KotR - Unanswered Questions

Despite the release of the Illuminati Chronicles, there are several questions that were never fully answered in KotR, or the knowledge was restricted to a few individuals.

The purpose of this thread is to see if anyone has any questions remaining about the PBM and get them answered.

The purpose here isn't to speculate, but have people with first hand knowledge speak up.

Here's a few I have:

What ever happened to Dusan Kolar?

Did Siegfried von Kastilien inherit the throne legitimately, take advantage of Jobst's death to name himself heir, or kill him outright to take the throne?

Is Arnold the Anti-Christ? Is there a supernatural element to him, or is it just myths growing around a fearsome man?

Leopold supported Heinrich, despite past differences, when the Kaiser ran for a second term, was there a deal between them, and what was it?


And I'll throw in an explanation of my own:

I had Matthias kidnapped because if he had remained in play during the original transfer of Outremer to the Byzantines, he would have immediately rebelled and holed up in Adana. This would have screwed up the 'build up' to the Cataclysm, so he was removed for a bit.

Nice idea OK!!

As for Arnold...I kept it ambiguous to a point...there where a number of supernaturalish moments for sure.

The first I recall was the story about being in the forest with his army while an unseen wind/or hand like movement washed over him and his troops out of the east. I don't remember what the event was that had me write that, but that was the first recollection of writing something that was a little 'fantasy' like.

I remember GH posting and saying he really liked that new aspect coming through so I kept it up.

I then had his supernatural strength and anti aging issue with his priest and the Papacy. Which then followed on with to the strange disappearance of his entire retinue for some years. This was an attempt to set up a story about him channeling his retinues combined powers into himself...I never wrote that part as it was going to get a little demonic...so I pulled back.

Although now that everyone seems to have equated the character with 'evil' I probably should have done so. I was trying to keep it a little more balanced than that.

In the end I settled for a combination of myth and somewhat strange events popping in every now and then. I certainly put the avatar in crazy places once he was around 8+ dread points...and boy he survived stuff that was beyond me sometimes. I tried to explain that with these stories.

So...I suppose there is no clear cut answer...which fits in with the medieval times in which paganism and witch craft where regarded as serious issues involving supernatural elements.

Personally, reading it after the fact, I always imagined the Siegfried was just in the right place at the right time and managed to pull a sort of Caesar. He had the support of the Kaiser's army, he had a Reich with something of a power vacuum at the top, and he was the son of the Duke of (probably) the most powerful house in the nation.

I'd like to know what was really behind the decision to send mini-Econ after Palermo. There has to be more than just trying to claim an Imperial training facility. I always thought Kaiser Elberhard must be planning some sort of long term con against Bavaria by carving some sort of Imperial enclave between Palermo and Rome, but I couldn't find any IC justification.

:egypt:

This isn't a question but I wanted to address something I've seen in other threads.

Karl was not a successful undercover agent for the Illuminati. Fritz was.

We had Karl figured out early on since he was so tight with Arnold. The only thing we didn't know, was that he was an official Illuminati member. But we knew he was an ally and Econ just fed him stuff that wouldn't hurt us. I suspect Elberhard wanted to trust Karl but Jan argued heavily against it. That PM Elberhard sent Karl had no real important information in it. I think Elberhard was just gambling for a way to keep Becker alive.

As for Fritz, we knew he was an "ally" of the Illuminati in 1300 but we never knew he was a member and by 1380, it appeared that the bond of "ally" was broken.

He is the character that had us completely fooled. Especially me. And I spent countless hours looking into this.

This is through no fault of NN. Karl was too closely associated with Arnold to have been successful as an undercover agent. Where Fritz was so far removed from those that we knew were Illuminati, he was never suspected.

Well played Tamur and Ramses, well played. :bow:

Good to know PK.

It was always a combination of trying to push Karl's Chivalry hard and making sure that the fact we where in the same house explained why we did work together. My hope was that people would see a honourable man loyal to his Duke but that was as far as it went. The idea that he was a member of the Illuminati could be possible but never really plausible due to the differences in Arnold and Karl.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Good to know PK.

It was always a combination of trying to push Karl's Chivalry hard and making sure that the fact we where in the same house explained why we did work together. My hope was that people would see a honourable man loyal to his Duke but that was as far as it went. The idea that he was a member of the Illuminati could be possible but never really plausible due to the differences in Arnold and Karl.

---

The fact that Karl was Illuminati was a secret. I never even suspected it. But Jan still didn't trust him. It had to do with his voting record. He voted in a way that made it clear that he was very very loyal to Arnold. Hence, he was not trusted by the anti-Illuminati crowd and would never had been brought in while Jan was alive.

TC was right to push for recruiting Illuminati members from other Houses than Bavaria and Austria. Since the Illuminati was associated with Lothar and Arnold, no Austrian/Bavarian was ever completely trusted. Hence one of the reasons the anti-Illuminati crowd came mainly out of Swabia/Franconia.

Like I said before, recruiting Fritz was the smartest thing the Illuminati did. :yes:

Well that was the thing about Karl and what I was trying to RP was the loyalty which lacked in other Houses. Even before the Illuminate, starting with Leopold I was going to have the character remain loyal to the House no matter what differences may arise; hence the voting record. I owed my postion belonging to that House nothing more.

What I hope to see is something of an oath into the new game were there is a bond within the Houses that works each character relying on the other to maintain the power. At least have some representation of the Feudal System in the game for the era we are playing.

I never felt I was a secret agent (can't mix RL with gameplay :vanish:) but the only thing that could be against Karl was his loyalty to the Duke. The real secretive stuff came getting Max in to the Illuminate IC. That took a bit of thinking.:thinking2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Privateerkev

The fact that Karl was Illuminati was a secret. I never even suspected it. But Jan still didn't trust him. It had to do with his voting record. He voted in a way that made it clear that he was very very loyal to Arnold. Hence, he was not trusted by the anti-Illuminati crowd and would never had been brought in while Jan was alive.

TC was right to push for recruiting Illuminati members from other Houses than Bavaria and Austria. Since the Illuminati was associated with Lothar and Arnold, no Austrian/Bavarian was ever completely trusted. Hence one of the reasons the anti-Illuminati crowd came mainly out of Swabia/Franconia.

Like I said before, recruiting Fritz was the smartest thing the Illuminati did. :yes:

---

Ah ha so it did work to a degree. The best I could hope for was exactly that with Karl. He was suspect but not proven.

And yes we really needed people from other houses given the Lothar/Arnold thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverKnight

Leopold supported Heinrich, despite past differences, when the Kaiser ran for a second term, was there a deal between them, and what was it?

---

I don't think so. IIRC, Leopold just realized that he was never going to triumph in his little battle with Heinrich (started due to what he perceived as injustice as far as land to Austria went) and cut his losses, hoping to get on Dad's good side.

As far as I can remember, it was an unconditional apology. If he was meant to get back in Heinrich's good graces so he'd have the Kaiser's support in the next Chancellor election (which would have been 1160; he apologized in 1140) it probably worked, although Heinrich might have supported him anyway due to his hatred of Henry.

Interesting, I always felt that Venice was the prize Leopold sought in return for his change of heart.

Oddly enough Heinrich's run was the first time Leopold and Otto cooperated, a detente soon to evaporate in the strike against Pope Gregory. It did set the table for their later cooperation though, helped along by AussieGiant's originial, avatarless, character.

Specifically, in exchange for Austrian support during his own run for Chancellor, Otto made the acquisition of Ragusa by Austria a main goal of his term. Even after reconciliation when we had to tread carefully, Ragusa was a target, despite Pope calling for an end of hostilities against the Venetians. Otto owed a favor and it was a highly strategic castle.

This was the first of many examples of Bavarian-Austrian cooperation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OverKnight

Interesting, I always felt that Venice was the prize Leopold sought in return for his change of heart.

Oddly enough Heinrich's run was the first time Leopold and Otto cooperated, a detente soon to evaporate in the strike against Pope Gregory. It did set the table for their later cooperation though, helped along by AussieGiant's originial, avatarless, character.

Specifically, in exchange for Austrian support during his own run for Chancellor, Otto made the acquisition of Ragusa by Austria a main goal of his term. Even after reconciliation when we had to tread carefully, Ragusa was a target, despite Pope calling for an end of hostilities against the Venetians. Otto owed a favor and it was a highly strategic castle.

This was the first of many examples of Bavarian-Austrian cooperation.

---

I remember that now!! Wow...that's some time back.

I believe my avatar less "Merchant of Venice" character did speak to Leopold/Ituralde about what happened there. I vaguely remember Ituralde saying to me that it was an unconditional apology at the time. I do certainly remember having a few back room PM's with Leopold about the land allocation and how unbalanced it was and especially when we had no castle complex at the time.

It seemed very sporting to me that Ragusa, a Citadel was quickly taken when Otto came to power as a result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

I believe my avatar less "Merchant of Venice" character did speak to Leopold/Ituralde about what happened there.

---

I hated that guy. :laugh4:

There were a few reasons why Heinrich really didn't give that much to Austria in the beginning of the game. Some of them, which he explicitly stated in the Diet, were correct. Some of them went unsaid and were more subvert.

a) He really believed in the geographical allocation system. I, both as GH and Heinrich, remember taking a small amount of heat in the beginning of the game, but I stuck to my guns and it worked out pretty well in the end. :yes:

b) Austria wasn't our priority. Back then, most of our wars were either in Italy or up north (and later on, in Swabia). There was no reason to give Austria an army and land if she didn't need it, which leads directly into...

c) He wanted the Houses as weak as possible. As Kaiser, I fought tooth-and-nail to keep the Reich as centralized as possible and to keep as much authority in my hands as long as I could. Getting Austria a castle when they didn't have priority gave them more power and independence. Since most of my Dukes were unfriendly and powerful, I figured that an unfriendly and weak Duke in Austria wouldn't be that bad. Ultimately, his weakness would need him to rely on the central figure - moi. Kind of like the way US states are so dependent on the federal government for funding, that's the way I envisioned a Heinrichian HRE.

Unfortunately, with the advent of the House Armies, my strategy didn't work out too well to plan, but I did manage to get TinCow as Mandorf to agree to give me an unofficial House Army to make sure Operation: Papal Smackdown went flawlessly. I still have those PMs when TC and OK discovered the plan and we coordinated everything. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

Unfortunately, with the advent of the House Armies, my strategy didn't work out too well to plan, but I did manage to get TinCow as Mandorf to agree to give me an unofficial House Army to make sure Operation: Papal Smackdown went flawlessly. I still have those PMs when TC and OK discovered the plan and we coordinated everything. :laugh4:

---

Reading the Diet around that time, I saw that Heinrich opened an emergency session to get the 1st crusade going. In the beginning, Heinrich and Mandorf mention something of a deal. And Mandorf mentioned a threat he would carry out if Heinrich did not open the emergency session.

What did Mandorf threaten to do if Heinrich refused to let the Reich save it's soul with a Crusade?

I've always wondered this. :yes:

TinCow would know better than me.

From what I remember, I think he threatened to use his Chancellor powers to stick me in a fort in Franconia if I didn't comply. Heinrich made some reply that he wasn't scared and probably threw some legal argument in there saying that Mandorf wouldn't be able to do it (this was around the time when TC posted it in the thread).

The private stuff went on for a while until TC basically got fed up and told me OOC that the Crusade would be good for the game, in which case I saw his point and agreed.

-edit- Ah, now I remember the argument I used. At the time, central Italy was pretty devoid of commanders (Otto & co. had moved north of the Po) and I changed Rome to the capital, gambling that Mandorf wouldn't have the stomach to risk the capital falling (as opposed to a newly-conquered prize), robbing it of the only commander in the area. I forget his reply. It might have been when we did the OOC thing.

And yes, ladies and gentlemen, that's why I changed the capital to Rome. Strictly a political move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

although Heinrich might have supported him anyway due to his hatred of Henry.

---

Was there anything going on behind the scenes that made Heinrich hate Henry? From the outside, it just seemed that Heinrich didn't like Henry's attempt at a "neutral" stance in politics. Later of course there was the disagreement over Papal-Smack 1. But anything else?

Heinrich had a mild dislike for Henry basically because he didn't think Henry had the stomach to do anything.

It pretty much turned to hatred after the election of 1140 when Heinrich found out that Henry was lobbying for Mandorf behind the scenes. Considering that Henry was the dude's son, Heinrich pretty much considered this the highest of insults. It took a lot of restraint for me to not kill econ21's character in that battle with the Milanese.

I made it a point to openly attack Henry's character in the Diet, more than anyone else's, after that.

It's interesting that Heinrich got what he wanted (Papal-Smackdown 1) but the Reich reacted with reforms that made sure nothing like that could ever happen again. (unless it was scripted OOC like the run-up to the cataclysm)

The Dukes took control over the Reich and 2 of them we're able to steer things behind the scenes. The power of the Kaiser weakened more and more because many people believed IC that Heinrich over-reached.

Playing a Royalist for the life of my character, I see Heinrich's move against the Pope as the source for the Dukes' massive rise in power. The backlash was just too massive.

Heinrich seemed like a cool guy. Wish I was around back then. :yes:

I don't think it was Papal Smackdown so much as the House Armies that wrecked the Kaiser's power. Give any man a permanent army regulated by law to maintain and he becomes that much more powerful. Multiply that by four and you get one screwed Kaiser.

As much as that election was a farce since Pope Gregory was dead either way, if Heinrich had won things would have been so much more dramatic. I probably would have either ignored or half-enacted the House Armies, using the war against the Papacy as an excuse to delay their composition. If anybody wanted an Emergency Session I would have shot them down (remember, back then, only the Kaiser could call one).

...now that I think about it, doing it probably would have enacted those reforms anyway. Damn! :laugh4:

Y'know, I always wondered how the emperor election would have turned out if I had been able to get online a few hours earlier and sent the mass PM with info to the Duke's Council.

Still, I think I might not have changed anything because of partial OOC unwillingness of people to go against who the game designates as emperor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

Still, I think I might not have changed anything because of partial OOC unwillingness of people to go against who the game designates as emperor.

---

That, and from the Tales of the Illuminati, it seems they already decided on Siegfried.

Hans was a known quantity, the Order thought that if he took the throne, he would be more of a threat, possibly even resurrect the Heinrichian concept of Executive Primacy. Since the Throne was outside the direct influence of the Order, this was viewed warily.

Siegfried was viewed as an unknown quantity with less of a power base than Hans. He was deemed less of a threat. Still the Order didn't lead the charge on this one, rather different members questioned both claims to cover all the bases. We did however end up backing Siegfried.

In hindsight, this was a poor decision. Certainly ranking with helping get Chancellor Hummel elected. Of course much of Siegfried's more disastrous decisions were dictated to bring forth the Cataclysm, since Ituralde was leaving the game anyway.

Of course the headache of tracking a royal line separate from the game's might have factored in too.

Edit: In hindsight, I've always been amused that it was Matthias, considering future events, that arranged Siegfried's marriage to Theodora. Odds were even that the Kaiser would have ended up married to the English Princess.

GH, I assume you didn't like the guy because of the amount of in Diet pressure I was trying to exert regarding the inequalities of the situation back then. Correct? :beam:

In my opinion the House armies where the real back breaker for the Kaiser.

What brought about the house armies initially was that everyone realised how helpless they where defending their own holdings without the ability to marshal forces and command them for local defense you where really in trouble.

GH's papal smack down was a precursor, to the precursor to the call for a Republic in my mind. It was the first edition of Kaiser's going and doing what they wanted with little regard for everyone else...very Kaiser like in my mind :laugh4:

What was a little unfair to me (and I was guilty of this), was using the Cataclysm lead in against the Kaiser's as it was scripted OOC. Having said that GH's Pope smacking was always a great reference point of IC Kaiser semantics leading us to oblivion.

Yo Illuminatoes:

Did the Illuminati like or respect Peter at all other than his hellbent drive to snuff them out, bearing in mind that Peter was within his power until he had an invisible demonic society that ate babies against him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

GH, I assume you didn't like the guy because of the amount of in Diet pressure I was trying to exert regarding the inequalities of the situation back then. Correct? :beam:

---

Pretty much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gibsonsg91921

Yo Illuminatoes:

Did the Illuminati like or respect Peter at all other than his hellbent drive to snuff them out, bearing in mind that Peter was within his power until he had an invisible demonic society that ate babies against him?

---

Not really, since you were actually doing exactly what we wanted you to do. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gibsonsg91921

Yo Illuminatoes:

Did the Illuminati like or respect Peter at all other than his hellbent drive to snuff them out, bearing in mind that Peter was within his power until he had an invisible demonic society that ate babies against him?

---

God I really should have gone the whole hog with Arnold...channeling, scrying, sacrifices to the pagan gods for his invincibility in battle etc etc.

And unfortunately Gibbo, GH is correct. We could not have asked for a better Kaiser at the time...of course that was to further our own ends not anyone else's. :beam:

-edit-

Did anyone think Arnold wasn't evil? That goes for all the guys inside the Order too. Was he regarded as the arch typical "bad guy" or something a little more than that?

And just to make me feel a bit better, I assume that wasn't 'bad' from a role play perspective. Did anyone enjoy him?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeneralHankerchief

I think he threatened to use his Chancellor powers to stick me in a fort in Franconia...

---

why is Franconia always the place to Punish people, it's not that bad :clown:

:7detective:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AussieGiant

Did anyone think Arnold wasn't evil? That goes for all the guys inside the Order too. Was he regarded as the arch typical "bad guy" or something a little more than that?

And just to make me feel a bit better, I assume that wasn't 'bad' from a role play perspective. Did anyone enjoy him?

---

Jan was convinced that Arnold was "evil" but not in any supernatural sense of the word. Since Jan had stabbed Arnold a few times, Jan knew that Arnold was very much human.

As for how he was played, he was quite enjoyable to interact with. Once we figured out how to keep contact with each other OOC, interacting IC was a real treat. :yes:

I get the sense that Peter was really kind of a Biff Loman character. Anyone else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gibsonsg91921

I get the sense that Peter was really kind of a Biff Loman character. Anyone else?

---

Biff Loman? Is that a film character. He sounds familiar...is that an 80's film?

Thanks for the comments PK...I certainly knew you wouldn't think he was anything more than human given the co-op stories. :beam:

He's the pathetic guy from Death of a Salesman who has no clue. In the end he realizes he's a loser.