In my homebrew world, there is the Empire of Tûul-Abban. It consists of pretty much all the kingdoms of men (including those races of men who think men are way too full of themselves - thus elves, dwarves and all the rest). It's been cobbled together over many centuries by overwhelming various other, smaller kingdoms. 

One of these, Lumia, has recently rebelled against the Empire, declaring themselves the Free Republic of Lumia. A country of law and good, all but surrounded by the Empire, and struggling constantly to remain free. 

In Lumia - a land governed by a democratic elect council advised by a house of nobles and the Church of Lumia - there is one military commander who is an absolute blackguard. Unflinchingly loyal to his country, with no designs on the throne or the like, but he murders and rampages across the battlefield, burns crops, impales enemies, takes no prisoners, razes villages. He's the exemplar of everything Lumia isn't. 

But then, on the other hand, he's almost single-handedly responsible for holding the country's north, with little more than a token force, his personal retinue, and his own broadsword.

I am intensely fond of this guy. I have him showing up at the most random times, stomping around in his black, blood-splattered armor, showing the deepest humility and respect for all ranking leaders - and reporting how he won this battle, deflected that attack, or slew the other enemy commander. Always at some horrid cost, or in some manner counter to all good and decency.

But!

I need the players to actually ask him for help. And, well, unsurprisingly, they won't, because he's an absolute nightmare. I want to engineer a situation where, at the end of the rebellion, Lumia stands victorious - but in large part because this blackguard did something. And I don't want to inform the players this happened. I want them to be the ones to bring him in. 

Because I like my grey zones. 

Any clever ideas?

Your Blackguard is a Lawful Evil Knight in essence. LE NPC's can be some of the most fun. They are bound by their dedication to the law and (often) sense of honor and duty. They just don't get squeamish about enforcing the law along the way.

So I think you've got a great start here!

I caution against anything that forces the player characters into asking for help. You may instead want to craft a situation where asking for his his help is the 'easy' button. The most direct way to do this is to have the rebellion field a sizeable army that's going to be hard to fight without the Blackgaurd. If you make that clear - and he can offer his help - they may reconsider. If they don't, it's a win for them anyway. Standing by their moral guideposts vs. giving in to easy but discomforting results.

The power of the grey zone here is not about forcing them to make the grey choice - it's about them wanting to even if they don't!

Ech! I typed a reply to this, then my PC crashed before I posted. 

I don't want to force them to do anything - the PC's, that is - because if it's forced, they're not responsible. I want to ... manipulate them into choosing the path I want. That's ok, right? 

The Empire is technically stronger, but they rely on undead for certain tasks, and Lumia is a highly religious society - of the right kind - so that tactic doesn't work. Ideally, Lumia has a way to defend against the third and final counter attack by the Empire, but only if the Empire cannot indefinitely resupply. Which they can, being a world-spanning Empire and all that. But that would be ideal: Unleash friend Blackguard on the supply lines, and let him do his thing. Knowing full well that he'll likely destroy supply trains - then move straight on to burning crops, razing villages, and causing widespread famine in the Empire. Causing untold suffering - but Lumia survives.

Introduce one of his seargents to the players, preferrably in a situation where they are rescueing him, or help him out in some way. Don't reveal his true loyalty right away, but let things be a little "off" to the players (in a sense that he could be a spy or under cover agent) and when they discover who he is, imply that they could use him to relay stategies and easy targets to your "Hero" (they might like the seargent and this may do a great deal in getting him promotions and fame, or they'll see him as a useful tool - both is fine.) leading to your preferred story.

On that note - to me, it seems more like you're writing a novel, with your "GM Character" in the main role, and the PCs are support cast.  You might want to think on that, as it often hinders cooperative storytelling/gameplay where the PCs can truly shine and often leads to railroading to get to a very narrowed down result. - Which is also fine if your players are rolling with it and don't feel restricted.

I wouldn't try to plan what "should" happen here. You've set the stage really well with cool characters and an intricate political system, and let your players out into the world. It would be great if now, having explained the whole situation to your players, you let them loose and see what they choose, see what they create from your world. You might be surprised what things you never could've planned might happen. 

In general, players can usually sense when the dm wants them to do a certain thing, and they will almost always resist in favor of making their own choices, so I would just lean into it. 

At most, if the players are ever in over their heads and it makes sense for him to do so, you can have your blackguard general lead a company of soldiers to save the players from almost certain death, giving the general an opening with the players, but ultimately what they choose is still up to the players. 

I try my best to spread a deliberate fog of war around my intentions, by spouting bad advice. Like, 'go ahead, that's sure not to explode in your faces. Or is it?'

That kinda thing. 

But yea, I'm not forcing my players to do anything. I just like to produce credible odds that they pick the path I have in mind, not least because Mr. Blackguard is instrumental for the path I've in mind for Lumia. Not that I cannot change that if he's rejected out of hand =)

It's not about forcing your players to do something...but you as the DM do need to have some "end-game" going towards, so in a sense you more guide them then force. I agree with you. You can have them find some incriminating evidence against the Blackguard. They won't help themselves but to use it against him. When confronted, the accusations are unfounded and the Blackguard must redeem his honor. So he will join and help your players, probably burning half of Lurnia in the process of finding who wronged him with such attrition that your players will wish they never confronted him with that evidence.

Doing bad things for the right reasons.  That is a relatively tough sell for modern culture.  Because many of us have not experienced the depredations of war personally.  Some thoughts that might help would be conversations with those that have been in his forces telling tales of how wonderful of a commander he is.  Always wandering the camps and seeing how the troops are holding up.  Running into battle headlong to support a faltering front line.  Rescuing captured soldiers with a small force.  Being a hero in every sense to his people, even if that rescue effort only worked because they set all the fields nearby on fire.  The opposing side paints him as a madman and a villain, but he did what he had to in protection of his people.

Bad things for the right reasons.  Make him a heroic bastard.

Quote from HeroZero >>

Doing bad things for the right reasons.  That is a relatively tough sell for modern culture.  Because many of us have not experienced the depredations of war personally.  Some thoughts that might help would be conversations with those that have been in his forces telling tales of how wonderful of a commander he is.  Always wandering the camps and seeing how the troops are holding up.  Running into battle headlong to support a faltering front line.  Rescuing captured soldiers with a small force.  Being a hero in every sense to his people, even if that rescue effort only worked because they set all the fields nearby on fire.  The opposing side paints him as a madman and a villain, but he did what he had to in protection of his people.

Bad things for the right reasons.  Make him a heroic bastard.

You know what strikes me, just now? I've basically made Regill (of Wrath of the Righteous, if you're familiar with it). 

In my defense, this idea for a villain/hero is from before I knew what WotR was. But I think you make him too ... cute. He's a cold hearted strategist - sure he wants his men to live, since its a battle of attrition (among other things), but they are still an expendable - if finite - ressource. 

On the other hand, you have him spot on in combat, leading from the front, putting himself right in the thick of it, relying on personal strength and skill to turn the tide of battle if need be. And he is, of course, stupidly high level (for the campaign that is, making him propably level 6-8 or so). 

But maybe I can work with something else. He's being deliberately undersupplied by the commanders and leaders of Lumia, in part because of shortages everywhere - but in part because they just plain old don't like him, because he's ... well deserving of some dislike, due to being a murderous old bastard =) in the army of an LG country. 

But that does call for some sympathy - him just stoically soldiering on with what he's been given, figuring out how to solve each problem with what little he's got to solve it with. Maybe he'll even come and ask the PC's for help. Men, supplies, gold, anything to turn the tide. Showing a humbler side of himself - reluctantly - hating to come begging, but doing so because he feels it's necessary in order to win.

Also there can be dislike of the person from his own government for fear he might have enough support from the populace to mount a coup.

Quote from HeroZero >>

Also there can be dislike of the person from his own government for fear he might have enough support from the populace to mount a coup.

 No, that doesn't work. The one redeeming quality of this guy - other than the fact that he wins all his battles - is that he's loyal as a dog. That's core to the concept. For all his battlefield brutality and cold, calculated tactics, he's totally dedicated to his country, and he takes the chastisement of his superiors with obvious pain at their displeasure. Sort of:

'But lords and ladies of the council, you have to understand: I had to burn those crops, raze the villages and put the villagers to the sword - it was a supply base and recruitment ground for the enemy! Had I not, victory in other theateres would be impossible!'

And whether true or not, he believes it without doubt. And he does have that long string of impossible victories to back him up.

Big Bad LE-Knight huh? My first thoughts are:

1) how long has he been fighting? Old soldiers have a way of mellowing towards Neutral as both the body count and scars pile up. Perhaps he has been sliding towards Neutral and news of some of his recent actions/commands reaches the players. They may then have cause to believe he may be willing to aid them given his "lawfulness".

2) If he falls out of favor in some way (perhaps his string of impossible victories comes back to bite him, or his malice leads to the unknowing death of someone important to someone else that cannot be overlooked) he might have cause to either assist the players or seek them out (perhaps to clear his name) and they could "trade favors" in a fashion.

Quote from Toric_Alman >>

Big Bad LE-Knight huh? My first thoughts are:

1) how long has he been fighting? Old soldiers have a way of mellowing towards Neutral as both the body count and scars pile up. Perhaps he has been sliding towards Neutral and news of some of his recent actions/commands reaches the players. They may then have cause to believe he may be willing to aid them given his "lawfulness".

2) If he falls out of favor in some way (perhaps his string of impossible victories comes back to bite him, or his malice leads to the unknowing death of someone important to someone else that cannot be overlooked) he might have cause to either assist the players or seek them out (perhaps to clear his name) and they could "trade favors" in a fashion.

 

 

 Leaning into that they could be giving him orders for something heinous and he is saying he doesn't want to and maybe the adventurers can find a way around doing this horrible act.  Like he is tasked with internal 'traitors' and executing them without trial and I finally balking because they are citizens.

Quote from HeroZero >>

Quote from Toric_Alman >>

Big Bad LE-Knight huh? My first thoughts are:

1) how long has he been fighting? Old soldiers have a way of mellowing towards Neutral as both the body count and scars pile up. Perhaps he has been sliding towards Neutral and news of some of his recent actions/commands reaches the players. They may then have cause to believe he may be willing to aid them given his "lawfulness".

2) If he falls out of favor in some way (perhaps his string of impossible victories comes back to bite him, or his malice leads to the unknowing death of someone important to someone else that cannot be overlooked) he might have cause to either assist the players or seek them out (perhaps to clear his name) and they could "trade favors" in a fashion.

 

 

 Leaning into that they could be giving him orders for something heinous and he is saying he doesn't want to and maybe the adventurers can find a way around doing this horrible act.  Like he is tasked with internal 'traitors' and executing them without trial and I finally balking because they are citizens.

 Sounds like a workable solution. Enough possible sticking points to be interesting and require some creative role playing.

Usually the way I handle situations like this is that I create a mutual enemy that affects both the players and the villain. I then offer the players a choice: They can ally with the villain against their greater, mutual enemy or they can try to take on the mutual enemy alone. Either choice is fine, but it's going to be harder if they try to do it without the help of the villain. The villain might have knowledge they don't have, resources they don't have, and obviously additional bodies to mount an assault. The villain might also see them as a threat to their own plans and now the players have to deal with both the villain and their mutual enemy.

It's always a choice, though. The players can acknowledge that things would be easier with the help of the villain, but choose not to form an alliance and face the consequences. They might also have the option to seek out several other allies who are less powerful, but whose joint forces are roughly equivalent to those of the villain's.

That is a good angle. The only downside is I need to add another big fight to the campaign. One for which our blackguard would be an obvious choice of ally. But yea, that would work.

I'm not as big on player agency as some others. But of course, in this case it needs to be a real choice - I need my players to opt into the villain. Afterwards, if I get them to do it, he'll be massively annoying about it too, using his affiliation with the PC's to try and justify his actions. 

And I'm not even going to let him eventually become a true enemy they can fight and finally rid the world of. He'll just be a background nuisance forever =)

They'll propably find some excuse to fight him anyways, sooner or later. Then, he can haunt them =D

He wouldn't come asking for their help.

He *would* come demanding it, and he would not be above being manipulative as hell about it. "You are going to do this because if not, the north will fall and the wimplewarren will bathe the streets with the blood of you and your kin. here's the vision I saw!" and bam, there's a whole illusion that seems like a prophecy around them.

The key there is how did he hear about them. What about them makes them of use to him -- because on thing that matters here is that he needs to have a use for them, and he needs a rule that he can use.

In one of the many arguments about alignment, I pointed out that I once had a queen of an entire kingdom who was so devoted and caring for her people that she turned hem all into bunnies, butterflies, and puppies to keep them from ever having to suffer. She didn't ask permission or get consent, she just flat out did it because she's the Queen and her job is to make the best decisions for her people. 

The bad guys never see themselves as bad guys, and get insulted when others do, but are usually too busy doing their thing to worry about it. This is the kind of guy who would act all hurt when they say no, and then secretly send a bunch of people after them to ambush them and say that they really shouldn't sign up with the bad guy while they are on some boring side mission. The ends justify the means, and if the means are dirty, well, that's why he has Zyxyz as a hench person, to handle the stuff like that.

I have failed to respond to my own thread - a sorry state of affairs for which I apologize, and which I shall rectify forthwith. 

Let me start with how he'd have heard of them. Simply put, this is a world where people with class levels stand out. Most everyone is a classless mook - this includes soldiers, nobles, kings and queens, scholars and so on - and so everyone with .... well, let's be honest, anyone with superpowers tends to stand above the crowd, so to speak. If you can fight 3-5 guys, solo, and consistently never lose such fights, people will have heard of you. In particular, others of similar power tend to take notice. 

Our guy is arrogant. Rightly so, perhaps - he's holding together an entire flank of the war by personal ability and sheer willpower. So he'll scoff at the thought that others might be his equal, and maybe even his better. But his arrogance doesn't stand in the way of his patriotism: If anyone can fight, he'll move the heavens to bring their weight to bear on the front lines. Only on a personal level, he'll be all 'pfft - I could take you. Easy.'

You're completely right - he'd demand their help. But he knows his bounds: The queen* commands, and he obeys. His respect for her borders on worship - he's a nationalist, and she literally birthed the nation. He would fight for her to the death without flinching, without thought.

And again, you're spot on: He sees himself as a ... 'hero of necessity'. He doesn't enjoy pillaging, or razing villages to the ground - but those are the realities of the battlefield, and to defend the nation one must do what is needed to win. I think villains think of themselves: 'I'm the only one willing and able to make the hard choices and decisions necessary!' 

Yea. Manipulation. He'd certainly have a bunch of henchmen willingly leaping to carry out whatever crazy scheme he might cook up. But ... he'd need plausible deniability too. He's not stupid.

* She's not queen. I think of her that way, but she's really head of the ruling council of a republic. Note to self: I need a proper title for her. Queen Elect? I dunno.

Matriarx, for a title.

If that fits, lol. It would be equal to a Patriarx, and both sit above Patrons and Matrons who make up the council.

So they have a degree of Renown in the world as a whole, and that's the linkage -- he's heard tha tthey are worth having about.

He would still demand -- in the name of the Queen*, and would pressure them. May even feel that it is necessary to dip into his war chest and offer them a bribe to come -- all long before he moves on to more forceful approaches. He is also likely to do things that he knows She-He-Must-Obey would not approve of -- but he sees it as part of his role is to not let he know he does those things, or as essential tot he task She has set  him to.

He's a fanatic. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice to him -- he may not like being extreme, but in his view the threat is absolute; physical, emotional, cultural, existential. This gives you a potential redemption arc for him as well if you want him to have one down the road. THis is why manipulation is not beneath him, and why he has no problems introducing a "cut-out" go-between for himself. 

If they players screw up, he can erase the evidence with a single swift stroke. Same if they become a threat to him -- and then he can turn the might of his forces against them.

That's why you use henchmen: plausible deniability.  he wouldn't send a team, he would send one person at a time. THey would be recruited in private, given orders, and sent away, and some other tale would be told for their absence. IN some cases, they would be described as "dead n the field of battle", so if they ever show up alive, he will end them -- and that indicates he was already prepared for that.

He will lean heavily on his role as leader, more so than his personal ability. Because h thinks he is better, he never needs to prove it to others (that's a derivation of insecurity).  He just assumes they know it as well (arrogance) and so his real power comes from his role as a leader. That's what he will lean into -- not his broader reputation (which he will dismiss off hand as lies and not argue with), but his specific job, because he is the only one who can stop the horde, and he wants them to join the cause.

It is an honor, you see, and if they serve him well, they will be rewarded. He will never say what that reward is -- because he isn't thinking about after, he is thinking about and focused on now, the threat, the danger, the task. "Rewards are what you think of after the task is finished."

I hope this helps!

Look at some of the character arcs from professional wrestling. Wrestlers do heel/face (villain/hero) and face/heel turns better than anyone else.