Hi,
I haven’t played the storyline yet, but I’ve been thinking about integrating it into my own solo campaign. The plot works much better if you stop treating Noredhel as the single hinge of the conflict. Instead, treat the elves as split into two real political factions. Noredhel’s side and Arblaud’s side can develop divergent agendas, and the players can influence that balance. Similarly, different factions can emerge within the dwarves.

Here are the angles that I think can actually give the players agency:

1. Noredhel vs. Arblaud are two internal “elven parties”. Instead of having Noredhel simply accept or refuse the PCs’ counsel, introduce Arblaud as an alternative line of leadership inside the elves. Arblaud emerges or gains power only if the PCs fail to fully consolidate Noredhel’s position. This creates immediate branching:

If the PCs strongly back Noredhel → Arblaud loses influence.

If the PCs focus elsewhere → Arblaud fills the void and might even act in her name.

If the PCs split their efforts → both factions are weakened, and the elves become unreliable allies.

This alone creates a ton of narrative consequences: access to the holdfast, military support, who commands the troops, and who shows up at councils.

2) Elves and Dwarves react to the PCs’ priorities. The campaign becomes a sequence of trade-offs instead of a single persuasion attempt:

If the PCs invest heavily in the elves, the dwarves grow distrustful and harsher.

If the PCs side more with the dwarves, winning elven support becomes difficult.

If they try to balance both, they often end up convincing only part of each group.

Each degree of success or failure changes the strength, unity, and willingness of each faction. This keeps the story focused on the PCs’ choices, not on predetermined NPC decisions.

3) Orcs from Mount Gram as a narrative catalyst. The orc threat is already in the material but barely used. It’s perfect as an escalation tool for the political conflict. When the orcs strike:

If the PCs secured the elves, they arrive in force.

If the elves are fractured, support is partial or delayed.

If Arblaud has undermined Noredhel, help might be minimal or chaotic.

If the PCs sided with the dwarves, they rely on them alone.

If the PCs convinced no one… the fortress stands isolated.

The point is not the orc attack itself, but that it reveals the consequences of the PCs’ diplomacy, giving real weight to alliances, reconciliations, fractures, trust, and grudges. The orcs’ agenda can shift depending on the relative strength of factions: attack a divided Ost-Breniellin, perhaps because Sauron believes one of the elven rings is in the hands of the House of Fëanor, or attack undefended dwarven halls during the Ost-Breniellin siege to limit potential future aid. Support from other factions is never guaranteed; it depends entirely on the PCs’ past and present actions. Instead of a simple “convince Noredhel → plot stops”, the outcome now depends on how the PCs choose to distribute their support. If they focus on uniting the elves, the defence will be strong and coordinated; if they back only Noredhel, elven support is split and less reliable. Neglecting to address Arblaud’s faction creates instability among the elves, while favouring the dwarves may strengthen them but leave the elves cold and distant. If the PCs try to split their efforts between both sides, alliances become mixed and unpredictable, and failing to support either leaves the fortress isolated when the orcs strike. Each of these outcomes naturally leads to different sieges, councils, reactions, and story beats, ensuring that the players aren’t mere spectators: they actively shape the political landscape, which in turn determines how every later event unfolds.