Li'sar's Characterization in HttT (Spoilers)

[name]

1) DM is a story about most of Defaldor´s life. Him having a nemesis is better than him fighting the generic orcs to enhance HttT.

But his life immediately precedes (and includes) HttT, so there is a narrative opportunity to tell not just his story, but Wesnoth's during this "middle" time period.

So for one idea, some posts ago we were discussing how maybe a long term alliance between Wesnoth and Lintanir was forming against the Orcish hordes, with Delfador (and perhaps also Kalenz) being instrumental in this. Which ties into tRoW and aOI where the Orcs pose an almost unstoppable threat to humans and elves, because now, centuries later, their prey items have finally reached the point where they can turn the tables on them. The entire campaign would not have to focus on only this, but it would be a theme running throughout. The motivation for the alliance could be provided to Delfador by his early experiences with Orcish savagery, then meeting the elves and kalenz who have been in a state of perhaps near perpetual war with the orcs for centuries and finally seeing the situation worsen over decades. Events like this interspersed throughout his life could build a story arc that culminates in Asheviere taking power and sabotaging all of this in the process.

2) DM takes place over a large period of time and features a lot of enemies. The undead invasion I mentioned is much prior to HttT and while it is the most important enemy of the campaign, it is not the last. This leaves enough room for the orcs but there has to be a reason why Defaldor is called the Great and it´s certainly not meeting some orcish threat that is explored and resolved in one battle after the end of the campaign.

I do like the idea of him accomplishing many varied deeds with diverse friends and foes.

But as I recall, the Undead ended up stealing the show. They seemed to come out of nowhere, nearly destroyed the kingdom and then were just as swiftly defeated. Which feels unsatisfying and cheap. What might make this work better is if there was a strong, direct tie into EI. Like if it were during DM that Ravanal became a necromancer and because Delfador so thoroughly killed him, it took a century for his return as a licht for the events of EI.

An option that comes to mind would be to add a scenario with a small group of loyalists meeting with the orcs (which get stopped by Kalenz and Defaldor, or only the first who informs the latter). They suspect it might be the queen who tries to make some deals with the orcs but don´t have evidence.

That is a good idea.

Exploring a combination of both (in DM) would be worth the work IMO. That way we would have the psychological component, while maintaining a corruption that is not completely her fault (the latter part can of course be dropped and Asheviere be portrayed as completely evil only in the eyes of the rebels).

we could have Asheviere turn up a lot earlier (sometime while Defaldor is in the land of the dead for example) and thus have a lot more room to develope her character and her relationships to Garard and Defaldor. (This would also be a great option if we go with Sire´s point 2 suggestion).

I agree, all these should be explored.

Regarding psychology, I mean not just why she dabbled in the first place, but what about necromancy causes your personality to change. Like, maybe in become something between dead and alive to preserve yourself indefinitely, you lose a lot of the little impulses and sensations that we associate with being alive. Like everything from tasting and enjoying food to a sense of kinship with family and friends. You become unaffected by "the little things in life" and then all you have left are your ideas and schemes to try and entertain yourself for the next few centuries or millennia.

Perhaps some combination of the two (which would actually work wonders for portraying Li'sars actual skills: She does not have the manpower and yet gives the rebels quite some trouble which forces Defaldor to intervene in some way (+ the point of actually showing off some of the Defaldor the Great stuff as mentioned by Sire))?

I think this could work.

[TheGreatRings]

The danger with having Delfadore pull off some super powerful magic that he doesn't in any other circumstances is that it could end up rendering the players' actions irrelevant, and that it could raise the question of why he doesn't do it any other time, if its so useful.

Edit: Also, on the subject of necromancy changing you mentally, I recall Haldric suggesting something along those lines in Rise of Wesnoth, so their is precedent for it.

[zookeeper]

As for Asheviere and magic, I don't think there's any reason to have her corrupted by the book or anything else really. It's perfectly fitting for her to simply have grown into an ambitious and ruthless political player without any magical influence to make her "extra evil". As for her small magical abilities, I don't think she really needs to have them, but I don't think it hurts much either. It's good for her to have a ranged attack, and magic is pretty much the only option there (I can't imagine her using a crossbow).

It's not been stated where she learned her dark magic, but I've always assumed that magic was just a little sideline pursuit for her in her later years. Something that one of her more warped court mages would have taught her on her insistence, but which she never had particular talent nor time for. I don't see her as a person who'd pursue necromancy to preserve herself or live forever, because what she wants most of all is political power and to pass on to her favorite child (as evidenced by her wanting Eldred as king, and for Li'sar to succeed her). Also, necromancy has such a bad name in Wesnoth that even most of her own generals would have her head chopped off the moment they learned that she's actually practising it, so that's a no-go if you want anyone to perceive you as a legitimate ruler. No doubt she wouldn't mind making deals with necromancers behind the scenes the way she does with orcs, though.

The danger with having Delfadore pull off some super powerful magic that he doesn't in any other circumstances is that it could end up rendering the players' actions irrelevant, and that it could raise the question of why he doesn't do it any other time, if its so useful.

Indeed, it'd need to be carefully formulated.

[Whiskeyjack]

But as I recall, the Undead ended up stealing the show. They seemed to come out of nowhere, nearly destroyed the kingdom and then were just as swiftly defeated. Which feels unsatisfying and cheap. What might make this work better is if there was a strong, direct tie into EI. Like if it were during DM that Ravanal became a necromancer and because Delfador so thoroughly killed him, it took a century for his return as a licht for the events of EI.

Please play the campaign again (or take a look here). While the undead are not perfectly foreshadowed, they do turn up a lot less sudden than Asheviere, Eldred or most other people in the campaign. And orcs were never meant to be the main enemy of the campaign. So no "undead stealing the show", the show was never the orc´s to begin with. (And yet, they have their part too). Your idea of seeping some bits about the orcs in inbetween is good, but already there. It just needs to be enhanced. Completely taking over this campaign to be a prelude for one insignificant battle at the start of HttT is a big mistake IMO.

The danger with having Delfadore pull off some super powerful magic that he doesn't in any other circumstances is that it could end up rendering the players' actions irrelevant, and that it could raise the question of why he doesn't do it any other time, if its so useful.

Well, noone said it had to be something "super powerful"
Could be anything that comes in handy to impact the battle.

As for Asheviere and magic, I don't think there's any reason to have her corrupted by the book or anything else really. It's perfectly fitting for her to simply have grown into an ambitious and ruthless political player without any magical influence to make her "extra evil". As for her small magical abilities, I don't think she really needs to have them, but I don't think it hurts much either. It's good for her to have a ranged attack, and magic is pretty much the only option there (I can't imagine her using a crossbow).

It's not been stated where she learned her dark magic, but I've always assumed that magic was just a little sideline pursuit for her in her later years. Something that one of her more warped court mages would have taught her on her insistence, but which she never had particular talent nor time for. I don't see her as a person who'd pursue necromancy to preserve herself or live forever, because what she wants most of all is political power and to pass on to her favorite child (as evidenced by her wanting Eldred as king, and for Li'sar to succeed her). Also, necromancy has such a bad name in Wesnoth that even most of her own generals would have her head chopped off the moment they learned that she's actually practising it, so that's a no-go if you want anyone to perceive you as a legitimate ruler. No doubt she wouldn't mind making deals with necromancers behind the scenes the way she does with orcs, though.

Actually, it is implied in DM: She is the daughter of the court mage Sagus (who turns Lich upon getting the Book into his hands). The step to her learning some magic from her dad is not a big one. I agree that her practicing actual necromancy (at least on herself) is not a good idea (scenario 4 of Liberty might have to be adjusted, as it shows some people being under the effect of a quite special necromantic spell of hers). But I think it would be fitting to her to have dabbled with some other dark magics, which would offer the possibility of some magic defense event in the last scenario. (As I said before, the way DM currently goes, it´s easy to let her never get a look at the book and let it just fall into the hands of her father.)
I always thought of the Dark Arts to be more than necromancy but to also offer ways to get power quickly (but at a cost - perhaps the mentioned corruption or some sacrifices or whatever you can imagine). That sounds like something Asheviere would jump on.

Regarding psychology, I mean not just why she dabbled in the first place, but what about necromancy causes your personality to change.

Absolutely wrong place for this. If you want to explore that theme, Descent into Darkness would be the place to start. I haven´t played that campaign for a lot of years and don´t remember a lot of the plot but the setting would certainly fit those aspirations.
Upon a quick look: It might be interesting to include the orcs as a reason in DM, why Parthyn turned from a small border town in the time of Haldric into a fortress guarding a ford to the north.

[name]

While the undead are not perfectly foreshadowed, they do turn up a lot less sudden than Asheviere, Eldred or most other people in the campaign.

What I am getting at is the possibility of a broader story line than just one campaign. So instead of a little intra-campaign foreshadowing, there would be a situation that has been slowly building for half a dozen campaigns and centuries of world history. This situation could be the long term evolution of the Orc problem or the Undead problem.

Or even both. One overriding theme the campaigns have (possibly purely by accident) is that in the early centuries the realm is plagued much more by Orcs and in the later centuries it is plagued by much more by Undead. So you could flesh out a sense of the orcs finally getting pushed back and defeated, but at the same time no one has been paying enough attention to the slow and secret return of licht lords to power. There's other sub-themes of this that could be explored, like that the centuries of carnage due to Orc conflicts has fertilized the land with war dead; the perfect fuel for a licht's war machine.

Well, noone said it had to be something "super powerful"
Could be anything that comes in handy to impact the battle.

In my imagining, the scenario would be re-written as a survival rather than beat the clock type. On turn one, Delfador tells Konrad deception is their only way out of this situation and he needs to stall for time, then Delfador leaves or disappears magically. The player is left alone to hold out for X turns against Li'sar's overwhelming force before Delfador reappears in Li'sar's camp to execute his ploy of deception. One possibility is he reappears as Asheviere (approaching from the road to Weldyn) and this confuses everyone for just long enough to incapacitate Li'sar and take her hostage. Li'sar being the second most important person in the realm and Delfador being an infamous murderer of royal family members in the imagining of the loyalist force, they back down. Delfador tells them to ride back to Weldyn and deliver the Queen a ransom demand of 10,000 gold pieces!

This does several things:
1. A deception like this only works once, so that loose end is tied up.
2. Li'sar is competent enough to have certainly won on the battlefield if given more time but Delfador is older and cleverer and uses the chain of command against her.
3. Delfador is not a dolt who let's Li'sar go freely so she can continue hunting you for half the campaign. Instead he is the kind that doesn't play around.
4. With Li'sar taken as a prisoner for several scenarios, she can have a lot more (out of combat) lines and character development starting much earlier on.
5. Li'sar has been put in a bad position with the Queen and used as a tool to aid the escape of Delfador, the murderer of her family (she believes). So when she is freed, it doesn't make her unreasonable to continue the hunt.

In a later scenario, Li'sar would be traded back to another far superior loyalist force in exchange for safe passage into the Northlands. From that point on she continues as an enemy commander and antagonist as per normal (but better developed in preparation for later).

Absolutely wrong place for this. If you want to explore that theme, Descent into Darkness would be the place to start.

I do not mean heavily explore the subject with dialogue for the player's benefit. But we would need to get this idea of 'dark magic madness' straight in our own heads for the purpose of character writing. HttT would only be "the wrong place for this" if it included no dark magic influenced characters of any kind.

[Sire]

@ Cold Steel

I disagree with your implementation of Delfador's plan. In my mind, Delfador the Great is more along the lines of a sterotypical "pure and powerful", and he would not resort to that sort of deception and ransom. The only real thing Delfador does that can be considered not pure is, from memory, conceal the fact of Konrad's true identity. Otherwise, he is a great and powerful sage that accomplished many things, such as returning from the Land of the Dead. (Delfador's Memoirs)

Yes, we can add additional depth to Delfador's character by some suggestions already posted in this thread, such as Delfador's guilt on not being able to prevent the king's assassination ("Why didn't I see this sooner"), and other such examples. In terms of comparisons, I see Delfador being similar to Gandalf from Lord of the Rings in many ways. Both are very powerful, but can make mistakes and may not always explain things bluntly or clearly to their companions.

As for the other points, I do enjoy the "multi-campaign narrative", and this can be expanded upon. Of course, one has to be careful to make sure the campaigns can be also played on their own without much knowledge of the others, unless the campaigns are deliberately set up in that fashion. The survival idea against Li'sar's overwhelming forces can also be used instead of Li'sar just leading a small elite strike force (although a part of me is still a fan of the latter).

[Whiskeyjack]

What I am getting at is the possibility of a broader story line than just one campaign. So instead of a little intra-campaign foreshadowing, there would be a situation that has been slowly building for half a dozen campaigns and centuries of world history. This situation could be the long term evolution of the Orc problem or the Undead problem.

Or even both. One overriding theme the campaigns have (possibly purely by accident) is that in the early centuries the realm is plagued much more by Orcs and in the later centuries it is plagued by much more by Undead. So you could flesh out a sense of the orcs finally getting pushed back and defeated, but at the same time no one has been paying enough attention to the slow and secret return of licht lords to power. There's other sub-themes of this that could be explored, like that the centuries of carnage due to Orc conflicts has fertilized the land with war dead; the perfect fuel for a licht's war machine.

That theme is already present. The orc problem is developing over the different campaigns, culminating once in NR (their defeat) and a second time in SotBE (the first founding of their own true realm and also the developement from the simple brutes called to destroy the Green Isles to their own kind of society and civilisation). I do see the connections here well enough. As for the undead: It´s present too, although a lot more hidden. Defaldors adventures are what makes Ravanal and EI possible at all! While the necromancer in DM needs to tear a rift into the wall between the realms of living and dead to threaten Wesnoth, Defaldor explains that while he closed the hole in the fabric, the connection between the realms was changed forever and necromancy would become a lot easier.
(I do not want to say that we can not expand this, but like Sire said, we should keep it low and subtle. And while a vision is good, by now we are discussing changes to pretty much every campaign there is. If we open too many projects and others never get finished, those small changes might do more harm than they help. Thus I would propose to procede with changes carefully at least in regard to campaigns not as closely connected to HttT as Liberty/DM)

1. A deception like this only works once, so that loose end is tied up.

What loose end are you referring to? What will be tied up?

2. Li'sar is competent enough to have certainly won on the battlefield if given more time but Delfador is older and cleverer and uses the chain of command against her.

I think this would be counterproductive. The player would actually get the feeling of the usual mentally handicapped, run-of-the-mill AI rush. Exactly the opposite of displaying a competent commander which can (for AI) probably only be included through WML events.
In history, the bigger/stronger force almost always won (statistically). Displaying Li'sars skills is always easier if she is not the superior party.

4. With Li'sar taken as a prisoner for several scenarios, she can have a lot more (out of combat) lines and character development starting much earlier on.

A promising prospect.

5. Li'sar has been put in a bad position with the Queen and used as a tool to aid the escape of Delfador, the murderer of her family (she believes). So when she is freed, it doesn't make her unreasonable to continue the hunt.

There are a lot of reasons for her to continue the hunt, it´s not unreasonable at all.

I´m still leaning more towards the strike force version, especially because of the time aspect zookeeper mentioned and the difficulties with AI behaviour. This would of course not stop us from taking Li'sar captive.

In a later scenario, Li'sar would be traded back to another far superior loyalist force in exchange for safe passage into the Northlands. From that point on she continues as an enemy commander and antagonist as per normal (but better developed in preparation for later).

Problematic IMO. Think of the implications for the whole hunt into the caves if Li'sar has a big army (far superior to the rebels) following her into the caverns. Her sneaking behind them, circumventing the orcs (and the people of Dwarven Doors who never saw nothing of no big army after the smaller rebel force) and especially teaming up with them against the dangers of the deep only makes sense if she does not have a very big and powerfull army at her back. They could trade her back because they think at this point that she is too much trouble, that they sowed a seed of doubt into her heart and want to let that do its work and/or they just want an unharried passage over the Great River (which could be exacerbated a lot by skirmishing enemies).

What might make this work better is if there was a strong, direct tie into EI. Like if it were during DM that Ravanal became a necromancer and because Delfador so thoroughly killed him, it took a century for his return as a licht for the events of EI.

I forgot to comment on this earlier, but it bugged me a lot, so I will catch up on it now: I think this to be a terrible idea. EI is an entirely different tale of Wesnoth. While some campaigns are currently very close, we also have those big spaces between the different groups of campaigns. That is an important feature because it leaves room for UMC authors and creative people to fill the blancs with their own visions and imagination. Something very essential to Wesnoth. Such a forced connection between the campaigns would not give us much and also hurt the character and background story of Dacyn in EI greatly. Furthermore we already have a suptle (just in nature, not so subtly written in the actual dialogue) connection between Defaldor and Ravanal (as explained above), which is enough IMO for two of the central parts of Wesnoth´s history that have a considerable amount of time between them.

[zookeeper]

If Li'sar is taken captive, then she certainly wouldn't trick them into going to the Valley of Death, but instead they'd just have to stumble there on their own. You'd also have to explain how Li'sar as hostage wouldn't prevent the loyalists at Gryphon Mountain from fighting the rebels. On the other hand, what ought to be reasonably straightforward is her release: he logical place would be at the Ford of Abez, where she could be released in exchange for free passage from whatever loyalist force is stationed there.

While it'd be more compelling to have her as captive instead of simply being let go and being back as an enemy two scenarios later, it's also something that's pretty tricky to have work well. Firstly, we can't assume to get a proper captive portrait of her. Secondly, would she appear as a regular unit on your side? Without a weapon or otherwise restricted somehow? Or would she talk without being on the map as a unit, or would her unit appear only when she talks? Would it be clear enough what's going on, when you have a talking character in the player's group who isn't actually there as a unit like everyone else? If she appears as a unit you can control, should it be a lose condition to move her to the edge of the map somewhere out of reach of your other units? There's all sorts of things to take into consideration there.

I do like the general idea, but there's a lot of details to iron out.

[name]

That theme is already present. The orc problem is developing over the different campaigns,

It is present but underdeveloped. Characters only behave re-actively to it, major battles the player conducts do not have a very tangible effect on the situation, and in general it feels too much like orcs show up when a filler opponent is needed.

As for the undead: It´s present too, although a lot more hidden. Defaldors adventures are what makes Ravanal and EI possible at all! While the necromancer in DM needs to tear a rift into the wall between the realms of living and dead to threaten Wesnoth, Defaldor explains that while he closed the hole in the fabric, the connection between the realms was changed forever and necromancy would become a lot easier.

That felt more like one campaign tipping its hat to another than a story arc building slowly through most every campaign in the game.

And while a vision is good, by now we are discussing changes to pretty much every campaign there is. If we open too many projects and others never get finished, those small changes might do more harm than they help. Thus I would propose to procede with changes carefully at least in regard to campaigns not as closely connected to HttT as Liberty/DM)

All the changes I have suggested thus far are for HttT and DM, except for giving Ravanal a much earlier origin of some kind.

Such a forced connection between the campaigns would not give us much and also hurt the character and background story of Dacyn in EI greatly.

It is just one idea. A better might be for Ravanal to have been one of the original Licht Lords (from the Green Isle and Old Continent before that) under Jevian.

From a writing perspective a great and unfortunately missed opportunity with the Licht concept, is they are characters that have no definite lifespan. So they can appear in campaigns spread out over centuries. And have knowledge and strategies that reach back through the entire history. So this is a way to have an arc that runs all the way from long before tRoW to EI and touches several campaigns in between in small ways.

What loose end are you referring to? What will be tied up?

Other posters were concerned that if Delfador used some special powerful ability of his to defeat Li'sar, you would expect him to use it again and again to shoot his way out of any pressing situation. But with a deception, you can only expect it to work on your opponent once.

I think this would be counterproductive. The player would actually get the feeling of the usual mentally handicapped, run-of-the-mill AI rush. Exactly the opposite of displaying a competent commander which can (for AI) probably only be included through WML events.

I am a bit skeptical about the technical ability to depict a competent commander with only the current AI and scripting. Plus, you will need to do it not just for Scenario 8, but every scenario in which Li'sar is an AI driven commander. Fighting a greatly superior force makes your opponent's lack of intelligence less obvious, so that is an easier solution. But of course, whoever does the coding will have to make this call based on their knowledge of the tools available to them.

There are a lot of reasons for her to continue the hunt, it´s not unreasonable at all.

Well in the current writing... They cut right through her forces, she begs for her life (whilst insulting them, brain much?), so they spare her, they tell her they are not the enemy, she openly blows them off, then she demands they let her go and they happily comply and leave. She gathers a new force and proceeds to hunt them down like dogs for their sparing her life.

She never questions why a ruthless band of brigands intent on usurping the throne would not simply dispense with or leverage an heir such as herself. This makes her a fool (which is undoubtedly intentional in the current writing, a 'foolish child').

It also makes Delfador a fool for not at least taking her prisoner, as leverage or to try to eventually convince her of the truth of the matter or simply so she doesn't keep attacking and killing their loyal soldiers with "reinforcements".

Think of the implications for the whole hunt into the caves if Li'sar has a big army (far superior to the rebels) following her into the caverns.

Never said she should follow them into the wilder lands with a large army. What I mean is a large force, perhaps at the Ford of Abez, that is either stationed nearby to guard against orcish incursions or was sent to liberate the princess (or both) intercepts them before they can escape the kingdom. They have little choice but to negotiate her release for their safe passage.

Some time after that, she pursues them with whatever size and makeup of force she sees most fitting for the situation.

Her sneaking behind them, circumventing the orcs (and the people of Dwarven Doors who never saw nothing of no big army after the smaller rebel force)

Actually, if they did encounter her, that could be a really nice and not too difficult tie-in between these two campaigns. Maybe what she learns from them about the situations helps to reduce her opinion of Asheviere. It always seemed like such a waste, that those two campaigns so minimally interacted with each other when they are so close on the timeline.

[name]

Firstly, we can't assume to get a proper captive portrait of her. Secondly, would she appear as a regular unit on your side?

The typical Wesnoth way of depicting prisoners is to overlay their sprite with a steel cage. If that does not look mobile enough for a fleeing rebel army, you could put her in one of those wagon sprites that was used in the first scenario of tSoF (or was it tHoT; it was a dwarf campaign in any case).

Then slap some steel bars graphics over her portrait image. Viola?

[Whiskeyjack]

Secondly, would she appear as a regular unit on your side? Without a weapon or otherwise restricted somehow?

I always imagined her sitting in the usual cage, next to the players keep (like every prisoner ever freed by the player ). The portray is an issue though, if she needs one.

It is present but underdeveloped. Characters only behave re-actively to it, major battles the player conducts do not have a very tangible effect on the situation, and in general it feels too much like orcs show up when a filler opponent is needed.

For most Wesnoth-state campaigns, yes. But I think it mirrors the situation somewhat: After Haldrics times and LoW the orcs are beaten down enough to not be the all-encompassing threat they were before, but they are still dangerous and a constant enemy for a lot of raids and (mostly smaller) wars. There is no peace and no final solution, but also no pestering need to deal with the orcs now, because you can always defend against them, yet their clans are too numerous and their lands too big to actually try and root them out. This starts to change through the events of NR and from there on out, the story of the orcs starts to change as well. I think what is more nessecary than an agenda of the orcs´ enemies over the course of centuries is a better depiction of the orcs own developement (which is hard to pull off through the little enemy dialogue the orcs are given, but an interesting aim to pursue).

That felt more like one campaign tipping its hat to another than a story arc building slowly through most every campaign in the game.

It is just one idea. A better might be for Ravanal to have been one of the original Licht Lords (from the Green Isle and Old Continent before that) under Jevian.

From a writing perspective a great and unfortunately missed opportunity with the Licht concept, is they are characters that have no definite lifespan. So they can appear in campaigns spread out over centuries. And have knowledge and strategies that reach back through the entire history. So this is a way to have an arc that runs all the way from long before tRoW to EI and touches several campaigns in between in small ways.

I can understand your thoughts here. I still think, EI would suffer if you set Ravanal himself back in time, but for other lichs this might be an option (e.g. take any generic undead enemy in HttT, EI or the campaign of your choice and give him some background as a smaller underling of Jevyan - moderately weak but crafty, to have stayed "alive" all this time).
I honestly see no need to give the undead one story arc of threatening Wesnoth (and its human predecessors) for 800+ years. That just feels like you could never get over that one enemy. The undead are different than the orcs here, because those are a race and a people, while the undead are one mind a lot of drones. Take down the lich and the problems are over. If you want to reinclude the lich´s of Haldrics time a new invasion from the green isles in a new campaign would be most fitting IMO.
Another problem you would have to consider: Keeping one enemy up over the course of several campaigns would mean to postpone the defeat through the player several times. This is a) hard to pull of for important enemies and b) unsatisfying for players who are not intersted in grand schemes and overarching connections. You could finally defeat every necromancer at maximum thrice: Once as human necromancer (already not an option in TRoW), once as a lich and lastly as a ghost-minion to another necromancer.

Well in the current writing... [...]

Sorry, I didn´t talk about the current dialogue (which should be changed), but about possible other solutions like they deeming Li'sar too much trouble to take with them (because of hightened pursuit or because Defaldor genuinely believes for some reason Asheviere sent Eldred to his death and has no love for her children (does not respecting the danger to Li'sar)).

Actually, if they did encounter her, that could be a really nice and not too difficult tie-in between these two campaigns. Maybe what she learns from them about the situations helps to reduce her opinion of Asheviere. It always seemed like such a waste, that those two campaigns so minimally interacted with each other when they are so close on the timeline.

That would need some changes in NR, but it sounds like a good idea to me.

All the changes I have suggested thus far are for HttT and DM, except for giving Ravanal a much earlier origin of some kind.

All the direct changes you suggested. But you always have to look out for the implications. For example deciding things about how dark magic affects the mind (for Asheviere) would (should) have big impacts on DiD. Taking away Asheviere´s magic would mean that scenario 4 of Liberty would have to be changed. And so forth.

On a side note: Poor Turuk, all the semi-offtopic discussions between us he will have to rummage through upon his return.

[name]

All the direct changes you suggested. But you always have to look out for the implications. For example deciding things about how dark magic affects the mind (for Asheviere) would (should) have big impacts on DiD. Taking away Asheviere´s magic would mean that scenario 4 of Liberty would have to be changed. And so forth.

Well but we aren't super human. Just as other mainline writers focused only on their campaign when conducting incomplete additions and alterations to canon, I think we have to do the same on a temporary basis. HttT was once considered the "main" mainline campaign, that set the standard for the rest. I think any changes we make to it now are creating a new precedent that will eventually trickle out to the other campaigns with connected story lines. But we cannot expect this to happen all at once or else nothing will happen at all ever. So something like this:

Phase 1: HttT characters rewritten, dialogue rewritten, back story altered, scenarios rearranged and rebalanced to fit narrative changes.

Phase 2: Same treatment for DM, NR and Liberty with emphasis on creating tight continuity to new HttT and each other to extent desired.

Phase 3: Diffuse continuity changes to all other campaigns marginally influenced by new HttT but in parts of timeline distant from it.

On a side note: Poor Turuk, all the semi-offtopic discussions between us he will have to rummage through upon his return.

Indeed... I will try to stay more isolated to discussing HttT and its immediate temporal surroundings.

[TheGreatRings]

I would tread very, very carefully with the Li'sar as a prisoner idea, for at least two reasons:

1. Its a major alteration to the existing story, and may have ripple effects through the narrative.

2. Having Li'sar be Konrad's captive and then ultimately fall in love with him could have really creepy implications. On the face of it, the whole thing gives their relationship a Stockholm Syndrome vibe on Li'sar's part. This would have to be handled very carefully to avoid what TV Tropes calls "Unfortunate Implications", I think. Unless you want to portray Li'sar and Konrad's relationship as deeply dysfunctional. But if so, it should be done as a conscious choice, with the understanding that it will make a much darker story, rather than blundering into it.

[TheGreatRings]

Since it seems we're also discussing NR's connection to Heir to the Throne, I guess I'll weigh in on that too (NR is actually probably my favourite Wesnoth campaign).

I haven't gone over the issue in great detail (though I'm currently replaying both HttT and NR), but at least a couple seeming discrepancies between the two stand out.

1. Konrad talks about freeing the orcs' slaves, but while he inspires Tallin's revolt in NR, he never comes back to do so, even once he's king. What does this suggest? Impractical idealism that was eventually worn down by experience? Or that things were sufficiently unstable/destitute in Wesnoth (which had just suffered a major civil war) that Konrad couldn't afford a military expedition to the North? Or did Li'sar veto the idea as queen?

And is their some way to convey, in either campaign, why Konrad never returned to the north with a Wesnothian army? Maybe have the rebels in Northern Rebirth appeal to Wesnoth for aid and be rejected?

2. In Heir to the Throne, dwarves of Knalga form a large part of Konrad's potential army. Yet in Northern Rebirth, the dwarves are besieged in some little cave complex. What happened to take them from a force that could engage in major campaigns in foreign territory to all but destroyed? This also makes the first issue even worse, since it implies that Konrad simply let his allies get crushed without helping them.

[name]

1. Konrad talks about freeing the orcs' slaves, but while he inspires Tallin's revolt in NR, he never comes back to do so, even once he's king. What does this suggest?

That:
1. The writer of HttT set up a lead-in for another campaign to be written in the future, possibly by someone else.
2. The person who took up said task totally spaced on the fact Konrad was supposed to play a role of some kind.

2. In Heir to the Throne, dwarves of Knalga form a large part of Konrad's potential army. Yet in Northern Rebirth, the dwarves are besieged in some little cave complex. What happened to take them from a force that could engage in major campaigns in foreign territory to all but destroyed? This also makes the first issue even worse, since it implies that Konrad simply let his allies get crushed without helping them.

Because every mainline campaign largely follows the same game play formula of the player starting out with a small group of inexperienced units and slowly building a large persistent army over the course of many, necessarily time limited, scenarios. This is in turn is because certain interlocking campaign game play features established early on put limits on what kind of stories could be told and what kind of combat situations could be represented easily. Plus the AI has only recently started to become intelligent and customizable.

It is an issue that could be fixed, with you having, per your example, an entire dwarven army at your disposal from the first scenario of a campaign. But it is another major undertaking that would have to be thoughtfully planned and executed, one campaign at a time.