JackofAllTrades's page

Granted, but what I'm trying to determine is how common such outbursts of violence are. Their kingdom is (ostensibly) neutral good in alignment. I recognize the weaknesses in using such a system, but it does bear a handy indicator for the social norms, if not what will occur every time. I fully expect that they will lose control of their troops at some point, but in such a case would the militias and guardsmen of such a society find it normal or expected to be paid by looting the cities and countryside of their enemies? What about a more neutral one? Such behavior was very much the case in our own history, even when armies were fighting on behalf of relatively benign or righteous causes. Outside of the threat that such an action would bring, I'm not sure if the River Kingdoms would view the sack of Pitax as an atrocity or simply the normal behavior of a conquering army.

To what extent is there an accepted practice of military conduct among the nations of the Inner Sea? Obviously nations like Cheliax and Katapesh engage in slaving and the Hold of Belkzen often raids beyond its borders, but among the neutral to good countries, is there any consensus on a law of war?

I ask because I've been running Kingmaker for my group and my players are beginning to inquire into the state of world politics and how a new kingdom ought to behave. Particularly, I couldn't find anything on what common behavior is after a city or fortress has been captured or how most armies are paid. In our own history, most armies were a form of levy that were partly recompensed through the right to loot, both while on campaign and when they captured a city. I'd like to know what they're in for, should their ambitions draw their attention abroad.

You could convert the cost of BP needed in UC into gp as a rough estimate.

Ooh. This is very nice. Other factions in Brevoy and Iobaria could be useful. I know redcelt and some other folks put together some interesting materials about Bervic factions and the benefits of allying with them. Perhaps you might want to include that in your own sheet? They can be found here

I would rule heavy shields and spartans have a special feat allowing them to receive +1 to AC for each adjacent feat holder in the phalanx.

Don't get me wrong, it would probably annoy Restov quite a bit to call them kings, but the question is would they really throw away their client state over something so small as a title? Sure if the PCs start trying to claim independence to them directly, rather than just as a front there'll be trouble, but before that point I see Restov letting them get away with a hell of a lot, because they really don't have any other choice at this point. If the civil war shakes out as the campaign suggests, it's going to be Surtova, Lodovka, and Lebeda vs. Orlovsky and Medvyd with Garess either sitting it out or throwing in with whomever can guarantee their succession. Remember though, that Orlovsky is by no means allied with Rostland, despite their mutual opposition to the Surtovas. He wants the throne for himself or a Rogarvia heir and the minute this little scrap with Surtova is over, the victor is going to turn their full attention to reunifying the kingdom. This isn't Rostland fighting the Surtova group, it's Rostland attacking all of Issia while they're divided in a civil war. They need every ally they can get right now and the venture into the Stolen Lands was less a brilliant strategic move and more a desperate grasp to secure the south and drum up some support to reinforce their armies.

That's a very good point, however in Kingmaker as written, you aren't the vassal of anybody. In fact, the Swordlords make it explicitly clear that you are not officially associated with them in any way except that you're the folks south of the border who're dealing with the bandits. While there's the expectation that you'll jump when they say jump, the entire point of establishing a kingdom to the south is to have a deniable ally for the eventual civil war. However, all of this would likely change if you actually told the Swordlords where they could stick their little rebellion...

All in all? Not much. The above poster's idea certainly could work but it doesn't much matter what you call yourself in the end. My players have each created their own individual titles of varying degrees. In any case, in terms of international diplomacy, people will treat you how they treat you based on what they want and how powerful you are rather than the trappings you choose to gird yourself with. It would be a foolish ruler indeed who would refuse a beneficial arrangement simply because it's offered by a pompous idiot, and foolish kings tend to fall rather quickly.

I've always felt it was a bit more temperate. Sort of like these:

http://www.cnyhiking.com/PharaohMountain4001.jpg
http://www.wildernessphotographs.com/images/large/Spectacle%20Pond%20view%2 0of%20Pharaoh%20Mt%20in%20late%20fall_1200px.jpg