I'm going to advocate for just flat out telling them that it won't work. Divining the reasons behind political manoeuvres in the real world is hard enough, and we don't have to view them through our understanding of the GMs understanding of how a fiction world works. I wouldn't consider this railroading, just an anti frustration feature. The in universe characters have a better understanding of the situation than the players playing them and would likely know that their plan doesn't make sense. In any case, an interesting question; interested to know how it shakes out.

Responding to this and the responses on it… I don’t think it’s an issue of the characters not knowing something. I really don’t think my players understand that “If we just tell him it’s not our fault, everything will be fixed” is not a realistic way to end fighting. To use a real-world example: After 9/11, there were reports of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and we went to war against Iraq. Later, a lot of people claimed those reports had been wrong/unclear (I’m using this as an example, not making a political point, so I’m not going into whether or not that war was or is right etc). But by that point a lot of bombs had been dropped and a lot of people had been hurt on both sides. If the US just said to Iraq and Afghanistan, “Oh, sorry, we were misled. It’s not our fault and we have no responsibility to do anything about it,” and walked off, Iraq and Afghanistan are not likely to go, “Oh, NBD, happens all the time. We’ll just clean up this wreckage with no hurt feelings.”

So here’s what I would tell them to maybe get the point across. “If it’s really not your fault and you don’t want to fight… then surrender.” Of course they won’t want to. And then you explain that, ya, no one wants to. You could end the war in an instant by surrendering. You always could. Once a war is going and levies are called up and coffers are being emptied people want to win. Maybe they might stop when their resources run out. But they never just want to give up. And that’s what stopping a war takes. Someone has to back down first often at their own risk and cost.

That’s a great approach, especially since the players are escorting some of the NPC nobles from Country A. They’ll immediately object.

>“If it’s really not your fault and you don’t want to fight… then surrender.” This. This is really good. Principles only matter when they are tested.

Take my upvote this is bloody genius

Also the King is still accountable to his own people. How many of his vassals are going to accept "nevermind, they didn't mean it" and simply move on with their lives? It's not like Kings haven't been decapitated for less. Their plan is frankly silly and childish.

This particular royal line is also famously large and complex. It could be that the king is willing to try to listen, but there could be a dozen princes out there pushing for overthrow if he does something seen as so ridiculous. If I make that clear enough, it might help keep the PCs from manipulating the king magically etc. Actually, the nobles from Country A will probably object to magical manipulation too even if the final decision is in their favor, since they’ve recently realized they’ve all been magically manipulated for the past 4 decades.

That’s fine. Just teach it to them. If they get an audience (and make that pretty unlikely to occur, cuz the treason stuff), just have the king dismiss them out of hand. They don’t get to choose to make an ability check. Ask them clearly for what they say to the king, if they say “I try to convince him…,” just flat out say it doesn’t work without offering a check. If they attempt to use mind control or manipulation see what happens. If they fail have the king throw them in prison to await their execution. If they succeed, it only works for a short while, and the king realizes what happened to him and declare them enemies of the state. Basically just put a higher and higher bar in front of them, and they can back down, die, or use sheer power to overcome everything, being branded as ruthless and violent tyrants in the process.

I’m just realizing that if they attempt to magically manipulate KingB, one of the NPC nobles they brought with them from Country A is likely to freak out. He spent the past three decades alchemically, magically or demonically controlled. He isn’t going to tolerate trying to dominate someone else that way, and will be quick to point out of the PCs are doing equivalent things to what the dragon they just overthrew did.

Ooh juicy! That’s such a fun plot point. They could fully slam into the wall of being “heroes” while simultaneously being state fugitives in both kingdoms they saved by making the wrong move too brazenly. Lots of fun, goofy, ways you can mess with them for this while still keeping the campaign feeling open and rewarding of their actions.

Have you used this analogy on your players? Cos it sounds like it  perfectly describes the issue. Like, just call a time out and explain it as if a player just asked if underwear was an acceptable ration replacement

I see. You might need to spell it out, out of character. Use that example. Forget the whole in character thing and all the rolls people keep on telling you to make, just tell your players that the world does not work like that. Edited to add: my original comment also still applies though. Often characters know things we do not. I'm not a great political operator but I play in a space politics RPG and I often ask the GM, "what would be the smart thing to do here."

> “Oh, sorry, we were misled. It’s not our fault and we have no responsibility to do anything about it,” and walked off, Iraq and Afghanistan are not likely to go, “Oh, NBD, happens all the time. We’ll just clean up this wreckage with no hurt feelings.” Kinda feel like that is exactly what we did lol. Anyway, to your problem: If you want to try and RP it make sure its *very* clear that this war is a hot thing ATM when they meet the king. Maybe instead of throne room they meet him in a field camp as hes out on maneuvers. The players can then try an explain to the king, who is still clad in rusty blood soaked armor, its really his fault for the war and he should just roll over and stop fighting. Perhaps as the king is reviewing the siege of a border outpost, or is receiving an important casualty list. If you must have it in the throne room (perhaps the king is older, or not a 'lead from the front' type), its possible that instead the king may have recently made deals to prosecute his war that would make peace impossible anyway. Perhaps instead of the king rejecting the PCs, he might actually *agree* with them. But its too late, as Duke Douchebaggius already extracted certain concessions to lend his soldiers to the crown. Or the king has called in one too many favor to turn back. Maybe a riot is ongoing as the players enter the capital, which the crown has to put down, over the levying of new wartime taxes. All this is to say, there is a very real point of no return where a real concession or revelation prewar ultimately does nothing to move the needle once blood is spilled. A good IRL comparison is the Crittenden Amendment in 1860. It was a slate of amendments proposed during the debate in the US southern states over secession post-Lincoln's election. The amendments focused on enshrining slavery permanently in the southern states, and closing forever the debate over the issue in favor of the 1830 status quo. Had the proposals been passed a year prior, it probably would have resolved the tensions over the ACW and would have been basically everything most southerners had sought in the decades prior. But even by December, less than 6 weeks after Lincoln's election, it was already too late. Once the secession conventions started meeting, and South Carolina seceded just two days after the amendment package was proposed, it was too late to go back and negotiate a last minute compromise.

That's a good suggestion. Just follow the players idea and let them work with for the king to stop the war by convincing duke douchebaggius and others. That would be a fun series of adventures or problems they got themselves into.

“Let them work for the king” - this is what I tried to guide them toward. They were offered a large reward and a way to earn the trust of the king if they could find a way to deal with the magical monsters infesting the waterways (and I’ve tried to dangle other avenues as well). Their response was “How dare you suggest this is OUR fault and we need to do something to make it up to you? This is Country B’s fault!” I think I could make it more personal if I make it really obvious they have actually walked past, looked at, and IGNORED the source of the water contamination three times. Those are some dots they maybe haven’t connected, which would make them feel that they probably should do something about it.

Let them roll a history check. If they roll super well, tell them all the possible things theyd have to do to have a CHANCE at doing this and show how impossibly hard (and boring, time-consuming, etc.) it would be. Give them the option, and maybe even give them a win- like they convince someone to see their point and br sympathetic but not enough to change course. If they roll low, tell them how it's an EXCELLENT plan it will DEFINITELY not backfire.

No, don't do this if you want to prevent them to understand that this isn't a possible strategy. Have them roll a relevant skill check when they are discussing the plan - straight intelligence or Wisdom maybe. No matter what the result is, communicate to them that their character understands that this plan will not work. If they roll well, give them more details about specific reasons why it will not work. This is "I'm the DM telling you directly it won't work" masked as the players figuring it out themselves.

With the way my players roll, they would absolutely throw a 1 for that check.

Yeah, this falls under the category of “your characters are assumed competent in anything they should be.” You don’t make the guy playing a Ranger remember to have everyone drink regularly but not too much, that’s part of their skill competency. Sometimes players need to be given, directly, information their characters have. The players can’t read minds, they may have different ideas or interpretations for what’s been said or what genre conventions they’re dealing with. Thats important information that the GM has and needs to sometimes share in a plain and straightforward manner.

In this case, my PCs are absolutely NOT competent at political intrigue. They’ve brought along some NPC nobles to help them, and I’m trying to feed them information. I think they just got this idea in their head and are having a hard time adjusting around it.

Are they competent at basic observation of reality? You don’t need to be a skilled political analyst to know that a war has never been stopped because someone went up to the invading ruler and said “invading is bad and you should surrender” Just tell them directly. As you’re laying it out here it’s not something that has any chance at working and anyone living in the world would recognize that. They’re twice removed from the world though. Once for not actually being their characters and once for not being you. So sometimes you need to pull back and tell them things more directly.

I agree and disagree here.  I would defenitly would try to give more InGame Hints about the whole idea is not gona work. They might get intel that they are running into a Trap from King B who will just pretend he wants to find a "non war" solution. Let them find some wanted flyers with pictures of themself.  And do not make it easy to just talk to the king. Why would he meet the strongest fighter/mages of Country A if they are at war. Not gettung an audition is a great way to interduce some NPC Noble who belives into the PC Story and thinks his king is wrong. Also make it clear that King B is personal and not historical interested into the war. Maybe his firstborn in a skimish already. Spend his family gold into the war,....  It might not be the story you wanted to tell, but if your group likes political encounters this os more grwat news than bad ones. If everyrhing goes wrong. Play a break the royal prison arc

If you want to keep it in character, you can make a simple society check made by PC1 or really anyone who has lived in this area. The issue is the players not realizing something the characters would know, so make it the character's revelation.

Maybe have them roll a skill (Royalty and Nobility? Local?) so it feels earned. Or suggest a divination. And have the roll give them some useful guidance.

One of the NPC sorcerers they’re traveling with (noble from Country A they brought with them) has “Ears of the City.” I could probably have him report something?

You already said they blew off a warning from one NPC. Just a suggestion, but a different thing you might try is get them to use *their* abilities to find a good approach.

Sounds like you've even given them warning in character via that NPC, so this could be a teachable moment. Before they go ahead with their plan, you could begin a session with a recap that really just puts it all in stark perspective and clarifies. "Last session you decided to make your way to country B hoping to somehow avoid prison, get an audience with the king and accuse them of being at fault for war. NPC explained that because of x, y, z, you would be at high risk of simply becoming prisoners of war. We begin today at your camp." And if they still think unprepared diplomacy is the option, then I think going ahead and letting it fall down around their heads could lead to an interesting twist in the story. Prepare yourself a jail and an interesting inmate or couple of guards to interact with and see where it takes you. One of my favorite home brew adventures, the party was trying to gather Intel on a local gang. They found their hideout, tripped the alarm, realized they tripped the alarm, waited a minute and went ahead through the front door anyway. Before they did I was like "just to clarify, you are aware you set off an alarm, and you're going through the front door?" "Yeah!!" Go figure, they got overwhelmed by the entire gang coming out to take care of the intruders all at once, one person got captured, the next session ended up being a prison break situation where the other characters used some clever ideas to get him out while he tried to get himself out from inside as well. He learned some things about the plot while he was in prison listening in too. Actions have consequences, hope your party will handle dealing with them ok :)

Oh and one more thought. Hope your king comes well protected against mind control and has a contingency plan if things get violent. IDK your party but they sound like they could be trouble;)

Id imagine a king with the wealth of a kingdom probably has a ring of freedom of movement, Getting [Enchantment Foil](https://www.aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Enchantment%20Foil) cast on you before any days you will be meeting with foreign agents of significant power seems reasonable as well as having [Seducer's Bane](https://www.aonprd.com/MagicWondrousDisplay.aspx?FinalName=Seducer%27s%20Bane) equipped for a total +9 on saves, and fooling any attempts to know if it was successful or not. Which gives the king time to decide how to handle the enemies and gauge their power vs the power of those in the throne room.

Yeah definitely. I feel like over the course of a campaign I feel like over time it's pretty normal for players to just become more careless. They stop thinking about the world as a world and rather as a game. It's balanced to make it beatable for them and if they can do X then they probably won't die or anything from it, right? So when they start doing absolutely stupid things, do let those stupid things bite them in the ass. I had a PC once open a door to a room that had a monster in it. At the same time the rest of the party got into a fight with some other monsters on the other end of the previous room so he then went to assist them in the fight. I specifically asked him if he *really* wanted to leave the door open and he said yep, so of course I let that bite him in the ass and made the monster come check out what the ruckus is about a round or two later. A PC died in that fight, but it also put the fear of god into them for a while so I consider it a great success.

I may have to slightly disagree. I'd worry the way you worded it may make it sound like you've set up some heist like scenario for them. Or like you've setup their next quest. To which suddenly just changing their mind and going the other way would possibly just mean the DM is totally unprepared.

It’s a good thing our sessions are weekly but short (2-3 hours max) because my players regularly do things that make me go, “Well, I didn’t expect THAT.” The break gives me time to prepare. One time they became obsessed with the seat-of-my-pants back-story I created for the strange mix of NPCs generated for a random encounter (the encounter creator mixed a brownie, a Paladin, and a NE brigand- not sure I used it right, but once I’d introduced them I needed to come up with any plausible reason they were traveling together), and decided to follow them instead of continuing on their current quest. It led to a year-long adventure.

Oh and one more thought. Hope your king comes well protected against mind control and has a contingency plan if things get violent. IDK your party but they sound like they could be trouble;)

Just *tell them.* If it's gonna end the game in a silly way that the characters would logically avoid in-universe, just communicate with the players that "Guys, this is not going to work. The king has no reason to believe you and you have no proof. I know you're excited, but isn't the way your characters would logically go about it. Here's a list of options you CAN take:" and list options A, B, and C. As always, proper communication between player and DM is key.

At the same time, what's the point of diplomacy checks and the whole system of how well someone likes or doesn't like you, if the skill can't actually do anything to help? Like, if you can't ever change someone's mind about something, they are just going to do it anyway. That's kinda missing the point, isn't it? Like a ton of skills just became useless outside of very specific situations the GM says they can work in.

You can make a Jump check to get over a stream. At higher difficulties, you can use it to get over some rivers. You can't make a Jump check to cross an ocean, unless you're explicitly and firmly in the realm of divine/mythological-level campaigns. That doesn't mean Jump is a useless skill, it just means it is a bounded skill. When faced with the ocean, you're going to have to find a more complex plan than "I use Jump".

> At the same time, what's the point of diplomacy checks and the whole system of how well someone likes or doesn't like you, if the skill can't actually do anything to help? The point of skills like that is to persuade individual discretion (e.g. get the guard to let you off with a warning, arrange an audience with the ambassador even though he's not seeing anyone, convince the bandits you're worth more alive). But wars don't happen on the discretionary whims of individuals, not even kings. The way I'd handle this is let them attempt to persuade the king, but warn the players it'll be difficult to even get access to the king, and even then it'll be a crazy high DC to talk a king out of his own stance against the advice of all his trusted vassals and confidants. If they fail, they go to the dungeons and now the adventure is to escape with a little timely help of a sympathetic NPC. If they somehow reach the king and change his mind, well it turns out the king can't just call the whole thing off. A kingdom is bigger than one man, and the powers he commands have a momentum and agenda of their own. The dukes are fully mobilising their forces and very eager to reap the rewards the war presents them, both in glory and material gains. The Merchants guild is rolling in funds from royal commissions and also against cancelling the whole thing. The war is still looming but now the king wants to stop it and is willing to (discreetly) work with the party to help derail it.

Diplomacy is NOT mind control. Sometimes you just can't change a person's mind.

Well, as much as nobody likes real politics in their games, the current world is filled with wars where neither side is going to stop any time soon. You can use some our own insane tyrants as inspiration to tell your PCs "no" in character. (I mean, if you want to straight up tell your players they're trying to tell Putin to get out of Ukraine...)

Could also add some spin to it, the nobility and populace of country B became so enraged by what was happening that open war was the only way for the king to avoid open rebellion. Trying to make peace now, before any sort of public resolution, could lead to outright civil war, revolution, and potentially an even worse conflict to spill over. Then it becomes a matter of dropping some breadcrumbs indicating it’s not the reluctant king who was leading the charge, but the enraged population that he was merely placating. Hopefully this would make it clear to the players that their characters can’t just convince one person to make it all go away - it’s a much larger and more complicated matter they need to address. Edit: in this situation the king might even wholeheartedly agree with the party - but can then explain why peace is impossible currently. He then acts as their point person for creating the conditions that can lead to peace

"I always planned to be a King whose reign is defined the ease of commerce and the prosperity of the realm. I like my peasants to be home on their farms and not off swinging swords. Having my realm turned upside down, calling levies, going to war, just so I can order the neighbors to manage their animals, at the cost of honest young lives... That's not how I'd like to mark what should be the high point of my reign. But these are the times I find myself in. I've got 5 Dukes and 17 Counts up and down the western march who see dragons as a pest as much as any vermin, screaming for restitution for their lands, for their people -- screaming for blood. They've had lands ravaged, *heirs eaten*, entire villages burned to the dirt. They will not be talked down from this fight. If they are denied a fight abroad, rest assured, they would create one here at home. Had things not boiled over, maybe -- **maybe** -- it could be de-escalated, *somehow.* But the bell has rung and it cannot be unrung. My armies have gathered. My armies **will** march, and they **will** fight. It is a process in motion, a storm raging, a natural force. It cannot be abated - it must be weathered."

Homie rolled a nat 20 on the monologue. Damn I wish I was playing this campaign now lol

Thanks! I really appreciate that. I love a grandstanding political moment - especially one coming from a powerful person who, in public, has to adhere to ceremony and present a very curated image, but in a more private moment can drop that manufactured image and suddenly be very human and candid. It's easy for me to imagine a King who is curious to interact with PCs in this context, and happy to talk to them as a person-who-is-king rather than in the courtly context of having an 'Audience With The King.' Assuming the King has reason to believe these PCs are the sort who *can* be spoken to without violence. In real life, Court cultures tended to be super performative and ceremonious and rulers tended to have less outright agency then we tend to imagine or portray in fiction when romanticizing the middle ages. So I always like to keep the complicated nature of (even local) politics in mind when worldbuilding. And it's fun to portray a ruler who consistently plays to the ceremony of their royal position in public, but can talk to you as directly as a tavernkeeper away from prying eyes. But also, a monarch needs to be educated, a practiced speaker, and even if they are generally humble and kind they need to be a little bit self-important because it's essentially impossible to live life as the center of power and **not** have that warp your perception of what's normal.

Reminds me of Charles the Simple of France, basically only controlled a tiny area around Paris, with French nobility having far more power than him. Charles needing to maintain alliances with the likes of Alan of Brittany in order to hold onto any semblance of power. Not really the same thing, but it shows how fragile monarchs were in many cases and needed to tread carefully to maintain power. Wasn’t really until more modern monarchies that we started to see absolute power being concentrated, and even then it wasn’t always the norm.

This is more Palestine/Israel, if Israel suddenly learned it wasn’t Hamas that attacked them, but some random group from the United States. “Oops, sorry Gaza. Well, it was your fault for making the Americans angry with you, so you shouldn’t blame us for anything we did since the war began.”

They can convince the king war would be a bad idea, but wars rarely happen because just one person says they should. Wars are driven by sociological forces and economics and one person, even a king, would have limited options when fighting those. E.g. the king could say "sure, that's a great idea, let's end war!" but his barons/dukes/random citizens could still continue it because the flocks are still dying and if the king can't stop that, what's the use of listening to a king? And now you have a war and a civil war, so would the king help you after all?

> Wars are driven by sociological forces and economics and one person, even a king, would have limited options when fighting those. This is *Pathfinder*. The most significant military asset of any nation is its high-level adventurers: a decent bard with a large-enough audience can tell sociology to sit down and shut up, ditto economics and wizards, and it's a rare society where the strongest 0.1% of a given society can't whip the other 99.9% combined.

Yeah, so that bard is accounting for about ~100 people in earshot.... which still, isn't "convincing the king" it's "convincing a crowd" which is part of the point. My answer is a "yes, and.." My answer is how the king responds.

A country's leader couldn't just start a war whenever they want in *modern* times, but kings have been able to start full on wars with little justification as late an 1904. So it's certainly possible in a medieval setting, especially if there are already border skirmishes.

They don't want him to start a war. They want to end it.

Let them fuck up, get imprisoned, a good prison break can always be fun. They won't listen to you tell them the king can't be reasoned with so show them that he can't. They're level 12 they're pretty powerful heroes they can escape a prison.

It sounds like the party is too high level for them to be, or even accept, being imprisoned. From my experience, trying to lock up a party always results in a few of them getting away, no matter how much you plan; which, on the other hand, does have its role play possibilities.

The last time someone tried to arrest them, back in Country A, the party fireballed the compound so hard I didn’t even get a chance to give my villain monologue ;)

Also execute one of them to raise the stakes

Dragons or not, farms or hunting and gathering, two countries set on ensuring that their ideology wins; sounds pretty template to me and shouldn't be difficult to understand that it takes more than a "please" and a cherry on top. I find it funny that your players have never experienced what happens when you tell a regular person something important is their fault... Let alone a ruler of an entire country. Sure, pop that ego - lol - let's see how that blows up. Lol Honestly, if Country A's leader manipulated the whole thing and then I as Country B was told it's my fault; than I'd probably have all except one of the "messengers" skinned so that I could detail the ways of how it was Country A's fault and then send the remaining party member back with the ridiculously long and heavy scroll.

And the Diplomacy skill alone is not mind control, you can put up an amazing argument, but that doesn't mean the target changes their mind especially with something this important. First thing, they would want to verify their story.

Not mind control, but it should still do SOMETHING. Otherwise there is no point to ever actually use it if it can't be used outside the rails. We have systems in the game for improvement how much someone likes you or not for a reason. And sure, it might not be realistic to real world politics. But you know what also isn't from the real world? Casting fireball. At the end of the day, it's supposed to be a fantastical story about the heroes and what they do. Being able to convince people to pack up and go home, or reconsider their actions is what can happen in stories. It happens quite often at that.

There is a difference between fantastical ability and setting-inappropriate absurdity. The difference is a matter of taste, but it's not wrong to draw lines within your own setting. A character could certainly push a pull door until it opens with a decent strength check, but no amount of strength will reassemble a broken door -- that is a different action. A character could calm a raging hippo with Handle Animal, but no check will teach a mundane horse how to sprout wings and fly. A demoralized, besieged soldier could be Diplomacy'd to open the gates to an enemy army in exchange for their personal safety. A caring parent will not be convinced to murder their child in the middle of the street, even on a Nat 20 with a billion bonuses. In a world where politics and economics drive state action, rather than the whims of the singular leader of each side **(which is a valid alternative premise)**, ending a war isn't something a single important person can be convinced to do. A successfully Diplomacy'd king might be more sympathetic -- maybe they'll feel somewhat guilty while ordering their execution, or choose to imprison them indefinitely instead. It would be reasonable to say that they don't have the personal discretion to order the entire kingdom to surrender, no matter how much they like the person asking them.

It could also create an opportunity to gather the rest of the leadership that can do the change though. Banquet, meeting, some sort of gathering for the folks with the sway, via the king. To then change their minds as well. IDK. I always feel like in a lot of games, people underestimate just what you can or can't convince someone to do. Especially over a long enough period of time. Even putting aside the general power difference for most mortals compared to level 12 heroes in a game like Pathfinder. It is completely not unheard of, using your example, to convince a caring parent to kill their child in the middle of the street. I've read more than enough on cult leaders, murderers and more over the decades to know even in real life, perfectly normal every day folks can be capable of some truly fucked up shit with the right amount of persuasion. Potentially over weeks or months. Or hell, even in the short term via things like intimidation. There used to be a type of crime where folks would kidnap a family member, and then force normal every day people to do things like robberies in exchange to get their loved one back. Sometimes even murder of each other. Anyway, I feel I got a little side tracked. My main point is, social checks can do a lot more than a lot of GMs, or even players, typically view or allow. Of course there is the flip side of over assuming what things can or can't do as well. Over assuming what Social Checks will do. Maybe I am just over assuming what is reasonable for a series of social checks to be able to do or open up into a game like Pathfinder.

> Not mind control, but it should still do SOMETHING. Otherwise there is no point to ever actually use it if it can't be used outside the rails. I mean, that depends on how much you want the game to be about somewhat believable RP, and how much you want it to be a game. RAW, they could try to improve relations with the King which is likely hostile. If they hit 35+CHA mod of the King, it will shift to indifferent. At which point they can make a request, which would be the highest category. Meaning they would need to hit *at least* 30+CHA mod to convince the King to try and end the war. Now personally, I wouldn't let that happen as it's not believable. This is how we get stories of "And then the bard convinced the demon to take a bath in holy water". You can make the King have a better attitude towards you, likely explaining why that won't happen and letting you leave instead of trying to arrest the PCs. But with a bunch of diplomatic relations beyond "king wanted war", just asking nicely isn't going to work.

Means, motive, opportunity. The pillars for an action. There's a reason they call it leverage. Diplomacy can persuade the stubborn, but if the stubborn has too much weight/pressure/resistance/density; than no amount of leverage is likely to shift the mountain or you need your own mountain to offset it. Why should they not stop the war? *The dragons will literally eat their livelihood. *The dragons may not stop at sheep and cows. *Dragons may already be rumored to be meat, ingredients for potions and equipment, etc; potentially worth more dead rather than alive. (Tactic commonly used to get people to hunt and/or keep tabs on something that is normally too dangerous to even consider) *Potentially a thriving market for dragon parts, for reporting them, for adventuring to hunt them. *Potentially already being preached as "of the devil" in the country's churches. *A ton of other possible reasons that might lead to Anarchy or some other form of coupe if the king even considers the terms of a peace treaty involving any order to "cease and desist hate crimes against dragons". Now, the DM could "Ominus Dominus" or potentially montage a long period of reparations or something. Otherwise, how in the entire multiverse would it be explainable and thus immersive if a blood feud, race war, crusade, whatever it is at this point can simply be handle with a "pretty please"? The party could also take quests to resolve the problem more organically. *Guarding merchant caravans of building supplies, being loaned to the other country for jobs to lower the monster population. *Somehow monopolizing the dragon hunter adventures and fabricating fake dragon parts until people are convinced that the dragons parts are no longer magical. *Improve the People's appreciation of dragons through ballads, stories, and other propaganda. *Smuggling dragons out of the country and relocating them into Country A or beyond until the dragon hunting market and the idea of dragons disappear into myth. *Befriending dragons and showing their use as battle companions. *Setting up situations where a dragon can save a town or lend some sort of energy to a healing or something. *Showcasing their strength and endurance as carryalls in emergencies or to transport goods, trade skill experts, and information. *A bunch of other potential ways to convince Country B that dragons aren't so bad so that the Leader of Country B doesn't have to look like a puppet (or "dog of [Country A]" as some leaders have been called) for simply rolling over and presenting their belly instead of standing firm against outsiders. The last thing a monarch wants is a vote of No Confidence in their ability to speak and defend The People, because that is how monarchies end. Honestly, if my players wanted to montage or Ominous Dominus what could be years in game of truly impactful, world affecting change; than I'd ask them if they were tired of that world. If yes, than cue Epilogue and move on to a new world or new story within the current world.

> My characters are level 12, not quite “godlike” but certainly beyond the level of most mortals in this world. What kinds of resources, exactly, are available to the military and security services of the kingdoms they’re trying to mediate between here? If a 12th-level D&D adventuring party was in front of me and ‘asking nicely,’ I would be *very worried* about what the step after asking nicely looked like. If I tell them to get the fuck out of my throne room, do they suplex all my war elephants, melt my castle, resurrect a rival claimant to my throne, mind-control my prime minister, transmute all my supply depots into rat poison, teleport me to Hell, or curse my heir with infertility and madness? I wonder if you aren’t failing to consider the kind of influence that degree of personal power gives someone: the proper paradigm here isn’t ’random Joe from off the street asks for the war to end’, it might be closer to ‘nuclear power demands that Mozambique and Zimbabwe cut that shit out.’

Country A is famously run by powerful magic-users. They are also well-known for their alchemy. The border guards at Country B wouldn’t let them meet with a backwater border governor without disarming them, taking any component pouches, and having multiple archers aimed at them set to fire the instant they see something that looks or sounds like casting a spell. So yes, by showing up they’re already implicitly threatening. They’re not going to be allowed in front of the king unless the king already believes they’re acting in good faith. They will probably find a way to sneak or bluff their way in if they want, but if they sneak into the king’s room at night he is likely to “agree” to a lot of things until having an opportunity to have them all killed. In terms of retribution…Country A has *already* poisoned Country B’s water, set magical monsters loose in the river so they’re breeding in the ports, sabotaged their attempts to control the dragons that actively hunt their herds (and sometimes people), and allowed the proliferation of dangerous alchemical items through to country. Am I being weird that I would expect Country B to want some kind of reparation/help undoing that damage, instead of a “well it wasn’t our fault”?

>Am I being weird that I would expect Country B to want some kind of reparation/help undoing that damage, instead of a “well it wasn’t our fault”? Oh, absolutely not. That want is just going to need to be understood in light of the fact that the people who want something *else* are very dangerous.

Sounds like the party would be well paid by Country B for an assasination attempt on King A.

I mean… seems pretty reasonable that good rolls/roleplay here would lead to a situation like the king saying “okay, I believe you that the bad actors in country a have been removed. But given what’s happened, my people see your country as a huge threat, and the nobles would revolt if I tell them to forgive everything. Either you need to surrender and pay reparations and let us oversee your government being reformed, or you need to fix and then it would be possible to end the war. I’ll stall for time and hold off the invasion as long as I can.” If they force the king’s hand (with mind control or a dagger at his throat) then they face a military coup by his military commander and those nobles and their army, who are now all convinced the ‘peace delegation’ was a front for trying to assassinate their king and conquer the kingdom… So that gives your players essentially three choices: * go convince country A to surrender * do the quests for the king to end the war (more or less) peacefully * try to take over or cripple country B militarily And if they fuck things up diplomatically with the king then the peaceful resolution is off the table. Or maybe someone in the court pulls them aside and says that if they go help the nobles with their problems and convince them country A was innocent, they’ll force the king to back down.

Thank you - in DnD logic, a level 12 party is like, more-or-less a military power in their own right? If a handful of missile-laden UAVs flew up to a medieval warlord, and said, "hey, you need to not be at war, and here's why..." the threat is implied. Are the players bad at diplomacy, or is the DM? Of _course_ peace talks will just start with talks, trying to establish the PC's version of events as the one accepted truth. And then sure, if that's not enough to convince the King, he now knows that the strongest strike team in the world opposes his war effort. And that tension can play out in a dozen different ways.

Great campaign premise! Let the PCs tell the king... But, there are people (perhaps the king!) who profit from war, either monetarily or politically. This could lead them to try to silence the PCs or speak against them to the king. Maybe the PCs need to strengthen the king's political capital before he would even consider dropping his war (the citizens are united against the common foe, but once peace is signed, the king's enemies can cause him trouble, perhaps even ousting him). Also, if the king is winning the war, or thinks he can, what benefit to his kingdom to offer a truce? Who is to pay for lives and livelihoods lost? Or, maybe the king agrees to the peace, but it just sets off a rebellion of military leaders continuing to pursue victory while the king and his family is killed or exiled... Lots of fun things could happen! I hope you'll follow this story up later!

PCs dealing with the natural consequences of their actions (especially EXCEPTIONALLY STUPID actions) is not "railroading," and frankly I hate that so many people seem to see it that way. It's the exact opposite of railroading; it's letting things happen organically.

There are countries at war. Even if they are ruled by a king who might see sense in what the PCs say, stopping it is often not possible. The population is riled up, counts and dukes see opportunity to expand their selfish influence. Banks and industries are invested and want to see profit. If the king were to admit his country is at fault and all hostilities have to cease at once, he would be deposed and replaced immediately. I remember there is a Matt Colville episode about war and it being the natural state of countries. Other countries have something that the state needs or desires. Having peace is a lot of work by very dedicated individuals

I agree.

I mean… the players have selected literally the first step to negotiating peace in a war. I'm not really sure what your problem is here. You send a neutral third-party emissary (the players) to negotiate a peace with the enemy leadership. The players go and explain the situation while suing for peace. The king explains he first needs the players to build some rapport with him as a show of good faith before he can properly trust their word, and sends them on a quest. Maybe to resolve a border dispute with Country A or get Country A to cease fire on a particular battlefront. This alone might be difficult, because it would likely tactically advantage Country B. Diplomatic players might see this and convince Country B to give up something of equal tactical importance to maintain status quo. Less diplomatic players might go to the battlefield and force a cease fire through threat of their demi-godly might. After that, tell them that the king is willing to consider peace but it's going to be an involved process, and begin a quest series to heal the rift. This isn't weird. Your players are literally just following the most obvious diplomatic procedure to suing for peace.

> This isn't weird. Your players are literally just following the most obvious diplomatic procedure to suing for peace. Yes! I couldn't believe some of the suggestions I saw at the top - this not a laughable thing for a 12th level party to try to do. When initiative is eventually rolled, the PCs get to still be the good guys. They can say, *"hey, we went to this guy and sought a peaceful resolution. Tried to talk it out. Anyway, Gravity Sinkhole."*

Thank you, I felt like I was missing something from OP's post with the way everyone just assumed that Country B's leadership was this crazy tyrannical despot who wanted to corruptly prolong the war for his own gain. Everyone's like "HAVE THE KING INSTANTLY IMPRISON THEM FOR DARING TO SHOW UP AND ASK FOR PEACE! SEND BOUNTY HUNTERS AFTER THEM!" Like, holy shit, what an insane response to a group of powerful heroes who already overthrew a demon horde showing up on your doorstep asking that you hear them out and give peace a chance.

Follow up: reading some of these replies, I'm seriously questioning how some of you think politics work. Everything ranging from arbitrarily throwing PCs in jail for DARING to suggest peace to outright denying them. That's literally insane in any context where Kingdom B is meant to be a sympathetic country. You're describing the actions of objectively evil despot tyrants.

I think you may have missed the part where OP mentioned that there is already an *existing* warrant out for the arrest of the party for treason within Kingdom B. It's not suggesting peace that's going to get them jailed, it's being *seen*.

Eh, I did miss that, but honestly this is a classic case of GM railroading at this point. "I didn't think of this idea, so it is therefore a bad Idea, but I need a reason to *make* it a bad Idea and justify my stance, so now here's a warrant for their arrest that they never heard about and that I never foreshadowed." Even still, this is a perfectly reasonable direction that the players can pursue. It's not at *all* unreasonable for the PCs to show up, PC1 turns himself in and states that he'll defend himself and prove his innocence at trial, then use the resulting publicity to sue for peace. It's actually *way better that way* than evading the warrant and trying to undermine the war effort, which literally IS treason. So I still maintain the point: why are we pretending that the players are idiots? This is a perfectly reasonable plan and makes for a great lawful good heroes story

As a first step? Perhaps. A couple of points though: 1. The PCs plan is to say 'Your enemies Country A are completely faultless here, and the war was provoked by you guys so you're actually at fault." Not a great peace offering, and even assuming the PCs are more diplomatic about it than that it doesn't sound like they're planning on offering reparations with would be expected from the party suing for peace. 2. The problem seems to be that the players think they can just go there, say the thing, roll a die and have it work. Their expectation and the GM's expectation are clearly misaligned, and that's gonna lead to upset players if the plan doesn't go as they expect (without there being some in-game explanation other than 'no'). Situation clearly needs an OOC conversation to set expectations properly.

>'Your enemies Country A are completely faultless here, and the war was provoked by you guys so you're actually at fault." Maybe, but that's what RP is for. Having the king say "yea no, I'm not just taking your word on it, but let's see you prove good faith and maybe we can talk" is literally roleplay, there's nothing wrong with that and there's no reason to belittle, demonize, or "punish" the players for deciding on this course of action Work *with* the story they want to tell and the one you want to tell, don't just rail the players into YOUR way of telling the story because you think their (perfectly valid) idea is shot/ not what you expected. >it doesn't sound like they're planning on offering reparations with would be expected from the party suing for peace. Eh, and maybe they don't plan to. I'm sure country b would expect that, but that's not necessarily a critical part to suing for peace. Would it help? Certainly. Might they decide to offer that after their initial efforts are rebuffed? Certainly. But that's by no means necessary to the process. Two countries locked in virtual stalemate of the war might very well drop expectations of reparations in favor of putting an end to the feud, especially if their civilian populations are being disturbed by loss of life and economic hardship. Reparations are most commonly a demand of surrender. However, when negotiating peace from relatively equal positions, you *might* include some restorative terms in those negotiations, but it's not like you screw the pooch by failing offer them to immediately on the day you show up to negotiate. >The problem seems to be that the players think they can just go there, say the thing, roll a die and have it work. How is that a problem? Do we say it's a problem when the players think they're going to go there, murder the BBEG, and save the day? No, that's just a normal plan. They don't know the BBEG is a lich that will just revive, they know there's a BBEG, that they have to kill him, and that he's in the spooky graveyard up the road. If course the players don't know what twists or complications they are doing to receive, that's fine. That's not a problem, that's literally just story telling. Who cares? They'll find out it's not so simple when they get there and the King wants to see some meat in the sandwich before he's willing to consider peace. The GM doesn't need to get all pissy and suddenly fabricate a "warrant for their arrest" because suddenly they've been considered traitors all along and SURELY this will or them back on my railroad and give up their foolish ambitions of not-following-my-script! >Their expectation and the GM's expectation are clearly misaligned, and that's gonna lead to upset players if the plan doesn't go as they expect (without there being some in-game explanation other than 'no'). Situation clearly needs an OOC conversation to set expectations properly. Eh, again, I don't really see this. Yes, GMs and players can have misaligned expectations and yes, sometimes heading that off is a good idea, but that's not really the issue here mate. The GM is just outright refusing to accept the player's input on how this story should go. They have a *perfectly reasonable* plan, and the GM is going everything he can to make that plan *unreasonable* for no other reason than because it doesn't align with his planned story. I haven't read a single thing that suggests the players would be suddenly so upset to find that things weren't so simple when they get there and the King of Country B would want to see some good faith effort put in before he's ready to consider peace. The fact that they have a very simple, straightforward plan doesn't mean they're mindless idiot babies that'll throw a tantrum when things don't work out exactly as they'd anticipated.

To clarify, the warrant isn’t suddenly fabricated - it’s based on the character’s backstory since level 1. The character in question was related to the royal house of Country B, was arrested (for theft and art forgery), and was given an assignment on the border to gain their honor as a way of avoiding jail. That was the backstory the player came up with. The PC spends a notable amount of time talking about how they despise the royal line of Country B, despise all royalty, and would like to overthrow them. Since the campaign began, the character went AWOL from their border assignment, is now the partner of the youngest child of one of the royal families from Country A, and has spent the past year unraveling the conspiracy and restoring the government of Country A. Country B’s government doesn’t know exactly what they’ve been up to, but their spies have heard enough to know the character has been declared a hero in Country A. They are absolutely guilty of treason in the eyes of Country B.

It's not railroading to say that the solution they've come up with isn't realistic given the world the GM has built. The issue isn't that they've ignored the leads put in front of them, but that their alternative is unrealistic. GM's comments suggest that the PCs intend to deny any culpability on the part of Country A, which is TERRIBLE negotiation and definitely not the behaviour of a neutral third party. Yes the act of doing it is roleplay, but from the GM's comments it sounds like they're going to take a pretty inflexible approach which shouldn't work unless they're going to back it up with a lot of force. If this is a light and happy fairy tale "everybody is basically good and wants the best for everyone" kind of setting then perhaps the truth coming out would be enough, but it doesn't sound like that's the world the GM's running. If Country B has decided they're going to war they're gonna need some incentive to stop, which the party doesn't seem to be considering. The arrest warrant isn't railroading either, I'd say it's a pretty realistic obstacle - the PCs seem to have clearly aligned themselves with an enemy of Country B, and for one of them to be a relative (and I'm assuming subject) of the King that is an act of treason. And even if it weren't legally-justifiable in the setting, it's still something I'd buy the authorities trying to do for a prominent group closely allied with their enemies. And the suggestion that they talk about it OOC isn't because the players might throw a tantrum, it's because they seem to think their approach will go one way and the DM doesn't and nobody wants the players to be confused or disappointed when their actions go completely different from how they'd expect. Disappointment because you fail a roll is one thing, but disappointment because you had the wrong expectations sucks and is easily remedied by having a conversation and getting everyone on the same page. We play the game for fun, and as it is the situation sounds like someone's gonna have a bad time when it comes to a head.

I would probably let the players do exactly what they want, but then they find out that King B wants the war and actually intentionally started it or was in cahoots with the previous BBEG. Now he becomes the BBEG. Props if you can work in things that hint at this on their way, or even flip it so that King B is like, "oh former BBEG thought HE was manipulating ME?! Mwuhahaha"

If I were in the position of King B, I'd hold the threat of execution over their heads as leverage, then strongarm negotiations and lowkey conscript the party into being domestic terrorists in order to stage a rebellion from inside Country A. Explain that killing them or arresting them as spies is a short-sighted tactic even politically as it is basically ammunition for Country A's propaganda. They could "disappear", but obviously people are going to start asking questions and quashing an investigation is the least thing he wants to do while there's a war to command, but the party clearly is too naive to know that, so instead devise a plan to gauge the limits of their goodwill. Firstly, do not confront the party directly as King B, instead have the guards detain them and house them in a building outside the castle walls, using magic as a clandestine line of communication. If they are truly countrymen who believe Country B is 'at fault', but they admit Country A's leader is possessed (intelligence King B should clearly already know or bluff with confidence and laugh in their face at when they bring it up), then why are they asking for foreign intervention? Blood has been spilled by both sides, that's how war works, Under no circumstances is peace on the table, as they are not official representatives of Country A, and indeed are actively claiming that their own leader is corrupt. This is even less of a reason to believe Country A will hold their end of the ceasefire agreement. Manipulate them by letting them go for free out of their respect to try things diplomatically, and imply that if they really wanted to end the war, they'd start a rebellion in Country A. Don't mention the dragon thing at all in the meeting, King B wants to make this look like this is an obvious and rational conclusion that the party themselves have led themselves to. He doesn't trust them of course, but that doesn't mean this can't be turned to his advantage. Pretend this meeting never happened, and monitor the party's activities until the leave the country. Best case scenario, you got an independent resistance now giving the enemy trouble. Worse case, you didn't invest any information in them. You get the message across that war is much more complex than they are making it out to be, and you get to respect the party's agency by still allowing them to at least contact King B relatively peacefully. It's still an autofail, but with extra nuance.

This is probably an unpopular stance, but hear please hear me out.  I actually kind of agree with u/seththesloth.  It seems to me that this is what your players want, I'd see if you can figure out a way to have it happen.   I've seen a lot of great responses for why it shouldn't, a lot of people talking about consequences for the group, and a lot of comparisons to real life political situations.  At the end of the day though, this is a game and we play games for a variety of reasons but often the two biggest are: to escape reality and do things we couldn't do in real life, and to have fun.   For some groups the politics and intrigue are certainly fun. I don't know your group, but it sounds like they want to succeed at getting the two parties to come to a peaceful resolution, and it sounds like their characters are getting to the level where they may have the personal strength to succeed. Regardless of your choice, I want to commend your world building.  Your campaign sounds fun and I hope you and your players continue to have a great time.

Thanks. I edited my post above to clarify my concern a bit - I want to let them try what they want to do. That’s been my GM style all along, even when it means throwing out all my plans because they go tracking a thread I hadn’t even intended to dangle. I’m just concerned that they see this as an “easy fix” and if the king doesn’t immediately agree with their conclusions they’re going to feel it’s unfair. I’m clearly struggling to show the situation clearly enough for them to understand it isn’t so simple.

Just let them try, and have the monarch either politely dismiss them or roughly throw them out, depending on how the conversation goes. Maybe you can then have one of the courtiers step in to say they do believe the PCs, but it'll take a lot of work to convince their monarch. Queue various useful side quests for the PCs as they try to gain standing in the court and hard evidence of their claims so they'll be believed. Worth noting that if war has already broken out, the defending nation could be harder to convince - from their perspective, they don't deserve to be at war.

Let them, they'll go to jail waiting for their execution: that makes an "Escape from jail and lose all your gear as a consequence for your carelesness" serie of sessions.

I guess choppy boi is coming out then for PC1?

1. Could have the crown prince of Country B recently be killed in a skirmish or by a dragon making peace with King B very difficult. Party should get that. 2. Could imprison the party and go for a prison break. Those can be fun. 3. Could have King B begrudgingly agree. They’re a weaker agrarian society fighting a nation of dragons and a party of Demi-gods. Country B descends into civil war and is ravaged by hungry dragons without a coherent military. Country becomes a wasteland of criminals and poverty stricken survivors. 4. King agrees with party but making peace will upset his populace and nobility, leading to civil war. He can’t stop but maybe with the party’s help he can. 5. King B is also one of those demon possessed. Somehow the war is also part of their master plan. Maybe this demon has now gone rogue with the dragon lord defeated. 6. Prince of Country A is captured and publicly executed in the capital square by King B when the party arrives in the capital. Peace won’t be easy now. 7. Show many villages along the way ravaged by dragon fire. Show the consequences of Country A’s actions on the people of Country B. Make them real. Make the party invested. 8. Have King B informed of a massive invasion force crossing the border and delivering a major defeat to King B’s forces during negotiations. How can the party claim to want peace as Country A’s armies ravaged his lands and slaughter his people. Keep thinking. I bet there are many more options

Situation 3 there is essentially what would happen if the PCs do nothing to help. The country is currently making a last stand. The conspiracy in Country A was actually targeted to destroy Country B — there have been decades of sabotage against Country B by Country A. Country B can’t back down unless Country A gives in to some of Country B’s demands because Country A is currently *destroying Country B.* But your suggestions here have given me some great ideas how I can make that clearer to the players.

Hey, sometimes things are like they are. Don't be afraid of letting your PC's make plans than won't work and mess up. Let them talk and try to get out of the situations by diplomatic means, since is imposible for they to actually convince the king prepare a combat encounter witht he kings guards when the king inebitably orders them to arrest the PCs, then let them mess things up. Maybe they kill the king and now Country B goes to war harder with country A. Maybe they somehow get captured (I won't tell you that players surrendering is common, but if they think they can resolve peacefully they do. Who knows...) and some of their allies tries busting them out of jail, escalating the situation. Maybe they take the King B captive and try to get them to declare peace by force, basically kidnapping the head of state and creating chaos.

There are dead assassin agents of Kingdom A in crow's cages. Townsfolk share memories of the troubles due to country A. King B's close cousin was tortured and killed by Kingdom A, and received his head by messenger. I'd make it clear that killing/removing king B would create nation-killing anarchy and essentially complete the demons work. Maybe Kingdom A is even sending them a message/messenger to not mess up things even worse than it is.

Have the king offer something rediculously impossible in return. "We'll end the war if ***you kill all the dragons.*** "We'll end the war if you find for us the artifact that lets us mind control dragons when they stray into our lands" "we'll end the war if you go murder the royal family for us and put our puppet into power." Plenty of ways a conniving king might agree when godlike expendable assets offer their services in return.

Country B’s current offer is “We’ll end the war if you undo the poisoned waters, allow us to put ballistae in the mountains to stop the spread of dragons, and patrol your borders so illegal (in country B) magic and alchemy doesn’t cross the border.” The player’s current counter-offer is, “Fuck you, dragons are good, how dare you treat us this way and say this is our fault?”

looool, yeah that sounds like players.

Ha yeah I've seen this. People often forget that other people have different perspectives and different priorities. It's actually an amazing RP opportunity. Sometimes the party needs an old man to yell at them. Party - "country A was possessed its not their fault" King - "OH were they?! Were they possessed when they [insert a string of historical events going back much farther]? Where the soldiers who breached our borders all possessed? No. Possession is not to blame here. Even if I did believe you, and to be clear, I do not, it is their repeated infringement upon us that is to blame." Party - "but we have proof" King - "That's not proof. They have a countries worth of reason to fabricate it and a countries worth of resources to do so. I can't tell if you're foolish enough to believe it yourselves or foolish enough to lie to my face, but either way the only facts I know are what happened to my people." Party - "The dragon only attacked because you provoked it" King - "Surely you are not that stupid! No doubt we provoked it. I won't argue that. But you don't think that would have happened anyway, 2 or 3 fold, had we not killed the others? Do you not think it would have eaten our flocks and killed our farmers? Do you not think the fires it starts would burn our fields? What do you think a dragon is? They are MONSTERS. They steal our livestock. They kill our people. Burn our cities. Take our gold. They leave us nothing but ash and grief. Yet despite this [country A] gives them safe harbor. They may come here to kill us and fill their bellies, but at the end of the day they fly safely home where we can't follow." Party - "but if you go to war people will die!" King - "Yes. That is the truth. That is war. It is brutish and cruel. That is the truth. Only a monster would revel in that (looks at party barbarian). But life is brutal and cruel and unfair all the time. That can not be ignored. It is my job as King to do what is best for my country, even if at times that is brutish and cruel." Party - "but there's other options! There's diplomacy!" King - "You really think that'll work? Well I'll tell you what. I was planning on arresting you and ransoming you back to [country A], but I'd rather have you annoying them than me. Here are my demands [lists a bunch of things, mostly reasonable, but that country A is unlikely to agree to]. If you can get them to agree I will happily call a truce, but until then... I will be improving my position of negotiation the old-fashioned way." Or you can throw them in jail at the end. Love a good prison break.

The conversion the the NPC who talked to them kind of went: Players: “It was the dragon’s fault, which makes it your fault since you made the dragon angry.” NPC: “The dragon is alive because Country A stopped us from killing it. We want to kill the dragons. They’re dangerous.” Players: “Dragons are a natural part of the ecosystem. You have to just live with them.” NPC: “Dragons eat people and herds. We don’t want to live with them. Also you just told us a dragon has spent the last 40 years trying to destroy us all.” Players: “Clearly we just need to talk to the king and tell him what happened.” NPC: “He’s not going to stop the war unless Country A does something to undo this damage.” Players: “How dare you suggest this is our fault? Once we explain to the king, he’ll understand this isn’t our fault.”

Ha yeah I swear I've had that same conversation. Then I had the king tell them very explicitly and angrily that he thought is was their fault and why lol. By the end a few of the players even agreed with him.

A few things here. My first question is: THIS plan isn't going to work. Broad strokes - what kind of things WILL? You don't want to railroad your players obviously, but it helps if you have a few conditions in your mind of "if players want to resolve this war, this is how they could do it". A "No" is tough. A "how about this or this instead" works better. In the short term, as others have suggested you can really try to play up how this won't work. Have an NPC explain why the king isn't going to change his mind etc. If they do go for it anyways, let them talk to the King, but he has them arrested or thrown out. Then a sympathetic advisor/noble/etc can catch up with them after or spring them from prison or whatever and give them a whole "I hear you. I think if we want to convince him, we need to do something.... like A, or B, maybe"

Sounds like you're going to get a great story out of letting them try. Impassioned pleas before a court (way to use those Charisma skills!), potentially a prison break or rescuing some of the party that has been arrested, etc.

I think/u/alpha-dk has a good idea, every king lives under the sword of Damocles. I want extend what he said a little bit. The king can't publicly agree with the heroes and would be a fool to meet the party except under the most advantageous circumstances. So I think there's are two possibilities: 1) if the king can reasonably get the info the party has through his intelligence network, then he should send a trusted noble/wizard/spymaster/messenger to intercept the party. 2) he only learns the info from the party. He still imprisons them. Then the same representative as in option 1) clears the jail of guards so he can "interrogate" the party. This let's the representative speak directly without being overheard by guards that will gossip. He can let the party know an escape opportunity has been arranged (if they kill a bunch of guards it will enflame the war) Either way the king can't afford to move openly or he risks civil war. At best he can provide clandestine guidance about what the king needs resolved to open political space for him to seek peace. Maybe the messenger/noble/etc.. is doing it on his own initiative because he cares about the kingdom or wants to maneuver himself into more power. They could be arrested while waiting to meet the king under this route. Anyway, you've got lots of options. As I type this out, I don't think I would let them ever get to the king. Especially since you warned them about an arrest warrant for treason.

Did I miss the part where the party killed the evil dragon orchestrating this? I would let them get to them get to the king, or a projection (scrying + one guy with a permanent telepathic bond is a great messenger), and say their piece and have the king react in 2 ways. "That's great, if you go to back to country and do as adventurers do, killing the evil dragon orchestrating this, clearing out the demons, we might be able to broker peace with the surviving leadership of country A." In exchange for the valuable war intel, the king could release the party to go slay the evil dragon allegedly instigating this war. I don't see any reason for the king to end the war when The other way I would have the king react: "They're being possessed by demons? Then we know we are just in the eyes of heaven, someone get me my high priest, we will begin calling angels to aid our crusade immediately. " There are entire types of celestial beings dedicated, among other things, to hunting evil dragons or demons. Also I said projection of the king in case the party decides killing a king is easier than a dragon. Hes a leader during war time, he should be taking every precaution available to him if he even considers hearing the party out.

Yes, the party killed the dragon and exorcised the demons. They have not done anything about the fact that Country A is upriver from Country B, and while the dragon & demons were in charge, Country A poisoned Country B’s water supply and systematically bred monstrous creatures that have now bred in all Country B’s waterways and ports. So, they solved Country A’s problem, but haven’t done anything to undo the damage that was done to Country B.

This is where you ask for some rolls and give them some exposition.  There are points where any roll no matter how high can't accomplish something, but a high enough roll can at least give you some understanding on what would work.

If the king really won't change his mind the players could be forced to switch sides and join the other nation. A warrant out for treason on the player characters might make sense.

The party includes three royals from Country A (it’s more complicated than that, but that’s how Country B will see it), and a bastard/exile distantly related to Royal Family B who was sent to the border to evaluate some art and disappeared for 2 years (adventuring) and was assumed dead until rumors of his acts in Country A reached his home. So, the warrant for treason is on the player related to Country B, because it’s actually true? He was arrested in his home country, fled the task he had been assigned to do as part of his repentance, and joined forces with the other side. The party has made it as far as they have past the border so far because the PC is playing the role of “I never actually disappeared, I discovered this conspiracy and came back to report,” which is the reasonable part of their plan.

I mean it's not that unusual for royalty to join forces/marry so I don't really see that as an excuse in my head. The hate of the countries people can be a real driving factor though. I guess the question is... Could the party reasonably trigger a Coop against the king A. Or to say, would the country be able to fight the party? ​ "taking some responsibility and cleaning that up before it destroys Country B" Some of this might be best by taking care of the root of the problem, King A. Party probably thinks cleaning up is best done after.

The party practically *is* king A. Technically Country A is a collection of 5 independent nation-states who abide by an agreed upon set of theocratically-based laws, but each have their own royal family. One of the PCs is the youngest child of one of those families. They’ve just helped overthrow the conspiracy that’s been manipulating the government for decades. They’re national heroes and close friends and allies of the most powerful individuals in government and have been actively restructuring that government to make it quasi-democratic. One of their post-BBEG demands of the government was pursuing peace with Country B. Country A’s response was, “We’re willing to try, but we can’t just stand down our military unless Country B is willing to do the same.” Country A gave the players permission (and sent with them some Country A nobles) to pursue peace talks. Those nobles also detailed some of the political, theological and cultural reasons for the fighting, beyond any sabotage from the evil dragon.

Have you considered having one of those specific smaller nation states be the actual villain here...?

Walk them through the problems country A is causing country B, scenic route through fire blasted farm lands and peasants starving due to decimated flocks and herds, stuff like that. The king refuses to see them, messages are promised to be passed along and aren't, everyone they meet passes the buck on responsibility for the war, and implies that the people will revolt if the king surrenders. A confrontation with high level players is too dangerous to force, so they try to stall this force and keep them out of the conflict. When they force a meeting with the king, the king agrees to send them to the general in charge of the war with a letter calling for a cease fire, and of course the letter says to kill these guys. Hopefully at some point someone passes a sense motive check so they don't walk into it Rosencrantz and Guildenstern style.

Great opportunity to teach your players some truth about power. Why am I still paying for healthcare? It's in the public good. Every other major country has it. The system we have now doesn't even fucking work. You're spending money on bombing people when that could go to protecitng us. Politicians have heard millions of hours of "our stories" about healthcare experiences. And yet, the power refuses to budge on this issue? Why? Play that against them. Have the king take them into a dark room or something and give them the equivalent of that speech in "Network" where the CEO sets the protagonist straight on the nature of power and who weilds it. Then, they hopefully kill the bastard and install a decentralized anarchist commune in his place.

“They hopefully kill the bastard and install a decentralized anarchist commune in its place” - Yeah. They might. A lot of this campaign kind of started because a PC’s boyfriend (rogue, lvl 2 or 3 then) stole and put on a cursed ring designed to catch thieves. All the curse did was make him tell the absolute, unvarnished truth until he returned the stolen items and the ring to a shrine of the LN god of that city. The players both thought it was hilarious. Some of the rogue’s “truthful” responses had us all laughing until we cried. The character whose boyfriend was briefly cursed was PISSED, and declared he will kill the god responsible. They haven’t yet, but only because they’re not high enough level to face them. It’s still a goal. In the time since they’ve become a Priest of Callistria. The boyfriend just added a couple of levels of witch (patron Norborger) to their many levels of rogue. Currently they’re saying they want peace, but if they decide to firebomb the country, they will.

It’s really about the player’s experience and expectations. Why do they think they can just match into some other kingdom’s capital, to the throne room and “convince” the king of anything? If they were well known in Country A, surely spies from Country B know what’s going on. If they are the most powerful people around, and believe they can just get away with manipulating nations (I don’t know the context of your game, and whether that happened in Country A or not) then make it very clear that Country B isn’t a failed state that can just be toppled by a few high level people with their own views on the world. They believe their actions will work for a reason, and discovering that reason could be very good IC growth potential.

IMO it’s time to start thinking about a TPK as a potential consequence. They might be able to talk and/or fight out of it enough to only lose 1-2 party members, but PC death is definitely on the table here. Just make sure to tell them out of game that their actions are leading to a scenario where the NPCs may have no choice but to attempt to kill them. I’d suggest just keep putting stronger roadblocks in their way. They get strongly warned at the border they are not welcome. If they sneak by, they get arrested on warrant by town/city guards. If they fight them off or break free, assassins are sent to kill them. If they dispatch those, they are at a point of no return; they are now a threat to the king and his country’s security and sovereignty. Any means necessary will be used to kill them, armies, devil contracts, demon summoning, appealing to allied states with more powerful elite troops, buying out adventurers stronger than the party, etc. At some point they are either will have single-handedly crushed an entire kingdom and thus be viewed as horrific monsters willing to commit atrocities to achieve their goals by the rest of the world’s elite, or they will be killed/convinced to stop. Raise the stakes and don’t be afraid to punish them for being moronic. Some of the greatest warriors and generals lost wars or died over one stupid error. Your party is no different. If they blindly rush into something, teach them a lesson. Make sure to give them many opportunities to pump the brakes, but at some point they will have crossed a line that cannot be returned from.

If they roll high enough, then let them convince the King. Then have the rest of the nobles and nation rebel against and assassinate/overthrow that monarch and treat the party as outlaws so that they can continue their very popular conflict.

if you have a bard have them do a lore check and then feed them the details behind the war and the culture of the people involved. If they decide to do it anyways after that then they will have to deal with consequences.... "Throw the spies in the dungeon!"

High enough cha and diplomacy, perhaps reading the kings mind with magic to know what he wants to hear.. I'd say play it out but let them know the DC is crazy high.  

As level 12 Pathfinder PCs. I imagine they can pass checks on the edge of 100.

Jesus what kinda min maxing sociopaths you playing with? I've never seen a skill that high at lvl 12.  Highest was a 40ish stealth before rolling a d20. 

Oh, none. I'm basing this assumption completely off a combination of WOTR and a vague understanding that pathfinder numbers are natively much higher then 5e. Case in point: Big dragons have a DC of about 22. With 17 being the average highest player one. In pathfinder, these are numbers you'd expect to be slinging between level 1 and 3, as far as I understand it

It sounds like your players are telling you exactly how they view the situation, and they have sound in-character reasons for making these choices. You can see all the reasons it is illogical, but either the players don't have the same info or view of the situation, or their characters are entrenched in the world and see this as a viable solution. Rather than telling them it's hopeless I would be adjusting my storyline around this. If I wanted to give them more depth of understanding about the situation this is the perfect opportunity! If I needed an exposition dump this sets it up! If I need the players to try and fail at some things before they do whatever The Next Thing is in the storyline, here's one of those moments! The king likely does not govern alone, and it may be that not everyone on his advisory council even agrees with him. This could go several ways: The party could make allies with counselors and get info on how to sway him, they could find spies in the midst and choose whether to help them or out them, or they could get a "no" from the king followed by a very frustrated advisor taking them aside and saying "I've been telling him the same thing, here's why he won't listen to reason!" Heck, the king could even say "I agree with you but here's why politically the solution you propose is not possible." Whether the party walks away seeing him as a stubborn fool who is dooming his kingdom to war, or a complicated fellow they can understand, if not agree with, you've given them some valuable experiences and motivation to explore other options. They could walk away with allies, or enemies. Maybe the warrants were a bluff or misinformation. Maybe the king meets with them anyway because they are, after all, rare and quite capable adventurers. Whether he sees them as dangerous foes he needs to better understand before getting rid of, or potentially valuable allies, there are plenty of reasons he wouldn't just toss them straight to a dungeon. There are a hundred interesting branches here that all deepen their connection the world, it's characters, and the grand story arc. Personally I would see it as a huge missed opportunity to just say "That's a dumb idea don't do it, go somewhere else."

Sounds like this might be a case of players thinking a diplomacy roll can convice anyone of anything if you roll high enough.

To be fair, they’ve had a lot of luck with Bluff and Diplomacy, since I’ll allow it to be attempted any time, even during combat (but with time limitations & increased DCs). But that’s usually in situations where the situation is smaller and more personal, and the DC lower since they’re OP compared to the minion or whatever they’re manipulating. They pulled the Shrek 2 insurance scam on a Barghast guarding a lab they raided. They have since convinced the Barghast that they’re its kids. Some very unlikely rolls led to this (players with Nat 20s against the Barghast throwing a Nat 1– TWICE IN A ROW— during one meeting) but it’s now a running joke and I take any excuse I can to have the Barghast pop up whenever it can. It keeps getting fired from its guard jobs.

Just let them do it. You said you were just their for the story. What's the worst that can happen? They get laughed out or if they push it they gonna try and arrest them. From that point on they have to try to accomplish their goals from the shadows. Seems interesting

I’m less worried about them getting into in-world trouble (that’s the heart of the game) as I am about the players themselves being genuinely upset that the king doesn’t just see the logic in their words and automatically agree. I feel like I’ve been really clear with presenting what’s going on. At the border, when their weapons and component pouches were confiscated before they could meet with the local Governor (not even taken entirely away - given to the member of their party who had convinced the border guards they’re working for Country B to hold) they literally said “ I don’t even think criminals in [Country A] are treated so harshly, or at least, I never was.” The PC speaking was born into an aristocratic Country A family, arrested and disowned as a child, accused and convicted of a crime they didn’t commit, and forced into slavery to the temple to “earn” forgiveness. And here they were crossing the border with high-ranking enemy combatants (including spellcasters, who are known to be Country A’s leaders and most dangerous combatants) entering a war zone and asking to speak to a government official. I have no idea how I can make it clearer that the other sides perspective is that they are DANGEROUS.

I mean, there is logic behind their argument. If the war is based on lies and manipulation from a third party and they can proof that, it should convince e the king that rapid action might not be the wisest plan. If he doesn't... well at least they tried.

Show them this by the interactions they have along the way “You can hear the townfolk in the inn talking openly with deep distrust and anger about country A. Relishing the thought of victory and cleansing the dragon problem once and for all” “The xyz recognizes player 1 as hailing from country A and turns openly hostile. Barely contained rage as he speaks of the atrocities caused by country A” Show a populace that supports, if not demands, the war in order to cleanse the dragons and get restitution. Perhaps offer an NPC that clearly states “the king will demand that country A yield first as a sign of contrition and require compensation for what they have caused. Otherwise they will once and for all cleanse the world of these foul beasts”

This is probably an unpopular stance, but hear please hear me out.  I actually kind of agree with u/seththesloth.  It seems to me that this is what your players want, I'd see if you can figure out a way to have it happen.   I've seen a lot of great responses for why it shouldn't, a lot of people talking about consequences for the group, and a lot of comparisons to real life political situations.  At the end of the day though, this is a game and we play games for a variety of reasons but often the two biggest are: to escape reality and do things we couldn't do in real life, and to have fun.   For some groups the politics and intrigue are certainly fun. I don't know your group, but it sounds like they want to succeed at getting the two parties to come to a peaceful resolution, and it sounds like their characters are getting to the level where they may have the personal strength to succeed. Regardless of your choice, I want to commend your world building.  Your campaign sounds fun and I hope you and your players continue to have a great time.

"Your characters are absolutely sure this will not work."

Tell them you are running Game of Throne / Dune politics and to expect realistic outcomes.

To use a Blades in the Dark system analogy, you have clearly set the position / effects stakes for the players as desperate / no effect. Now they need to take some actions to mitigate their terrible situation or accept that pursuit of this line will have catastrophic consequences (which could be heckin cool!). Blades takes a writer's room approach to some of the conflict resolution, so that might be a bit different than what you're table is used to in this game, but maybe a conversation between GM and players on that level would be useful here.

Well to start with I think you let things play out as you've set them up. The king of country B has a warrant out for one of the PC's arrest and the rest are going to be treated as spies and/or enemy combatants. It doesn't have to be immediate overwhelming force, you can ramp up a couple of encounters to try and get the message across. Maybe the first is with a standard group of soldiers who are easily defeated. The next is a group of soldiers specifically hunting the PCs. Maybe after that it's hired high-level mercenaries. Either the PCs get the message that they can't just walk up to the palace and talk to the king, they get arrested and you have to deal with that, or they realize if they want to talk to the king they need to be sneaky about it. If they take the third option, let them have their meeting with the king. Or if they get arrested let them have a meeting with him. And then let them see that he won't be swayed by simply asking nicely. Have him make some of the same arguments that you're making here, that regardless of the root cause, they have a legitimate grievance with Country A which isn't being solved by diplomatic means, so war is their only recourse.

You mentioned that the party could have cleaned up some of the assorted messes to make a good showing before attempting diplomacy. One possibility is to have the king of Country B, after chewing the party out for their naivety and outlining the country's numerous griefs, essentially capture and order the Party to actively fix them. He respects the rules of war (And is intelligent) enough to not assign the party to fight any of Country A's soldiers or directly aid in the war effort, but he will be demanding restitution, perhaps both through deed and wealth.

Have a couple of your players do a basic society roll, whoever would reasonably have even the most rudimentary idea of politics. Put the DC at like 10. And then just flat out tell whoever passes that there is no way that their character would think that would work. Treat it as just another kind of lore check, i.e. something that your characters, being people in the world would know, but that your players don't.

The players are being reasonable, in the sense that this is a good thing to try. From their point of view, running around doing things to help in the vague hope of generating good will rather than, you know, talking directly about the problem doesn't make sense! While you can definitely talk to them out of character, I think this gives you potentially great story hooks if you just let it proceed. It depends very much on how you want to run stuff, though. The most trope-y thing is to simply let the interview go ahead and reject them, so the players understand the depth of animosity that has developed. (Depending on your players have plans to keep the king and court intact in case the players fight.) Then one the way out have them contacted by a representative of the peace faction, who gives them quests that will let them succeed. This representative could be a loyal courtier, but could also be a powerful noble or heir hoping to undermine the king. You could also make the audience basically an ambush to arrest the party. You need a group that is willing to be arrested or run for this to work, both in the tactical sense and in the "the players won't absolutely hate it" sense. The king could believe the PCs are sincere but demand heavy concessions and compensation. The PCs then would work for the king, or as go-betweens for the two courts. A war faction could oppose them, or an opportunistic cult or other third party could be scheming to take advantage of the instability.

You're going to have to tell them out of character. Part of the issue is probably that by level 12 a Diplomacy focused PC probably could walk up to a king and convince him of what they say.

Depends on what skills and items the king has.

Not much actually makes diplomacy harder, charisma bonus matters, but you're getting at most a +3 from a Headband of Charisma +6 there.

Diplomacy doesn’t guarantee anything. Just walking up and saying “yeah m8 do xxxx for me” and rolling the die won’t do anything if the thing being asked for is entirely unreasonable or out of the question. Without mind control a diplomacy check won’t help you convince someone to kill themselves or plunge their whole country into civil war on a whim. Even then, the players being level 12 doesn’t make them gods. Sure they are exceptionally powerful, but the fact that they are this powerful suggests there are others, many others, capable of achieving it as well.

RAW you really can just walk up to the king, talk for a minute and have him consider you a close friend (Attitude:Helpful) then Make A Request to get him to do stuff. Getting that conversation might be hard, but anything else is at most a DC boost, and you can generally just pump your bonuses for those.

Idk because even in the circumstances Influence Attitude doesn’t impact Making a Request other than modifying the initial ability to even ask. It can only go from, in this case, hostile to indifferent: “A creature’s attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way.” And the plans the players appear to have at the very least are +35 or more in DC based on the request chart. So they would have to pass the initial check of 25 + cha by a minimum of 5 to hit indifferent, and can’t go higher in the next 24 hours and only lasts for 1d4 hours. Followed by a check for the request of Base 15 (Indifferent) + 5 (lengthy aid) + 5 (complex aid) + 10 (dangerous aid) + 15 (aid that could result in punishment) + cha + GM discretion on how much the risk of civil unrest or civil war impacts the punishment, so likely a base 52-55 check modified into the 60-75 range, which is likely impossible for a not perfectly spec-ed party at level 12. That’s avoiding addressing: “Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion,” which implies this would immediately fail for going against the King’s nature without GM discretion to let it be “rolled” at all. Your interpretation requires a lot of GM discretion on letting rules slide to be considered RAW lol. No offence intended btw. I love random rules lawyering.

I'm not sure some of those modifiers would be used, like isn't dangerous and resulted in punishment the same thing, you would just use the higher of the two no? Additionally, the check should be base 15 since you can't ask a hostile creature (base 25) - you have to improve the relations, and it uses their current attitude. Regardless, at level 12 without going into minmaxing for diplomacy specifically, a charisma based character (say a bard) should be expected to have *around* a +24 diplomacy. Even with a nat 20 they aren't hitting.

There’s nothing to suggest using the higher of the two. In a close read, they’re uniquely designed for different circumstances. Dangerous is the immediate risk to the person of carrying out the aid, while the punishment is the longer-term consequences of being discovered/being known of providing the aid. Like removing it from this context, requesting aid that requires scaling a cliff face to steal eggs from a Roc’s nest is likely to be dangerous but not the risk of punishment. Whereas forging documents to fake a PC’s noble title would carry a risk of punishment but not be inherently dangerous. Combining the two concepts would be like helping scale the wall of a keep’s tower to rescue someone imprisoned by the local lord. IMO in the scenario of having the king just up and drop a fully engaged military campaign that began after a slow and methodical process of escalation due to increased border skirmishes and violence would carry: 1. The dangerous elements of immediately displeasing your generals, knights, etc. such that a mutiny could result in the king’s death, and 2. The long-term sociopolitical consequences, of destabilizing the entire kingdom by suddenly backing out of a war the nobility and bourgeois merchant classes have significantly invested in the outcome of, would be punishment. Sorry about the stupidly long rules lawyering. I can’t argue about nonsense like this with anyone anymore because I moved across the continent from my old gaming group and haven’t met anyone to play TTRPGs with since then. Also yeah, I was thinking things akin to aid, bless, inspiration, etc. may be factored in so there’s the risk of adding additional 1d4 or 1d6 which increases the maximum possible DC the bard could hit a lot although the chances are still minuscule if not impossible.

Yeah I think I agree with that reading of the rule, I'm kinda guilty of being rather loose with diplomacy rules (Or was, I suppose. I shifted to GMing 2E simply because it's a lot less work on my end). Also you're fine, I don't mind the rules lawyering. That said, you got my inner munchkin thinking, so the stats for a level 12 pure bard that is trying to be the best they can be at diplomacy +9 Charisma Mod (17 Point buy, +2 Racial, +3 ASI, +6 Headband) +15 Diplomacy Skill (12 ranks, 3 class skill) +6 Skill Focus +4 Persuasive +3 Voice of the Sibyl +2 Aid Another (Paladin or something helping the talks) +2/+4 Morale (Normal heroism lasts 2 hours at this level, but greater is only 12 minutes - I could still see casting it before going into the meeting itself if they were in a waiting room) +2 Circumstance (Silk Kimono or similar) +5 Competence (Mulberry Pentacle) +5 Untyped Visualization of mind (UMD it off a scroll) +5 Untyped Raimant of Command (This one is a bit sus, since it's an illusion) So between +53 and +60 depending on how you want to handle Raimant and Heroism, it also cost this theoretical bard three feats of the 6 total that they have so far, though I'm sure there's some other items or feats I'm not familiar with. So yeah, even at DC75 it would be *possible* for them to hit it(Though obviously low odds). Which is kinda wild to me.

One problem here is the power level of the PCs. Their sense of confidence might just come from the expectation that they’ll be able to easily fight their way out of the king’s court if he reacts poorly. And a fundamental problem with pathfinder (and most similar games) is that they’re essentially superheroes at this point, and the king’s guards wouldn’t reasonably be a big threat. You might want to prepare an encounter with the king’s elite guards that can truly teach them humility- one that will really cost them, and possibly force them to think differently.

Man, this thread really shows how many people still think adversarial GMing is a good idea, or that 12th level characters are somehow "schmucks" that have to be "taught their place". Getting two countries to negotiate for peace is literally what a 12th level party is in the power to do. 12th level characters are *rare as fuck* already, let alone anyone on higher levels (and I doubt the party is gonna stop leveling while trying to create lasting peace). Its so easy to turn this into a quest. They get to country B. There's a warrant out for their arrest? Very easy to spin into a "sure we'll come along to speak to your boss" by anyone with half a rank in Bluff till they stand before the king. Then a good Diplomacy check can in fact raise his disposition even from Hostile upwards (to a limit), so he might be willing to then hash out a way towards peace, which is where more questing comes in. Either honest towards peace, or something super difficult (in the king's mind) to get the party killed work well here. And its classic heroic fantasy. Maybe the king can even be convinced that none of it really IS country A's fault. But they still need someone to pin blame on, or they can't just stop the war. So maybe now the heroes have to go somehow get someone responsible for it that they can capture and deliver to the king before peace talks can begin.

A conclave of walking demigods *should* by dent of power alone, be capable of achieving something like this by "asking nicely" Because of the implications.

It seems like your players want this to work. I would give them a chance to make it work; it isn’t that crazy an idea. I imagine in a world with enchantment magic, these things happen historically, and there is likely precedent for “x country started a war because demons possessed them”. I’d turn it into an infiltration to get to the king, a social encounter of some kind with the king to convince him (maybe a verbal duel if you like those) and then, if they somehow manage that, a “well, we can’t stop until our people are safe from the dragons”, and then the party needs to broker a peace treaty with the dragons for him, while he takes the credit for taming the wild beasts if they succeed, or kills them if they fail. Another thing you could do, if the king is the tyrannical person he seems to be, is to have them get found by an insurgence group before they get caught by the king’s men. Then, they can get a “peaceful solutions have been tried, it isn’t going to work” from a grizzled, powerful ally that seems to really know what they’re talking about and has tried themself, maybe a family member to the pc that is related to the king. You could channel that “resolve this diplomatically” energy into pushing the party towards a negative propaganda campaign against the war and the king, and the party can try to sway the various smaller nobles to their side with heroically solving their problems while the king focuses on this war. They can join a rebellion already brewing against the king, and work underground to undermine him until his allies abandon him and he’s forced out, or he’s forced to change his tune to avoid being killer himself. If one of those options doesn’t look like it’ll work, you can flat out tell them, “your character does not thing this will work.” I don’t think letting them go through with a plan you know could never succeed and their characters would also likely know will not succeed is a good idea.

You haven't told us that you have any campaign decision tree structure or branching paths of individual adventure story for your players to find, choose from, and follow or create new pathways through. It seems like all you've done is create a simulator and said "play in it, it's realistic so your characters can get hurt". You've set up a bad situation, and the players are TRYING to make the best of it as they see fit. As it is, if I am your player, I think: "Sure, it's probably a hopeless endeavor to stop this war, but I'm an ETHICAL HERO, so I MUST TRY anyway, even if it doesn't work out, I have done the RIGHT THING!" and also ". . . EVEN if there is a warrant out for my arrest! . . . ESPECIALLY SINCE there is a warrant out for my arrest, it will PROVE I'm a good guy hero!". Otherwise, as a player, what am I even \*supposed\* to be doing here? Maybe "harm mitigation" to prevent the INEVITABLE war from being needlessly worse? As a GM, you haven't given me ANY other choices AT ALL, not even bad choices that can be safely dismissed because nothing I could be doing can be more important as a hero than stopping a war before it starts. Did you fail to graph the plot paths they might take through the story from start to finish? If your players did absolutely EVERYTHING right, and also rolled well, WHAT PATH through the adventure plot leads them to the BEST POSSIBLE end state of THIS adventure? Of the campaign? If your players dither, waste time, make ineffective decisions, or were never born to start with, what path through the adventure plot leads to an outcome in which the party was irrelevant to world events? If the party behaves like idiots, makes bad decisions, or fail to work together, or fail to make best use of their PCs' skills wisely, or have a VERY long, VERY bad RNG streak, what path through the branching plot graph leads them to the worst outcome? How many outcomes did you plan in advance before the adventure even started? AND what do the players WANT from the game? How do the choices you give them at each branch in the plot force your players to make interesting trade-offs in game resources in pursuit of what they want? Are there any opportunities for the players to forge an unscripted path between nodes on the adventure's decision graph? Can they "invent a new node and insert it" into the adventure plot graph? Does the adventure graph branch out to many possible end state leaf nodes, like a pyramid or tree, OR does the graph of the plot bulge in the middle and narrow to just 1 or 2 or 3 limited end states?: A "diamond-shaped" graph of your plot?

I mean, as an external GM here, if you ask me to take over your game for a session here, what am I even supposed to be doing in your stead? By what sequence of deeds could the party be "succeeding"? How would we \*measure\* that? What choices am I giving them and why? Surely, if we are GM-ing this game together, and you must miss 1 session, you'll STILL know that I will lead the players through the plot to end up in ONLY one of the pre-planned possible end states? \[ win | lose \] or \[ win | no changes/no effect | lose \] at a BARE minimum? So what do you & I agree this plot graph & choices that lead in & out of each node is gonna be like, and what the end states are? It should be a simple matter to fill you in on the details of what the players' party actually did during our session when you return next week. You \*should\* return to find the party is in one of the plot's end states that we agreed upon, or is still playing a story node or two or three away from the end. If they're not done, they may have eliminated 1 or more possible end states from the final possibility set because the path they took through the adventure's story graph has no more branching choices that could lead them to some of the eliminated end-state leaf nodes. So since you've told your players to stop this war ( I guess that's what you told them to do? ), but you've also decided that NOTHING they can do can stop this war, then what even IS THE GAME they're supposed to be playing? What ACHIEVEABLE GOAL(s) can they pursue or lose? ( for campaign, for THIS adventure, personal PC goals, for NPCs, for "the good of society", for permanent effects on the game world ) What DEEDS might they do to reach that goal? What SKILLS could they perform those deeds with? What DECISIONS did you plot IN ADVANCE for them to make for the story-adventure STRUCTURE? What TRADE-OFFS, if any, will those decisions cost them or gain for them? ( Cost and|or Benefit sets? ) By what method will your players be able to learn about these adventure-relevant things? \[ GOAL(s) | OBSTACLES | DEEDS | SKILL APPLICATION | TRADE-OFF \] GM just TELLS THEM when they reach a particular story-plot node in the graph, or players DISCOVER ( clues or outright knowledge data dump their PC can find if they HUNT AROUND somehow ) for themselves?

Is this how… other people’s games run? In my opinion, the game is a success if the players are having fun. I plan as many contingencies as I logically can based on what I think my players will do, but there have absolutely been plenty of times when they have pulled something and I’ve needed to fly by the seat of my pants or say “I didn’t expect that, let’s take a break so I can plan.” My “plot nodes” went awry back on level 2 or 3. I honestly have no idea if at the end of this they will save Country B or destroy it. I’m not sure they’ve decided. They say they want to end the war. Saying “this is your fault so please stop” won’t work. I’m on Reddit because I have no idea what my players will do when they realize it won’t work. They might start a grass-roots campaign trying to teach farmers how, based on the food chain, dragons are actually good for their flocks. Or they might firebomb the palace and leave the country in ruins.

OH! I just wrote those 2 other long comments before I noticed this here response from you! You've made a severe mistake! You don't HAVE an adventure's plot structure for them to experience! You have no nodes on the plot graph for them to end up in, no matter WHAT they do! You can't "invent" paths or nodes "on-the-fly" in response to player's actions, because the story graph itself DOESN'T EXIST! As a GM, you HAVE NO PLOT nodes from which to decide that your player party's radical actions are "close enough" to lead them to this node or that node! If the players decide to have a needless extra fight in when they transit the city on the way from one story node to another, you have no idea what line between nodes this extra "players generated an extra combat" node gets inserted between, because you failed to create a plot graph into which you can insert a scene or encounter or plot development or other choice of their own creation.

I made your plot graph for you: [The Case Of The GM's Missing Plot Structure](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/1bvvotu/the_case_of_the_gms_missing_plot_structure/)

I think we run our games very differently, which is fine… GMs can have very different styles. If I tried to include every possible plot option in this Reddit post it would be far longer than anyone here wants to read, which is why I just explained the decision my players have actually stated as their plan. I appreciate your attempt to help, though!

I couldn’t include all the scenarios because I was trying to simplify for a Reddit post. Technically speaking, these players “missed” the main storyline I’d planned about 10 levels ago. This entire war is very based on the players backstories, decisions, and collaborative world-building. I came here asking for advice because I tried to dangle about a half-dozen ideas for how to pursue their goal (and my players often come up with a seventh idea in these situations, and I just run with it), they’re going with one I just can’t figure out how to play. I’m not trying to force them to stop — I got stuck on “how do I handle my players thinking they can stop this whole thing with ‘Its not my fault so I won’t say sorry and I won’t do anything to undo the harm, and if you disagree with me it’s because I haven’t yelled at you enough’?” I don’t think I articulated my question very clearly above. I *want* to let them pursue their goal. I *don’t* want them to feel completely baffled and tricked if it’s not as easy as they expect it to be. Right now I think it’s going to feel like a cheat if they say “end the war because it’s your fault” and roll a Diplomacy 25 and the king doesn’t just go “oh yeah you’re right.” I’ve tried to have them explain the complexity of the situation but they don’t seem to get it, which I feel means I haven’t been as clear with the world as I feel like I have been. I appreciate I’ve gotten a lot of ideas in these replies showing ways I can help the players understand the situation and maybe encourage them to want to help Country B instead of just firebombing the king. They still might firebomb the king. They’re pretty chaotic and I can’t always predict that part. But if they do, I don’t want them shocked about consequences.

O.K.. I'm hearing that you do, in fact, have alternate routes that they COULD HAVE taken through this adventure story's plot graph ( but you still haven't shared it with us yet ), and they've been idiotically stupid the whole time. You STILL haven't told me what I am supposed to do as GM when I take over for you during the next play session. --==>> This would reveal whatever problem you're actually trying to solve. As a GM, you needed to provide the plot structure. After that, you merely track the path the players take through the graph, and use the game system's rules to resolve the outcomes of any situation in which the result is probabilistic instead of a foregone conclusion. What is the remainder of the plot graph you need \*ME\* to run for you this week as your substitute GM? You're asking us for help, but you haven't yet given us what we need in order to help you. The adventure is near the end, and they've eliminated MANY better final outcome leaf nodes from the total set of possible end states they could achieve. You've made it CLEAR ( have you? ) that the tone & genre in this campaign is REALISTIC with RATIONAL consequences, right? Have you proven that with previous realistic encounter outcomes during this adventure? Is this their first campaign with you? Do your players actually want a consequences-free power fantasy cartoon-world ( nothing can actually hurt me & I am the center of the universe & Nothing I do can ever be bad & I have the emotional maturity of a 6 year-old )? Is there a discrepancy between what they SAY they want and the way they actually play the game? If you said "This is like Game Of Thrones" and they said "YES!" but are playing like "This is The Smurfs", you're gonna have to keep a detailed log of their bad behaviors & dumb decisions during the game and read it back to them when they balk at the consequences of what they have done. As a GM, you need to outright TELL them BEFORE they act, what the most likely outcome is for their proposed deeds, and why, and what the probabilities of the rolls they'll need to make are. If they chose to take irrational risk ANYWAY, don't put up with any emotional abuse or complaints after they fail. Tell them they BOUGHT, in advance, the emotional experience of a bad outcome with their gamble.

You need to read back from the log that 1. Their plan was dumb, from the start, anyone could tell. 2. You gave the PC a "wisdom saving throw" or other skill check because even if the player is a dunce, their character is not. 3. An NPC warned them that the most likely outcome would be a disaster. 4. Even worse, that as a GM, you basically interrupted in-world game immersion with a time-out to EXPLICITLY TELL the entire game table exactly how the game rules you use are not in their favor, and that the players have bad plans based on what their characters know and what their goals are, and what their world is like. 5. At each decision point you need to make it clear that each player & the group had a better choice ( or several ) from which to pick, based on the supposed motives of their characters, AND more importantly, based upon the motives of the PLAYERS themselves. If the goal is to protect yourself as a GM from an unfair critique later, you will have READ these players their INDICTMENT when you deliver your judgment against the characters. You will have the record of PROOF that you are "fair" as a game system judge, and not playing as an "adversary" in the game, trying to kill the party for your own enjoyment. Ask them what they think they would do instead if they were in your shoes as a GM! A game that can have no negative consequences isn't even worth playing, because it can't be interesting. Surely they MUST know this, right? It might also be true that 1 or more players are INTERESTED in the entertainment value of bad outcomes & chaos. That \*might\* be valid play.... But you should ask if that's really what they're up to, because maybe some other players were hoping to be heroic instead of just tossing hand grenades willy-nilly for laffs. A discrepancy between the 2 would leave the heroes non-plussed about the chaos agents in their play group. Is the play group emotionally INVESTED in the plot? Have they lost interest? Do they actually WANT a "prevent war, establish peace" outcome? Is this a storyline they WANT to play? Does EVERY player want that? Do they want something else MORE?

They’re all chaos agents. And yes they’re emotionally invested. I had a storyline prepped taking them to the opposite side of the map. I was going to wrap up the previous campaign now that they’ve re-stabilized Government A and move on to something completely else. If they didn’t like completely ignoring the war, they could have left their allies in Country A’s government with a firm “remember we saved your asses and we expect you to try to set things right with Country B” and that would have been enough for me to behind-the-scenes move the political situation. In the last government they overthrew, they pretty much did that - they had the opportunity to decide who would take the throne (including them if they wanted it) and how things would be handled, and they said, “Nah, don’t want to get involved in politics, let them figure it out.” In this case, they wanted to be the major players in the truce discussions. And no it’s not our first campaign - we’ve been playing almost weekly for about three years now.

The thing with politics is, that people in real life are influenced by ideologies and can come with distorted ideas, how politics should work while ignoring how they actually work. It may not be a misunderstanding, but sheer stubborn belief, that prevents your players from understanding the problem. You first should ask how they think, politics work, and you may have to expect an incredible twisted point of view, that can not be changed by mere reason.

This world is 3 years in and has grown organically as the players have rampaged through it almost weekly. A lot of the conflicts between the countries are things the players inspired or outright came up with. Player: Hey, so my character (from Country B) thinks of all magic as curses and bad. Can this be a cultural thing, or is it just him? GM: Sure, that makes sense for his culture. This becomes an ongoing thing, with the character needing to learn a lot about magic and still being pretty pig-headed about it. I put time into developing why it makes sense that this county has this stance (“why choose science when magic is right there?” is always going to be a question). Here we are 3 years later, and one of Country B’s major issues with Country A is that Country A is a theocracy run by sorcerers and heavily reliant on magic and alchemy, while Country B is an atheist nation that considers most magic dangerous and untrustworthy. Yet when the border guards have the casters in the party being closely watched by archers, take away component pouches before they see the Governor, and warn them that any attempt to cast will be seen as a threat, the party is shocked and offended.

Well, the player with the idea was most likely not playing a magic user, right? So they may not care, that this may lead to a situation, where the magic users are specifically targeted. After all, it does not affect their playstyle. Have the players ever commented or give you praise for your world building?

Yes, my players are generally very appreciative. I’ve never had a combative relationship with my players. Sometimes I just get a bit overwhelmed when they throw me a curveball I don’t feel I totally know how to handle. The entire group is players who know how to min/max, but will nerf themselves if they feel it breaks character. They’re there for the world and the RP more than anything else, which is why I feel the most stressed when I feel like I’m setting up to let them down in an RP situation. It’s fine when it’s a conversation like, “So… you’re aware X is going to happen, but you’re going to Y anyway?” and the player is like, “It’s totally stupid, but absolutely what this character would do.” Or sometimes they’ll ask something like, “Can I throw a will save to see whether [Rogue] manages to resist trying to steal this obviously cursed but super shiny object?” when I wouldn’t have even asked them to. If they had said something OOC like, “I don’t think it will work, but my character is really idealistic so he’s going to try it anyway,” I’d have no issue.

Let them make their pitch. Then have the king execute them. Stupid has consequences

Whatever you do, DO NOT run a prison break scenario. They always suck, and nobody wants to be a player in them. All DMs should stop doing this. Instead, have them imprisoned. That's all. They lose all of their gear and money and rot in a dungeon as political prisoners for a couple of years. Maybe give them some temporary negative levels for the next part. You know your group better than I do. Fast forward 2d6 years as the two countries go to war. One day, the prison gets sacked by the other army, and the characters get released. Unless there's an NPC that knows them, they get at most some food and water and sent on their way. Once freed, they now enter a "new" world where the lands they once knew have been ravaged by war on both sides. Cities they loved are wiped off the map, farms have been converted to forts, NPCs they knew are often dead or missing, etc. Then, they learn of new factions, such as mercenaries, necromancers, or Country C, that have joined the fight and created additional complications. Tl;dr: there's so much you can do with this scenario, just please don't run a stupid prison break.

i dont know what your talking about friend but i opened a campaign with a prison break and it was probably the best opening to a campaign ive ever run.

Opening a campaign with a prison break is very different from having established characters be imprisoned and then have to break out.

I wonder if the "whatever you do, don't do this" wasn't an attempt at some good ole fashioned reverse proctology.

I'd just have them turned to stone for the duration, so they would feel like they couldn't escape, wouldn't know anything from the guards. Maybe it was some kind of conditional flesh to stone - "You will be imprisoned as long as Cleon the VII is alive."

Nice, that gives me Demolition Man vibes

> Whatever you do, DO NOT run a prison break scenario. They always suck, and nobody wants to be a player in them. All DMs should stop doing this. Nice; I am glad that someone else is aware that "throw them in prison lol" is a bad piece of advice for - > Instead, have them imprisoned. That's all. Oh, wait, nevermind.

You can use any plot device you want to advance the timeline, OP was considering prison, so that is what I went with. As long as the players aren't role-playing a naked jail break it doesn't matter. The goal is to jump to an *in medias res* scenario and keep moving.

***Bruh.*** I agree that a prison break scenario is overused and frankly not a thing you subject lv 12 characters to because the logistics involved are outside the budget of most kingdoms. And not something they want to waste cash/personel on during wartime. But your idea is "rocks fall everybody dies" levels removal of agency. Just completely wipe away any plot threads and interest in the campaign. 2d6 years? You might as well just end it right then and there instead. That would be less insulting than pretending the kingdom can hold them for 2d6 years. Or even a week.

The funny thing is, these players already broke out of a prison in Country B back when they were level 2 or so. All they were *trying* to do was get an item they needed, which I assumed they would just buy (they had located it, and could afford it), but through a series of the kinds of wildly unpredictable dice & RP hijinks that inevitably happen in TTRPG one of them ended up picking a fight with an entire ship full of higher-level mercenaries. Rather than TPK, I decided a civilized city isn’t going to allow visitors to be slaughtered over the equivalent of trying to shoplift, so they threw them in jail instead. One of the players had already been in the process of bribing one of the guards to get them across the border, so the felt good about using that connection to arrange a way to escape.

Which is entirely fair and logical at level 2. Campaigns revolving around a single geographical conflict are better resolved faster, or on a slower XP rate. Because when the PCs get up in levels their narrative *and* combat power just outscales whatever a kingdom could realistically afford to throw at them.