D&D 5E Dragon Queen Question: Why Not Interrogate the Cultists?

[DEFCON 1]

Honestly, what's *really* the most illogical part of "Hoard" to me is why the cultists are bringing the treasure 1000s of miles to the north, just so it can be carried on a floating castle BACK TO THE SOUTH (based on the location of the Well of Dragons on the map... -_-)

It's actually completely logical. Ao the Overlord knows that many completely new people to Faerun are going to be adventuring around the town of Phandalin in the north for about 5 leve-- er-- weeks and knows they have to find something to do after that. So he just coincidentally has the Cult of the Dragon caravan approach the Mere of Dead Men at that exact moment in time so those new Faerunians can take a quick trip south to meet it at the Roadhouse for Episo-- Week 5 leading into 6 at the Castle.

The storytelling is airtight, I'm telling you.

 

[jayoungr]

Honestly, what's *really* the most illogical part of "Hoard" to me is why the cultists are bringing the treasure 1000s of miles to the north, just so it can be carried on a floating castle BACK TO THE SOUTH (based on the location of the Well of Dragons on the map... -_-)

My favorite answer to that one is in the "Enhancing HotDQ" thread:

I find that a lot of the weirdness in the cult's plans gets explained away if you play up the rival factions and jockeying for power.

Why does Rezmir take the treasure waaaay out of the way? Because she takes it to *her* castle, where *she* can have oversight over the cataloging and appraisal of it. Who cares if there's a dwarf five miles from the Well of Dragons who can do it? Then the dwarf gets the glory, not Rezmir. And she justifies it by having a flying castle bring it in instead of using a ton of manpower to carry it over/through the mountains and into the Well.

 

[Riley37]

There is a writing mindset which comes up with master villain plans designed to be stoppable.

There is another writing mindset which starts from the perspective of the master villain, and comes up with what they would do, given their own motives; and which then asks some clever, trusted friends if the plan has flaws or can be improved. And then has the villain do exactly that, plus the standard directions for master villains: don't tell your plans to captives just so you can gloat, etc. And then - only then - find some way for the PCs to get some clue that there is a master villain working on some evil plan... and then see what the PCs do.

The hard part about the latter style, is being willing for the master plan to succeed, if the PCs don't rack up a sufficient combination of wit and luck to get a monkey wrench into the plan's steps.

 

[Staffan]

There is another writing mindset which starts from the perspective of the master villain, and comes up with what they would do, given their own motives; and which then asks some clever, trusted friends if the plan has flaws or can be improved. And then has the villain do exactly that, plus the standard directions for master villains: don't tell your plans to captives just so you can gloat, etc. And then - only then - find some way for the PCs to get some clue that there is a master villain working on some evil plan... and then see what the PCs do.

12. One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation.