Well, if you get into the really specific nitty gritty stuff, some of our patrons are outside of the canon and so there's no official word on how that would normally work. At this point, our game is sufficiently different from the normal assumptions that whatever meta-game information we have on the canon of the politics is probably irrelevant. However, whatever the political climate, I imagine that, while they wouldn't be able to openly oppose it, the Swordlords would be very displeased to find that the leadership of their puppet kingdom is in the hands of people who would support the Surtova claim to the throne. I don't think the temple of Erastil would care one way or another as long as we bring stability to the region.
One thing to note about the leadership positions is that they must be filled by somebody actively working the job for at least one week out of every month. We can change positions as often as every month without any mechanical penalties, assuming the GM doesn't impose any house rules that affect that. The only benefit to a PC for being in a leadership position at all is that the kingdom gets bonuses. Now, there may be some roleplaying stuff that goes along with things, but unless the GM adds more house rules, there's really no mechanical reason for a player to be upset that they don't have a leadership position, as there is no advantage conferred for holding one. If anything, it's more of an annoyance because it cuts into adventuring time. That said, I very much hope to hold the position of spymaster. If we actually get to roleplay the jobs, I can't imagine any of the others being more fun.
Given all of this, I have no problems with keeping the monarchy system, regardless of who is in charge. I also have no strong opinion on whether we should have one kingdom or many. Valkus's agenda can be satisfied in most any case. If anything, I look forward to the roleplaying when it comes down to actually deciding things like what type of government we should hold to. I'm not playing a Taldan bard for nothing!
@Valkus
I don't think we have to worry about Surtova support in our would be kingdom. Lorald killed a member of that house already and no house is a direct ally of theirs in their own domain much less in a land outside their territory. They can't keep a grip on their own kingdom so their grubby fingers won't be touching ours. ;D
Lets just be sure to keep the Orlovsky ambitions similarly in check. The lofty history of the Brevish families doesn't mean a great deal to the people of the River Kingdoms :)
One simple house-rule could be to allow having at the same time the two Rulers, the Consort and the Heir (and I'll add the Councilor to reach the odd number of 5) being some kind of small Ruling Council, changing the names of those positions but keeping the rule for kingdom mechanics.
In this way we can have up to 14 leadership positions to fill. 15 if we modify the Viceroy position in some way, renaming it. I don't know if the number is sufficient to give enough space for anybody.
In any case, keeping the normal monarchy or changing it to a more adequate form of government, Anton will be for developing a unique kingdom to avoid conflicts and he will probably volunteer himself as High Priest or as Councilor, because his primary interest being a priest of Erastil is to develop a local community. Meta-gaming both roles use Wisdom which is his highest stats.
I think the small council could be an excellent idea Anton. I think we have 17 PC's currently, and if one or two more people feel similarly to Gareth we're set!
For the record Lorald has zero interest in ruling. It would only be acceptable to him if he was the only one worthy which would be a sad statement in and of itself. xD
He is more concerned with who is ruling and how they rule. Which is why a council is preferred sense everything is spread out and all that responsibility and expectation is not held up by a single person. Sense we have three groups we could make it simple and have three representatives make up the ruling council. One person that speaks for that group. The representative does not have to be the same person ether just agreed upon with in their own group if a change is needed or wanted.
Personally I have my eye on Marshal, General if not for the fact my stats are no good for it. Royal Enforcer is a little to unclear for me to consider properly.
White eagle isn't really looking to fill any real position in the kingdom, He is looking to secure good hunting grounds and land for his tribe of people to migrate to.
He was to remain the liason between his tribe and whatever government is formed in the new settlements
Hey CWE, how large is your tribe to be precise?
Hey CWE, how large is your tribe to be precise?
Since I never really detailed much of it I am going with maybe 100-200 people (including women and children)
For roles, I was thinking two people can share the same role, even if not from the same house.
But only a max of 2 per role.
Seriously? Given the lay of the River Kingdoms, just find a couple hexes in a corner somewhere and settle down. We'll should be able to trade with them easily enough.
the problem is whenever in the past they did that, some Bevory nobles or some other government official decided that they wanted that land and would ask them to move (usually by force).
So it was decided to move into the stolen lands and establish a home there.
as the tribe is of nomadic nature, it may be more than just a couple of Hexes to claim.
Well the average hex is almost a hundred square miles. If your tribe amounts to the population of a small village it might be difficult to hold more than 2 or 3 in all honesty.
@Kazz
Where are you getting your hex information? A hex is 12 miles off the Kingmaker map folio.
12 miles from corner to coner, making them 95 square miles in area, no?
I feel like a better question for you CWE is what are you looking to achieve for your people specifically?
Are you trying to create an autonomous kingdom where you govern yourselves or are you simply wanting to find asylum and be free to roam in safety?
Given the area we have to work with, even in settled areas outside of actual cities there should be more than enough free land for 200ish people to move about and keep th themselves with ease. A population of your size isn't really in danger of hunting anything to extinction. How about establishing a settlement and being given leave to roam freely within our border so long as you respect the law? 200 people isn't really any different than any other small partially armed group of citizens and we're hardly going to regulate where they travel and set up camp.
As citizens you're protected and naturally will be called upon to defend the region if attacked the same as anyone else.
Kazz the idea you present is what he is basically looking for, the problem arises as follows:
many of he tribe are still new or unfamiliar with the concept of land ownership.
the next problem is when you say "respect the law" its the law itself that has been a thorn in thier side.
when "civilized" people decide that the land they have been on for years is suddenly decreed to belong to some other group of settlers.and we are not welcome to hunt there "by your law" it becomes "private property" and naturally the best farmland or the best hunting grounds becomes taken.
also the idea of Tax. that can be another whole new issue. gurantees of fair laws and CWE being a representative of the tribe during decision concerning the law.
also fair representation in courts. just becuase we live as others would deem "savages" does not mean we are automatically the scape goat of otther people's woes.
it will be difficult for nobles to regard "savages" as equals
Fair representation is easy, this is the River Kingdoms, half the people here are hunters and trappers and simple farmers and all hold personal freedom highly. I don't think you'll have the same problem you might somewhere like Cheliax. Regardless of what a certain noble in my group might think :P
I assume there was more to the idea of Tax. That guarantees of fair law and CWE being a representative might help alleviate some of these problems, yes?
I'm not sure taxation will be such a big deal as I think you could sell the idea of paying taxes to ensure a level of protection and security that you've not encountered elsewhere.
I get the desire to draw parallels between your people's own experiences and that of the Native Americans in North America but you have to take into account that this is a very different situation. Your people have no existing claims to these lands so there there are no underlying issues about maintaining the way of life you have always enjoyed.
This is a chance to claim land initially under the rules of the law that have previously excluded you. Thus ending the problems you have faced previously. I understand that that isn't they you're people are used to doing things but you have to respect the need for both sides to compromise.
Historically, a lot of the ethical issues arise when we consider who was there first, and if that means anything. There are two very different paradigms at play, one that recognizes the concept of land ownership and one that does not. These two paradigms do not play well with one another. Regardless of one's personal stance on the history of the Native Americans (and any other aboriginal peoples that came into contact with colonial settlers from expansionist nations), one must recognize the fact that these are two irreconcilable schools of thought. If they are to coexist, there must be give and take on both sides. In the case of our campaign, Brevoy has laid a claim to the Stolen Lands for many decades and simply never did anything about it until now. On top of that, these 200 Arcadians are not native to the area and have no legitimate claim based on time spent in the area or ancestral holdings. Furthermore, if they truly reject the notion of land ownership, there's no ground for grievance, as neither party can tell the other what to do with the land. Assuming that the land is already in use by one party or the other, the only paradigm that is equipped to handle conflicting views on usage of the land is that which recognizes the concept of ownership. And to head off one particular argument, there have certainly been many cases where aboriginal groups had conflict with each other based on land usage (call them territory disputes, border wars, disagreements, whatever you like) and recognized the division of the land in one fashion or another. If that weren't the case, then it would be very difficult to actually delineate who is the aggressor and who is the victim as far as the starting points are concerned.
If we're going to have a bunch of wandering Arcadians roaming free in our borders, there's no way there won't be some problems one way or the other. One question I have, why are they nomadic? The River Kingdoms aren't vast prairies and plains where herds of sustenance-providing animals follow migratory patterns. It's a lot of rolling hills and woodlands, which could certainly support the wandering pastoral activities of shepherds and the like, but unless I'm grossly mistaken about the underlying causes of nomadism in any form that is comparable to Native Americans (who actually formed many diverse cultures and civilizations, not all of which were nomadic), there doesn't seem to be a need to force this issue. Admittedly, I'm much more familiar with the midwestern groups than the Pacific north-westerners as I've grown up in the Great Plains, so I welcome the opportunity to be further educated on the subject.
CWE, I'll acknowledge your claim to narrative agency over these Arcadians (unless the GM has something overriding to say about it), but I'll admit to being at least a little confused by the particular direction you seem to be going with it.
so long as they are represented and are treated fairly, then CWE and his tribe should have no problems.
it does take time to get accoustomed to new ways of thinking.
The real question lies in identifying what is meant by "fair treatment". Are they expecting license to roam at will, freedom from taxation without responsibility for maintenance of the kingdom at large, freedom to not support the kingdom militarily, freedom to use any and all land as they see fit, freedom to seize land in use by others, etc.? I'm not making accusations of any kind, but it's important to delineate the particular needs that you're looking to have fulfilled.
Besides, the kingdom rules don't seem to care one whit about this type of issue and it's all just roleplay. So this is purely any issue of our own creation, for the sake of having an issue. There's nothing wrong with that, but we should be aware that we could completely ignore all of this without any change to the mechanics. We could actually grant total freedom and exclusively overriding land rights to the Arcadians to use as they see fit, and our mechanical kingdom would not notice the difference.
OK some important points I want to make
I am in no way any kind of expert on Native American stuff. I am working only off of general ideas and some simple stuff I have read.
next this whole character concept is experimental for me. I never really sat down and tried to figure out all the individual specifics. so I am really kind of winging-it so to speak.
I am thankful to our GM for giving me the chance to experiment with this concept in his game.
there will definately be alot of inconcistancies concerning my character. but I will work with it and try to make it a fun game.
If things prove too difficult to continue having fun, or too many have issues with my lack of historical knowledge then I will simply bow out.
The real question lies in identifying what is meant by "fair treatment". Are they expecting license to roam at will, freedom from taxation without responsibility for maintenance of the kingdom at large, freedom to not support the kingdom militarily, freedom to use any and all land as they see fit, freedom to seize land in use by others, etc.? I'm not making accusations of any kind, but it's important to delineate the particular needs that you're looking to have fulfilled.
Besides, the kingdom rules don't seem to care one whit about this type of issue and it's all just roleplay. So this is purely any issue of our own creation, for the sake of having an issue. There's nothing wrong with that, but we should be aware that we could completely ignore all of this without any change to the mechanics. We could actually grant total freedom and exclusively overriding land rights to the Arcadians to use as they see fit, and our mechanical kingdom would not notice the difference.
fair treatment means not creating taxes or laws that are clearly written to only effect the Arcadians. I am sure they will pay applicable taxes and serve the local rulership so long as they are treated fairly.
Historical knowledge shouldn't be an issue; I doubt any of us would claim expertise, and even so, this is fantasy and we're free to make as large departures from historical accuracy as we desire and are comfortable with.
I'm not against your experiment in any way; I'm enjoying the discussion that it has generated and will hopefully continue to generate. Sometimes it might feel like everybody is against you, but that's because you're the only PC that seems to have any narrative agency over this group of Arcadians which forces the rest of us to react to you and your choices for them, as reaction is the only possible means of interaction. That's not inherently problematic, but it will require you to speak for them and defend them at times. Frankly, if it that wasn't required, then the experiment would be invalid simply because it isn't being performed, because it would mean we aren't interacting with the Arcadians.
You have demonstrated a willingness to work with the rest of us and you don't seem unreasonable. I had reservations initially, and I'll admit that my initial perception was colored by the tension of the prior interaction between our groups, but my mind has been put at ease. I, for one, support and endorse the continuation of the Arcadian experiment in good faith.
First:
Historically speaking immigration by tribes went most of the times in two diffrent paths.
The conqueror: Quite a few examples, the huns, the turks, the romans, the crucaders.
Also often settlers forced by the aristrocracy to follow the army.
Lots of tension
The peaceful settlers: Either on the run from the conquerer or in search for more political liberty they usually were quite welcomed and happily integrateed.
As this country is almost empty. Why treat anyone diffrently. The arcadians are settlers, why should they be treated special? In a good or a bad way? And for being nomad many folks living of huge herds are nomadic to give the land some time to grow back to support the herds.
Does it matter for a "farm" if you grow wheat or if you have herds that produce flesh and hide and more?
Second. As far as I know Brevoy is a monarchy. They gave us the charter.
What do THEY want? Do they want another kingdom? Or a buffer state?
Also Oligarchys never worked out in the past. I am quite happy to try, but still. A ruler is only as strong as the people supporting him. Very often the power was not in the rulers hand but the supporting nobles. (Holy roman empire for example).
Would love to get in to discussing history but sadly haven't time this evening :(
So shifting focus back to the proto-kingdom we're in the process of 'digging the foundation' for at present...
Just thought to put the positions up here for ease of reference and currently stated preferences for positions.
Natalya's specialty being 'mortal conflict resolution', this limits her uses to the more straightforward 'guardian' roles. She likes the idea of being a public hero, so is interested in being the General. Second choice but maybe better suited would be Warden if the General role went elsewhere. Lastly (considering only roles with STR), much as she might suit it, she wouldn't like the role of royal enforcer, she's striving to get away from that sort of thing!
Which leaves us here:
Ruler (CHA to Economy, Loyalty or Stability) I have a suggestion here, if 3 people make up the ruling council, they can each add
their CHA bonus to one of the kingdom attributes, much like the 'ruler getting married' rule, but this would need
Mardavig's approval as is a modification to the existing rules around consorts, heirs etc, which is why I haven't
included those in this list. Also Viceroy doesn't seem to fit as there are no colonies or vassal states afaik!)
Councillor (CHA or WIS to Loyalty) - Anton
General (CHA or STR to Stability) - Natalya, Lorald
Grand Diplomat (CHA or INT to Stability)
High Priest (CHA or WIS to Stability) - Anton
Magister (CHA or INT to Economy)
Marshal (DEX or WIS to Economy) - Lorald
Royal Enforcer (DEX or STR to Loyalty)
Spymaster (DEX or INT to any one kingdom attribute) - Valkus
Treasurer (INT or WIS to Economy)
Warden (CON or STR to Loyalty) - Natalya
Others
Potential duelling/swordmaster guild - Gareth
Also noting those that have no interest in an administrative position - CWE
Shout out if you want adding to the list or if you want any changes to it!
Well if we have the ruling council one from each team,
I would either apply for ruling council or Grand Diplomat.
Marlani plants a flag in the ground: "I hereby name this kingdom Marlaniland! Lets get the wine flowing!"
I'd be in for any of the CHA based positions. Diplomat would be cool.
Following suit, Raven would plant a flag as well, though with a Raven on it carrying a bloodied sword. "And this here is claimed for the Temple of the Queen of Ravens!"
In all seriousness, Raven will be glad to assist the kingdom via her temple that she IS building, for a modest trade of fees and services of course, but she has no desire to be in any of the leadership positions, save that of her temple. IF she is asked to be one, she may accept, depending on circumstances. Of course, all this would come out in RP rather than here, but so we all are on the same page, there you go.
Sadly, regardless of Spanish policy, it takes a lot more than planting a flag to claim anything:P
On the topic of leadership, I think a triumvirate made up of a representative from each group is a great idea. Under this model, Kazz would be very much interested in a spot on the ruling council with the popular position of diplomat being his second choice.
As to the Acadians, I think Miyuki and I are on the same page. I think for the most part it sounds like the Acadians can be integrated into our kingdom fairly easily. There are still a few issues to be sorted out but so long as they are willing to be counted as citizens proper it shouldn't be too big of a problem.
It sounds like our immediate goal now should be getting everyone together so we can actually hash this out. As it's the only site we really have in common, Oleg's makes the best option for this. However since team darkness has claimed the Stag Fort, we also need to hold it. Perhaps some of us can come to Olegs, send word to Brevoy and bring the rest of you back to the Stag Fort?
Other important question, how far along in the timeline are each of your groups? I think ours is only about 4 or 5 days.
I was wondering if it was okay for two or more houses to share the same building or hex?
Any thoughts on this?
Like it is this houses building as well as this houses building?
Would you have to marry someone from another house to get this or not?
I think people been saying one big kingdom as in one house owns it, all houses own it, but I wasn't sure if that is what they meant.
Edit: My two highest skills are wis and dex, I'd go for either of those positions that give out dex or wis.
Once you have your first settlement, you have the start of a kingdom. You'll need to make some initial decisions that affect your kingdom's statistics, and record them on the kingdom sheet.
1.Choose Your Kingdom's Alignment. Your kingdom's alignment helps determine how loyal, prosperous, and stable your kingdom is. Your kingdom may be a lawful good bastion against a nearby land of devil worshipers, or a chaotic neutral territory of cutthroat traders whose government does very little to interfere with the rights of its citizens.
2.Choose Leadership Roles. Assign the leadership roles for all PCs and NPCs involved in running the kingdom, such as Ruler, General, and High Priest. The leadership roles provide bonuses on checks made to collect taxes, deal with rioting citizens, and resolve similar issues.
3.Start Your Treasury. The build points you have left over from starting your first settlement make up your initial Treasury.
4.Determine Your Kingdom's Attributes. Your initial Economy, Loyalty, and Stability scores are based on the kingdom's alignment and the buildings your settlement has. (If you start with more than one settlement, include all the settlements in this reckoning.)
So the first question would be... what alignement should the kingdom have?
The name? The Flag?
Second: Upon reading the golariopedia entry to Brevoy the first sentence is that Brevoy is on the verge of a civil war. I "guess", that we would get many settlers running from the threat of civil war.
Third, what do you mean with one or two houses share the same builing or hex?
I think I understand your question Hunter and I believe the answer is yes. They only need be adjacent.
On the topic of alignment, that is definitely something best handled here as it's kind of an abstraction that can't really be roleplayed very well.
Given our group at large, it seems like Lawful Neutral and Neutral Good are likely the best options for us. True Neutral is a middle ground but I'm not sure it's a great compromise.
Personally I'm all for Lawful Neatural, keep the crown/council fair and impartial. Leave the fostering of the people up to philanthropic individuals. The likes of which we have several of in our group :)
I'm for NG (first choice) or LN too.
About House: a House in kingdom building terms is not a single house, but represent more a residential area. In fact every LOT in a City District increase the kingdom population of 250 units.
Okay let me clearify by what I meant by house. I meant patrons. Church of Erastil, House Lodovka, etc.
Is it okay for 2 or more teams to share a building, even if this was a in game house rule? In other words, it is the church's building and it is also House Lodovka's building. In other words, two or more patrons sharing ownership of buildings or hexes.
The patrons sharing would split the profit and the population evenly. Of course this would mean running this like a stock company if people are okay with that.
Our Patrons have influence on our PCs, but the new Kingdom is something charted by the Nation of Brevoy, not directly by our Patrons.
We can decide to split and build multiple kingdoms (even once per patron) but the majority of us have said they want an unique kingdom to avoid conflicts.
You are of course correct Anton. It's a housing area rather a single house however my point was that in terms of kingdom building, a single housing lot doesn't amount to much of anything. So we're going to have to receive additional resources from somewhere in order to actually found a kingdom.
Hunter, I don't think you really understand what the patrons represent here. Our characters are simply their agents in the Stolen Lands. There isn't really a concept of ownership of a separation of different part of the kingdom. Ostensibly we're an independent nation with ties to Brevish interests. Not actually run by them.
|
That's right. No one is more under control of their patrons than they choose to be. The time will come when they ask you to do certain things, but part of being in your own nation means that you are somewhat beyond the edge of their control. It really depends on what kind of power you want to give them over you, which may prove to be the very question this campaign serves to ask. Who are you? What do you want? Who do you serve?
That's right. No one is more under control of their patrons than they choose to be. The time will come when they ask you to do certain things, but part of being in your own nation means that you are somewhat beyond the edge of their control. It really depends on what kind of power you want to give them over you, which may prove to be the very question this campaign serves to ask. Who are you? What do you want? Who do you serve?
***
Current list:
Ruling council (CHA to Economy, Loyalty or Stability) - Antlers(Miyuki) | Marlani(Orlovsky) | Kazz(Darkness)
Councillor (CHA or WIS to Loyalty) - Anton, Marlani, Hunter
General (CHA or STR to Stability) - Natalya, Lorald, Marlani
Grand Diplomat (CHA or INT to Stability) - Miyuki, Marlani, Kazz
High Priest (CHA or WIS to Stability) - Anton, Marlani, Hunter
Magister (CHA or INT to Economy) - Marlani
Marshal (DEX or WIS to Economy) - Lorald, Hunter
Royal Enforcer (DEX or STR to Loyalty) - Hunter
Spymaster (DEX or INT to any one kingdom attribute) - Valkus, Hunter
Treasurer (INT or WIS to Economy) - Hunter
Warden (CON or STR to Loyalty) - Natalya
Guilds - Gareth (Swordmasters/duelling)
No interest - CWE
For those who said 'any of the <Insert relevant attribute here> positions', if seeing your name against a certain position above makes you go 'heck no!' then let me know and I'll remove it!
On the subject of alignment
Natalya would advocate for Lawful Neutral, as despite the fact she is Neutral Good herself, would see that at the moment (being maybe Chaotic Neutral?) the chaos of the wilderness must be tamed with law first, then the goodness of the inhabitants might change the other alignment axis, depending entirely on who the populace consists of and how the rulers act. Let goodness look after itself, we're here to unleash law on the lawless!
A Name
Must...not...suggest...'Florin'...gah!
I'd likely suggest something that reflects the disparate individuals and wilderness theme of the nation, or at least those carving out its foundations at the moment, I thoroughly suggest adopting an icon of some kind to inspire us down the line. As a new country in particular, people like to flock to simple icons and banners that are self explanatory and thematic. I would like to humbly suggest wolves, as they are fierce apex predators, but band together as a pack to protect each other and form a community. So a flag featuring a wolfshead (thematic as this land was a land of outlaws or literally 'wolf's heads' if you follow the etymology >.< ) and a name like 'Wolfshome' for a city or Vargyria as a country. OK those two might be a bit lame name-wise, but I'm sure you folks can come up with something better! Or even something completely different!
Hmm, I'd not given a name much thought yet. I think a wolf theme is certainly workable. I'll consider if I have any other ideas to put forth.
Glad to have another vote for the Lawful Neutrals!
Thus far it seems out Kingdom list is filling out nicely, though by my count there are about a half dozen of us who have yet to weigh in on any of this. Come on guys, lets hear some more opinions!
I realize I expressed no interest in a position... but that is only becuase I don't see White eagle actually filling any of those spots.
For now I am content just being a leader of the Arcadian settlers and working with the kingdom council to keep the peace and trade of goods.
alignment LN is a good choice.
Well CWE, what do you think of the counciler job? Sounds excatly like what you want to do. To keep close to the people and be the peoples voice! The best way to keep them safe is to have a vote in the council.
I second CWE as Councilor, that was a second choice for Anton after High Priest.
If Anton could surely be a good priest, IMHO CWE fits even more the councilor profile.
Hunter is okay with any alignment except Lawful good and is willing to change his alignment and himself based upon what the kingdom is. If the Kingdom is chaotic evil, then so be it, but I doubt anyone would let the Kingdom become chaotic evil.
Hunter is okay with any alignment except Lawful good and is willing to change his alignment and himself based upon what the kingdom is. If the Kingdom is chaotic evil, then so be it, but I doubt anyone would let the Kingdom become chaotic evil.
*whistles innocently*
Ahem... right. Also look at LE. the bonuses aren't bad and well spread.
Zartana i think will also fit nicely with either enforcer,Spymaster or Marshal
Don't ask the drow for names or themes, unless you do IC...
*whistles again*
Zartana, I'm busy laughing behind this screen like you have some kind of evil alignment planned for the kingdom. Or like you have some kind of master plan for it.
Or at the very least your character is like, who cares what alignment the kingdom is=)