Hashram, my main villain

I recently ran the second session of my first Mouse Guard campaign, and I introduced the main villain of the plot that I’m developing. My campaign begins in spring of 1150, just after the Winter War. All of the mice in the patrol are therefore necessarily veterans of that war, with the exception of the tenderpaw. I intend to run this campaign at least through 1152, interacting, if only distantly, with the events of Midnight’s rebellion in first comic series. I’ll note that I haven’t read any of the Black Axe series of comics yet, so I may be contradicting some canon, but I’m not really worried about that. More-so that with any other fantasy RPG setting, I feel comfortable taking the Mouse Territories and making them my own. So, on with the villain and his nefarious plot…

Hashram is a weasel spymaster, who ostensibly serves a tunnel lord by the name of Arthain. His is a name known only to a few mice, most notably Gwendolyn. During the Winter War, Hashram had a number of messages delivered to Gwendolyn, informing her of weasel troop movements and warning her of traps. At first, he did not reveal that he was himself a weasel, but eventually he revealed in one of his messages that he was a mouse sympathizer, as incredible as that sounds. Well, near the end of the war, his messages abruptly ended, and the mysterious Hashram the weasel did not contact Gwendolyn again. Until now.

In truth, Hashram is nothing resembling a “mouse sympathizer.” His interest in helping the Territories defend themselves was entirely self-serving. Hashram, you see, is an incredibly clever weasel, but not exceptionally powerful, militarily or politically. He’s a puppet-master, not a soldier, but he nevertheless has his eye on leadership. He desires nothing more than to usurp the weasel warlord, and take command of his kin. It was for the purpose of embarrassing the current warlord that he sought to give victory to the mice in the Winter War. If the weasels had been triumphant, the existing overlord would have garnered far too much support from the other lords for his victory. In defeat, however, he is vulnerable.

Over the course of my campaign, Hashram will occasionally interact with the Guard, seeking out weakness and dissension, all while posing as an unlikely ally to the mice. Eventually, it will be Hashram who plants the idea of rebellion into the mind of Midnight, and tells him of the Black Axe that causes the weasels so much distress. This will lead Midnight to seek its location, and you know the rest. Stirring up rebellion within the Guard is only one part of Hashram’s plan, however.

In time, he intends to disrupt the Scent Border, permitting large predators into the Territories for a time. He will send disaster after disaster against the Guard, all without lifting a single weapon himself. He remains a “friend” to the Territories. Even if the mice do not wholly trust him, which they never will, since he doesn’t actually move against the Guard himself, they have no reason to suspect that he is the one behind all the troubles lately.

In this last session, Hashram encountered the patrol while searching for Tunnel Lord Arthain’s wedding bracelet, which was to be given to Lady Sedrena, unifying two powerful weasel houses. The bracelet was stolen by a raven who roosts in the Territories, so Arthain dispatched a trio of weasels to retrieve it, led by Hashram. The stumbled across the patrol, and at the insistence of Hashram, the two leaders would parley to avoid unnecessary shedding of blood (after all, both mice and weasels would surely die if it came to blows, regardless the victor). Hashram explained to the patrol leader what they were doing in the territories, and promised to leave as soon as they had recovered the bracelet. Of course, Hashram never expected that proposal to fly, so they eventually came to a compromise, whereby the patrol would escort them to the raven’s nest, and then back to the border.

It turns out, none of the three weasels had the tracking ability or familiarity with the region to find the nest, but fortunately the patrol guard is an expert hunter, so the mice actually did the tracking, while keeping a careful eye on the weasels. Well, after some difficulty, they found the nest, recovered the bracelet, and just as everyone was preparing to leave, one of Hashram’s men drew his blade to strike down the tenderpaw, declaring that they had no further use for them. Hashram, in a flash, drew his own blade and slew his own soldier to save the life of a mouse, much to the shock of his remaining henchmen, as well as the entire patrol. Before departing, he said, “Do me a favor. When you return to Lockhaven, tell Gwendolyn, ‘Hashram has returned.’ See if she doesn’t tell you of me.”

However, none of this was by chance. It was Hashram himself who stole the bracelet and gave it to the raven, so that he would be dispatched into the territories to find it. He intentionally failed to track the raven, so that they would eventually encounter one of the early spring patrols (which one didn’t matter). He told one of his soldiers that they would all kill the mice as soon as the bracelet was retrieved, so that he could kill him and “prove” that he’s an honorable weasel. All of this was to reestablish himself as an ally of the mice, so that he can later contact Gwendolyn and possibly get an audience. Once he does that, he’ll have the ear of all the guardsmice in Lockhaven, where the poison of his words, hidden beneath a mask of concern, could implant the idea of an uprising in the mind of any dissatisfied mouse present.

Gwendolyn, of course, will reject Hashram’s proposal that the Mouse Guard make an incursion into weasel territory. Even assuming it’s not a trap, the Guard isn’t an army. They protect; they do not invade. However, Hashram believes that there may be more sympathetic ears who will hear him out, and he has knowledge of a powerful weapon to impart on any who will approach him.

Thoughts?

This is my humble opinion:

It sounds amazing. I like Hashram and his plan very much. But…

It is fine as long as this continues to be his plan, the villain’s plan. Not your plan for the story. Why? Because if the villain’s plan fails… that’s OK. That’s what heroes do: thwart the plans of the villain. But if your plan for the story fails, then you will be who ends up frustrated.

What about if the patrol finds out his real intentions in the second session for example?

If the villain has the complicity of the GM, then nothing can stop his evil plans. Except when the GM decides that the villain fails. Then the mice are no longer heroes. They are puppets, and the players are the ones who will end up frustrated.

So, it’s amazing to have a big villain. Allows him to conspire and plot all he wants. If at the end he manages to carry out his plans, great. If the guard is not fooled and they discover his true intentions long before he can even begin to confabulate, also great. You must let the story unfold naturally through the conflict of these two opposite forces. If you try to plan what will happen in years ahead (or sessions adead), you’ll take away the story from the other players hands, and that is not your function, IMO.

So, I like this character and his story very much. But he is not the protagonist. He is just an antagonist. Let him fail if the patrol is able to discover his facade sooner than you’d wanted. Give antagonists strong intentions and an interesting past if you like but do not plan what they will do in advance. Do not try to tell a story that you have already written in your head. Ask yourself if this character is going to successfully carry out their evil plans, and find out while the rest of the players.

I’m new to Mouse Guard, not to GMing. I’m well aware of how to handle a complex, cunning villain as he faces off against the heroes. I’ve been running a D&D game for the last 2-3 years with a similar style of villain, and I’ve never allowed the PCs to feel unheroic.

I’ve found that, by not having the villain face the PCs directly, you can avoid the sense of continuous defeat, even when the villain wins. And then when the PCs win, you can emphasize how they foiled the villain’s plot. This means that their victories are more momentous than their defeats, even if they are of equal occurrence. Conversely, if the villain is the type to face the PCs himself, he will likely win repeatedly and thusly discourage the PCs, or lose, which removes the sense of threat.

That’s why I always use schemer villains in my campaigns.

But Mouse Guard is not DnD

Indeed it’s not. In fact, it’s the first setting I’ve seen where there isn’t some kind of in-universe infrastructure for magical or pseudo-magical plot contrivances. No magic, no high technology to explain the importance of macguffins, no easy, catch-all system for plot devices… It’s an interesting experience for me, working under that condition.

He is not talking about the setting. In Mouse Guard you don’t plan the story in advance. You don’t plan what the characters are going to do, what they are going to discover some day in the future. Nor is your campaign. You are not supposed to “have to work under that condition”. It’s not work. You are not there to entertain your players, and they are not there to uncover your secret plot. Don’t pre-plan a secret plot. It’s a waste of your time. Look at the sample missions. There are no pre-plan, there are no “someday in the future”. Think about the mission now. Think about the character Beliefs and Instints, the present Goal. In the Player’s Turn they can do whatever they want. If they want the patrol found the super villain, they can do it. It’s not your choise. It’s not your Turn anymore. Is theirs.

I know it’s sounds weird. But give it a chance. The game is the way it is for a reason. I know it sounds anti-intuitive to leave the way you used to plan a session so far, but it works. Don’t keep secrets from the players. Play with them. And don’t plan when the characters are going to be successful. If you have a super villain, let him win. If he wins, make the world more interesting. What happens to the Territories if Hashram achieves his evil plans? Forget canon. There are not such thing. If the villain is successful, make the character lives more complicated. If the characters win, let them. But they will have to fight to achieve that. Not pretend to fight (because you know they are going to be successful) but fight indeed. (You don’t know if they are going to be successful. That’s the point of play in the first place: to find out.) And, if they win, at what cost?

Do not get me wrong. Yo have a great villain here. But do not fall in love with your characters. They are not the protagonist in this story. The patrol is. Fall in love with the mouse guards. They are the heroes. (But they will have to demonstrate that they are such heroes. That’s why you create opposition. That is the function of your villain.)

I didn’t mean to imply that Hashram is unbeatable “until I say so.” And the campaign isn’t going to be constantly about the patrol dealing with his schemes. He might show up… maybe once a year, as part of a mission. In between his appearances, the patrol may face the consequences of his action in the Territories or abroad, but for the most part, he’s not directly involved with anything.

I’m well aware that MG has a more in-the-now mission design philosophy, but as a storycrafter, my games are going to have a certain interconnectedness. There’s got to be a continuous story through my games, even if not EVERY mission is involved in that story. That’s just how I create. And yeah, during the player’s turns, they can do whatever they want. I’m fine with that. If they get wise to Hashram’s plots and set out to stop him, that might happen. It wouldn’t be the first time the players have thrown my campaign for a loop, and I always manage to roll with the punches.

Great.

But remember: This is a character driven game. It’s not a storytelling game. It’s not your game, to begin with. You are not the only “storycrafter” in the table. The whole group is. So play with an open hand with the group. Not secrets. (If the story is something that happens in the background, you’re the only one who is going to enjoy it.) Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying you have to tell them the villain plans. Just don’t make the story about him. Put hints there and there and see what happens.

Now that I see what you’re trying to do, I like even more. (Maybe I’ll even steal it. ;)) Remember to keep telling us how the campaign unfolds. Two years can pass very quickly in this game.

I’m not sure I can totally agree with this.

I don’t plan the story for years in advance, but i do make some simple plans when considering the mission from session to session. If I intend to use a mouse obstacle I especially place interest in three questions before the session:

  1. What has brought about the circumstances the Patrol walks into?
  2. What would happen if the Patrol doesn’t become involved?
  3. Who will the Patrol engage to become or by becoming involved?

I certainly don’t look into years-back history, but if there is a bit of seasons-back history, I consider it. The Patrol may or may not feel inclined to be involved, so I look at whether a friend or enemy can be connected (even loosely); failing the inclusion of friend or enemy, I use a mouse that seems to draw on a BIG or connects to a hometown or skill.

After the session, especially if there has been a great NPC-PC interaction I ask three more questions:

  1. If the patrol met up with this mouse in the future, how might that go?
  2. If the mouse wanted to hurt others, would the Patrol be on the list?
  3. If the mouse wanted to help others, would the Patrol provide support?

I don’t look years-ahead, but I consider what might be an interesting inclusion in a future mouse obstacle.

Since I prefer to consider these questions when throwing a mouse obstacle into the mix, I rarely use a mouse twist unless I’ve really thought out those plans. I might plan a whatever obstacle with a mouse twist and use the same questions.

I’m not so sure I can agree that I’m not a GM to entertain; I agree somewhat, but not entirely. I take it seriously that the game focuses on character development. If I’ve noticed players are not changing BIGs, not earning checks, or not engaging NPCs I do worry that the game isn’t entertaining. It could be me, it could be the player, it could be the game system. But, it is probably something, so I naturally think of how to engage that player.

Lastly, even if the players don’t trust the hidden villain, that doesn’t mean their character can feel the same as the player automatically. They can have a hunch, they can suspect, they can distrust others as a rule, but to learn who the villain is–that’s still mine. There is not a skill which reveals the intentions of another character (even better, there’s no alignment and no ‘detect alignment’).

I know it’s sounds weird. But give it a chance. The game is the way it is for a reason. I know it sounds anti-intuitive to leave the way you used to plan a session so far, but it works. Don’t keep secrets from the players. Play with them. And don’t plan when the characters are going to be successful. If you have a super villain, let him win. If he wins, make the world more interesting. What happens to the Territories if Hashram achieves his evil plans? Forget canon. There are not such thing. If the villain is successful, make the character lives more complicated. If the characters win, let them. But they will have to fight to achieve that. Not pretend to fight (because you know they are going to be successful) but fight indeed. (You don’t know if they are going to be successful. That’s the point of play in the first place: to find out.) And, if they win, at what cost?
Despite anything else above, I do agree with ‘don’t keep secrets,’ but that doesn’t mean that I lay it all out. I like a different approach: provide transparency to the players, but reveal in layers only.

Do not get me wrong. Yo have a great villain here. But do not fall in love with your characters. They are not the protagonist in this story. The patrol is. Fall in love with the mouse guards. They are the heroes. (But they will have to demonstrate that they are such heroes. That’s why you create opposition. That is the function of your villain.)
I strongly disagree with ‘don’t fall in love with your characters.’ It is still true they are not protagonists, but they think they are protagonists in their own lives (probably). I love my characters, whether good or evil, young or old, powerful or powerless. If I didn’t love them, they wouldn’t be open to growth over the course of the game as much as the PCs. If my NPCs aren’t open to growth, then the PCs get robbed of a portion of the game. Part of the game is that chance to change others around you; that often means PCs, but should more often mean NPCs. Because I love my characters, they are not push-overs; the players have to take action and risk to change the NPCs.

The PCs only become heroes through their actions. In D&D the game states the PCs are heroes, but I’ve never felt that great about it. It is an aspect of MG that I love more. The PCs should be heroes, but they only prove that through actions and dice. They might be cowards, villains, sloths, or total goofballs; that’s dependent on actions and dice too. Sometimes the more fun characters are the cowards and goofballs.

I think you almost hit the nail on the head, there, Ken. For me, as this topic relates to Hashram, I know he’s not the protagonist, but he IS the antagonist. And who doesn’t love a good villain, right? In a classic good-vs-evil narrative, who the villain is is as important as who the hero is, because the measure of the hero is defined by the villains he faces.