|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, think of real-world analogues: In the Middle Ages, the King of England didn't rule London directly. The King had holdings both through The Crown and through his family's possessions in various places throughout the kingdom. Actually, historically, kings often *didn't* receive much taxation from their vassals. Instead, what they got was promises of military support and loyalty. Sometimes, this military support would be provided in gold instead of manpower, so it would function as a tax even if it wasn't technically so. The King compelled the fealty of his vassal nobles through a combination of familial power (built through political marriages), personal prestige and charisma, and basic quid quo pro political negotiation.
Similarly in Ustalav. The Prince is a member of the Ordranti family, which has ruled for a long time and has a lot of personal holdings. So he'd be rich and powerful even if none of the counts paid him any taxes directly. What he has instead is the prestige of rulership, and legal authority to command their obedience. What this means it that it's usually in the Counts' best interests to pay the Prince and support him, or else he might throw his influence against them. That could mean anything from withholding any money that they might request from the royal treasury, undermining their families' marriage prospects, or even revoking their title and declaring them to be rebels. But of course any of these actions could have repercussions with the other Counts, and the Prince would have to be careful not to lose their support.
So basically, the Prince's situation is pretty realistic, even if it isn't a very good way to run a country.
|
|
From Rule of Fear, its seems that mainly it was a poor decision made by an insecure new monarch. He was surprised by Barstoi's aggression, and by the time the war was underway he didn't feel that he could stop it. It's one of the consequences of having a weak monarchy; sometimes they're paralyzed by the fear of getting overthrown.
That's also a lot like things that happened in the real Middle Ages.
|
From Rule of Fear, its seems that mainly it was a poor decision made by an insecure new monarch. He was surprised by Barstoi's aggression, and by the time the war was underway he didn't feel that he could stop it. It's one of the consequences of having a weak monarchy; sometimes they're paralyzed by the fear of getting overthrown.
That's also a lot like things that happened in the real Middle Ages.
I'd like to add that it also hinted that, when Count Neska staged his invasion, he made a big ado about the Count of Ardeal being a "traitor" - some of that political-speak may have cause other counts to either support or ingore Neska's warmongering. Varno is mentioned as a county that was aiding Ardeal with troops and supplies.
I took a look at Ustalav and for a political game set their some years ago, divided it between vamps and non vamp nobility (some were holding out), with parts of the country so dangerous (ghouls) that travel was near suicide. Then I threw in Ghoul Ogre mountain tribes.
It was pretty cool.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Ustalav, along with Brevoy and Taldor, is one of the best places in the setting for political games. A good political game needs a higher amount of "realism" in its economic and governmental structures than other game types, so that the players can see believable results of their political actions. I'd say Ustalav has a pretty good setup for this, with the fun added horror wrinkle.
I know I'd very much enjoy playing or running a political intrigue campaign set in Ustalav.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to add that it also hinted that, when Count Neska staged his invasion, he made a big ado about the Count of Ardeal being a "traitor" - some of that political-speak may have cause other counts to either support or ingore Neska's warmongering. Varno is mentioned as a county that was aiding Ardeal with troops and supplies.From Rule of Fear, its seems that mainly it was a poor decision made by an insecure new monarch. He was surprised by Barstoi's aggression, and by the time the war was underway he didn't feel that he could stop it. It's one of the consequences of having a weak monarchy; sometimes they're paralyzed by the fear of getting overthrown.
That's also a lot like things that happened in the real Middle Ages.
And that was a very good move on Neska's part. Accusing people of treason is the perfect pretext for civil war within a feudal society.
If you want a fun simulation of this kind of stuff, I recommend the game Crusader Kings 2. It'll teach you about how building a strong dynasty and court through marriage is *at least* as important as actually controlling lands, and how tough it can be to keep all your vassals both loyal to you and not at war with each other.
I've got to say, do not go for that game. It is awful.
Huge amount locked as dlc, boring medieval combat, no battlefield control and the clunkiest control system I've yet encountered. There is some depth in the intrigue and dynasty side, but learning the unintuitive system and its many parts is a chore.
Better to create your own pen and paper politics games, get together some friends and see how it goes. CK2 was abysmally bad comparing it to the years of politics games I ran (called the Lord's game I-V).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you think the prince didn't stop the war between Ardeal and Barstoi?
Trinite has it right. One only needs to look at a country like Medieval France, which for the longest time was relatively disunited. Although all the powerful Noble families in France owed their allegiance to the King, the King had very little temporal power outside his families personal holdings. French nobles would go to war with one another frequently with little fear of intervention from the Crown.
The idea of a ruler having near or total undisputed control over his/her country was pretty uncommon in places like Europe up until the 1600s through 1800s and the advent of the principle of Absolute Monarchy. There were a few notable exceptions (like Charlemagne), but they tended to be the exception rather than the rule.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everything Trinite said.
Spot on, man! You've totally preempted me on this, so I don't have much more to say than "+1" and "We can be buds." :D
Similarly in Ustalav. The Prince is a member of the Ordranti family, which has ruled for a long time and has a lot of personal holdings. So he'd be rich and powerful even if none of the counts paid him any taxes directly. What he has instead is the prestige of rulership, and legal authority to command their obedience. What this means it that it's usually in the Counts' best interests to pay the Prince and support him, or else he might throw his influence against them. That could mean anything from withholding any money that they might request from the royal treasury, undermining their families' marriage prospects, or even revoking their title and declaring them to be rebels. But of course any of these actions could have repercussions with the other Counts, and the Prince would have to be careful not to lose their support.
Again, yup yup. It's no accident that Prince Ordranti and Odranto have similar names. The prince's family still has holdings in that county, likely with greater prominence near the boarder with Lost Sarkoris and around Ardagh given both the prince's militaristic background and Ardagh's position as the county seat, but also stretching to Castle Odranto since it bears the old version of their name.
A note on names: The family name is "Ordranti," the county's name is "Odranto." Odranto was the original family name of one of Soividia Ustav's generals, who became the patron of one of Ustalav's first 16 noble families. In the more than 2,000 years since the nation's founding the name has shifted in spelling and pronunciation--likely about 3843 when Andredos Ordranti began the Ordranti ruling dynasty. The spelling has a more cosmopolitan, Chelish flair, which is something many Ustalavic nobles either covet or pride themselves on--despite being in a region that's realitively savage in comparison to the nations bordering the Inner Sea. (This is also seen in the ruler of Varno's adoption of the title "Conte" rather than the traditional "Count.")
(To take it one step further, it's also no accident that Prince Ordranti, Odranto, and the The Castle of Otranto have similar names.)
Also, as one last element, at least a faction of the military in the capital is foresworn to the prince, not the countess. So there might be a slight hostage overture here, with the prince having troops in the countess's seat of power, which is also heavily fortified and has the nation's largest and strongest port. If the prince needed to hold out against troops raised by the countess (likely using her family estate, Chateau Douleurs, as a power center), he likely could for some time until reenforced by allies local or abroad.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that was a very good move on Neska's part. Accusing people of treason is the perfect pretext for civil war within a feudal society.
If you want a fun simulation of this kind of stuff, I recommend the game Crusader Kings 2. It'll teach you about how building a strong dynasty and court through marriage is *at least* as important as actually controlling lands, and how tough it can be to keep all your vassals both loyal to you and not at war with each other.
NICE!
I spent my vacation earlier in the year playing this, particularly with the Game of Throne mod. While I didn't know about the game when I was writing Rule of Fear, it's definitely up my alley and the sort of game I enjoy. (I even took a few pictures of my play through and put them up on my Tumblr.)
I've got loose notes on the family trees of many of Ustalav's major nobles, as that's such an important part of having a realistic nobility. These were going to go into Rule of Fear at some point, but had to be dropped. I'll find an outlet for them at some point down the road though!
Why do you think the prince didn't stop the war between Ardeal and Barstoi?Trinite has it right. One only needs to look at a country like Medieval France, which for the longest time was relatively disunited. Although all the powerful Noble families in France owed their allegiance to the King, the King had very little temporal power outside his families personal holdings. French nobles would go to war with one another frequently with little fear of intervention from the Crown.
The idea of a ruler having near or total undisputed control over his/her country was pretty uncommon in places like Europe up until the 1600s through 1800s and the advent of the principle of Absolute Monarchy. There were a few notable exceptions (like Charlemagne), but they tended to be the exception rather than the rule.
Also Vlad Tepes "the impaler", because he killed off the competing nobility en masse.
And that was a very good move on Neska's part. Accusing people of treason is the perfect pretext for civil war within a feudal society.
If you want a fun simulation of this kind of stuff, I recommend the game Crusader Kings 2. It'll teach you about how building a strong dynasty and court through marriage is *at least* as important as actually controlling lands, and how tough it can be to keep all your vassals both loyal to you and not at war with each other.
NICE!
I spent my vacation earlier in the year playing this, particularly with the Game of Throne mod. While I didn't know about the game when I was writing Rule of Fear, it's definitely up my alley and the sort of game I enjoy. (I even took a few pictures of my play through and put them up on my Tumblr.)
I've got loose notes on the family trees of many of Ustalav's major nobles, as that's such an important part of having a realistic nobility. These were going to go into Rule of Fear at some point, but had to be dropped. I'll find an outlet for them at some point down the road though!
Would you ever post those notes?
|
|
[I've got loose notes on the family trees of many of Ustalav's major nobles, as that's such an important part of having a realistic nobility. These were going to go into Rule of Fear at some point, but had to be dropped. I'll find an outlet for them at some point down the road though!
Please! I'm a bit of a fan-boy for Ustalav (my first intro to Golarion), and would love some more expansions of the country.
(To take it one step further, it's also no accident that Prince Ordranti, Odranto, and The Castle of Otranto have similar names.)
Aha! I knew the name seemed familiar. Linked it for ease of looking up. It's of course available for free on project Gutenberg in different ebook formats.
|
|
Thanks for the kind words, Wes! Medieval politics is really interesting, and I like how Ustalav uses it realistically. The subject of family names and histories is really cool, and I'd love to see that background for Ustalav!
Understanding this kind of historical politics can also make a lot of other historical things easier to understand. For example, Louis Lyon mentioned the concept of Absolute Monarchy. That might seem like a crazy idea to us, living in our modern democracies. But when the idea first arose, it was a response to the chaos and violence of feudal civil wars. It seemed a lot more stable to have a single, identifiable king in charge of everything, rather than a whole bunch of nobles competing to see how much they could get away with.
And I really gotta play that Game of Thrones mod for Crusader Kings 2 (as soon as I can replace my home monitor!).
Has anyone done anything with the bastard child of the Eunuch Prince, Reneis Ordranti, and his aunt? Reneis would be over 30 years of age in most campaigns (ours is set in 4708) so it would seem that his adopted aunt's bid to put him on the throne should have come and gone. Has anyone played that out? I'm curious. Thanks!