Well, that is a funny example. I guess we are going to die by the Sorcerer King anyway, so why fight him now.

Cool. I see lots of potential with this mechanic.

Looks promising!

I'm curious, a lot of quests have a 'recruitment' option, which is usually the best safe option. Does that count for indifference? If not, how would the DM react to that?

I would say that the 'natural consequences' of a liberal recruitment policy are infiltration and double crossing events.

I love this idea. JUST ONE PROBLEM: Even indifference should have some positive consequences. If you are encouraging ROLE-PLAYING, then just having a 'right' and 'wrong' answer doesn't reward being your character.

Your sovereign may have reason to be indifferent, even in seemingly dire situations. Would not a zen master sometimes seem uncaring?

I think being brave should have a downside, as well as benefits. If choices have only expected consequences, there is no drama and no reward for playing as your character.

To paraphrase Robert McKee: "Choices under pressure reveal character."

I think benefits and downside to every choice makes them interesting: you get some benefit you might expect, but unintended consequences rear their head. An 'indifferent' sovereign loses morale among the troops, but might also fare better diplomatically with Ceresa.

There were rumors of cities rebelling when sovereign behaves cowardly. Can we see a proof of that?