I'm a player in a Kingmaker campaign (currently at level 2) and I'm not looking for spoilers.
However, from what my GM tells me, there seems to be an inconsistency in Kingmaker. The player's guide says that when you take the Bastard campaign trait, you could be an illegitimate descendent of the Rogarvians, and thus have Rogarvian blood. But my GM tells me that everybody with Rogarvian blood vanished, puff of smoke style. And apparently it had to do with having Rogarvian blood. As he understands it, being a bastard of the house Rogarvia means you vanished in a puff of smoke and can't exist anymore.
So is the player's guide wrong? Is my GM wrong? Is there anything in later books that makes a Rogarvian bastard make sense?
Note that I don't want to hear any spoilers. I just want to know:
* Is it possible to be a Rogarvian bastard?
* Is there any source that I can point my GM to that explains more about this?
Also, is there any more info on the house Rogarvia? Some list of names, rulers, noteworthy family members, etc? I'd like to have some material to work out my background story. Should I just make it up, or is there anything official? Is there anything official that's accessible to players? Again, I don't want any spoilers.
Noble houses can adopt members :)
According to the Player's Guide, Rogarvian Bastards are possible. There is no real explanation for what happened to the members of House Rogarvia, including how they disappeared or what the criteria for 'membership' in the House is/was. If your GM is saying all bastards also disappeared, than all the Rogarvia Bastards disappeared as well. If it is key to the concept, than your best bet is to talk with your GM & see which one of you will budge & how to encourage it to happen.
Pretty much all the info on House Rogarvia is in the write-ups on Brevoy in the Inner Sea World Guide & the Brevoy Gazetteer in Kingmaker. It is pretty open to player/GM interpretation/imagination.
Noble houses can adopt members :)
Yeah, but that's exactly the opposite of being a bastard.
According to the Player's Guide, Rogarvian Bastards are possible. There is no real explanation for what happened to the members of House Rogarvia, including how they disappeared or what the criteria for 'membership' in the house is/was.
What the GM told me sounded like everybody with Rogarvian blood vanished into thin air. What you're saying sounds like it doesn't really say that anywhere, it's just my GM's interpretation.
If your GM is saying all bastards also disappeared, than all the Rogarvia Bastards disappeared as well. If it is key to the concept, than your best bet is to talk with your GM & see which one of you will budge & how to encourage it to happen.
It's not so much that he has decided this, it's that this is how he understands the book. He does like my background story, but he's worried that it might conflict with official facts later in the campaign.
Pretty much all the info on House Rogarvia is in the write-ups on Brevoy in the Inner Sea World Guide & the Brevoy Gazetteer in Kingmaker. It is pretty open to player/GM interpretation/imagination.
That sounds like there's nothing definitive, and we'll be fine if my character is of Rogarvian blood (even if he'll never be able to prove it).
There's not enough official stuff to be able to contradict any of it. Is that it?
That's basically the case. I had a character who was of Rogarvian blood in my Kingmaker campaign, and except for the rare politics with Brevoy, which don't really factor in heavily, it didn't really come up.
In fact, I was so disappointed at the lack of plot hooks for characters of Rogarvian blood that I'm writing a sequel campaign to Kingmaker entirely focused on what happened to the Rogarvian bloodline. :)
The fact that the Player's Guide mentions that a bastard loses the charisma penalty when he manages to prove his nobility, makes me hope that the trait does a bit more than just its mechanical effects. I mean, to me that seems the entire point of traits like this, but I'm starting to fear that it may not matter all that much.
But don't give me any spoilers please. Maybe we can just figure out our own plot hooks if necessary.
My interpretation of that particular tweak to the Trait is that it is supposed to be an impetus for the character to get themselves recognized in some manner.
Like establishing their own domain, perhaps somewhere in the River Kingdoms?...
|
It is basically up to your GM to come up with the reason they disappeared and keep it his secret. Then he can decide if there is a way with that reason for there to still be someone with the blood of Choral left behind.
He could just say you have an amulet your father told you to never take off that is unknown magic, and let you wonder :)
Also the trait mentions that you have "no substantive proof of your claims" and "claiming nobility without evidence gets you called a liar". It's possible the PC was lied to, or that the PC has misinterpreted a scrap of evidence.
Like Irnk says, the purpose of the trait is to get the character to create their own place to show their own worth.
In all honesty it has almost no impact on the plot of kingmaker's cannonical plot unless your GM decides to go there isn't a huge issue.
Noble houses can adopt members :)Yeah, but that's exactly the opposite of being a bastard.
Nope - you can be the illegitimate son of a member of the family who was adopted 2 or 3 generations before hand.
You are then a bastard member of the household.
Actually 'of the blood' is impossible in my campaign, because I KNOW what happened to the Rogovaria. If you took bastard of the Rogavaria, in my campaign, it would be handled in the way I described. Although neither the player, nor the character, would actually be aware of that until later.
Also the trait mentions that you have "no substantive proof of your claims" and "claiming nobility without evidence gets you called a liar". It's possible the PC was lied to, or that the PC has misinterpreted a scrap of evidence.
It also says "One of your parents was a member of one of the great families of Brevoy", and not "You believe that one of your parents was...".
Like Irnk says, the purpose of the trait is to get the character to create their own place to show their own worth.
In all honesty it has almost no impact on the plot of kingmaker's cannonical plot unless your GM decides to go there isn't a huge issue.
I was hoping these tried tied a bit deeper into the campaign. I've always liked the idea of giving every PC some special bit of background that ties them into the campaign and becomes relevant during the course of the campaign. I'm a bit disappointed that Paizo missed the second step. It would be a really cool if the campaign later did allow special things to happen for bastards, other nobles, people from certain regions, etc.
Nope - you can be the illegitimate son of a member of the family who was adopted 2 or 3 generations before hand.Noble houses can adopt members :)Yeah, but that's exactly the opposite of being a bastard.
Yes, an ancestor could have been adopted into the family. And then they'd have to have died a natural death before the big vanishing. That would work.
Actually 'of the blood' is impossible in my campaign, because I KNOW what happened to the Rogovaria. If you took bastard of the Rogavaria, in my campaign, it would be handled in the way I described. Although neither the player, nor the character, would actually be aware of that until later.
But later they would become aware of it? So you extended the campaign to make the traits more relevant? Because from everybody else I get the impression that they're really just an excuse to be there and do this campaign, and not have any meaning beyond that.
I don't like loose ends - so I worked out what caused the disappearances in my version of the world. That way if the issue every comes up, I would know how to handle it.
There are potentiallysome things that could happen after book 6 - depending on how my characters decide to play it. If they decide to 'go and play' in Brevoy once the campaign is over, they will find out. If they decide not to go down that route - then it will only ever be a vague idea.
*shrug* It actually had nothing to do with making the traits more usable, or beneficial :) It is a cool RP trait - if you want a character who goes around claiming it be a noble - then it is good to gave the down sides documents as well as the up sides.
I generally tell players they can have a noble background, if they want it. The downside is they start out L1 as an Aristocrat. Although I also suggest they take the Rich Parents trait and start with extra cash as well :)
But then, characters in our games are optimised for RP potential rather than anything else.
MCV your wanting to be a bastard of house Rogovaria IMO goes against the whole basic grain of Kingmaker.
The disappearance of ALL of house Rogovaria is the kernel for a civil war in Brevoy between Rostland and house Surtovia.
Even without knowing the reason for the disappearance of house Rogovaria, house Surtovia would be sending out all their thieves and assassins to finish off anyone remotely related to house Rogovaria.
Setting up 50 miles to the south of Rogovaria lands is not a good way to hide. Surtovia spies are everywhere.
If you want to play Kingmaker in the Stolen Lands drop the bastard of Rogovaria for anything else.
If you want to play Kingmaker in Brevoy keep it, but that is a very different game.
IMO it does make you look like you are just trying to be difficult.
Oh, I have a rump of House Rogovaria hanging around in Brevoy. They are minor houses who were adopted into the Royal House - and are generally seen as harmless.
One group are an Aldori family who pledged loyalty to Choral (rather than fight) all those years ago, who have been sucking up to Surtova ever since he took over as regent.
Even, as written, The Surtova are actually fairly weak in the scheme of things. They need potential allies, rather than too many enemies.
MCV your wanting to be a bastard of house Rogovaria IMO goes against the whole basic grain of Kingmaker.
The disappearance of ALL of house Rogovaria is the kernel for a civil war in Brevoy between Rostland and house Surtovia.
Even without knowing the reason for the disappearance of house Rogovaria, house Surtovia would be sending out all their thieves and assassins to finish off anyone remotely related to house Rogovaria.
Setting up 50 miles to the south of Rogovaria lands is not a good way to hide. Surtovia spies are everywhere.
If you want to play Kingmaker in the Stolen Lands drop the bastard of Rogovaria for anything else.
If you want to play Kingmaker in Brevoy keep it, but that is a very different game.
IMO it does make you look like you are just trying to be difficult.
I'm not trying to be difficult at all. I simply made an interesting character based on the information in the player's guide, and now you're are telling me I'm being difficult because I want to play a character that's perfectly legitimate according to the information given to the players.
If you're not supposed to be able to play a bastard of Rogarvia, then the player's guide is flat out wrong. That's fine, but say that, instead of blaming me for Paizo's mistakes.
So far there seem to be two opinions in this thread:
1: Do whatever player and GM like; it doesn't really matter for the campaign
2: If you want to make sense of the background, it shouldn't be possible (so the player's guide is wrong)
MCV, I'm not accusing you of being difficult.
That is just how it "appears", again IMO.
After all, the player's guide for Kingmaker does say that the entire line of Rogovaria disappeared.
That should be enough information for any player to realize that you can't have a connention to the missing house.
I don't see any conflict with any Paizo source.
What I see is your assumption that house Rogovaria is a valid background source
Again, it's not anything personal, I just think your background story should not include any connection to a missing house.
If you think about it, if you are a bastard of house Rogovaria, then you should be trying to gain the Dragonscale Throne. Not trying to start a new kingdom right next to house Rogovaria's lands.
|
Your bloodline could be so impure and so diluted that the effect didn't take you. Quite frankly they full on lay out that your proof isn't very good, and you are a discredited source for proclaiming your nobility. Wouldn't that be even more so if you claim to be the last Rogovarian? Further more you'd make yourself more and more of a target the more and more strength you gathered, and soon you would be a pretender to the throne. Its a compelling story of conflict and drama,and probably becomes one of the main threads of the plot to the individual campaign.
|
|
Step 1:
IF your GM isn't involving Brevoy politics:
THEN the trait is fine and there is nothing wrong with it, its anecdotal.
IF your GM is involving Brevoy politics:
THEN taking this trait is likely going to lead to you doing your best Ned Stark imitation. Unless you happen to pull a Daenarys that is.
Step 2(Assuming politics):
IF your GM has not figured out what caused House Rogarvia to disappear and doesn't want to
THEN you could be adding to his headache.
IF your GM has figured it out and a leftover relative does not fit
THEN you can't really take this trait.
IF your GM has figured it out thinks its cool you are taking this trait
THEN you are in the clear, and are likely in for a wild ride and one of the coolest games you could ever hope for. I have seen some awesome campaigns with this happening being described in the forums so far.
To be honest it was sort of stupid for them to put this one in the Players Guide without addressing this issue.
For instance, in my game, if you took this trait, you should pack up and move to Garundi and hope that is far enough to run. If the assasins and mercenaries didn't get you, you would get three choices, be an Orlovsky pawn, be a Surtova pawn, or be dead. But then again, the plotting and politics IMC are brutal and unforgiving, much like my players :O
MCV, I'm not accusing you of being difficult.
That is just how it "appears", again IMO.After all, the player's guide for Kingmaker does say that the entire line of Rogovaria disappeared.
That should be enough information for any player to realize that you can't have a connention to the missing house.
I don't see any conflict with any Paizo source.
What I see is your assumption that house Rogovaria is a valid background source
This is not an assumption on my part, the player's guide explicitly says it's valid. If it isn't, then the player's guide has to be wrong. These are the options.
If the player's guide is not wrong, then the entire line of Rogarvia that disappeared has to refer to the legitimate line. There's no legitimate heir, except maybe for a bastard that can't prove his legitimacy.
In fact, if adopted members count as legitimate members of a house and potential heirs, then any adopted members have also disappeared.
Again, it's not anything personal, I just think your background story should not include any connection to a missing house.
Alright, but note that that's at odds with what the player's guide says.
If you think about it, if you are a bastard of house Rogovaria, then you should be trying to gain the Dragonscale Throne. Not trying to start a new kingdom right next to house Rogovaria's lands.
Guess what my character's secret goal is. But as a bastard who can't prove his legitimacy, he has no basis for claiming that throne, and no power base to wrestle it from anyone else. Owning a kingdom right next door is a better prospect than owning nothing at all.
Maybe it's time I shared my character concept: His family has served house Rogarvia in various ways for a long time. An uncle was an important political advisor, and that uncle knows that my character is a bastard. Then Rogarvia vanishes. The uncle realizes that my character (still a child probably) should be the legitimate ruler, but can't prove it. He becomes his mentor, teaching him all about politics (this bit was inspired by the creepy old guy in Braveheart advising Robert de Bruce), while unsuccessfully trying to document his case or gathering some support for his claim. Then the uncle dies.
My character sees the claim to the throne as a dead end, but still has all this political training and ambition. And suddenly a new land is opened up for settlement, with the explicit intent to play a role in the power struggle in Brevoy, and he sees his path to political power. It might not lead to a throne, but it'll lead to something at least.
Step 1:
IF your GM isn't involving Brevoy politics:
THEN the trait is fine and there is nothing wrong with it, its anecdotal.IF your GM is involving Brevoy politics:
THEN taking this trait is likely going to lead to you doing your best Ned Stark imitation. Unless you happen to pull a Daenarys that is.
I actually hope he does involve Brevoy politics (and I'd assumed that it would be unavoidable during the later parts of the campaign), but if he has the choice, I fear he might not.
Step 2(Assuming politics):
IF your GM has not figured out what caused House Rogarvia to disappear and doesn't want to
THEN you could be adding to his headache.IF your GM has figured it out and a leftover relative does not fit
THEN you can't really take this trait.IF your GM has figured it out thinks its cool you are taking this trait
THEN you are in the clear, and are likely in for a wild ride and one of the coolest games you could ever hope for. I have seen some awesome campaigns with this happening being described in the forums so far.
I am of course hoping for that last option.
Thing is, from what I understand, he prefers to rely on the books, he hasn't read the last books yet, but so far he's gotten the impression that a leftover relative wouldn't fit. But he agrees that would contradict the player's guide, so that's why I'm here asking these questions.
To be honest it was sort of stupid for them to put this one in the Players Guide without addressing this issue.
That's definitely becoming clear now. I was assuming there was a good reason why it was explicitly allowed, but now it looks like it was an error. Maybe they should have said: ask your GM, only with GM permission. Then I wouldn't have been in the position I'm in now, where I've already been playing a while with a character that turns out not to fit.
IF he is a by the book GM your fun concept which wants to be involved in Brevic politics is a waste, if he's willing to home brew a little or heck pilfer the forums (to any GM these forums are a rich place to borrow ides) he can make it work if he wants to.
OK, I dug out my copy of the KM Player's Guide.
Yes the Bastard (human campaign trait) says;
"One of your parents was a member of one of the great families of Brevoy, perhaps even of the line of Rogarvia itself. Yet you have no substantive proof of your nobility, and you've learned that claiming nobility without evidence makes you as good as a liar. While you might own a piece of jewelry, a scrap of once-rich fabric, or an aged confession of love, none of this directly supports your claim. Thus, you've lived a life in the shadow of nobility, knowing that you deserve the comforts and esteem of the elite, even though the contempt of fate brings you nothing but their scorn. Whether a recent attempt to prove your heritage has brought down the wrath of a noble family's henchmen or you merely seek to prove the worth of the blood in your veins, you've joined an expedition into the Stolen Lands, hoping to make a name all your own.
You take a-1 penalty on all Charisma-based skill checks made when dealing with members of Brevic nobility but gain a +1 trait bonus on Will saves as a result of your stubbornness and individuality. (The penalty aspect of this trait is removed if you ever manage to establish yourself as a true noble.)
Yes you can be a bastard of house Rogarvia, you are also now a target of all of house Rogarvia's enemies.
IMO, selecting house Rogarvia for the purposes of this trait, would make you very unpopular in all of Brevoy (Issia & Rostland).
It's not any big spoiler to say that there is alot of dealings with Brevic nobility in KM.
It does not say where you would have to gain a title to remove the penalty, either Brevoy or the Stolen Lands, or if any Brevic nobles would recognize a Stolen Lands title.
To be honest, I think this particular combination is painting a neon target on the front and back of your PC.
But if you and your GM are OK with it, then it's fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guess what my character's secret goal is. But as a bastard who can't prove his legitimacy, he has no basis for claiming that throne, and no power base to wrestle it from anyone else. Owning a kingdom right next door is a better prospect than owning nothing at all.
This is the kind of RP gold that I love to see in my players -- it provides all sorts of additional intrigue and awesome to fold into the story. I think this is a great angle, and what the books say can go bugger a leprechaun. This makes for a great story, and what is this game we are playing if not collaborative storytelling?
Sounds to me like you've got some awesome stuff happening here. As has been said before, the books don't go into the burning question of what happened with the royal line of Brevoy, and it can easily be left as a giant question mark without repercussion to Kingmaker as written.
However, I would hope that your GM would see his awesome opportunity and run with it.
Ah - "Collaborative story telling" :) One style of play and GMing. Highly overrated in my experience. I played in a few games like that and most finished up with little consistency or believability.
Guess what my character's secret goal is. But as a bastard who can't prove his legitimacy, he has no basis for claiming that throne, and no power base to wrestle it from anyone else. Owning a kingdom right next door is a better prospect than owning nothing at all.This is the kind of RP gold that I love to see in my players -- it provides all sorts of additional intrigue and awesome to fold into the story. I think this is a great angle, and what the books say can go bugger a leprechaun. This makes for a great story, and what is this game we are playing if not collaborative storytelling?
Sounds to me like you've got some awesome stuff happening here. As has been said before, the books don't go into the burning question of what happened with the royal line of Brevoy, and it can easily be left as a giant question mark without repercussion to Kingmaker as written.
However, I would hope that your GM would see his awesome opportunity and run with it.
I hope so too. Maybe I should discuss this a bit deeper with him.
I definitely consider a campaign like this as more than simply a framework for a bunch of combat encounters. You're building something big, and not making a character that hooks into that seems like a wasted opportunity. So I did. No idea how it'll turn out, but it would be very disappointing if it turned out to be completely irrelevant.
But this is my first campaign with this guy as a GM, so I have no idea what his GMing style is. I'll ask.
Ah - "Collaborative story telling" :) One style of play and GMing. Highly overrated in my experience. I played in a few games like that and most finished up with little consistency or believability.
...really? I think it's the best way to play, gets the PCs more involved in the story. But it's the GM's job to make sure it makes sense. Too many cooks and all.
But anyway. I think you have a good concept mcv. Just work with your GM to see of s/he has any advice or ideas. I know I always love it when players come to me with ideas for the story.