Hey, guys.
I had a character concept for this AP: An NG bard from Andoran who wants to propagate democracy and common rule. He sees the Stolen Lands as a new potential staging ground for the democratic experiment, and is determined to establish a new country free from any autocratic or monarchist system.
In the current kingdom-building rules, there isn't any crunch for running a democratic country. I would imagine that it'd be up the GM to determine the specifics of candidates, parties, campaign funding, elections, and all the other crazy stuff that democracy entails. How would you handle it?
One last thing, what if the rest of the party isn't hot on the idea of a democratic country? Am I basically screwed? How would most people in Brevoy or Pitax react to a democratic state on their borders?
Fluff-wise:
The difficulty of the task depends on how open the bard is about his goal.
I can't see how the Swordlords would put 50 BP worth of resources, task force and influence at the disposal of someone who is likely to be 'overthrown' by anyone in a year or two. (Because being 'overthrown' is what an election looks like to a feudal lord).
Still, going on a mission to 'establish democracy' in an empty land seems a little bit off. By definition, democracy appears from the desire of the people to take their own decisions. This desire can't really appear before there is any people at all.
Also, take into account that a large part of the future citizens of the kingdom will come from the other River Kingdoms and honor the Six River Freedoms. Most of those people don't care for politics, most believe the king has an absolute authority and have a 'selfish' view on life.
So, not an impossible task, but not an easy one.
Then, crunch-wise:
The standard rules for kingdom-building accounts for a little bit of cooperation with the concept of Council with many roles.
If my players would insist on forming a democracy, I would keep the rules unchanged, but maybe insist more on everything Unrest-related.
I would create a NPC which would be the main spokesperson of the opposition. Every now and then (depending on the frequency of the elections), I would ask the players to roll some kind of checks (or skill challenges, featuring Diplomacy, Knowledge (nobility), Loyalty kingdom checks, everything influenced heavily by Unrest, of course) to determine if the PCs win or lose the elections, the opposing NPC and his crew being the automatic replacement.
If they win, nothing changes.
If they lose, they are all stripped of their positions and I make all the kingdom-building decisions until the next election.
Is it fun-breaking? Yeah. But they're the ones insisting on potentially losing the power. And they can always decide, if they lose, to change their mind, kick the opposition out and continue the game as kings after all...
I imagine Brevoy would just shake their heads as a whole, but the individual houses would probably figure out that it was just another way to continue their existing rivalries and support or field their own candidates.
You'll have to use diplomacy or spying to figure out how Pitax and the other River Kingdoms would react, it depends how your DM plays them.
The council in my group is considered to be a mix of meritocracy and popularity so while there's no formal vote, at least some of the positions are filled by the people who would have been the popular choice.
I'd recommend you start small; let each town hold mayoral elections (because your DM can probably handle that without formal mechanics and it will get the people used to the idea).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, I think its real important to have a pre-game discussion with the rest of the party about what sort of govt is going to be chosen and who is going to be the ruler. This can cause grief and dissension in the game otherwise.
Bear in mind that many players, especially veteran gamers, may have been wanting to be a ruler for a LONG time now, so understand if they don't want to re-create America in Kingmaker. I know as a player this is how I would feel, but really it depends on your group's makeup.
As far as execution and mechanics - it would probably work better if you just took the council positions and made all of them, or most of them (some maybe appointed by the ruler) elected positions. Then had elections for each role, rather than try to have a multiple branches of government, etc. The rules are set up for the positions, but are deliberately left vague about how they get filled. It is assumed that the players would want to be the decision makers and therefore some sort of of political system that favors them being in charge would be used. I don't think it really matters in the end as long as they are happy.
How other nations feel - Not sure how other GMs interpret Brevoy or the neighboring kingdoms, but even in the very liberal River Kingdoms that provide individuals with a lot of freedom, there is still a whole lot of Lords, warlords, and kings running the show. Brevoy by my interpretation is primarily the nobles and the churches (Gorum and Abadar) running a lot of the show "for the good of the people" meaning the serflike commoners. I don't see them appreciating a big shiny exciting neighbor stirring up the status quo and giving "smallfolk" a lot of ideas about why the nobles are not the best choice as rulers.
To extrapolate that idea, democracies tend to allow ANYONE reasonable a good chance to become influential and a leader. Brevic nobles are likely to plant their own agents in key positions in order to get them elected in the PCs kingdom. They are also likely to use blackmail, extortion, murder (Daggermark, anyone) coercion, bribery, and anything else necessary to show that democracy is no better than monarchy and perhaps in many ways worse. Deliberately crafted "shortages", "natural disasters", "traitors" who are actually very loyal to the kingdom, etc are like to be plentiful. I really can't see Pitax or Mivon feeling very much different about things. If your GM sees things similarly, thats a whole lot of extra attention you may be drawing at a time you might not want it. On the other hand, it could make for an extremely exciting game!
As a player, you might feel this out with your GM first and see how he feels the neighboring kingdoms would react. Our game is a bit grittier and more power hungry than most, so your GM might view things completely differently. If there would be a lot of ire about your style of govt, you might consider a sort of qualification to be a candidate, which might lessen scariness of your democracy in the eyes of other kings. Something like, if you serve in a lesser elected position under one of the council (like sheriff, patrol leader, mayor, factor, etc) for X number of years, then you become qualified to be elected to the role of a council member.
|
|
YOu might also consider a mostly democratic rule with the continued existence of a royal family who is obstensibly "in charge". How much influence they have is up to you, but in general, commoners feel safer knowing a benevolent "mom and dad" are taking care of them. Knowing that their sons and daughters will continue to do so for them and their children increases this feeling of security. It also looks less scary to other kingdoms.
A constitutional/parliamentary monarchy might be the best way to split the difference.
That's actually a really good plot thread: PCs try to create a democracy, while all the neighboring monarchist states try to infiltrate, hijack, and sabotage it. Pitax might even get money and advisors from countries that really don't want to see another democracy in Avistan...