So my group has just started part 2 of kingmaker and we have been in discussion about the actual governing of our kingdom and how we are going to handle it. Our original idea was instead of having a monarchy to have a sort of 'High Council' with a prime minister instead of a King/Queen. I have been working out some details of the laws and rights within the kingdom and would like to know what people think.
Position/Ranks
Lords of the High Council (positions laid out in the kingdom Building rules) – Leaders of the kingdom, have the highest overall authority. Only a majority vote by the High council (including the accused) can bring a high council member up on charges for any crime. After that a trial is held, and decision is rendered by the Prime minister. In the event the Prime Minister is the one being tried, the Councilor renders the descision. If convicted of a capital crime, a High Council member is removed from office and replaced by Majority Vote of the remaining high council. A High council member can only otherwise be removed by a 2/3 vote by the high council.
Vassal – Land Holding Noble (currently only Soothscale with soothscaleholt[one of our cities] and the silver mine). Required to provide taxes based on their lands, and contribute retainers to military and civilian offices. Should someone wish to become a Vassal they must provide the kindom with at least 2 hexes worth of land cleared and explored and have at least 100 retainers to provide administration and protection, as well as freeman to work and tend to the land. Each vassal must provide at least 25 retainers per hex to military and civilian offices.
A vassal has the right to bring charges before the high council in case of any grievance. Such proceedings would be handled by the king himself. A vassal may not be detained until the conclusion of such proceedings.
Retainer – Knights, Squires and Quartermasters, who are beholden to a Vassal or Lord of the Council, and are required to perform services for the kingdom (according to their skill) when called upon. A retainer has the right to bring and face charges before the Councilor and a panel of his magistrates in case of any grievance, for a trial. A retainer may not be detained except on direct order of the high council, or at the conclusion of such proceedings.
Citizen – In order to gain citizenship a freeman must give 5 years of military service, or 10 years of civilian service (under the non-military high council members such as Councilor or Head Diplomat) in order to gain citizenship. All citizens receive a piece of land sufficient to provide for a household, upon completion of their service They ofcourse may continue that service as long as they are able if they wish or retire after the 5/10 year period. In case of any grievance a citizen has the right to bring it before one of the Councilor's Magistrates for a summary judgment.
A citizen may only be detained by order of a Magistrate (or higher authority) or if they commit a crime directly witnessed by agents of the law (Marshal/Warden’s men).
Steadholder:
Any Citizen can be tasked by a Vasal Or Lord to maintain and manage their lands. In relation to any issues that occur on the lands he is responsible for, a Steadholder has the same rights as a Retainer.
Freeman – Any normal person living within the kingdom. A freeman has the right to work and live on the lands of a noble (or the High Council Lords), and in return pay a tithe proportional to the kingdoms current tax rate. Any gouging of freeman (tithe being charged not in line with the current tax rate) will be punished by the seizing of lands held by that noble. All freeman have the right to leave the lands they are on at any time, but while there, must obey the rule of the Vassal or Lord who owns them. Freeman cannot themselves bring up charges to the courts, however their Lords/Vassals can bring charges to the Magistrates in the name of any freeman residing on their lands.
Vassals have the right and responsibility to enforce the Council’s Law on Freeman who occupy their lands.
The Low Council – The Low Council is made up of the Second in commands of all the high council members who assist them in the execution of their duties and act with their authority in the matters of their Bailiwick. All Low Council members are Retainers of their respective Lords. They have the authority to give orders to anyone besides a high council member within their Bailiwick.
Crimes:
Treason – Providing assistance, comfort, or information to enemies of the Kingdom, and acting directly against it’s interests.
Sentence – Death, Permanent Imprisonment, Exhile(this is reserved exclusively for people duped into treason).
Murder – Killing of another person within the kingdom without justification
Sentence – Death, Permanent Imprisonment
Theft – Unlawful removal or destruction of property. This includes larceny, robbery, destruction of propery, fraud, tax evasion, and corruption.
Sentence – Payment of value for removed/damaged property once to the victim and once to the crown (Nobles are responsible for this payment of their retainers/steadholders in the event they themselves cannot pay), and one of the following:
-up to 10 years of indentured servitude in service of the victim. The accused can choose to instead pay the value of the years of labor instead. Should the accused not be able to pay the first part of the sentence, the value of that fine is also to be added to the term of servitude.
-imprisonment of a term to be set by the presiding authority (this is reserved for repeat offenders)
Assault – Physical harm to any person or persons in the realm.
Setance – Payment of any medical treatment required by the victim, and a matching payment to be made to the realm (anyone not able to pay must enter indentured servitude to work off the debt) as well as
-up to 5 years indentured servitude in service of the victim or
-up to 10 years imprisonment set by the Presiding Authority.
Restrictions:
All rates and lengths of servitude are to be based on the prevailing wages of a worker of the accused’s skill.
The victim has the right to determine the nature of the service the accused is to provide in the case of such a sentence. These services should coincide with the known skills of the acused, and are subject to judgement by the prevailing authority.
Time spent in indentured servitude that is within military or civilian service does not count towards the time needed for citizenship in the event the accused is not a citizen.
During servitude the accused retains any rights, standings, or property they previously held (besides what might be forfeited to pay a fine) but must obey all reasonable requests by the victim in service of their duty. Failure to do so requires a re-evaluation of sentence by the presiding authority over the original case.
Rights of all:
The First Right
All people have a right to live and work within the kingdom regardless of race so long as they obey the Council’s law including direct orders by the council and their subordinates. Any interference with this right is to be considered by law the crime of theft (removal of ones ability to live and work is akin to stealing their wages).
The Second Right
All people of the kingdom have a right to speak their minds and gather in public or in private as they see fit, so long as they obey the Council’s law including direct orders by the council and their subordinates. Any interference with this right is to be considered treason
The Third Right
All people have the right to bear grievances in open meetings(schedule of which will be no less then 8 hours once a week in the capital) of the Low Council, which if deemed appropriate by low council members will be dealt with or brought before the high council. Any intervention with this right is to be considered treason (preventing members of the kingdom even freeman from bearing their grievances before the low council harms the kingdom on a fundamental level)
The Fourth Right
All people have the right to basic property, even freeman. A man’s home and his possessions may not be taken without the authority of law. A landholder has the right to evict a freeman but must pay the freeman a fair value of any home that must be left behind. Any eviction gains precedence over other cases in being brought as a grievance before the low council.
The Fifth Right
All people have the right to bring crimes to the attention of Wardens/Marshals for investigation. If in the course of that investigation officers of the Council's Law determine a crime has been committed, the office of the Counciler will determine further action. Interference with this right is to be considered treason under the Council's Law.
I have been working out some details of the laws and rights within the kingdom and would like to know what people think.
Interesting, I have thought about doing something similar in my groups KM game. I have a question, what do you expect this to do? What do you want to get out of this detail, fluff or mechanics?
I have been working out some details of the laws and rights within the kingdom and would like to know what people think.Interesting, I have thought about doing something similar in my groups KM game. I have a question, what do you expect this to do? What do you want to get out of this detail, fluff or mechanics?
The purpose is to give us context in which to roleplay with the npcs. We realized early in the first session of KM #2 that we dont really know what we are to our subjects, what they are to us. By creating a system of laws it gives us a framework to interact.
If my dm wants to give us a bonus to stability or something for working this out, that's great, but it isn't my purpose.
Hi,
these some nice laws you designed.
BUT.... why did you make them instead of your 'rulers'?
In my group all the players had to provide the laws.
They designed some kind of imperial Rome senate.
The players are the Founders Council.
All PCs and the NPCs with a leadership role are the Crown Council.
The Founders Council constitutes and decides about the High Law. This includes the confirmation of new leaders in the Crown Council, declarations of war and judging and punishing members of the Crown Council.
The Crown Council decides about the developement of the kingdom and manages the daily duties. More important is the fact that every member of the Crown Council can speak Low Law. These are the rules and laws that suit for all other folks in the kingdom including low nobles.
My players have written down the High Law and decided that the Low Law is provided in the situation.
I admit that i proposed some laws ans rules at playing the NPC leaders but players had to decide whether they accept or not those laws and rules.
Cleverly they decided all Founders count twice in votes of the Crown Council and in case of a tie the Baron/Duke/King has one additional vote.
So the players have much control over their kingdom and provide support and delegate responsibility to the NPCs.
Hi,
these some nice laws you designed.
BUT.... why did you make them instead of your 'rulers'?In my group all the players had to provide the laws.
They designed some kind of imperial Rome senate.The players are the Founders Council.
All PCs and the NPCs with a leadership role are the Crown Council.The Founders Council constitutes and decides about the High Law. This includes the confirmation of new leaders in the Crown Council, declarations of war and judging and punishing members of the Crown Council.
The Crown Council decides about the developement of the kingdom and manages the daily duties. More important is the fact that every member of the Crown Council can speak Low Law. These are the rules and laws that suit for all other folks in the kingdom including low nobles.
My players have written down the High Law and decided that the Low Law is provided in the situation.
I admit that i proposed some laws ans rules at playing the NPC leaders but players had to decide whether they accept or not those laws and rules.
Cleverly they decided all Founders count twice in votes of the Crown Council and in case of a tie the Baron/Duke/King has one additional vote.
So the players have much control over their kingdom and provide support and delegate responsibility to the NPCs.
Oh, I am not the dm, I am a player. The dm sent us an email asking for us to come up with ideas of how the kingdom should be organized. This was my contribution. It is based on initial discussions we had as a group (when we decided on a 'high council') and its fleshed out from there. All but 3 of the high council seats are PCs (we are a big party), so it is in fact the party dictating terms and the laws, this is just a framework.
Cool stuff.
I like it, even if your kingdom is a little too feudal and militaristic for my personal taste. My group has done some similar things, and just wrote out their first set of laws (starting third part of the AP tonight). Things like this really can add flavor and realism to a Kingmaker campaign and I applaud you. It should make your experience much more rewarding than if you were just running through the encounters and main story line and building your kingdom by the numbers.
One thing, as a policy wonk, that I recommend you consider for your fledgling kingdom. Where do shopkeepers, skilled craftsmen and other businessmen fit? These folks have considerable resources, and are absolutely vital to the success of your kingdom, even if they are not performing military or other community service. I think they would eventually demand some say in how the kingdom is being run. Lots of different ways that can be accomplished, but just something for you to consider.
The purpose is to give us context in which to roleplay with the npcs. We realized early in the first session of KM #2 that we dont really know what we are to our subjects, what they are to us. By creating a system of laws it gives us a framework to interact.
If my dm wants to give us a bonus to stability or something for working this out, that's great, but it isn't my purpose.
Ok, roleplaying it is. It might help to know the alignment of the kingdom and the general alignment of the group.
Random thoughts/reactions;
1- "Any interference with this right is to be considered treason" seems awfully harsh.
2- I would suggest a law or 2 concerning magic.
Cool stuff.I like it, even if your kingdom is a little too feudal and militaristic for my personal taste. My group has done some similar things, and just wrote out their first set of laws (starting third part of the AP tonight). Things like this really can add flavor and realism to a Kingmaker campaign and I applaud you. It should make your experience much more rewarding than if you were just running through the encounters and main story line and building your kingdom by the numbers.
One thing, as a policy wonk, that I recommend you consider for your fledgling kingdom. Where do shopkeepers, skilled craftsmen and other businessmen fit? These folks have considerable resources, and are absolutely vital to the success of your kingdom, even if they are not performing military or other community service. I think they would eventually demand some say in how the kingdom is being run. Lots of different ways that can be accomplished, but just something for you to consider.
Well one of the classic tropes of fuedal and fantasy settings is the conflict between the Merchant class (essentially wealthy commoners) and the Nobility (people with actual titles). I have always found that conflict rather interesting and wouldnt mind exploring it in game if the dm is interested.
That said, what about this?
Holder: Any Freeman skilled in a Trade or of Sufficient means can enter the service of a Lord or Vassal. In doing so they have the rights of a citizen when acting in the capacity of that service. In exchange they are considered part of the Lord or Vassals house and must pay a tithe to said lord.
Ok, roleplaying it is. It might help to know the alignment of the kingdom and the general alignment of the group.Random thoughts/reactions;
1- "Any interference with this right is to be considered treason" seems awfully harsh.
2- I would suggest a law or 2 concerning magic.
Alignments are pretty varied in the party, though we are in the process of removing the current magister who is a dread necromancer conversion. That will certainly bring the balance of party alignment away from the 'dark side'.
As for the penalties for interfering with rights, it is meant to be harsh. These rights are supposed to be inviolet. If you only get a slap on the wrist for violating them, they dont mean much do they?
And as for magic, the laws are the same as they are for everything else. Dont be treasonous, dont steal, dont destroy property, dont harm or kill. Assuming you follow those guidelines, you may use magic as you wish so long as you do not violate the Rights of others.
Alignments are pretty varied in the party, though we are in the process of removing the current magister who is a dread necromancer conversion. That will certainly bring the balance of party alignment away from the 'dark side'.
Ok, roleplaying it is. It might help to know the alignment of the kingdom and the general alignment of the group.Random thoughts/reactions;
1- "Any interference with this right is to be considered treason" seems awfully harsh.
2- I would suggest a law or 2 concerning magic.
What is the alignment of the Kingdom?
As for the penalties for interfering with rights, it is meant to be harsh. These rights are supposed to be inviolet. If you only get a slap on the wrist for violating them, they dont mean much do they?
But the penalty of Treason is "Death, Permanent Imprisonment, Exhile". That penalty for the listed rights is way too harsh. IMHO there is a disconnect between the rights (which seem civilized) and the punishment (which seem barbaric).
And as for magic, the laws are the same as they are for everything else. Dont be treasonous, dont steal, dont destroy property, dont harm or kill. Assuming you follow those guidelines, you may use magic as you wish so long as you do not violate the Rights of others.
You really need to account for the magicalness of the world. There are spells which should be taken into account that don't harm or kill, etc... Detect Thoughts, can I really use it on everyone I meet. Zone of Truth, Hypnotism, Charm Person..., a clever player is going to run circles around your laws. And thats only a few low level spells. Is an awakened cow person or property? What if the king dies, a new king is crowned and then the old king is raised. Who is king?
...so long as they obey the Council’s law including direct orders by the council and their subordinates.
I have to admit, I found the inclusion of this phrase in the various "Rights" to be offputting. It basically means that any member of the Council, or anyone working for them, can give direct orders to anyone in the kingdom, and those orders must be obeyed as if they were the law of the land?
Which subordinates are allowed to do this? If it's limited to the "High Ministers" (or some other term that indicates only those in the limited number of official Leadership roles), that's completely different from if it applies to anyone working for any government ministry, military officers, and other bureaucrats.
But even more important - what restrictions are there on these "direct orders"? Some examples:
"There's a monster coming down the main street. You, peasant, go get in its path so it slows down to eat you, while I go fetch my friends to battle it."
"I like that magic item, shopkeeper. Give it to me!"
"Give me your daughter!"
If I were a skilled craftsman or merchant considering relocating to this new kingdom, this phrase would worry me. A lot.
You really need to account for the magicalness of the world. There are spells which should be taken into account that don't harm or kill, etc... Detect Thoughts, can I really use it on everyone I meet. Zone of Truth, Hypnotism, Charm Person..., a clever player is going to run circles around your laws. And thats only a few low level spells. Is an awakened cow person or property? What if the king dies, a new king is crowned and then the old king is raised. Who is king?
That is why the laws rely ultimately on the council's judgement. Like all medival laws they dont cover every eventuality. The council, or a magistrate could easily rule that charm spells infringe upon the subject's rights (such as right to speak their mind, or live and work). And as you have said, the penalties for these are rather harsh. The law relies less on it's letter and more on those who enforce it.
If i tried to make them air tight they would be tomes (like there are in actual laws). I dont plan on writing something the size of the core rules for this.
As for the harshness, I am ok with that. This isnt modern america, this is a mideval world. Mideval law is harsh.
...so long as they obey the Council’s law including direct orders by the council and their subordinates.I have to admit, I found the inclusion of this phrase in the various "Rights" to be offputting. It basically means that any member of the Council, or anyone working for them, can give direct orders to anyone in the kingdom, and those orders must be obeyed as if they were the law of the land?
Which subordinates are allowed to do this? If it's limited to the "High Ministers" (or some other term that indicates only those in the limited number of official Leadership roles), that's completely different from if it applies to anyone working for any government ministry, military officers, and other bureaucrats.
But even more important - what restrictions are there on these "direct orders"? Some examples:
"There's a monster coming down the main street. You, peasant, go get in its path so it slows down to eat you, while I go fetch my friends to battle it."
"I like that magic item, shopkeeper. Give it to me!"
"Give me your daughter!"If I were a skilled craftsman or merchant considering relocating to this new kingdom, this phrase would worry me. A lot.
This is where things get complicated. Again this is a medival world the laws are not meant to be fair. At the same time these are not meant to pave the way for abuse. A council member that said 'you there, go get eaten' would be likely be brought up on charges by other council members (some of them good). The checks and balances for this law are really the other members of the party. Any citizen would have recourse for this sort of thing. The text in the rights does not over-rule the actual laws.
The point of that line is simple, there has to be some limit on the rights. If a horde of monsters are comming the council needs the ability to clear the streets. There has to be a way to curtail them in extreme circumstances, and I am not about to write out the massive law tome that would be required to do that without having loop holes or without having room for abuse by the council members.
This is where things get complicated. Again this is a medival world the laws are not meant to be fair. At the same time these are not meant to pave the way for abuse. A council member that said 'you there, go get eaten' would be likely be brought up on charges by other council members (some of them good). The checks and balances for this law are really the other members of the party. Any citizen would have recourse for this sort of thing. The text in the rights does not over-rule the actual laws.
The point of that line is simple, there has to be some limit on the rights. If a horde of monsters are comming the council needs the ability to clear the streets. There has to be a way to curtail them in extreme circumstances, and I am not about to write out the massive law tome that would...
Fair enough. I agree that you can't create a complete multi-volume law code. And you know your group - we don't.
I'll admit, it just made me concerned because I've (unfortunately) played with several people over the years who would create a line like that on purpose, fully intending to abuse it outrageously. But I've also played with many more people I can trust not to be abusive gits...
This is where things get complicated. Again this is a medival world the laws are not meant to be fair. At the same time these are not meant to pave the way for abuse. A council member that said 'you there, go get eaten' would be likely be brought up on charges by other council members (some of them good). The checks and balances for this law are really the other members of the party. Any citizen would have recourse for this sort of thing. The text in the rights does not over-rule the actual laws.
The point of that line is simple, there has to be some limit on the rights. If a horde of monsters are comming the council needs the ability to clear the streets. There has to be a way to curtail them in extreme circumstances, and I am not about to write out the massive law tome that would...
Fair enough. I agree that you can't create a complete multi-volume law code. And you know your group - we don't.
I'll admit, it just made me concerned because I've (unfortunately) played with several people over the years who would create a line like that on purpose, fully intending to abuse it outrageously. But I've also played with many more people I can trust not to be abusive gits...
I dont plan on abusing it, and the prime minister (the one that would yield the verdict in a criminal case against us) is lawful good. So we wouldnt be able to get away with any major abuses. So for the most part I am not worried about that. I am more worried about being able to keep the common folk in line when things get tough (war and such). And for that we will likely need monarch like authority (the council as a whole has the same power a medieval king would have, just split among the party).
Well one of the classic tropes of fuedal and fantasy settings is the conflict between the Merchant class (essentially wealthy commoners) and the Nobility (people with actual titles). I have always found that conflict rather interesting and wouldnt mind exploring it in game if the dm is interested.
That said, what about this?
Holder: Any Freeman skilled in a Trade or of Sufficient means can enter the service of a Lord or Vassal. In doing so they have the rights of a citizen when acting in the capacity of that service. In exchange they are considered part of the Lord or Vassals house and must pay a tithe to said lord.
Sounds like a decent idea. In my own campaign, the prominent citizens of the capital have just petitioned the Baroness successfully to form an "Advisory Council of Notables" which will act in an advisory capacity to the Baroness and other rulers. Participants are determined by vote of land or business-owning citizens, subject to approval by the Baroness. Thus far, they have not established any other nobles beyond the party members and now the Lord Mayor of Tatzlford, but that will undoubtedly come. I also plan to eventually have the Advisory Council weigh in on such issues as tax rates and trade agreements, and give opinions on what improvements get built next. It gives me a tool as GM to subtly influence them to do things they should be doing, without taking the decisions out of their hands. The Baroness is a hugely charismatic young sorceress who also spends money freely and invests a lot of time building up her relationship with her subjects, and she is hugely popular, so the Advisory Council has no reason to try and take power away from her, and no reason to believe they could even if they tried. Instead, they just seek to influence and she seems willing to listen to their opinions. I could see this interaction playing out lots of different ways with different types of rulers, though.
Sounds like a decent idea. In my own campaign, the prominent citizens of the capital have just petitioned the Baroness successfully to form an "Advisory Council of Notables" which will act in an advisory capacity to the Baroness and other rulers. Participants are determined by vote of land or business-owning citizens, subject to approval by the Baroness. Thus far, they have not established any other nobles beyond the party members and now the Lord Mayor of Tatzlford, but that will undoubtedly come. I also plan to eventually have the Advisory Council weigh in on such issues as tax rates and trade agreements, and give opinions on what improvements get built next. It gives me a tool as GM to subtly influence them to do things they should be doing, without taking the decisions out of their hands. The Baroness is a hugely charismatic young sorceress who also spends money freely and invests a lot of time building up her relationship with her subjects, and she is hugely popular, so the Advisory Council has no reason to try and take power away from her, and no reason to believe they could even if they tried. Instead, they just seek to influence and she seems willing to listen to their opinions. I could see this interaction playing out lots of different ways with different types of rulers, though.Well one of the classic tropes of fuedal and fantasy settings is the conflict between the Merchant class (essentially wealthy commoners) and the Nobility (people with actual titles). I have always found that conflict rather interesting and wouldnt mind exploring it in game if the dm is interested.
That said, what about this?
Holder: Any Freeman skilled in a Trade or of Sufficient means can enter the service of a Lord or Vassal. In doing so they have the rights of a citizen when acting in the capacity of that service. In exchange they are considered part of the Lord or Vassals house and must pay a tithe to said lord.
Certainly the dm should have some influence over things, and of course he will in this system. 4 of the council seats are held by npcs. That is a pretty considerable voice in a group of 12 votes. That and our Prime Minister who would decide our fates should there be criminal charges (possibly brought by one of the 4 npc council members) is a lawful good caviler that isn't likely to allow us to get away with any serious abuse.
I know the system seems very feudal and I wanted it to be that way for the feel of it, but they are some very serious checks and balances built in based on the specific circumstances of the game.
Edit:
My dm and I also had a conversation and we will be adding in a clause to allow the council to grant with a majority vote a hex (at least) of land to a deserving citizen and thus granting them the title of vassal (with both the rights and the responsibilities attached). So there would be room for the nobility to eventually expand.
Hey, this is Kolo's DM, here is the latest (and hopefully final) draft of the 'Constitution':
Positions of Society:
High Council – Leaders of the kingdom, have the highest overall authority. They are the ultimate authority within their zone of influence. A High Council member may challenge the edicts of any other High Council member or a member of the Low Council. Any challenge may only be overturned with a majority vote of the High Council. Council positions are life appointments.
The Position of Prime Minister: the Prime Minister is 'first among equals'. He may make any decisions in proxy for any Council members who are not present or otherwise incapacitated. This includes votes during a trial.
Only a majority vote by the High Council (including the accused) can bring a High Council member up on charges for any crime. After that a trial is held, and decision is rendered by the Prime minister. In the event the Prime Minister is the one being tried, the Councilor renders the decision. If convicted of a capital crime, a High Council member is removed from office and replaced by majority vote of the remaining high council. A High council member can only otherwise be removed by a 2/3 vote by the high council. A High Council cannot abstain from voting.
Low Council – Secondary leaders of the kingdom. They may act in proxy for the members of the High Council. The Low Council is made up of the second in commands of all the High Council members who assist them in the execution of their duties and act with their authority in the matters of their Bailiwick. All Low Council members are Retainers of their respective Lords. They have the authority to give orders to anyone, besides a High Council member, within their bailiwick.
A majority vote of either the High or Low Council can bear criminal charges against a member. Trial is held amongst the High Council members in a majority vote. A Low Council member is replaced by the immediate superior. A Low Council member can only otherwise be removed by a 2/3 vote by the High or Low Council. A ruling of the Low Council may be appealed to the High Council. A member from either council may abstain from voting.
Vassal – Land Holding Noble. Required to provide taxes based on their lands, and contribute retainers to military and civilian offices. Should someone wish to become a Vassal they must provide the kingdom with at least 2 hexes worth of land cleared and explored and have at least 100 retainers to provide administration and protection, as well as freemen to work and tend to the land. Each vassal must provide at least 25 retainers per hex to military and civilian offices.
A vassal has the right to bring charges before the High Council in case of any grievance. Such proceedings would be handled by the Prime Minister himself. A vassal may not be detained until the conclusion of such proceedings.
A majority vote by the high council can grant explored, cleared and claimed land(at least one hex) controlled by the kingdom (and not another vassal) to a citizen or retainer they deem as worthy of that honor. The individual then becomes a vassal with all the rights and responsibilities there in.
Retainer – Knights, Squires, and Quartermasters, who are beholden to a Vassal or Lord of the Council, and are required to perform services for the kingdom (according to their skill) when called upon. A retainer has the right to bring and face charges before the Councilor and a panel of his magistrates in case of any grievance, for a trial. A retainer may not be detained except on direct order of the High Council, or at the conclusion of such proceedings.
Citizen – In order to gain citizenship a freeman must give 5 years of military service, or 10 years of civilian service (under the non-military high council members such as Councilor or Head Diplomat) in order to gain citizenship. All citizens receive a piece of land sufficient to provide for a household, upon completion of their service They may continue that service as long as they are able if they wish or retire after the 5/10 year period. In case of any grievance a citizen has the right to bring it before one of the Councilor's Magistrates for a summary judgment.
A citizen may only be detained by order of a Magistrate (or higher authority) or if they commit a crime directly witnessed by agents of the law (Marshal/Warden’s men).
Holder – Any Freeman skilled in a trade or of sufficient means can enter the service of a Lord or Vassal. In doing so they have the rights of a citizen when acting in the capacity of that service. In exchange they are considered part of the Lord or Vassals house and must pay a tithe to said Lord. This includes individuals such as merchants, members of guilds, or the individual owners of trade services (such as smiths, carpenters, or inn keepers).
They must remain a part of their Lord or Vassal's house until an agreed-upon amount is paid to said Lord. In this way an individual may receive 'sponsorship' to become a citizen.
Steadholder - Any Citizen can be tasked by a Vassal or Lord to maintain and manage their lands. In relation to any issues that occur on the lands he is responsible for, a steadholder has the same rights as a retainer.
Freeman – Any normal person living within the kingdom. A freeman has the right to work and live on the lands of a noble (or Council Lords), and in return pay a tithe proportional to the kingdoms current tax rate. Any gouging of freeman (tithe being charged not in line with the current tax rate) will be punished by the seizing of lands held by that noble. All freeman have the right to leave the lands they are on at any time, but while there, must obey the rule of the Vassal or Lord who owns them. Freeman cannot themselves bring up charges to the courts, however their Lords/Vassals can bring charges to the Magistrates in the name of any freeman residing on their lands.
Vassals have the right and responsibility to enforce the Council’s Law on Freeman who occupy their lands.
Crimes:
Treason – Providing assistance, comfort, or information to enemies of the Kingdom, and acting directly against it’s interests.
Sentence – Death, Permanent Imprisonment, Exile(this is reserved exclusively for people duped into treason).
Murder – Killing of another person within the kingdom without justification.
Sentence – Death, Permanent Imprisonment .
Theft – Unlawful removal or destruction of property. This includes larceny, robbery, destruction of property, fraud, tax evasion, and corruption.
Sentence – Payment of value for removed/damaged property once to the victim and once to the crown (Nobles are responsible for this payment of their retainers/steadholders in the event they themselves cannot pay), and one of the following:
– Up to 10 years of indentured servitude in service of the victim. The accused can choose to instead pay the value of the years of labor instead. Should the accused not be able to pay the first part of the sentence, the value of that fine is also to be added to the term of servitude.
– Imprisonment of a term to be set by the presiding authority (this is reserved for repeat offenders).
Assault – Physical harm to any person or persons in the realm.
Sentence – Payment of any medical treatment required by the victim, and a matching payment to be made to the realm (anyone not able to pay must enter indentured servitude to work off the debt) as well as:
– Up to 5 years indentured servitude in service of the victim or
– Up to 10 years imprisonment set by the Presiding Authority.
Attempted Crimes – If it can be proven an individual attempted to commit a crime but was otherwise unsuccessful, they may be tried as if they had, in deed, committed the crime.
Restrictions:
All rates and lengths of servitude are to be based on the prevailing wages of a worker of the charged individual's skill.
The victim has the right to determine the nature of the service the accused is to provide in the case of such a sentence. These services should coincide with the known skills of the accused, and are subject to judgment by the prevailing authority.
Time spent in indentured servitude that is within military or civilian service does not count towards the time needed for citizenship in the event the accused is not a citizen.
During servitude the accused retains any rights, standings, or property they previously held (besides what might be forfeited to pay a fine) but must obey all reasonable requests by the victim in service of their duty. Failure to do so requires a re-evaluation of sentence by the presiding authority over the original case.
Rights of all:
The First Right
All people have a right to live and work within the kingdom regardless of race so long as they obey the Council’s law including direct orders by the council and their subordinates. Any interference with this right is to be considered by law the crime of theft (removal of ones ability to live and work is akin to stealing their wages).
The Second Right
All people have a right to speak their minds and gather in public or in private as they see fit, so long as they obey the Council’s law including direct orders by the council and their subordinates. Any interference with this right is to be considered treason.
The Third Right
All people have the right to bear grievances in open meetings(schedule of which will be no less then 8 hours once a week in the capital) of the Low Council, which if deemed appropriate by Low Council members will be dealt with or brought before the High Council. Any intervention with this right is to be considered treason (preventing members of the kingdom, even freemen, from bearing their grievances before the Low Council harms the kingdom on a fundamental level). This right extends to any freeman or citizen wishing to bring a grievance against a Low or High Council member.
The Fourth Right
All people have the right to basic property, even freemen. A man’s home and his possessions may not be taken without the authority of law. A landholder has the right to evict a freeman but must pay the freeman a fair value of any home that must be left behind. Any eviction gains precedence over other cases in being brought as a grievance before the low council.
The Fifth Right
All people have the right to bring crimes to the attention of Wardens/Marshals for investigation. If in the course of that investigation officers of the Council's Law determine a crime has been committed, the office of the Councilor will determine further action. Interference with this right is to be considered treason under the Council's Law.
The Sixth Right
All people have the right to bear grievance against another individual in the form of juris macto. Both parties must agree to the duel and both parties must have a second to represent their interests. There must also be a Council Magistrate and a neutral witness to the events. The seconds meet and decide the terms and time/location of the duel. All duels must happen on public land.
The seconds must agree to weapons for the duel and the means of conclusion (wounding, death, submission, first blood, incapacitation etc). Once agreed upon these options are presented to the witness and the duelers. If the seconds cannot come to terms they can request arbitration by one of the Council Magistrates.
Anyone can in fact reject a duel, though you may be considered a coward if you do. You are not responsible for harm done to your opponent in the course of a duel.
In a duel to the death, any individual who cheats or deceives the Magistrate automatically forfeits both the duel and life. If you are the one challenged in the duel, a champion may stand in your stead, though the champion must be presented in a timely fashion. If, in the course of the duel, your champion is defeated (ie: killed) your life is also forfeit.
I approve of the idea of a council instead of a king. After all, this is the River Kingdoms, they do not like courts and kings, and in such a demanding realm, having a meritocratic oligarchy (which is the only thing I can really think of calling a group of PCs that might need to change out some positions when someone dies during adventuring) is much more logical.
Also removes having to deal with one player being in charge and telling the other players what to do, which not a whole lot of people appreciate.
Hey, this is Kolo's DM, here is the latest (and hopefully final) draft of the 'Constitution':
and lots more cool stuff
Sounds like a fun kingdom. Rock on.
Actually, i would anticipate the Constitution being changed fairly frequently as new things crop up. We Americans are actually kind of weird in that we have both made it very difficult to amend our Constitution and (some of us) have invested our founding fathers with almost godlike qualities and are reluctant to change their original work. That's definitely the exception rather than the rule worldwide, though, and most countries change their constitutions regularly.
One other area y'all might want to consider is the regulation of magic, particularly enchantment magic such as charms, domination, etc. And then, of course, the use of destructive magic or necromancy inside cities is also an issue. Folks without magical abilities will always be at the mercy of magic abusers (phrase coined by one of my players) if there are no controls. Also, given that spells to divine truth or force witnesses to tell the truth can have a profound effect on the justice system, if permitted.
Another thought is what religions will be permitted. Some of the evil gods are pretty nasty and antisocial, and it is questionable whether their open worship should be permitted in any civilized area.
Just sprinkling food for thought, if you are so inclined. What y'all have done so far is impressive and my tankard is raised to you.
I approve of the idea of a council instead of a king. After all, this is the River Kingdoms, they do not like courts and kings, and in such a demanding realm, having a meritocratic oligarchy (which is the only thing I can really think of calling a group of PCs that might need to change out some positions when someone dies during adventuring) is much more logical.
Also removes having to deal with one player being in charge and telling the other players what to do, which not a whole lot of people appreciate.
Actually, my group is steadfastly rejecting being identified as a River Kingdom. Most of them have their origins either in Brevoy or the dwarven kingdoms of the Five Kings Mountains, and they look down on the River Kingdoms as little more than bandit lords with pretensions. Many of their immigrants come from the River Kingdoms, however, and have been pressing the rulers to adopt the River Freedoms. The Baroness and her Council have accepted some but not all and written them into their laws. They've had diplomatic engagement with Mivon and Pitax, primarily to set borders to limit potential expansion(successfully with Mivon, but not with Pitax), but don't think much of either neighbor.
Good and valid point about one player being in charge, and you're right that that isn't the way it usually works in a party. Strangely enough, though, some of the players have begun to defer decisions to the Baroness, particularly when dealing with diplomatic and political issues. Out in the field adventuring, however, she isn't even the party leader, and defers to the dwarven fighter (General) and the cleric of Cayden Cailean.
Hey, this is Kolo's DM, here is the latest (and hopefully final) draft of the 'Constitution':
and lots more cool stuff
Sounds like a fun kingdom. Rock on.
Actually, i would anticipate the Constitution being changed fairly frequently as new things crop up. We Americans are actually kind of weird in that we have both made it very difficult to amend our Constitution and (some of us) have invested our founding fathers with almost godlike qualities and are reluctant to change their original work. That's definitely the exception rather than the rule worldwide, though, and most countries change their constitutions regularly.
I feel like any situation not explicately covered in the constitution should be handled by a council vote. That is why there is a council here. Once you start trying to write law to cover every situation you end up with insane tomes (like US federal law for instance). The system depends on the judgement of the individuals in power. In the real world, this is a dangerous thing, but in a story ABOUT the PCs where they are in fact the 'right ones for the job' an oligarcy of this nature makes perfect sense.
I expect this to keep this fairly stable, but perhaps we could add a clause, 'A unanimous vote by the high council can make an alternation to this constitution. In this case, proxy votes may not be cast. All members of the Council must be present in order for such a vote to occur'
One other area y'all might want to consider is the regulation of magic, particularly enchantment magic such as charms, domination, etc. And then, of course, the use of destructive magic or necromancy inside cities is also an issue. Folks without magical abilities will always be at the mercy of magic abusers (phrase coined by one of my players) if there are no controls. Also, given that spells to divine truth or force witnesses to tell the truth can have a profound effect on the justice system, if permitted.
This is for the Magister to decide. He and his staff will have direct oversight of magic in the kingdom. I dont believe there is a need for specific laws as again, the more detail you add the more loopholes you create. The laws for murder, assault, and theft are intentionally vague, destructive magic can be dealt with in that order. In terms of banning or restricting certain kinds of magic, that is for the Magister's Proclamations to manage, not the constitution.
Another thought is what religions will be permitted. Some of the evil gods are pretty nasty and antisocial, and it is questionable whether their open worship should be permitted in any civilized area.
It would seem we are going to be pretty open about it. Our first Vassal is the Kobold leader Sootscale, and his people have apparently decided to worship my character (and while he did not seek it out, he sure as heck embraced it). But I would imagine again that any restriction ought to come down from the High Priest rather then be written into the constitution.
Just sprinkling food for thought, if you are so inclined. What y'all have done so far is impressive and my tankard is raised to you.
Thanks, my hopes are this will add to the game, and give us a framework to interact with our world. I also hope it inspires other kingmakers to flesh out their kingdoms as well.
I approve of the idea of a council instead of a king. After all, this is the River Kingdoms, they do not like courts and kings, and in such a demanding realm, having a meritocratic oligarchy (which is the only thing I can really think of calling a group of PCs that might need to change out some positions when someone dies during adventuring) is much more logical.
Also removes having to deal with one player being in charge and telling the other players what to do, which not a whole lot of people appreciate.
Well that was the driving force behind the idea of a council in the first place. Having a party leader pretty much never works in our group. Particularly because it is a large group (8 players plus the dm). Things are always done on a consensus basis, this just makes it official. That and I have been reading the Calderans Furies series and a new book in the world of the First Law Trilogy (Heroes) lately, so I was inspired to do some politicing.
Mind telling us your kingdom's alignment? Ours is NG and my players are avoiding to set the rules (I expect them to be a lot simpler but personal judgement-based like yours).
|
Veri good idea and I think I will borrow part of it, but this part leave me perplexed:
Citizen – In order to gain citizenship a freeman must give 5 years of military service, or 10 years of civilian service (under the non-military high council members such as Councilor or Head Diplomat) in order to gain citizenship. All citizens receive a piece of land sufficient to provide for a household, upon completion of their service They may continue that service as long as they are able if they wish or retire after the 5/10 year period. In case of any grievance a citizen has the right to bring it before one of the Councilor's Magistrates for a summary judgment.
A citizen may only be detained by order of a Magistrate (or higher authority) or if they commit a crime directly witnessed by agents of the law (Marshal/Warden’s men).Freeman – Any normal person living within the kingdom. A freeman has the right to work and live on the lands of a noble (or Council Lords), and in return pay a tithe proportional to the kingdoms current tax rate. Any gouging of freeman (tithe being charged not in line with the current tax rate) will be punished by the seizing of lands held by that noble. All freeman have the right to leave the lands they are on at any time, but while there, must obey the rule of the Vassal or Lord who owns them. Freeman cannot themselves bring up charges to the courts, however their Lords/Vassals can bring charges to the Magistrates in the name of any freeman residing on their lands.
Vassals have the right and responsibility to enforce the Council’s Law on Freeman who occupy their lands.
You are funding a new kingdom onto inhabitated lands (albeit with a scarce population).
So the guy that has "owned" a pierce of land for the last 20 years, defending it from bandits and monster as soon as the area where he live get annexed by the kingdom lose all his rights to the land in favour of the ruling council that can later assign it to anybody that please them?
For example Oleg lose his trading post if you decide to found the city there?
I would resist with any mean to my disposition against annexion.
|
I approve of the idea of a council instead of a king. After all, this is the River Kingdoms, they do not like courts and kings, and in such a demanding realm, having a meritocratic oligarchy (which is the only thing I can really think of calling a group of PCs that might need to change out some positions when someone dies during adventuring) is much more logical.
Also removes having to deal with one player being in charge and telling the other players what to do, which not a whole lot of people appreciate.
Actually, my group is steadfastly rejecting being identified as a River Kingdom. Most of them have their origins either in Brevoy or the dwarven kingdoms of the Five Kings Mountains, and they look down on the River Kingdoms as little more than bandit lords with pretensions. Many of their immigrants come from the River Kingdoms, however, and have been pressing the rulers to adopt the River Freedoms. The Baroness and her Council have accepted some but not all and written them into their laws. They've had diplomatic engagement with Mivon and Pitax, primarily to set borders to limit potential expansion(successfully with Mivon, but not with Pitax), but don't think much of either neighbor.
Good and valid point about one player being in charge, and you're right that that isn't the way it usually works in a party. Strangely enough, though, some of the players have begun to defer decisions to the Baroness, particularly when dealing with diplomatic and political issues. Out in the field adventuring, however, she isn't even the party leader, and defers to the dwarven fighter (General) and the cleric of Cayden Cailean.
I agree. My character hates the chaotic nature of the River Kingdoms. He is here to establish law & order. He is actually from Taldor. I fully intend to mold a new empire in the River Kingdoms. My DM is really great with the role playing, but hates evil characters. So I made myself LN and so is the kingdom. The DM also warns to be careful because of the River Freedoms. I have adopted several of them. Though the one about having what you hold seems to me to start a lot of fights and am preparing to change that. He says to be careful because the settlers are from the River Kingdoms and are very protective of their rights. My response is so was Rome until Julius Ceasar showed that they could be conquerors instead.
As for Goverment, we went with the traditional Baron and council. IN theory I could over rule anyone of them. However, I play my character as realizing he doesn't know everything (unsual for a PC, I know). There currently four PC's. One more may be joining shortly. We are all on the council.So far this has worked. Our DM adds alot of personal stuff for our characters. So most of them are too busy to worry about ruling. just so you know, I am playing a sorceror with the INfernal Bloodline. I am evil and ruthless to my enemies or the enemies of MY kingdom. However i am also very loyal and generous to friends and henchmen. I don't send people off to die for no reason. Hence, the LN alignment.
One question, any thoughts on forging the "First River Empire."
One question, any thoughts on forging the "First River Empire."
My group, which has some folks who enjoy military-type campaigns, was looking in the same direction originally, and their long-term plans included conquering the River Kingdoms, which they view as ripe for the plucking (all in the name of establishing law and protecting decency, of course). I suspect the River Kingdoms, despite their lack of cohesion, would put more of a fight than would appear likely at first glance. Even if conquered, they'd be hell to try and rule. I'd foresee lots of terrorist actions and insurrection boiling just under the surface, particularly if any new government tried to take away the freedoms these peope cherish. My group has since been distracted by other events, which I won't get into here, since you haven't played through them yet, but they might get back to their plans for conquest eventually.
As for your own kingdom, there is nothing that says the majority of your new citizens come from the River Kingdoms. Certainly that is a likely source, but you can make an even more compelling case that many of them come from Brevoy, which is, after all, the sponsor of the new kingdom. In my group, the new kingdom has a population mix about like this: 35% Brevoy, 35% River Kingdoms, 10% Numeria, 10% Galt, 5% Dwarves from Five Kingdoms (two party members are dwarves and one is an active 9th Battalion member who has been actively recruiting dwarven immigrants), and 5% Other. So it is only a minority who are used to the River Freedoms and want them established in the Duchy of the Elk.
|
One question, any thoughts on forging the "First River Empire."
My group, which has some folks who enjoy military-type campaigns, was looking in the same direction originally, and their long-term plans included conquering the River Kingdoms, which they view as ripe for the plucking (all in the name of establishing law and protecting decency, of course). I suspect the River Kingdoms, despite their lack of cohesion, would put more of a fight than would appear likely at first glance. Even if conquered, they'd be hell to try and rule. I'd foresee lots of terrorist actions and insurrection boiling just under the surface, particularly if any new government tried to take away the freedoms these peope cherish. My group has since been distracted by other events, which I won't get into here, since you haven't played through them yet, but they might get back to their plans for conquest eventually.
As for your own kingdom, there is nothing that says the majority of your new citizens come from the River Kingdoms. Certainly that is a likely source, but you can make an even more compelling case that many of them come from Brevoy, which is, after all, the sponsor of the new kingdom. In my group, the new kingdom has a population mix about like this: 35% Brevoy, 35% River Kingdoms, 10% Numeria, 10% Galt, 5% Dwarves from Five Kingdoms (two party members are dwarves and one is an active 9th Battalion member who has been actively recruiting dwarven immigrants), and 5% Other. So it is only a minority who are used to the River Freedoms and want them established in the Duchy of the Elk.
Brian, I'd appreciate it if you share how you expand the campaign through conquest. My group also has the same ideas. They will be tweaking the river kingdom freedoms.
|
|
As for your own kingdom, there is nothing that says the majority of your new citizens come from the River Kingdoms. Certainly that is a likely source, but you can make an even more compelling case that many of them come from Brevoy, which is, after all, the sponsor of the new kingdom. In my group, the new kingdom has a population mix about like this: 35% Brevoy, 35% River Kingdoms, 10% Numeria, 10% Galt, 5% Dwarves from Five Kingdoms (two party members are dwarves and one is an active 9th Battalion member who has been actively recruiting dwarven immigrants), and 5% Other. So it is only a minority who are used to the River Freedoms and want them established in the Duchy of the Elk.
One likely source of immigrates are the escaped/freed slaves from Cheliax.
Apparently Druma is a common "first stop" for them in the road to become rich, but most of them fail against the head start and advantages of the local competition (especially if they aren't of humans) and have good reasons to move on to a new kingdom.If you offer the right perks you can get a large halfling population.
|
|
We are also getting quite a few exiled nobles and knights from Galt. We welcome them and help get them back on their feet. They give us a nobility.
Also, many people misunderstand what I say. We will NOT militariy try to conquer the River Kingdoms. For one, There is no way we have the resources. I was thinking an Empire more like the Holy Roman Empire (not to be confused with the Roman Empire). Each kingdom will have it's own Prince, Duke, Baron, etc. There will be a central Government to regulate trade and combine resources in times of "extreme need." (For some reason I believe there will be alot of those. I must be psychic.)
Plus, if you have the Book of the River Kingdoms, look at the map. There is a lot of territory not under anyone's jurisdiction.
Brian, I'd appreciate it if you share how you expand the campaign through conquest. My group also has the same ideas. They will be tweaking the river kingdom freedoms.One question, any thoughts on forging the "First River Empire."
My group, which has some folks who enjoy military-type campaigns, was looking in the same direction originally, and their long-term plans included conquering the River Kingdoms, which they view as ripe for the plucking (all in the name of establishing law and protecting decency, of course). I suspect the River Kingdoms, despite their lack of cohesion, would put more of a fight than would appear likely at first glance. Even if conquered, they'd be hell to try and rule. I'd foresee lots of terrorist actions and insurrection boiling just under the surface, particularly if any new government tried to take away the freedoms these peope cherish. My group has since been distracted by other events, which I won't get into here, since you haven't played through them yet, but they might get back to their plans for conquest eventually.
As for your own kingdom, there is nothing that says the majority of your new citizens come from the River Kingdoms. Certainly that is a likely source, but you can make an even more compelling case that many of them come from Brevoy, which is, after all, the sponsor of the new kingdom. In my group, the new kingdom has a population mix about like this: 35% Brevoy, 35% River Kingdoms, 10% Numeria, 10% Galt, 5% Dwarves from Five Kingdoms (two party members are dwarves and one is an active 9th Battalion member who has been actively recruiting dwarven immigrants), and 5% Other. So it is only a minority who are used to the River Freedoms and want them established in the Duchy of the Elk.
Well, they haven't actually done it yet. They have just eyed the map, seen a bunch of unorganized little city-states with unsavory reputations that noone will really miss and started salivating. If and when they get around to it, I'll let them try whatever they want, be it political intrigue, subversion or flatout invasion. This will require me to write up a lot of original material drawing on the Guide to the River Kingdoms booklet, but I'm willing to do the work if that's what they really want to do. Once their kingdom reaches a certain size, they could even be correct in their assessment that the River Kingdoms are ripe for the plucking. As they are each individually kind of small, unless they can unite, they would have a hard time repelling a determined invasion. However, conquering and holding are two very different things. I can foresee a devilishly difficult time keeping the River Kingdoms folk under control, given the number of bandits, river pirates, smugglers, thieves and other rascals that populate the area.
As for your own kingdom, there is nothing that says the majority of your new citizens come from the River Kingdoms. Certainly that is a likely source, but you can make an even more compelling case that many of them come from Brevoy, which is, after all, the sponsor of the new kingdom. In my group, the new kingdom has a population mix about like this: 35% Brevoy, 35% River Kingdoms, 10% Numeria, 10% Galt, 5% Dwarves from Five Kingdoms (two party members are dwarves and one is an active 9th Battalion member who has been actively recruiting dwarven immigrants), and 5% Other. So it is only a minority who are used to the River Freedoms and want them established in the Duchy of the Elk.
One likely source of immigrates are the escaped/freed slaves from Cheliax.
Apparently Druma is a common "first stop" for them in the road to become rich, but most of them fail against the head start and advantages of the local competition (especially if they aren't of humans) and have good reasons to move on to a new kingdom.
If you offer the right perks you can get a large halfling population.
Good point. My group has no halfing party members, so they haven't done anything specifically to encourage halfling immigration, but they have enacted strong anti-slavery laws (slavery is illegal, anyone entering the kingdom with slaves has those slaves confiscated and freed, and is then expelled from the kingdom, second offense leads to incarceration, third offense to execution) which could be a draw.
|
|
Good point. My group has no halfing party members, so they haven't done anything specifically to encourage halfling immigration, but they have enacted strong anti-slavery laws (slavery is illegal, anyone entering the kingdom with slaves has those slaves confiscated and freed, and is then expelled from the kingdom, second offense leads to incarceration, third offense to execution) which could be a draw.
The only problem with that is it will discourage alot of trade from countries like Cheliax or Katapesh that hold slaves. I knwo it won't affect the game mechanics at all, and even in RP it most likely won't comeup, It is something to remember that there are several important culutures that allow slavery. Even in the River Kingdoms, slavery IS outlawed, but they will not forcefully take another's property. This act could anger a lot of powerful people who could possibly make life harder for them. Don't get me wrong, I am totally against slavery myself. I agree outlawing it is preferrable, but I think freeing any slaves who come into your territory is a little extreme, and undiplomatic.
Good point. My group has no halfing party members, so they haven't done anything specifically to encourage halfling immigration, but they have enacted strong anti-slavery laws (slavery is illegal, anyone entering the kingdom with slaves has those slaves confiscated and freed, and is then expelled from the kingdom, second offense leads to incarceration, third offense to execution) which could be a draw. The only problem with that is it will discourage alot of trade from countries like Cheliax or Katapesh that hold slaves. I knwo it won't affect the game mechanics at all, and even in RP it most likely won't comeup, It is something to remember that there are several important culutures that allow slavery. Even in the River Kingdoms, slavery IS outlawed, but they will not forcefully take another's property. This act could anger a lot of powerful people who could possibly make life harder for them. Don't get me wrong, I am totally against slavery myself. I agree outlawing it is preferrable, but I think freeing any slaves who come into your territory is a little extreme, and undiplomatic.
I agree that it is extreme and undiplomatic, and I applaud them for standing on principle. Fortunately, the main slave-trading nations are a long way off and there is little reason to expect there would be much trade with them, anyway. It might become an issue if their policy effects the slave trade to Brevoy. I don't think slavery is a big deal there, but I don't think they have outlawed it either. Their immediate neighbors in the River Kingdoms basically applaud the bold move. Right now the major slave-trading states aren't too concerned with one little upstart duchy in the far north. If they ever do take notice and decide to act, it will likely be somewhat later when the PC kingdom will be much more powerful and able to defend itself. I daresay the attitude of my players at that point will be: Bring It On, Scumbags. If you are looking for a good read, I recommend Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flame series, for a take on what characters with modern sensibilities do when confronted with a typical medieval fantasy world's take on slavery. I loved it and would like to think I'd do the same in their situation.
|
|
The only problem with that is it will discourage alot of trade from countries like Cheliax or Katapesh that hold slaves. I knwo it won't affect the game mechanics at all, and even in RP it most likely won't comeup, It is something to remember that there are several important culutures that allow slavery. Even in the River Kingdoms, slavery IS outlawed, but they will not forcefully take another's property. This act could anger a lot of powerful people who could possibly make life harder for them. Don't get me wrong, I am totally against slavery myself. I agree outlawing it is preferrable, but I think freeing any slaves who come into your territory is a little extreme, and undiplomatic. I agree that it is extreme and undiplomatic, and I applaud them for standing on principle. Fortunately, the main slave-trading nations are a long way off and there is little reason to expect there would be much trade with them, anyway. It might become an issue if their policy effects the slave trade to Brevoy. I don't think slavery is a big deal there, but I don't think they have outlawed it either. Their immediate neighbors in the River Kingdoms basically applaud the bold move. Right now the major slave-trading states aren't too concerned with one little upstart duchy in the far north. If they ever do take notice and decide to act, it will likely be somewhat later when the PC kingdom will be much more powerful and able to defend itself. I daresay the attitude of my players at that point will be: Bring It On, Scumbags. If you are looking for a good read, I...Good point. My group has no halfing party members, so they haven't done anything specifically to encourage halfling immigration, but they have enacted strong anti-slavery laws (slavery is illegal, anyone entering the kingdom with slaves has those slaves confiscated and freed, and is then expelled from the kingdom, second offense leads to incarceration, third offense to execution) which could be a draw.
Thanks for the tip. I will look it up. Also. Don't forget that even if those countries do take exception, at least Andorran will stand by them. :-)
You are funding a new kingdom onto inhabitated lands (albeit with a scarce population).So the guy that has "owned" a pierce of land for the last 20 years, defending it from bandits and monster as soon as the area where he live get annexed by the kingdom lose all his rights to the land in favour of the ruling council that can later assign it to anybody that please them?...
People who own land and choose to join the kingdom enter as part of the nobility. Oleg is in fact on the high council (as treasurer).
Mind telling us your kingdom's alignment? Ours is NG and my players are avoiding to set the rules (I expect them to be a lot simpler but personal judgement-based like yours).
If i am not mistaken our alignment is Lawful Neutral. I dont think something as elaborate as what we came up with is needed, I just kind of got inspired by the moment and went with it, so it ended up being longer then originally intended.
As an update, our first major plot event that interacted with this constitution has occured. The party recently apprehended and then tried and executed the rabble rouser gregori, when he attempted to enchant a crowd of people at a public gathering. He was brought up on charges of violations of the second right. He was later executed for that violation and others that were revealed during the course of his interogation.
The interaction between my character (who noticed and interupted the spell, and made the arrest) and gregori would not have been the same without the framework the consitution provides. I am quite happy with the results and hope many more such opportunities arise.
|
|
You are funding a new kingdom onto inhabitated lands (albeit with a scarce population).So the guy that has "owned" a pierce of land for the last 20 years, defending it from bandits and monster as soon as the area where he live get annexed by the kingdom lose all his rights to the land in favour of the ruling council that can later assign it to anybody that please them?...
People who own land and choose to join the kingdom enter as part of the nobility. Oleg is in fact on the high council (as treasurer).
Didn't sound that way in the charter presented by your DM and if I was a guy with a small parcel of land I would doubt your government willingness to accept me as a noble.
I think you should add the possibility to be accepted directly as a citizen or the possibility for a Freemen to own land.
Your current charter, as presented, say that you treat any people on the recently annexed lands as conquered people with limited rights independently if the lands were annexed by military conquest or peaceful annexation.
I suspect it is not the message you wish to give to the populace of the lands near your kingdom.
Let's assume that I am a guy with a farm consisting of few acres of land, a house, a couple of cows and my family.
I live next to your borders.
What your charter say is that as soon as you wish to extend your borders my way you will seize my land and my house, giving them a noble of your choosing.
If I work in your army for 5 years or in your bureaucracy for 10 I get back what was already mine.
Apparently my sons and daughters will have to do the same to keep the land after me.
What I will get from that is that your state is extremely militaristic (the charter speak of 5 years of military service, not of militia service) and with a powerful bureaucracy.
right for a LN state but I doubt most Brevory or river Kingdom inhabitants will like it.
You are funding a new kingdom onto inhabitated lands (albeit with a scarce population).So the guy that has "owned" a pierce of land for the last 20 years, defending it from bandits and monster as soon as the area where he live get annexed by the kingdom lose all his rights to the land in favour of the ruling council that can later assign it to anybody that please them?...
People who own land and choose to join the kingdom enter as part of the nobility. Oleg is in fact on the high council (as treasurer).
Didn't sound that way in the charter presented by your DM and if I was a guy with a small parcel of land I would doubt your government willingness to accept me as a noble.
I think you should add the possibility to be accepted directly as a citizen or the possibility for a Freemen to own land.
Your current charter, as presented, say that you treat any people on the recently annexed lands as conquered people with limited rights independently if the lands were annexed by military conquest or peaceful annexation.
I suspect it is not the message you wish to give to the populace of the lands near your kingdom.
This is a good point, and small land holders hasnt yet been something we've run into. But there are a few possibilities (existing npcs with small territories that might be added to the kingdom). I will discuss it in character with the council in the next session, possibly promoting an amedment allowing small land holders to enter the kingdom as retainers or steadholders as voted by the council.
|
|
This is a good point, and small land holders hasnt yet been something we've run into. But there are a few possibilities (existing npcs with small territories that might be added to the kingdom). I will discuss it in character with the council in the next session, possibly promoting an amedment allowing small land holders to enter the kingdom as retainers or steadholders as voted by the council.
Added a bit to my post while you were writing.
Yes, I think that adding that would simplify matters with people in the lands adjacent to your kingdom.
My impression of the land is that there is a good numbers of people with small farms (good numbers mean something like 1 family every several square miles of land, like scattered settlers in the far west).
You haven't "noticed" them simply because they have little meaning for adventurers.
When you settle a new hexagon you get 500 new citizens free of charge, those are your small land holders.
This is a good point, and small land holders hasnt yet been something we've run into. But there are a few possibilities (existing npcs with small territories that might be added to the kingdom). I will discuss it in character with the council in the next session, possibly promoting an amedment allowing small land holders to enter the kingdom as retainers or steadholders as voted by the council.Added a bit to my post while you were writing.
Yes, I think that adding that would simplify matters with people in the lands adjacent to your kingdom.
My impression of the land is that there is a good numbers of people with small farms (good numbers mean something like 1 family every several square miles of land, like scattered settlers in the far west).
You haven't "noticed" them simply because they have little meaning for adventurers.When you settle a new hexagon you get 500 new citizens free of charge, those are your small land holders.
The way the dm has presented it, the impression i got were the lands were empty of settled people, and the people we get when we clear and settle a new hex are attracted to the expanded and developed land we are providing (reinforced by the fact that we pay to build farms and roads and such on those lands, instead of claiming roads and farms already present). I could easily have been mistaken so I'll talk to the dm. We are definately LN, but it is most assuredly not our intent to take property away from existing inhabitants when we claim a hex.
|
|
I doubt there is a "true" reply, it all depend on how your master and your group see the area.
Based on the river kingdoms description and those few encounters with local you have in the initial module I see reasons to say that there is a sparse population of trappers, farmers and loners, enough to say it is sparsely settled wilderness and not a totally empty land.
I will avoid spoilers from later modules, but the general description of the area say that the rivers were used to ferry crusaders going to the Worldwound.
If barges moving people along the rivers were reasonably common till recent times I think that at least some people will have settled along the route to cater to the crusaders need.
A rapid check of the second module give me 4 encounters with similar signs of recent inhabitation of the land or with people actually using it.
For me that don't speak of a totally empty land.
|
|
I doubt there is a "true" reply, it all depend on how your master and your group see the area.
Based on the river kingdoms description and those few encounters with local you have in the initial module I see reasons to say that there is a sparse population of trappers, farmers and loners, enough to say it is sparsely settled wilderness and not a totally empty land.
I will avoid spoilers from later modules, but the general description of the area say that the rivers were used to ferry crusaders going to the Worldwound.
If barges moving people along the rivers were reasonably common till recent times I think that at least some people will have settled along the route to cater to the crusaders need.** spoiler omitted **
Agreed. It is not a wasteland devoid of human life. However, it is probably even more sparsely populated because of the heavy bandit activity in the area under the Stag Lord. Many Farmers, hunters, etc have been run off or killed because they wouldn't give in to the bandit's "requests." But, yes I agree there would be farmers,hunters, and trappers in the Greenbelt. Otherwise, where would the bandits get there food? They have to steal it from someone.
Kolo's GM chiming in again.
As far as indigenous people in the Greenbelt, lets take a look at it from a historical p-o-v. For the most part of Europe's history, the 'small people' of the world never really cared how they were ruled. They just cared to be left alone and not have their taxes raised. Mostly, they wish to be left alone. And the players keep it this way. Minor taxes and little police action.
On a side note, my players are barely in their third year of ruling. They have about 15 hexes, and have yet to go south of the Tusk-water or west into the woods. They haven't had the opportunity to interact with populations of 20+ individuals with one exception.
The Soot-scales have been their ally since the Fort. Through discussion, they came to an accord with the players to become fully recognized citizens with their own 'city' adjacent to their old mines.
Another thing: on the subject of religious freedom. The players recently had their run-in with a cult. Kolo was petitioning for a banning of that god in their kingdom. After a nice discussion, the council decided to instead only punish those that break a law and build a cathedral to educate the people. It actually was a great piece of rp-ing and really had the feel of a council discussion.
|
|
Another thing: on the subject of religious freedom. The players recently had their run-in with a cult. Kolo was petitioning for a banning of that god in their kingdom. After a nice discussion, the council decided to instead only punish those that break a law and build a cathedral to educate the people. It actually was a great piece of rp-ing and really had the feel of a council discussion.
Good call I'm wondering how my group handles Gyronna cults.