsmile: ), I'm also looking for actual events in the outbreak of war itself. Where the first battle is, and why, etc. What's the spark that lights the keg?

And Prydain is blue because...it's blue on my map. :) (Though on my map the dwarven kingdom is red, and Treger's orange, but now I digress. ...And in fairness, Rhyl is likely the most "good" of the human kingdoms.) :smallsmile:

[Kiroho]

If you're looking to definitely start a civil war, have the questing brother return with the sword and have NEITHER brother able to wield it. Make it very public and discover that the queen was unfaithful and promiscuous and have none of the "heirs" actually be legitimate. Choose a power-hungry, but generally despised cousin, and have him (or her if you really want to play games) able to wield the sword.

[Om]

Well historically these things kicked off when one brother said "Oi! That's my throne" :smallwink:

What might help would be if the two brothers drew support from different sections of society. Say that the elder is preferred by the landed nobility while the younger is the darling of the restless merchant class. Or different regions/cities/religions/ethnic groups etc etc. Each of these will have their own agenda and they may take offence to something mundane that the other group does. In reality few civil wars were about who had the better birthright.

Say for example the landowners convince the king to sign some minor law that gives them licences to export a type of cheese (I did say mundane) and the merchants get pretty pissed off at this. One thing leads to another and political arguments break down into brawls which lead to pitched battles. Latent tensions suddenly erupt. It’s a lot more realistic and plausible than the "evil vizier" plot.

With regards civil war in general there are two key things to bear in mind:

1) Nobody really wants one… even when they are hurtling towards one

2) They get very messy very fast

The upshot of the above two points is that the first few months of any war (barring some conspiracy or manipulation by a hidden group) are going to be very muddled as people try and figure out just whose side they are on. After this initial period however the ideological lines tend to harden and things get very nasty.

[Attilargh]

Not a bad idea, but I'd rather avoid killing either prince off immediately. Eventually, I'd like to have things wind up with Prydain split into two kingdoms.
Okay, have him Retuuuuurn From the Deeeeaaad with suitable drama. Preferaby in front of the PCs. (Of course, rumours of his return might be equally dramatic.) And then he wreacks BLOODY Revenge on his killers, or is simply turned against his brother by an Outside Force.

Alternatively, have the Younger be turned against his reincarnated brother by an Outside Force. Have the Elder make some poor moves against the humanoids plaguing the frontier and build up the "evidence of his corruption" from there.

Or do both simultaneously.


And even if I do assassinate the older brother and have things all divided politically and ripe for a war (and I certainly like that aspect of your suggestion:smallsmile: ), I'm also looking for actual events in the outbreak of war itself. Where the first battle is, and why, etc. What's the spark that lights the keg?
I'm thinking it wouldn't start with a bang, but instead with some tossed rock in some major city. One moment there's just a vocal mob of people, and the next someone throws a rock, the others join in, the watch comes to resolve the situation. No-one really knows who got hurt first, but it just turns ugly and then there's deaths and the next day there's all kinds of talk and some of the revolutionaires get in touch with some army fellows (with the help of some helpful fellow who just wants to help the supporters of the True King...) and before anyone knows, Important Places are seized by force. Of course the Loyal Military quickly comes in to save the day, but the seeds of rebellion are planted.

And so it begins. (Dun dun duuuun...)


(Sorry about the unnecessarily comedic melodrama. I know this is serious business and all, but I just can't help myself. I'm making up these oh-so-very dramatic events and I need to loosen it up somehow. I mean no offense, really. :smallredface:)

[Green Bean]

So basically, you need the transition between unliked leader and civil war?

This is one way it could go.

-Start with some tyrannical laws: The rightful king has discovered that sending his brother off just made things worse. Have the older brother pass a law making it illegal to publically say that the younger brother should be the real king in an attempt to secure his position

-Loss of support for older brother: nobles start to lose land because of those eastern raids, and the former owners of the territory, former strong supporters of the older brother, turn on him because they feel he didn't do enough to defend their territory. They begin to plan his removal

-The rightful king find out about his nobles' plotting (some may be actually conspiring against him, others could be incriminated falsely by Tregerian spies). The king strips all of his traitorous nobles of their land, money, and titles, and replaces them with those who he knows are loyal

-Other nobles, seeing this, become afraid that their position is next, and join the ranks of those opposing the king

-The process repeats itself a few times, with Tregerian spies adding to the chaos as much as possible (planting evidence on the few neutral nobles, and spreading rumors to the gentry about the atrocities the king is commiting against the arrested members of the gentry). However, there is little open conflict until...

-The king, convinced his country is a hotbed of treason, decrees martial law, and orders that all armed bodies of men in the kingdom be put under his command. For many nobles, this is the last straw, and they unite under the banner of the younger brother (who is still far away). Unfortunately, those the king put in power have no illusions about what would happen to them if the king is deposed, and therefore side with the king, making the fight more or less even.

-Presto: civil war in a can.

[Diggorian]

Very nice set up. My question: where are the PC's in all this? Is this the backstory of the region you're still forming pre-game?

[Sahegian]

You could try uncovering a new source of something valuable. To steal from the African civil conflicts diamonds or gold. Basically a very wealthy mine is found in an area of the kingdom that considers the younger heir to be the better ruler. The local lords want to keep the wealth for themselves. The older heir tries to take control of the mine for the capital and the local lords revolt claiming that the younger heir is the rightful ruler or some such. The present ruler over reacts to the revolt.

Upon the brother's returns(wielding the sword that can only be wielded by the rightful ruler no less) he sides with the oppressed rebels for moral reasons, or the older brother now views him as a greater threat and tries to have him assassinated or silenced in some other fashion that provokes the younger brother. It solves the problem of getting a lawfully good NPC to be a part of a civil war, and it would be very easy to add some Treger plot into the mix to help stir the rivalry and add depth to the plot. Nearly every historic civil war has been about government control of wealth so it helps to increase the believability as well in my opinion.

[Attilargh]

I envisioned the PCs to be some direct lackeys of the Younger brother. An interesting twist would be to have them work for the Elder at some point.

Just had another bout of inspiration: Not everything is a Tregerian conspiracy. People do all kinds of horrible stuff in the name of King and Country (and for Truth, Freedom, Justice and General Good, and sometimes even for a Hard-Boiled Egg) without being influenced from the outside.

This could work as a really harsh reality check for the PCs when they encounter the murdering bastard seemingly out to tarnish their Prince's reputation, only to find out he's doing it because he feels it's the right thing to do. Or they capture the Foreign Spy, interrogate him and are shocked when she starts laughing hysterically when asked about certain Bad Things and explains - completely truthfully, if someone bothers to check with magic - that she was as surprised as the players at what people are willing to do.

Oh, and the Good Ruler Taking Questionable Measures is always a good one: One of the brothers, desperate for the survival of his homeland, starts doind dirty deeds which slowly begin to shift him towards the bad end of the Good-Evil axis of alignment. He founds the Inquisition, gives carte blanche to a zealous vigilante, allies with vile beings, etc.

[Mennayr]

Older brother is out carousing and ends up in bed with the daughter of a noble supporting younger brother.

Noble overreacts and declares he is loyal to the "True King" and the womanizer/adulterer etc. should lose the throne.

Older brother overreacts and starts cracking down on nobility, nobles loyal to younger rebel to stop the "tyrant". All while the younger brother is off in a distant land.

You can even end up with a bastard royal child to complicate matters.

[Muz]

Very nice set up. My question: where are the PC's in all this? Is this the backstory of the region you're still forming pre-game?

At the moment, they're in an elven kingdom about to travel (briefly) through Prydain to an area outside a little tiny town in mid-eastern Rhyl to purify a cursed priory for reasons I won't get into. After that, they've expressed a strong desire to go loot the stronghold of a vampire-mage that they recently killed, which is in extreme northern Prydain.

It's not backstory so much as it is flavor for the world, and events that may affect the PCs either through simple rearrangement of travel plans or possibly inspire them to get more directly involved. At the moment, though, I'm looking for something that will go on with or without their involvement. (Driving the PCs into the middle of Prydainian politics isn't required. They're not even from Prydain, as one's an elf and two are Rhyllish.)

Or were you asking what their involvement was so far? They did run across Tregerian plans to take the border castle (and reported it to Prydainian forces), and they've actually met the (now dead) high king very briefly in the context of the party's discovering a drow slave trade operating out of the capital city itself. Other than that, they've mostly just been hearing rumors and reports of events as they travelled.

[Om]

Just had another bout of inspiration: Not everything is a Tregerian conspiracy. People do all kinds of horrible stuff in the name of King and Country (and for Truth, Freedom, Justice and General Good, and sometimes even for a Hard-Boiled Egg) without being influenced from the outside.Which is pretty much what I was getting at above. Only put much better. In reality wars, and civil wars, don't start because of some elaborate plot but because one group of people can't stand the sight of another group of people.

I call it the Vimes School of Realism :smallsmile:

[Muz]

Which is pretty much what I was getting at above. Only put much better. In reality wars, and civil wars, don't start because of some elaborate plot but because one group of people can't stand the sight of another group of people.

I call it the Vimes School of Realism :smallsmile:

Well-put. And yeah, I'm looking more toward internal reasons rather than the whole thing being a Tregerian plot. I just figured that if Treger DID see instability, they'd do their best to add to it.

I'm still processing all the suggestions here; there's a lot of good stuff. (Keep 'em coming! And thanks to everyone so far! :smallbiggrin: )

[Om]

I just figured that if Treger DID see instability, they'd do their best to add to it.Maybe, maybe not. Depends on how much they value border security. Having a raging war going on next door can make people very nervous.

You wanted suggestions :smallwink:

[Telonius]

I'm thinking it wouldn't start with a bang, but instead with some tossed rock in some major city. One moment there's just a vocal mob of people, and the next someone throws a rock, the others join in, the watch comes to resolve the situation. No-one really knows who got hurt first, but it just turns ugly and then there's deaths and the next day there's all kinds of talk and some of the revolutionaires get in touch with some army fellows (with the help of some helpful fellow who just wants to help the supporters of the True King...) and before anyone knows, Important Places are seized by force. Of course the Loyal Military quickly comes in to save the day, but the seeds of rebellion are planted.

And so it begins. (Dun dun duuuun...)


(Sorry about the unnecessarily comedic melodrama. I know this is serious business and all, but I just can't help myself. I'm making up these oh-so-very dramatic events and I need to loosen it up somehow. I mean no offense, really. :smallredface:)

I like this suggestion. I'd make a minor alteration though - have it be some really minor squabble between extremely low-level members of a house. Two minor barons arguing over a cow, or something like that. A mob scene might ensue over that, with various levels of higher-ups coming in later. Kind of like the World War I scenario - squabble between minor actors with not much to lose, that eventually and quickly escalates.

[Winterking]

If the younger brother is generally decent and upright and, most importantly, loyal to his elder on the throne, a simple way to resolve the civil war issue would be for someone not royal to be the opposing force. Maybe a bunch of these discontented nobles get together, one or two are more ambitious than the rest, and they raise rival claims to the throne, by virtue of innate ability or long-forgotten bloodlines or allegations that the king/his brother are actually illegitimate (if mom & dad are dead, how do you prove that they were the real parents, without the possibility of illusion-based deceit).
Options for a coalition of rebel lords, or a single leader of such a group, would include: 1)try to get younger brother on their side, via arguments, threats, provocation; 2)play upon popular discontent--perhaps the life of a peasant farmer is hard and miserable, and said common folk might be ready to rise up, loose themselves from their chains (except for those placed upon them by the rebel leaders...). 3)seek foreign support, after the rebellion/war has kicked off--maybe their leader would trade territory to Treger in exchange for aid.

As for how it would start? Probably a series of bad decisions by the stupid king, since without his brother in-country to correct his mistakes, he can be more easily swayed by greedy or self-absorbed or ignorant advisors. Maybe taxes on a region that actually can't support any more. Maybe an inept response to a flood or famine (Let them eat cake?) Maybe he decides to dismiss trustworthy, effective, admired leaders with a series of talentless court favorites. Then not only would the dismissed noble be dissatisfied, but so would all of those who benefited from the noble's authority. Maybe the king, rather than actively doing anything, fails to do something. Maybe, thinking he is being fair and honorable and merciful, he pardons large numbers of criminals. Maybe, when people start formenting unrest, he does nothing. Maybe he starts to allow a wide range of groups to have influence/power where before they had none--and once they taste that power, they want more. Maybe he foolishly insults a major cultural/ethnic/social group, being drunk in church or mocking halflings. Maybe the festival-loving king is accused of squandering the realm's treasure. Maybe the kingdom is actually broke, and the moneylenders are calling in their debts.

For historical inspiration, you might look at British & Scottish history. Edward II was regarded by many as a weak, ineffective, generally hopeless king, and made many of his nobles displeased. Likewise, King John I of England was less than beloved, and the inspiration for several revolts. Medieval Scotland was riddled with rival kings/absent kings, proud nobles obsessed with rivalries, and uprisings. One of the Jameses, James III, I believe, was opposed by many of his nobles for arbitrarily cruel rulership and for wasting the crown's money on frivolous projects.

[blacksabre]

To introduce the party to the political climate..

In one of the small towns they are in, and it helps if they have a history with this town..performed tasks etc.. the local leaders and most of the town support the younger brother...

When the kings men comes to town to collect taxes, the city leaders refuse to pay, "holding the monies for the rightful king"

The leaders are arrested, a messanger is sent to a large city..
In 4 days a magistrate will arrive for there trial..If you want the Kings rule to be more tyranical..you could opt for a speedy trial then and there, and a hanging in 3 days

Some of the town folk are planning a "prison break"
Some of the town folk are assiting the Kings men.
The players are approched by both factions....make a choice...

Role play it out..
If the players go with the town, they will be emboldened to force a prison break..if they assist, outlaws to the king

If the players go with the Kings men, the leaders are sentenced, and the towns folk have to accept the outcome since they can't take on the kings men and the party..but word spreds of the oppresion...kindleing of a movement starts and the players were there to see it..

If the players assist none..and watch the rescue attempt..you diecide succesful or not..but both factions will make note of the parties in-action...in light of the event caused some deaths..

[Belkarseviltwin]

Why is the Blue Country always the good one?[/idle pondering]

American military tradition (used in wargames), coming from the fact that the US Army originally wore blue uniforms. The British (the first people the US Army fought) wore red, thus red is used for the "bad guys".



As for starting the war, possibly rumours could arise that the "younger" brother is actually the older one, and that they were swapped at birth by the midwife. Reasons for this could include an evil cult asking (using Commune or Contact Other Plane) which one would be the better ruler, and ensuring that the worse one gets the crown.

[Inyssius Tor]

Well, I know nothing about this kind of thing in history.

One thing, though: If you end up with a bloody coup (or riot in the palace, or whatever), don't show the Elder's body. "Oh crud, we've misplaced our king, where is he" is way more fun than "oh, hey, it's the old king. On a stick. Eeew." The old government is saying that the king is just fine, but you can't see him right now; he's... uhh... busy. Very busy. Meanwhile, the insurgents are saying they have him (or most of him); they kind of ripped off his face, but this is really him. Really.

[Dausuul]

Supporters of the younger brother begin muttering that the whole "quest" story is just a fiction the older brother made up as a cover for having murdered the younger. Eventually some important noble makes this accusation publicly. The elder brother, already insecure and nervous on his throne--and also feeling just a bit guilty over having sent the younger brother away to secure his own power--flies into a rage and has the noble executed for sedition.

Matters begin to come to a boil. There is unrest throughout the kingdom, many nobles wanting the elder brother to abdicate in favor of (insert charismatic leader here). Finally, there is a public confrontation, the leaders of the rebellious nobles facing the king in open court and demanding that he step down.

In the midst of this, the younger brother returns with the magic sword. It seems at first that everything is going to turn out okay after all. The younger brother hands the sword to the elder. The elder unsheathes it--and it erupts in flame, searing his hand. He drops it. The younger brother unthinkingly snatches it up and the flame goes out.

At this point, the nobles go into open revolt. The elder brother marshals his few supporters against them, while the younger brother desperately tries to restore peace in the land and put a stop to the fighting that is going on in his name.

To cap it all off, the elder brother has now concluded that the younger is deliberately trying to overthrow him, and sentences him to death...

[MaxKaladin]

Not a bad idea, but I'd rather avoid killing either prince off immediately. Eventually, I'd like to have things wind up with Prydain split into two kingdoms. No problem! He said "elite ninjas". The inverse ninja law thus dictates that they will fail. After the failed assassination attempt, the king has some of the survivors/corpses interrogated and discoveres the ringleaders. He sends troops out to round them up and some of them resist with their followers and so forth. Supporters of the younger twin flock to their side and the elder twin sends in more troops to crush what is rapidly turning into a revolt. Instant civil war!

Another possibility is that the younger twin returns from his quest either magically dominated or possessed by some being who wishes to see a civil war.

A third and diabolical idea is this: It is rare but possible for a woman to give birth to twins who have two different fathers. What if the queen had a secret lover and the elder twin is actually his son while the younger twin is the son of the king. Unless the throne is passed down through the female line, it would mean that the younger twin is actually the rightful heir. Let's say he gets back with the sword that can only be wielded by a rightful king only to find the elder twin can't wield it. This is because the elder twin is not the rightful heir, even if he's been crowned. The younger twin, however, can wield it because he's the rightful heir. Magical investigation ensues and the whole mess gets laid out. Suddenly, the younger twin has no lawful compunctions against seeking the throne because he knows he is the rightful heir, not his (half-)brother. The elder twin isn't about to give up the throne, however, and perhaps doesn't even believer (or want to believe) that he's not the rightful heir. Civil war ensues.

To add to this, perhaps the queen's lover is still around and determined years ago via magic that the elder twin was actually his son and so has been manipulating things to ensure his son will gain the throne. Perhaps the old queen maneuvered him into a position as a prominent advisor to the elder twin. Perhaps he's been working secretly to kill off the younger twin so as to secure his son's throne. Perhaps, the elder twin actually is willing to give up the throne once he learns the truth but his father convinces or manipulates him into staying, or simply manipulates a civil war into starting so it's out of his hands.

(ooh, I've got to use that in one of my own campaigns!)

[aberratio ictus]

Supporters of the younger brother begin muttering that the whole "quest" story is just a fiction the older brother made up as a cover for having murdered the younger. Eventually some important noble makes this accusation publicly. The elder brother, already insecure and nervous on his throne--and also feeling just a bit guilty over having sent the younger brother away to secure his own power--flies into a rage and has the noble executed for sedition.

Matters begin to come to a boil. There is unrest throughout the kingdom, many nobles wanting the elder brother to abdicate in favor of (insert charismatic leader here). Finally, there is a public confrontation, the leaders of the rebellious nobles facing the king in open court and demanding that he step down.

In the midst of this, the younger brother returns with the magic sword. It seems at first that everything is going to turn out okay after all. The younger brother hands the sword to the elder. The elder unsheathes it--and it erupts in flame, searing his hand. He drops it. The younger brother unthinkingly snatches it up and the flame goes out.

At this point, the nobles go into open revolt. The elder brother marshals his few supporters against them, while the younger brother desperately tries to restore peace in the land and put a stop to the fighting that is going on in his name.

To cap it all off, the elder brother has now concluded that the younger is deliberately trying to overthrow him, and sentences him to death...

Hum. Actually I was going to suggest the same. So, seconded ;)

Maybe you could add some known, high-ranking guard who was send on the quest together with the younger brother who is some kind of fanatic supporter of him (Or a Tregerian spy; but as you don't want them to be involved, as you stated previously, make him a fanatic).
He leaves the party and comes back to Prydain all alone and with some terrible injuries all over his body.
He vows he had seen the younger brother getting slaughtered by mercenaries, thus confirming the noble's accusation.

This could make the uprising because of the accusation a little more credible.

[TimeWizard]

WARNING: Silly post.

Rember the age old idiom that "Kingdoms are good, Empires are evil". Also, it's always the scheming advisor. And the princess actually loves you. Then again, 9 times out of 10, the princess is secretly in your party (hint: she's the only female, or the most tomboyish of the 2) .


But whatever, just kill 'em all and let god sort it out.

[PnP Fan]

hmmm.. . I stopped reading the thread, so I apologize if I step on anyone's ideas.
The problem is that you've got two fairly likeable NPCs. They're both ethical (lawful) men, and the one that would normally challenge for rulership (the younger brother) is a good guy, and supports his brother's rightful claim to the throne. There's no conflict. All of that can change though.. . *evil grin*

1. Change your LN king to CN or LE, and give him ranks in diplomacy and bluff.
2. When your king draws the "sword from the stone" or what have you, make him fail. Have the younger brother succeed, preferrably by accident. Make all of this public.
3. your king should be supported by both the nobles and a section of the greedy merchant middle class. Your rightful heir should be supported by The People and a smaller section of the merchants.
4. In fear of losing his position to religious omens (the sword), your king should have his brother assassinated, or at least attempt to do so. Voila, the first act of violence, leading to a heroic escape by the prince, and the gathering of resources, etc. . .for his rebellion.
5. You can extend the time between 3 and 4 a bit by having your king's supporters fund the border disputes, thus giving him an opportunity to say a) we've no time to discuss this, we've got a border to control, and b) an opportunity to put your prince in combat, and possibly assassinated during the fight.

That's just one suggestion. I'll post if I come up with anything else.

[Muz]

hmmm.. . I stopped reading the thread, so I apologize if I step on anyone's ideas.
The problem is that you've got two fairly likeable NPCs. They're both ethical (lawful) men, and the one that would normally challenge for rulership (the younger brother) is a good guy, and supports his brother's rightful claim to the throne. There's no conflict.

But that's what I liked about it. I wanted a war that came from unfortunate circumstances and bad decisions rather than pure evil (any Tregerian manipulation of existing fractures notwithstanding). Wars can snowball easily enough on they're own once they're started without a purely evil influence.

And regarding the quest for the sword, no one's really sure if the sword even exists anymore or if the younger brother will find it (including me). I just figured getting the younger brother out of the picture for a while would allow for others to go to war in his name before he could come back and stop them. By then, momentum has taken it's toll and stopping the war would be a lot more difficult. (The older brother just sent him away because he's an idiot and chose the exact WRONG solution to his problem, even though it made sense in his own mind for him to do so.)

[Bouldering Jove]

Civil wars never emerge for casual reasons. An incident to set the spark may be trivial, but it will never ignite a war unless there's already a lot of fuel to be set ablaze.

So, you need two things:

Grievance. The legitimacy of the regime in the eyes of those fighting against it must be somehow eroded. Things could be better under a more competent leader, sure, but things could always be better, so what's this particular ruler screwing up to make some group of people despise him and his reign? What conditions imposed by the existing government are intolerable to some? This can't just be discontent; it must be a threat to some group's way of life or even continuing existence.

Gain. There must be some kind of benefit attainable by fighting against the existing government. Having marginally more competent leadership at the helm isn't sufficient. Why are people willing to put their lives on the line to struggle against the regime? Considering the possible punishment for treason, there must be some powerful motivations driving those in revolt, which might include higher loyalty to factions other than the existing government (such as ethnic loyalty).

Establishing these generally takes longer than the older brother has been in power. You mentioned that the leaders on the borders are restless, but if civil war breaks out, the threat of invasion will become much worse because military resources will be committed to internal struggle. The older brother would have to have completely destabilized the realm before they would stand to gain by taking up arms against him, and if the realm was approaching collapse, Treger would already have made their moves. A quiet, efficient coup might be an option on the table for the kingdom's sub-rulers, but that won't lead to what you want. For a civil war, you'll need social forces that have at least been in play since the old king's reign, and you'll need more differentiation between the brothers.

If keeping both brothers alive wasn't a priority, I would suggest your simplest option to be going for a disguised, efficient, succesful coup, but giving Prydain a culture that places an enormous emphasis on tradition and regal authority. When the younger one returns, he finds himself coronated, but only because of what he quickly deduces is murder. The coup isn't just an assassination, it's a ferocious blow to royal power, implying that the king has no authority without the approval of the sub-rulers. To peacefully accept the throne in that circumstance would be to put your head on the chopping block, and the heads of all your descendants. The new king would have every reason to try to bring in the coup organizers for treason, and with plausible deniability, those responsible (now facing death) could keep their local populations and armies at their side (particularly if those territories have been neglected or burdened by the crown for a long time). The king deploys loyalist military forces to seize the perpetrators and their holdings, thus looking like the aggressor, and the territories aligned with the coup defend themselves, effectively seceding. Bam, civil war.

[Diggorian]

Or were you asking what their involvement was so far? They did run across Tregerian plans to take the border castle (and reported it to Prydainian forces), and they've actually met the (now dead) high king very briefly in the context of the party's discovering a drow slave trade operating out of the capital city itself. Other than that, they've mostly just been hearing rumors and reports of events as they travelled.

Thanks for clarifying. My advice for determining how to get to war is to offer the PC's involvement.

As they're known already for discovering the Tregerian plot, the factions know them to be capable and not spies. During their brief pass through Prydian, I'd have a representative of every faction trying to get these known heroes to work on their behalf. Each one would paint the others as corrupt/inept/etc, subjective assessments.

If they ignore them all and continue on their business, you could have the Rhyl folk reach out the their countrymen about fears to a Prydian crack down. The new king may not have the stomach to take on fiesty little Treger, but putting down the western revolt and squeezing the Rhyl is easier, especially if he spins it as preventing another war.

Perhaps the vampire-mage lair has been claimed by another evil force, who holds the younger prince captive along with the mythic sword? Are they inleague with the Elder? The noble? Treger? Independant?

In short, when in doubt about your world encourage the PCs to make history.

[Matthew]

I think Winter King and MaxKaladin present some good ideas here. Winter King is definitely right that you ought to create an Evil Aligned faction that takes advantage of the potential for discord. Civil Wars, as ide from being bloody and undesirable affairs for those who are happy with the status quo, are opportunities for others to take risks for gain and settle old scores under the pretext of another cause.

Battles are unlikely to be frequent, much more likely are raids and sieges. With the Prince away, others can act in his name, perhaps even his Mother or Sister or some other relation. The war should be a chaotic mess with main factions seeking the support of lesser factions.

Lots of potential for fun, here.

[Dorni]

I think Bouldering Jove makes a very good point - civil wars do not start casually. When designing the civil war, I suggest stepping back and analizing what you have created thus far to work with.

First, you need to establish what power blocks you have. It takes a significant power to challenge the established authority, so look for potential power blocks. So far, heres what I see:

Royalty - The twins rule here. You established that they are both honorable and prefer both to survive. They are undoubtably one of the major powers in this civil war.

Nobles - Without the support of the nobles overseeing their various corners of the realm, running the country becomes difficult if not impossible. Nobles also have the ability to raise armies and have the financial resources to challenge or launch a challenge to the royalty.

Military - Even if officially under the command of the royalty, the military are best thought of as their own faction. If they lose their loyalty to the royalty and give it to their commander instead, they can be a genuine threat.

Middle Class - They lack the individual power of the nobles and royalty, but they make up for it in numbers. When stirred, they can bring a fair amount of resources to the table. Those numbers that give their strength also make them slow to mobilize.

Lower Class - numbers and bodies are their strengths. They mobilize few resources outside the labor they perform and bodies to make armies with. Easily pushed down due to low resources, the lower class must join forces with other power blocks in order for them to succeed; even then they usually arn't the ones leading the revolt.

Forein Powers - Civil wars are influenced by outside factions, but generally outside powers do not start the war. Decisive, organized intervention has changed the outcome of many a revolution, however.

Once you establish your power blocks, look for ways to manipulate them. Here is where you need to start looking at what causes the war. As mentioned earlier, the two most common themes for revolutions are Grevience and Gain. I'd heavily suggest going with a civil war for Gain. For an effective Grievience based war, you need an abudance of time for unrest to spread. Even if the new king is a fool, it would take years for it to come to a point where a war erupts. Lacking that time, unless the players know little enough about the country that you can the suffering retro-activly, lets go with Gain. Now, you need to manipulate your power blocks to create this conflict.

The royalty block is the first block to deal with since they rest at the pinnacle of the society (as I understand the country). You have two honorable brothers, so it would seem to me that any conflict between them they would resolve peacefully for the good of the kingdom. However, that honor can be manipulated. You can use that same honor to put them in a situation where one believes it is their duty to eliminate the other. For instance; the younger brother finds the sword but also recieves a prophecy that warns him that he must rule the country or the kindom is destroyed. He feels it is his duty to rule, and the elder views it as a betrayal (emotional severing) and feels he must put down the rebellion for the good of the land. The other power blocks divide and bam - civil war. On the flip side, if you keep the princes together, you need one of your other power blocks to step up. I'd advise against the lower or middle classes since an individual of that class won't have the position to take over the country.

A botched military coup by commanders (for reasons of your choice) could leave the two brothers alive but simply drive them from the captial. The brothers must then rally nobles, other segments of the army, and other power blocks to them in order to put down this sizure. This would produce a long, grinding civil war between the established military & its command against the royalty. The nobles, other classes, and foreigners being the deciding blocks. If both sides secure 2, the war drags on. If one side secures 3, they have a power advantage and the civil war is short. I'd split the power blocks; a short war would re-unite the country while a grinding one would be more likly to result in stalemate and split the country.

Keep in mind that foreign intervention tends to be more powerful than the other blocks, and the foreigners themselves almost always intervine for their own gain, be it to secure a new ally, gain some concessions, or simply to settle a score with a power who defeated/humiliated them in the past.

Rather than picking one specific event to start the civil war, look at your power blocks and see what you can do to align them against each other. The aformentioned each-royal-thinks-hes-right scenario and military coup would both produce civil wars, so look for something that fits your campaign and would result in the division of the country as you want it divided. There doesn't need to be a clear evil at work.

[felblood]

Starting the war:

Remember friends, that the grievances in question need not be so terribly serious as a "threat to their way of life" and the gain in question need not be material.

Something that one person considers to be an inconsequential act can drive another faction to horrific acts of violence. King Stupid Brother could come in quite handy here.

The American rebels didn't need the British soldiers to come into their houses, listen to their conversations, eat their food and sleep in their beds to become disgruntled. The very fact that the soldiers could do so told them they were second class citizens.

Why are their so many different factions of secessionists in North Idaho? Boise and Washington D.C. aren't a threat to their survival so much as a continually annoying inconvenience. Indeed all the gated roads and complicated tax laws in the world could never annoy them so much as the fact that their higher ranking countrymen consider them uncultured rubes, with no political clout or economic relevance.

People will take a lot of risks for material gain, but they would die to feel like their lives were valuable and their efforts are worthwhile.

"..I's rich again! I owns myself, and I's worth five hundred dollars!"

Likewise King George III wasn't trying to oppress the colonists with his policies. He was looking to make some money and garrison his troops in places where they would be both cheap to feed and have an ear to the murmurings of the common people. --Not evil, just completely failing to understand how the people in question would react to losing what they saw as their Rights as British citizens.

It does take a skilled rabble rouser like Thomas Payne or Fidel Castro to turn a bunch of angry peasants into a real powder keg, but there's bound to be a few of those on hand, even without Treger. (Public Service Announcement: Stop naming stuff that. It sounds stupider each new time I hear it.)

A rebellion needs the support of either the masses (or a significant part of the masses) or the military in order to gain much credibility with possible supporters. Nobody bet's on a horse with three legs.

It wouldn't be too hard for an incompetent king to anger part or all of his army enough to desert to a rebel faction or even try a coup. After all, when he screws up they pay with their lives, which makes it somewhat harder for them to forgive even minor or simply perceived flaws.

Going back for more historical examples, look a Vietnam. There's a war that divided a country quite badly, complete with some messy incidents that could have just as easily spiraled into civil war with the right kind of fanatics fanning the flames.

The people in charge had to make a lot of tough decisions (many of them of debatable quality) trying to keep China from overtly joining the war, feed their propaganda machine and to maintain support among their allies. However, the soldiers on the ground only saw the cost of those policies, in the form of horrible death and maiming. Morale problems, including desertion, defiance, drug abuse, criminal activity and dereliction of duty, became as serious as the problems that caused it.

Take those problems and stretch them one step further, to where the whole thing goes bang, and the Shot gets Heard Round the World. Add a general with his eye own eye on the throne, or some protesters that get put down a little to hard, or an assassination attempt (successful or failure with a retreat; bodies are answers in DnD) by an outside faction (Possibly the Reds, who are the reason the other pretty, primary color gets to be the good guys) which gets blamed on the Elder prince.

Powder keg plus catalyst goes boom!

The real beauty of the thing is whatever happens you're going to have lot's of folks who feel fro both sides (possibly including the PCs) who's loyalty will eventually make or break the conflict.

Ending the War (Planning ahead is important):

The good prince returns, not wanting a war in his name he negotiates a peace with his brother, which he feels will satisfy his followers while only stealing half of his brother's rightful kingdom.

The beauty here is that it's an integrated time bomb in your plot hook. If it becomes a problem, or if you simply get tired of it, the prince arrives and everything gets wrapped up. He doesn't even have to finish his quest, he can just be dropping in to consult a famous sage about a clue that he found, and find himself with a war on his hands.

Of course, if the conflict is more ideological than regional, it's likely that there will be supporters of each side left on the hostile side of the border, which sets you up for a nice little India-Pakistan Cold War, but with extra sedition. Won't that be fun?

[SITB]

Supporters of the younger brother begin muttering that the whole "quest" story is just a fiction the older brother made up as a cover for having murdered the younger. Eventually some important noble makes this accusation publicly. The elder brother, already insecure and nervous on his throne--and also feeling just a bit guilty over having sent the younger brother away to secure his own power--flies into a rage and has the noble executed for sedition.

Matters begin to come to a boil. There is unrest throughout the kingdom, many nobles wanting the elder brother to abdicate in favor of (insert charismatic leader here). Finally, there is a public confrontation, the leaders of the rebellious nobles facing the king in open court and demanding that he step down.

In the midst of this, the younger brother returns with the magic sword. It seems at first that everything is going to turn out okay after all. The younger brother hands the sword to the elder. The elder unsheathes it--and it erupts in flame, searing his hand. He drops it. The younger brother unthinkingly snatches it up and the flame goes out.

At this point, the nobles go into open revolt. The elder brother marshals his few supporters against them, while the younger brother desperately tries to restore peace in the land and put a stop to the fighting that is going on in his name.

To cap it all off, the elder brother has now concluded that the younger is deliberately trying to overthrow him, and sentences him to death...

I also thought of that idea only with the Treger sending covert bards/preachers/demagouges(sp?) to create an open revolt (never underestimate the power of charism in large groups of people) thus creating the general feeling that the older brother is untrustworthy. Have it inflame by ideolgical nobles and those who want to put the younger brother on the throne, and watch as the king in panic induced state only makes the situation worse by matrial laws and other bad decsions.

And the return of the younger brother would be perfect since he would either confront the nobles who did such atrocties in his name or his brother which managed to lead the kingdom to ruin.

[DrummingDM]

As I see it...you can keep things pretty simple, not involve Tregor, and still accomplish what you're looking to accomplish.

Step 1: Border Skirmishes Rally Support for Prince Would-Be King the Younger
Nobles near the border are seeing increased attacks from monstrous humanoids, and knowing that Younger-Prince is out gallavanting in search of a sword with a force of protectors and such, send messengers requesting his aid in securing their lands. Being all L/G and all, he's not exactly likely to ignore the pleas of his people.

Step 2: Prince Would-Be King the Elder is Just a Wee Bit Jealous
As the Prince-the-Younger mounts more and more successes in defending his nations border, and word spreads back to the capital of how beloved Prince-the-Young is becoming with the people, Prince-the-Elder gets more and more upset. After all, should little brother be off futilely search for that mystical sword, and not unwittingly gathering the support and uniting the spirit of the people living near the border?

Step 3: Rumors Reach the Capital - The Eastern Province Nobles REALLY Like Would-Be King the Younger
A few hushed whispers that reach the King seem to indicate that a few of the more influential nobles in the East are SO happy with the success that the younger brother has had that they'd be willing throw their support behind him if he would publically declare a claim to the throne. Jealous Would-Be King the Elder openly decries these influential nobles as traitors, and sends out troops to arrest them and bring them to the capital for execution.

Step 4: Opposition!
The eastern provinces won't have none of that, yo. The people, calling their King a tyrant, band together and the soldiers sent to arrest the nobles are met by militia forces, backed up by soldiers loyal to the accused nobles. What begins as small skirmishes in the east, quickly erupts into full-scale open warfare. CIVIL WAR!

Step 5: The Nobles Convince Would-Be King the Younger That His Life is in Danger
Our L/G prince is now torn - his country is being ripped apart by internal strife, but the nobles he's become so buddy-buddy with could be right in saying that if the King was willing to try to arrest them, why would he not do the same to his own brother who is (by no fault of his own) seen as the cause of this fighting? The only choice is for the L/G prince to throw his support behind the nobles, and make a claim to the throne. (Even better if he can do so while wielding that nifty "I-am-the-King, don't-doubt-me" sword he was searching for.)

Step 6: Profit?

[Wolf53226]

Hmm, you could have the "younger brother return" with the sword, although it isn't actually the younger brother, it is a Tregerian mage or if he needs some fighting ability, a warrior with a mage vizier, posing as him, and it isn't actually THE sword, it's quite a nice replica. Upon his return he says the sword has granted him a glimpse to the future and that he is intent on fixing the problems before his brother makes them by taking the throne. By the time the real brother returns the war has been going on too long to just stop.

[Meschaelene]

Very nice set up. My question: where are the PC's in all this? Is this the backstory of the region you're still forming pre-game?

Heh, the PCs are the one's who meet the king, say, "Man, you are teh suxxorz!", and run him through -- probably before the backstory is ever really told.

:)

Here's my take -- you first have to decide (probably along with your players) whether or not you want the civil war to be part of the setting, or whether the players will be the primary influence on the course and the outcome of the war.

If it's part of the setting, make sure that it's not a civil war about personalities -- such as, the nobles hate the king, because the war loses it's focus if the king is killed by the players. Since you are into Welsh history, you are aware of the constant threat of rebellion by the March Warders -- to defend the realm against the Welsh, they needed a lot of power and independence, which is also what made them a threat to the king! If the March Lords and Warders start thinking "Why am I out here bleeding and fighting when the people who have real power are the sissys drinking wine back at court?", then you have a systemic reason for the civil war -- and the players can't end it or stop it just by killing one guy.

If you expect the actions of your players to determine the course and outcome of the civil war, then it's got to be a war about personalities -- with your players being some key personalities.

[Diggorian]

Heh, the PCs are the one's who meet the king, say, "Man, you are teh suxxorz!", and run him through -- probably before the backstory is ever really told.

:)

Sure, why not! I say let the PCs surprise ya. :smallbiggrin:

Seems like Muz has set up a "war of personalities", as you put it, but killing the Elder wont solve it. As is, there's no true bad guy, just conflicting interests which need to mediated without the sword. Ofcourse, his group may not be the type for this.

With two of the PC being Rhylish, I'd expect them to come on the side of the northern rebels if not envoys from Rhyl itself. Using their fame to meet the new king and skewering him for the cause of Rhyl rights will start an second Rhyl war with Prydia kingless.

[Muz]

Ack! Useful suggestion overload!! :smalleek: :smallbiggrin:

Thanks again to everyone who's replied! (even if you don't like the name "Treger." I'm horrible with names, but I'm sticking with it anyway. Besides, I rather like it. Pointless fact: many of the names of Tregerian cities/towns are taken from types of wine. The party was recently attacked on the road from Malbec to Pinotage.)

I'm still processing and refining things, but I figure it'd be rude to just grab all the suggestions and run without a word, so here in a nutshell is the direction I'm going on so far: (And in answer to Meschaelene's question, I'm more planning for the war to be part of the setting rather than something on which the PCs are the primary influence, especially as they're not Prydish themselves, though should they decide they want to get involved, I'll certainly adapt to serve.) :smallsmile:

Incidentally, the older brother (King Stupid Brother) is named Gabran, the younger is named Agravain. (Go Team Name-Thievery! Helps that the party doesn't know too much about Arthurian legend, though when I steal names, it's just for a name that rings true, not for the character, usually.)

Taking the excellent advice that a civil war doesn't occur out of nowhere, I've got the following "stressors" in mind. Some of these will have taken place before the old king died, as he was falling ill and Gabran was taking over some of the rulership duties (and making poor decisions that sometimes slipped past daddy). These are in no particular order...

--Natural disaster with poor response (flood, most likely, but possible earthquake), and/or poor crop harvests in certain areas.
--Agravain and his quest group run into a situation in a Prydanian town that proves their strength and makes them heroes before continuing on their quest. Word of this spreads to both increase support for him and worry King Gabran.
--King Gabran replaces certain good advisors who disagree with him with idiots that he likes/grew up with (gosh, and THIS has never happened before) :smallwink:
--The pantheon in this world is based off the Roman one, and Prydain's two highest revered are Jupiter and Apollo. As such, each temple has political power. Gabran's a Jupiter man, and I think might do something to bolster Jupiter's temple that accidentally ticks off Apollo's. (Possibly trying to decree that Apollo's great temple in the capital should be moved to another city, which the king does because he thinks that city would flourish with the temple there, but the Apollonites take as a move to lessen their influence in the capital. There are paladins in Prydain serving both temples, so this would cause some nice schisms. This idea still needs tweaking, but...I'm liking it so far.
--A big Colleseum-like stadium is being made for games (Gabran likes such diversions and is trying to make the people happy), with money being taken from more vital places in order to pay for it (not to mention the land used in the city which would likely displace SOMEone).
--King Gabran tries to better relations with Treger, which maybe irks others? (Iffy on how to do this, and it might look like he's in Treger's pocket. Then again maybe he allows a Tregerian/Prydish border dispute to be resolved too favorably for Treger, making him look weak.)
--There's a town on the extreme border that used to be part of Rhyl, but is rather isolated. It's issues are getting ignored (they've got...some sort of resource people like but Gabran doesn't much care for it, and the prices are going up, while he ignores their defiance because he really doesn't see the point--hence making him look weak and causing him to overreact to the seditious remarks below, as sedition affects HIM more directly)
--Rumors, especially further out from the capital where fewer actual eye-witnesses would be, that the quest is just a cover for Agravain being exiled or even murdered. (This would likely contradict with the bit about his heroism above, so I'll have to reconcille that and probably just pick one.)

I also liked the idea of a new resource being discovered that the king overtaxes, or at least have some trade dispute come up in a wealthier provence that the old king wouldn't have pushed them on, since he understood the need to keep those nobles happy in order to secure funds and troops for the poorer and less secure areas. King Stupid Brother (I love that :smallbiggrin: ) pushes them too hard. Some of them speak out publically about Gabran's inabilities and how Agravain would be better (or maybe even non-publically, but are heard by some of Jupiter's temple, who are loyal to the rightful king and report them). Things escalate, and these nobles are stripped of land and titles. Some comply (enough for others to worry about their OWN positions), some do not.

King Gabran, trying to get over his "weak and stupid" image, sends troops, seizing the lands/exacting punishment, etc. This/these noble(s) fight back just as some other issues are occurring (or have already occurred that would've sparked the seditious whispers in the first place), causing the Gabran to pull in troops from other places and raise taxes. The places where troops have been pulled from get invaded/raided (and obviously nobles THERE will be more frustrated), but Gabran is too busy with his vengeance to adequately deal with that. Western border cities, still remembering a time before they were conquered (and no longer content that THIS Prydish king will be as good to them as the last) start thinking of revolt. Treger does what they can in terms of propaganda to fan the flames. Gabran might also be confronted at court by other nobles calling for some sanity or at least a different way of doing things, which heaps further problems and stress on the king.

I'm also considering a possible failed assassination attempt that involves the attempted bribe of Jupiter's priests so as to botch a resurrection, but the bribe attempt is fumbled and the priests tip off Gabran. I like the psychological effect this would have on the king, but I'm not sure if I'll use it or not--or maybe I'm just unsure of exactly when TO use it. (I'll probably play it by ear.)

Agravain will return from his quest early (w/o the sword), having heard about the problems and thinking he'd better get back and talk some sense into his brother, even as more people cry that the Gabran is screwing things up and scheming to put the Agravain on the throne in his absence. Agravain will try to advise Gabran, who distrusts his (genuine) advice, which just makes things worse.

Now certain segments of the kingdom are talking secession, openly threatening it if Gabran doesn't step down. Gabran (a little loopy at this point, paranoid, and growing more and more delusional that this is all his brother's fault) decides it's best to exile Agravain. Agravain dutifully goes, but full-on war begins in his name, with his supporters now creating a separate kingdom and searching for him to put him on the throne. (Some of these separatists have designs on being the new rulers themselves, but the populace's love of Agravain is what they'll use to get the populace on their side.) Agravain decides that while his brother is the rightful ruler of Prydain, he's an idiot, and forming a separate kingdom is the best way to allow him his thone and still help the most people. He pleas for a peaceful resolution...though Gabran will fight to maintain control over the whole of Prydain, for a while.

Things may wind up with a kingdom ruled by Gabran, a kingdom ruled by Agravain, and various smaller states that don't want anything to do with either (mostly border stuff, formerly captured Rhyl and the northern provinces). Not that this will be particularly stable at all, but stable makes for a dull setting anyway, right?

Like I said, I'm still working out the details and will be fleshing things out in a more detailed fashion based on a lot of your suggestions (and a few ideas I've had myself that you've triggered). I need to look at my map and do a little thinking about just who'd likely side with whom and so forth. The good thing is that the party hadn't really paid TOO much attention to Prydish politics, so I can retcon some things if necessary (saying that some particular event happened a while back that they'd just not heard about).

But that's the current state of things. :smallbiggrin: (Opinions/suggestions still welcome!)

[Om]

Sounds good. Most importantly it sounds like a kingdom in meltdown.

[Habzial]

I've seen a lot of good suggestions, but so far they don't seem to work with your desire to keep both brothers LG and also work to make the kingdom realistically split in two ruled by each brother. The problems here are that neither brother is actually corrupt and you want both to survive in a way that they share power afterwards. Each of these is a seperate issue.

The first problem is that there's no way the nobles are going to dethrone Gabran on behalf of someone who will punish them for it. None. Since Agravain doesn't want to usurp the throne, it would be incredibly dangerous for anyone to even approach him on the subject. After the coronation, doing so would be suicidal. Why would Agravain allow someone suggesting treason --against his own brother, no less-- to live?

Likewise, the nobles can't wage war in Agravain's absense, because even if they made him king he would put them to death. Even if he somehow supported the murder of his brother, he can't allow regicide to go unpunished. Otherwise he would set a precedent that it's acceptable for the nobles to kill a king solely to elect someone else to the throne. Precedents are everything in politics, even in Medieval politics.

The second problem is you want a civil war to end in a peaceful secession, where both sides remain intact. That's extremely difficult to pull off because it would upset the system of government that's existed for who knows how long. Civil wars aren't fought because of trivial matters of law, nor are they fought so some rich people can shift around who is the richest. Civil wars are fought for either revolution or for secession, and in both cases because the masses are convinced things will be better for their kin afterwards. You're calling for a revolution that ends in both parties choosing peaceful secession, rather than one side losing and the other maintaining control.

It's not even going to be easy to get the revolution started. For any type of civil war, you have to convince the people it's in their own best interest to kill each other. They're not killing some guy who speaks a funny language or has different customs, they're killing their neighbors. That kind of crap isn't taken lightly, and the masses aren't going to do it solely because their stocking-wearing "betters" spread a rumor that one guy was actually born 2 minutes earlier than the other.

Now I've seen a lot of people suggesting that Gabran turns into a tyrant, but that presents a problem in itself. Why would it be in the best interest of the masses to resist a revolution against a tyrant? In other words, who's going to fight on Gabran's side if he does become a tyrant, so that they can continue to be stepped on by said tyrant? Worse, there's no way you could realistically split the kingdom in half afterwards. Nobody wants to live under a tyrant when they get a choice.



That's the bad news.



The good news is, there still are ways to pull off your storyline realistically. The best way I can think of will require you to significantly change the direction your story plays out in, though. For it, Gabran doesn't have to turn into a douchebag, but he still needs to send Agravain on a fool's errand to get that sword. It doesn't matter whether or not Agravain finds the sword, nor does it even need to exist. Likewise, one of the conspiring noble supporters of Agravain , who I will creatively call Baron Usurper, must be responsible for aiding his quest in some way (more on that later).

As Dausuul suggested, the nobles who prefer Agravain spread a rumor that there was no quest. The quest, they'll whisper, was a cover-up for Gabran murdering his brother. Most of them may even believe it, but there have to be a couple conspirators who know it's a lie. These conspirators are secretly in league with Treger. It just so happens some Tregerian noble is a distant relative of Agravain and looks a lot like him. Let's call him Niavarga. (The details of why these conspirators are in league with Niavarga are up to you.) The conspirators intentionally scar Niavarga a bit, so any slight physical differences between him and the real prince are passed off as damage from the failed assassination attempt. Likewise, behavior differences are chalked up to psychological damage from getting nearly killed by his own brother.

Niavarga gets extensive information on being Agravain from Baron Usurper's co-conspirators, but the Baron himself is never known to Niavarga. Meanwhile, Baron Usurper's men make sure that Agravain remains way, way, waaaaaay out of touch with what's going on. Maybe all of Agravain's bodyguards are Usurperian soldiers, maybe just the guide is, it doesn't matter. All that matters is Agravain is out of the picture until Baron Usurper sends The Signal. It can be anything, as long as it's big and you could see it from miles away. Maybe it'll be a forest fire on a mountain or something. Your call there.

Niavarga leads part of the country in a war of revolution against Gabran. There are a lot of reasons you could do this, but I think religious differences makes the most sense for a kingdom of people who were previously living together harmoniously. Personally, I think you should do it by taking advantage of the fact the brothers were born 2 minutes apart. You can do this by making those 2 minutes 11:59 PM and 12:01 AM. Simply by an act of fate, you have one brother born under the world's zodiac sign for Jupiter and the other born under the sign for Apollo.

Now if the population is almost evenly split between these two gods, you've got a pretty damn good situation going for a religion-based war. Most followers are probably going to live in the same area as other followers of the same god. Furthermore, you've got one brother with a great case of attempted fratricide, and the other one honestly claiming he never tried murdering his brother. Gabran is going to logically conclude his brother is either insane or trying to make a grab for power, and anyone supporting Agravain would be a traitor in his eyes.

This is just a guess, but I'm seeing Gabran as being under the god of honor/war/whatever and Agravain being the god of intelligence/wisdom/fine dining. It takes all of one detect truth spell to show the followers of Gabran's god that he didn't try killing his brother. That solidifies them. You likewise have Niavarga looking like he got smacked a few times with the ugly stick, uniting all of the people who think Gabran sucks and/or who want Agravain as the leader anyways. Gabran's side sees the others as a bunch of shifty traitors looking for power. Niavarga portrays Gabran's side as warmongerers looking to further oppress people who worship the fine dining god (even if no such oppression was really going on to begin with).



Here's where it all comes to a head...


Baron Usurper's plan is to wait until Gabran's been killed. Afterwards, he sends The Signal for Agravain to be brought back. Usurper then exposes Niavarga as an impostor, Agravain takes the throne, Usurper is now the big cheese among nobles, and none of the surviving nobles have to be killed for treason (except for Usurper's co-conspirators, who Usurper will use as fallguys). The nobles who were fooled weren't in it for themselves, they were doing what they thought was right. After all, it was just a Tregerian plot to seize the throne. Everyone knows what sneaky bastards they are, and Usurper saw to it their traitor allies were put to death. Damn Usurper's wise, maybe he should get their land.

That's the plan, at least.

Of course, Baron Usurper doesn't have to be a man or even an elder noble. Maybe to make things even more twisted, the mastermind is Baroness Usurpa and she happens to have been Agravain's sweetheart/betroved before he left. The whole plot could have been motivated by her desire to be queen or just because she feels Agravain would make a better king and would realize it when she makes him one. Besides, who better to recognize the real Agravain when he returns than his lover? It's all optional, of course. I mean calling the mastermind Anything Usurper is pretty clearly a fill-in-the-blanks villain mold.



Anyhow, this ends with Agravain showing up early and lousing everything up. Gabran's still alive, the imposter's exposed, and neither side's leaders still want to fight. Unfortunately, the populous has been stirred up into a frenzy over the other religion trying to dominate them. They can't be told it was all a scam, they need to be defused. In order to stop the war's momentum they have a peace accord that allows the country to have a religious sesecession. The populous calms the farg down because now they don't have to be afraid of being second-class citizens to another religion's members.

The kingdom becomes two sister nations with a shared capitol. This will allow them to reunite when things calm down. You could also have it as a temporary measure to the transition easier if you don't want things going towards reunification. The good thing about this is they won't have to change laws, customs, currency, etc. At least they won't have to deal with it immediately.

Best of all, it would be very easy to tie the players into what's happening. There are plenty of clues what's going on, they easily could run into Agravain several times during the campaign, and if you have them running around the country it wouldn't be hard to hook them up with Agravain and help him try to stop the war (if the PCs find out about the imposter). Plus, some of the conspirators might want to kill the real Agravain out of fear, once they realize the plan just got borked.

[Matthew]

Revolutions and Civil Wars are not the same things. A Civil War does not require much in the way of participation of the populous, only the military segment. I think it is important to bear that in mind.

[Habzial]

I'm afraid I didn't choose my words that carefully. I meant to get across that civil wars were fought either for the same purposes of revolution (changing who is in charge of the whole pie) or secession (carving up the pie and deciding which slice is ruled by whom). Both require some amount of popular support, particularly since your drawing troops from the same country you're fighting.

[Pilum]

hmm, religious issues, a 'merry' king faced with border conflicts, a powerful baron/middle class getting jittery...

muz, have you considered reading up on the lead up to Magna Carta and the 17thC. English Civil War(s)? :smallsmile:

(i'll expand on this later; lack of time right now)

[Muz]

I've only got a moment to comment just now, but a few quick things: Both brothers are lawful, but not lawful good. (Gabran's really more LN.)

Also, Prydain is a series of smaller kingdoms (each ruled by their own king), headed by a high king, and I seem to recall battles taking place in history/legend (though admittedly none that I can cite just now except for something I once read about Uther Pendragon attacking Galois's forces for the slight of leaving court insultingly early, which is obviously more legend than sure fact) based more on kingly pride and military obedience to enforce that pride.

[Dervag]

Y'know, this is why assassins exist. Have some smart old folks decide that the Elder would not really be a very good king, and dispatch some elite ninjas. All completely behind the Younger's back, of course, to avoid any nasty accusations. Also, making Resurrection impossible might be a smart idea.I don't think he wants Gabran dead, though.


I'm thinking it wouldn't start with a bang, but instead with some tossed rock in some major city. One moment there's just a vocal mob of people, and the next someone throws a rock, the others join in, the watch comes to resolve the situation. No-one really knows who got hurt first, but it just turns ugly and then there's deaths and the next day there's all kinds of talk and some of the revolutionaires get in touch with some army fellows (with the help of some helpful fellow who just wants to help the supporters of the True King...) and before anyone knows, Important Places are seized by force. Of course the Loyal Military quickly comes in to save the day, but the seeds of rebellion are planted.That's a pretty good suggestion.

Think about the American Revolution, which started with a skirmish between British regular infantry and Massachusetts militia on Lexington Green. To this day, no one knows who fired the first shot at Lexington. The suspicion is that it was fired by someone off the field.

So, for instance: you could have a nervous confrontation between the Imperial Guards (loyal to Gabran) and the household troops of some senior noble (who is one of Agravain's closest and most trusted friends, and who probably wishes that Agravain were king). I'm going to call the noble the Earl of Murray.

The issue is one of rights; the Guard is trying to do something on the Earl's property that the king would normally not be allowed to do, such as search his home for some wanted criminal.

The household troops don't want a war, but they're willing to fight to keep the Guard from barging into their lord's castle and turning the place upside down. Then a shot gets fired. Ideally, it's not clear who fired the shot or where it went off. All that anyone knows is that they heard the twang of a bowstring or the chanting of a caster, and then all hell broke loose.* The Guard and the Earl of Murray's men start fighting. The Guard wins the battle, and in the heat of the moment they batter the Earl's door down and take him and his family into custody.

*Perhaps the twang or chant was created by an Tregerian illusionist from off the field? Or perhaps not a Tregerian, but someone that the players might initially believe to be a Tregerian if they ever catch up with him?

This outrages many powerful people all over the empire. They reason that if Gabran can send a bunch of jackbooted thugs to drag the Earl of Murray off into the night with his entire family, they could very easily be next. Within days of the time that the word gets out, there are various senior officials and power blocs throughout the empire rebelling against Gabran.

However, most of these rebels are still loyal to the throne, even though they believe that Gabran has gone mad with power. So naturally Agravain becomes a popular rallying standard for the rebels, since most of them don't actually want to overthrow the monarchy.

If Agravain ever returns from his quest, he will be presented with a fait accompli. Large sectors of the kingdom have declared for him already; Gabran is probably angry enough that he'll have Agravain locked in a dungeon if he ever sees him again. Moreover, anti-Gabran leaders will constantly be telling Agravain that his brother has gone mad with power and is now lashing out against the innocent.


Supporters of the younger brother begin muttering that the whole "quest" story is just a fiction the older brother made up as a cover for having murdered the younger.Oooh, that's a good one.

But if you want to create a sense of ambiguity, you don't want to make it blatantly obvious that the Gabran is insane and/or evil. It's probably a good thing if both of them seem like basically OK people. Since the PCs are outside the conflict, you can probably get the best dramatic result by making it unclear who should be winning the war from their perspective.


hmmm.. . I stopped reading the thread, so I apologize if I step on anyone's ideas.
The problem is that you've got two fairly likeable NPCs. They're both ethical (lawful) men, and the one that would normally challenge for rulership (the younger brother) is a good guy, and supports his brother's rightful claim to the throne. There's no conflict. All of that can change though.. . *evil grin*I can't prove it, but I think that's not a good idea.

The problem is that a civil war is supposed to be somewhat ambiguous. Most people won't knowingly back an evil ruthless bastard if they know that there's a good, benevolent ruler just waiting in the wings, and who will be the legitimate heir beyond any shadow of a doubt if the evil ruthless bastard dies.

That's important to remember. By traditional laws of succession, Agravain is high king if Gabran dies, whether the Agravain likes it or not.

So if there's any clear-cut proof that the younger brother is the rightful heir (such as him successfully pulling the sword from the stone when his brother can't), the civil war is going to be very lopsided and probably not produce the result you want (a divided kingdom).

Instead, you want a situation where sane and honorable men could very easily choose either side. On the one hand, the older brother is clearly the legitimate ruler; on the other, the younger brother is a much better man and it seems like the older brother may be abusing his power somewhat. Making the older brother a ruthless, clever, manipulative Lawful Evil tyrant would defeat the purpose.

In an artistically good civil war, conflict can be generated even in the absence of blatant alignment conflict.


If keeping both brothers alive wasn't a priority, I would suggest your simplest option to be going for a disguised, efficient, succesful coup, but giving Prydain a culture that places an enormous emphasis on tradition and regal authority. When the younger one returns, he finds himself coronated, but only because of what he quickly deduces is murder... The new king would have every reason to try to bring in the coup organizers for treason, and with plausible deniability, those responsible (now facing death) could keep their local populations and armies at their side... The king deploys loyalist military forces to seize the perpetrators and their holdings, thus looking like the aggressor, and the territories aligned with the coup defend themselves, effectively seceding. Bam, civil war.That suggestion is quite possibly even better than mine.

[Pilum]

Well, so much for sleeping on it! Dervag and Bouldering Jove's suggestions cover what I was thinking of saying and so much more. Out of interest, is the party, and especially the divine spellcasters, split on religious lines? Or even their lieges, if they hold any land or power? Because if so, things could be made really awkward for them by having any conflict exacerbated by introducing a whiff of Jovian vs Apollonian. Or even if due to their temporal/spiritual allegiances, they are themselves forced to consider taking up arms against that extremely personable and brave young man they have lately adventured with.

Of course, being adventurers, they can always take option (c), head for the hills and the comparatively easier job of 'only' having to kill dragons for a living! But of course, I'd imagine gods tend to take a dim view of those followers who cut and run when (for example) their High Temple is turned into a smoking ruin. A party without Heal spells, for instance, isn't likely to go very far in this new career path... Yes, my players DO occasionally ask if my parents were married, now you mention it. ;-)

"... how I deteste this warre without ane enemie..."

[Turcano]

One thing you need to keep in mind is the motivations behind any noble faction that is supporting the younger brother. Historically, the nobility is adverse to centralized government; all things being equal, a weak king is better than a strong king. This gives the nobility an inherent preference for the elder brother unless extenuating circumstances come into play. If you want evenly matched factions, you probably don't want some external force like famine or invasion as the primary concern, as that will sap the strength of the younger brother's faction. That said, ideological disputes, such as a religious schism, can make for some particularly vicious conflict. You can also bring family ties into the picture; you could make the leader of the opposing faction a powerful king whose sister happens to be the younger brother's fiancee. In any case, you can also use the assassination attempt, but with a twist--the assassination attempt is made to look like a plot from a neighboring state (Treger is the most obvious scapegoat) whose involvement in the conflict would benefit whichever side set them up (the opposing faction would probably benefit, as it would open up a second front on the loyalists).

[Shisumo]

A few more points to consider:

1) Not-very-good kings don't produce wars. Uprisings, sure, but in order for an uprising to be solid enough to actually become a war, there have to be serious stakes on the table. These are almost invariably money or religion (or both); if people can worship as they choose and make a decent living, then war as a rule is not going to be sufficiently advantageous to be worth fighting over no matter the consequences.

2) The set-up as you've described it, consequently, is better suited to a coup than a civil war. You could have it begin as a coup and then escalate to a civil war, but you will not be able to do so while maintaining the king's LNish attitude. A draconian response to an attempted coup is perfectly logical, but it means you've gone deep into LE territory.

3) Civil wars rarely result in countries being divided. Countries only split during wartime if they have previously-established geographical faultlines along which they can divide. Otherwise, the war kind of ranges all over, and there is not enough cultural cohesion within the factions to make division a satisfactory solution. To put it another way, before a faction is willing to say, "You get that, and we get this," there must first be a culturally significant way to tell "you" from "we." Prydain, therefore, needs some internal cultural divides that are geographically separated if you really intend that the country split apart.

[Dervag]

One thing you need to keep in mind is the motivations behind any noble faction that is supporting the younger brother. Historically, the nobility is adverse to centralized government; all things being equal, a weak king is better than a strong king. This gives the nobility an inherent preference for the elder brother unless extenuating circumstances come into play.One obvious extenuating circumstance being that they're afraid that the older brother has gone mad and is now an even greater threat than a strong but mentally healthy king would be.


1) Not-very-good kings don't produce wars. Uprisings, sure, but in order for an uprising to be solid enough to actually become a war, there have to be serious stakes on the table.Definitely true.


2) The set-up as you've described it, consequently, is better suited to a coup than a civil war. You could have it begin as a coup and then escalate to a civil war, but you will not be able to do so while maintaining the king's LNish attitude. A draconian response to an attempted coup is perfectly logical, but it means you've gone deep into LE territory.Not necessarily. It is entirely compatible with the Lawful Neutral alignment to execute the leaders of a coup attempt.

Now, what happens if the high king (older brother) believes some group to be responsible for the coup but can't prove it? Maybe he has them executed anyway (Lawful Evil). But maybe he just strips them of their estates or otherwise cripples them as a political force. That isn't Lawful Evil, but it will have the effect of scaring the bejeezus out of all the minor kinglets and nobles. Again, "if it can happen to the Earl of Murray, it can happen to me."


3) Civil wars rarely result in countries being divided. Countries only split during wartime if they have previously-established geographical faultlines along which they can divide.Not permanently, not usually.

However, there can certainly be geographical divisions. For instance, the American Civil War involved a sustained conflict between two geographically distinct nations that were culturally similar in most regards, though their economies were very different.

Moreover, the longer a civil war goes on, the more likely it is to end up divided along territorial lines (at least until one side or the other is defeated). Areas where rebels are in the minority tend to be overwhelmed by loyalists and vice versa. For examples of this, see the Spanish Civil War of the late 1930s or the Russian Civil War of the early 1920s.

Otherwise, the war kind of ranges all over, and there is not enough cultural cohesion within the factions to make division a satisfactory solution. To put it another way, before a faction is willing to say, "You get that, and we get this," there must first be a culturally significant way to tell "you" from "we." Prydain, therefore, needs some internal cultural divides that are geographically separated if you really intend that the country split apart.[/quote]

[Shisumo]

Not necessarily. It is entirely compatible with the Lawful Neutral alignment to execute the leaders of a coup attempt.

Now, what happens if the high king (older brother) believes some group to be responsible for the coup but can't prove it? Maybe he has them executed anyway (Lawful Evil). But maybe he just strips them of their estates or otherwise cripples them as a political force. That isn't Lawful Evil, but it will have the effect of scaring the bejeezus out of all the minor kinglets and nobles. Again, "if it can happen to the Earl of Murray, it can happen to me."
Granted, but he has to do that a whole bunch before challenging the status quo becomes a worthwhile proposition for the remaining, not-yet-targeted nobility. Otherwise it just makes too much sense to keep their heads down and wait for the crackdown to pass.

If he keeps doing it, though, it might trigger that kind of response. I submit, however, that expanding punishments beyond the scope of proof (and thus, of reasonable justice) is an Evil act, even if said punishments do not involve executions.


Not permanently, not usually.

However, there can certainly be geographical divisions. For instance, the American Civil War involved a sustained conflict between two geographically distinct nations that were culturally similar in most regards, though their economies were very different.

Moreover, the longer a civil war goes on, the more likely it is to end up divided along territorial lines (at least until one side or the other is defeated). Areas where rebels are in the minority tend to be overwhelmed by loyalists and vice versa. For examples of this, see the Spanish Civil War of the late 1930s or the Russian Civil War of the early 1920s.

The warring factions will of course wind up holding separate territories; logistics demands that if nothing else does. However, in both of the examples you mention, the end result is a single, united country - because other than their support or opposition to the government in power, there wasn't enough difference between the various factions to justify disintegration into separate nations. In order for a country to really fall apart that way, there has to be some sort of underlying cultural divide that allows the sides to feel independence does not take away a basic sense of identity. That's the point I'm trying to make.

[Dervag]

If he keeps doing it, though, it might trigger that kind of response. I submit, however, that expanding punishments beyond the scope of proof (and thus, of reasonable justice) is an Evil act, even if said punishments do not involve executions.What if he's certain he has proof, but is mistaken?

Unless we define 'good' as 'whatever is identical with Western democratic legal systems', there are certainly going to be ways in which a large number of suspected coup-backers could be punished without committing a genuinely evil act.

Also remember that a punishment need not be killing. For example, he might strip them of their titles for complicity in the coup attempt. If the information at his disposal gives him compelling reason to suspect them, then this is not an evil act.


The warring factions will of course wind up holding separate territories; logistics demands that if nothing else does. However, in both of the examples you mention, the end result is a single, united country - because other than their support or opposition to the government in power, there wasn't enough difference between the various factions to justify disintegration into separate nations.But a civil war doesn't always end that way. For example, look at the civil war between Charlemagne's grandsons over his empire (which is paraphrased at length in some of Mr. Burlew's Gaming articles on 'the New World).

The Franks on one side of the empire weren't really all that different from the Franks on the other side of the empire, but they became different as the war dragged on because none of the brothers could fully subdue the other.

Moreover, continued warfare makes the realm more vulnerable to opportunistic attackers from outside the realm. Eventually, the two sides might be forced to broker a peace or risk losing everything to the barbarians. Since both brothers are fundamentally lawful and sane, they would probably broker a peace if it didn't look like either could win the war without fatally weakening the empire.


In order for a country to really fall apart that way, there has to be some sort of underlying cultural divide that allows the sides to feel independence does not take away a basic sense of identity. That's the point I'm trying to make.In a feudal society, this is not necessarily true.

[Matthew]

Indeed. The support of the populous is not necessary to conduct a Civil War. Their support is helpful, but during a protracted war it is unlikely that either side will enjoy their support for very long. The French Revolution of Eighteenth Century and the English Civil War of the early Twelfth Century were very different experiences and not just in ters of technology.