All in all? Not much. The above poster's idea certainly could work but it doesn't much matter what you call yourself in the end. My players have each created their own individual titles of varying degrees. In any case, in terms of international diplomacy, people will treat you how they treat you based on what they want and how powerful you are rather than the trappings you choose to gird yourself with. It would be a foolish ruler indeed who would refuse a beneficial arrangement simply because it's offered by a pompous idiot, and foolish kings tend to fall rather quickly.
Ancient Ireland had a King on every hill...
The city-state of Korvosa has a king/queen, and that doesn't seem to be controversial for an independent ruler. Saying "I'm queen" is saying "I'm an independent ruler". If that annoys Brevoy then I could see trouble (IMO the lack of interaction with Brevoy is a big flaw in the setup of this AP). But the River Kingdoms are Kingdoms, after all. If Pitax can have a King, why should she not be a Queen?
That's a very good point, however in Kingmaker as written, you aren't the vassal of anybody. In fact, the Swordlords make it explicitly clear that you are not officially associated with them in any way except that you're the folks south of the border who're dealing with the bandits. While there's the expectation that you'll jump when they say jump, the entire point of establishing a kingdom to the south is to have a deniable ally for the eventual civil war. However, all of this would likely change if you actually told the Swordlords where they could stick their little rebellion...
|
A title is just a word. Who will care enough about it to challenge her claim ?
Let her be queen if it brings her fun.
Consider too that we had at least 2 popes at one time and 4 Roman Emperors at another. And they were actually rivals for the same throne.
"You have what you hold" is VERY true for rulers' titles in the real world. Why should it be different in Golarion, and especially in the political mess that is the River Kingdoms.
And if you want it to have negative repercussions for the PCs, make sure that these NPC actions actually make sense for the NPCs themselves ;-)
Don't get me wrong, it would probably annoy Restov quite a bit to call them kings, but the question is would they really throw away their client state over something so small as a title? Sure if the PCs start trying to claim independence to them directly, rather than just as a front there'll be trouble, but before that point I see Restov letting them get away with a hell of a lot, because they really don't have any other choice at this point. If the civil war shakes out as the campaign suggests, it's going to be Surtova, Lodovka, and Lebeda vs. Orlovsky and Medvyd with Garess either sitting it out or throwing in with whomever can guarantee their succession. Remember though, that Orlovsky is by no means allied with Rostland, despite their mutual opposition to the Surtovas. He wants the throne for himself or a Rogarvia heir and the minute this little scrap with Surtova is over, the victor is going to turn their full attention to reunifying the kingdom. This isn't Rostland fighting the Surtova group, it's Rostland attacking all of Issia while they're divided in a civil war. They need every ally they can get right now and the venture into the Stolen Lands was less a brilliant strategic move and more a desperate grasp to secure the south and drum up some support to reinforce their armies.
True, there may be deniability, but the people in power know full well what's going on here. Even if no official allegations can be made, the Swordlords would likely frown upon this claim to kingship from their intended client realm.
What does "frown" mean in this context?
If no gesture of loyalty follows on the part of the players, this might just cost them Restov's support - which is a heavy price to pay for an empty title.
But a higher price to for Restov to pay. The whole reason for this misadventure was to put a client state in the River Kingdoms to secure their flank and get some economic partners. Walking away from that actually puts Restov in a substantially worse place than it was in the first place -- not only are they out all the resources that they invested, but now they've got an expansionist and energetic state right where they wanted their client state to be, and if they want to try again, they'll first have to find a way to depose the queen and only then start all over.
There's a long tradition of jumped-up titles in tiny little semi-imaginary states, and the professional diplomats are very good at pretending to believe in the military significance of six-star generals.
Good points, Jack and Orfamay, but despite their investment and the probable value of a client state in the south, what good is one that does not live up to expectations?
Well, this is something that should have been hammered out in the council chamber before this whole hairbrained scheme was launched.
Was the idea that the client state was supposed to be utterly loyal forever, just because of magnetism or something like that? If so, that's a d--n foolish group of Swordlords that thought this up.
What good is one that, when push comes to shove, does not act as the client it's supposed to be?
The client is a client, not a slave -- and even slaves can be untrustworthy (I'm looking at you, Mr. Spartacus.)
What's good is that putting a client state there keeps other, actively hostile, groups, from developing that area, and provides a trading partner.
Of course the mere claim on a royal title does not mean it will renege, but I can imagine it to raise suspicions of unwelcome ambition.
Goodness, a politician displaying ambition? Heaven forfend! A slightly smarter Swordlord would have expected that, and positively encouraged that -- after all, an ambitious politician is going to be developing the nascent client state into a more powerful, self-sufficient, and useful client state.
A smarter Swordlord also provided herself with several important levers that she can pull if something important comes up. But the title the ruler wants to use is almost certainly not not one of them. The Swordlord, for example, could probably cut off several trade agreeements as a sign of her displeasures. But that would take more money out of her pocket, and free up the nascent queen to trade those goods elsewhere, including with the enemies of Restov.
Why should I be willing to lose money out of my treasury because I don't like the title you use?
In our KM game, Queen Moragan started out as a Lady of House Medvyed.
After slaying the Stag Lord, she claimed that title in addition.
After founding Moreland, the other players began calling her The Queen, and I was a bit surprised on how protective they were and insistant that others show her respect.
Now that we are a large duchy in size, having just dealt with the Fellnight Queen between books 3 & 4, we'll be able to get some kingdom turns in using all the new stuff from Complete Campaign/Ultimate Rulership.
Though she styles herself as Queen of Moreland, she dislikes the honorifics "Your Majesty", "Your Royal Highness", and "Your Highness". She is quick to correct anyone who addresses her as such, that the ruler of Moreland is addressed as "Your Grace".
We are going to apply the penalties/bonuses (for a lesser title/honor) to each claim. You could do that also if you want a real penalty to stick them with.
Also for her cohort/consort, she married a paladin of Erastil and gave him the title of The Staglord (a Lordship maybe a Your Grace later).
You could also apply the same penalties/bonuses to your consort.
You could also do so for all the council lords, with PC's a rank or two below the ruler and NPC's a rank or two below the PC's.
Add all of those to all your kingdom rolls and to any Diplomacy/Intimidate checks if you want.
I also have problems with the other players calling the Queen's Consort, The Staglord "King".
I have to keep reminding them that...
"Moreland has no King. Moreland needs no King"
"Moragan sits on the Antlered Throne as Queen of Moreland."
So use all your NPC's to nudge your players toward the path you want them on, in Kingmaker you have to guide them in their kingdom duties too.
Irovetti calls himself king - and somewhere in the various books (I really can't remember where) there is a bit that says something along the lines of "It doesn't matter what they call themselves, the rulers of regions are just that - Lords and rulers."
I am not sure that Brevoy does have a formally defined nobility structure - although I use one in my head when I think about the place because it helps me keep things in perspective. My players don't really care one way or another, so it really isn't relevant.
If the players start asking questions about those things, I will fill them in, add them to the wiki and they become fixed in stone. Up until that point I leave things vague, so I have a lot of flexibility in the way that I use them - when I choose to *Evil GM type grin*