| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, the charter is from Rostland on behalf of Brevoy, not the Aldori Swordlords. It just so happens that the Aldori Swordlords are in charge of Rostland. This charter is basically a contract saying that Rostland will pay the PCs if they solve the bandit problem and "tame" the lands, which means neutralizing any other threats that might endanger Brevoy endeavors into the Stolen Lands.
It's assumed that "explore" means "map the region." If someone travels all throughout a region, but then can't effectively show somebody somewhere else details about the region, I'd still consider that unexplored. It's also assumed that somebody in Brevoy spelled this out for the PCs. Also, the charter specifies the exact area they want explored because the other areas east and west that area is covered in charters given to different groups of explorers. I think that this is covered in book 2 of the AP, but maybe in the supporting material in book 1. Sure, the players can go anywhere they want, but they're only being paid to explore the area in the area specified in the charter. There's nothing to indicate that Brevoy cares about what the PCs do outside of that area.
Nobody controls the Stolen Lands, but more than one entity can claim it, which is different. When Rostland eventually asks the PCs to start a colony, they don't want the colony to be part of Brevoy. If that happens, and the colony is loyal to Rostland, then Issia will see that as a power play against them. If the colony is loyal to Brevoy as a whole, then that benefits Issia who is currently in control of Brevoy, and then puts a threat to Rostland on their southern border. The Swordlords are trying to balance that line by having friendly colonies to the south that can't readily be controlled by Issia but will also keep them from worrying about unknown threats from that direction while they focus on a potential civil war with Issia.
How exactly are the players, or brevoy for that matter, not aggroing every settlement/mover/shaker in the river kingdom for trying to expand brevoy's territory into the river lands and/or sending mercenarys into their territory with "charters" giving them the "right" to operate in THEIR land? Artune, Mivon, Gralton and other river kingdom locations would not be to happy about this and would likely arrest or just hang the players or start skirmishs with brevoy just because of the sheer audacity of brevoy to touch their region and think they got a claim to it, and yet, we never here about this (except from pitax and the fey), nor do the players ever get visited by the daggermark assassin clan's "cleanup crew" for upstart idiots.
The River Kingdoms and Stolen Lands are separate regions. The Stolen Lands are unsettled and uncontrolled, so any nation that wants to can "claim" the region, but that doesn't mean much if they don't actually do anything with it. The River Kingdoms are just a fluid area of city states that are regularly fighting with each other; they don't have the resources to assert any sort of control into the Stolen Lands.
Finally, it's commendable that you're researching Brevoy, but you should know that the AP actually has very little to do with that nation outside of this initial exploration charter and the later charter to start a colony there. Unless you decide to have interaction with Brevoy or the players force your hand to do so, Breovy is out of the picture by the beginning of Book 2. All other threats are internal to the Stolen Lands or come from the River Kingdoms.
Hope I covered everything for you.
You are overthinking and overcomplicating things.
Just think about what happened to Americas. Nobody had ownership of anything, but they declared to other nations that they did, sent colonists, raised flags, domesticated/indoctrinated/enslaved/killed the natives and the next time someone from another country walked there, they saw that flag and realized it was a colony.
1: The Swordlords
I've never quite understood how the Swordlords function politically, myself. I've treated them as the major nobility of the Restov area, without really thinking too much about how one becomes a Swordlord. Thankfully it hasn't come up in my game.
3: Brevoy does not have control over the river kingdoms.
The Stolen Land isn't part of the River Kingdoms. It's unclaimed territory. Brevoy/Restov/whoever has the "right" to grant charters to explore and settle the territory because they've decided they have that right, and there's no one able to contest it who can stand up to them. That's pretty much how the world works, especially back before the time of international organizations.
4: The CHARTER IN THE PLAYERS GUIDE AND IN THE BOOKS
"Exploration" = "map it". Exploring without writing down what one found while exploring is rather useless. The Swordlords want accurate maps of the region, and also to clear the area of bandits. That's the initial charter.
First off - the Mayor's power/influence.
The granting of the charters and the Swordlords' relationship with the colonies becomes a (background) issue in the lead up to book 3.
<snip other points>
No one has laid claim to the territory that the players are settling, so your points aren't actually relevant. They could come into conflict with Mivon as they expand south, depending on where you think Mivon's northern border is. But otherwise they don't start off bordering any other River Kingdom.
I'm going to take a shot at this based on my own interpretation:
1. Lord Mayor Ioseph Sellemius is in an interesting position, because it is strongly implied that House Rogarvia reserved eastern Rostland as their person duchal fiefdom. (ie, the King of Brevoy would also be the Duke of East Rostland, or possibly would assign the title to their designated heir) What this means is that with the disappearance of all known members of House Rogarvia, there is no actual Duke of East Rostland, so Sellemius no longer has any clear feudal overlord save the king, and the Swordlords are refusing to recognize Regent Noleski as their king, on account of him being from House Surtova.
The implication here, to me, is that Sellemius is justifying his actions because he regards Noleski as an usurper, thus making Sellemius a 'faithful patriot' upholding the interests of House Rogarvia. The Stolen Lands would be regarded as rightful property of the crown, and so empowering adventurers as magistrates-at-large to put an end to brigands and other lawlessness in the region would indeed appear as a faithful execution of the 'best interests' of House Rogarvia. The problem comes when the Swordlords grant funds for establishing independent realms within the Stolen Lands. At a bare minimum, the Swordlords should require the players and other groups to swear fealty in absentia to House Rogarvia, because otherwise there is no validity to any of the claims, and the Swordlords would now be in open rebellion against both Regent Surtova and House Rogarvia, since they would have financed the theft of crown land from their own kingdom.
2. The Swordlords themselves are seemingly the closest thing that Restov has to a landed gentry, and many operate as mercenary captains or serve with the local military in fending off attacks from the south and east. However, their also a bunch of rabble-rousers who detest House Surtova and would prefer to seek independence rather than swear fealty to Noleski. I would assume that the Swordlords would be the source of funding for the initial 50 BP, rather than the city of Restov providing those funds, since they have money and are interested in agitating for civil war. Ultimately, it might help to think in terms of the American Revolution: there were plenty of Americans with wealth and a desire to break from England, and a strong desire to let someone else do the fighting for them so they could focus on enjoying getting to run things themselves.
3. The Stolen Lands were originally settled by the same Taldan settlers who also founded the city of Restov and make up much of the population of Rostland. The name 'the Stolen Lands' refers to this ancient claim that Brevoy/Rostland has on this region, which they regard as rightfully theirs, in spite of the notable absence of any actual presence in the area. It is partially because of these claims that the region remains unsettled, as the petty lords of the River Kingdoms don't want to risk incurring the wrath of Brevoy, so they generally stay away from the region, though Mivon and Pitax are slowly encroaching. (Mivon is ruled by Swordlords who fled Brevoy rather than face the red dragons of Choral the Conqueror, so they have a weak claim on the lands, and Pitax is ruled by a megalomaniac with an ambition for world conquest.)
4. The River Kingdoms aren't actually a united realm, but rather a whole bunch of petty kingdoms, most of which are simply a town and all lands within a day's walk. The ruler of Pitax is certainly interested in expansion, but does not have the strength to actually prevail in a war with just the city of Restov at the start of the campaign, much less the full might of Brevoy. The same is also generally true of the other petty kingdoms, most of which were founded under similar circumstances and would have to consider that marching off to war with one of these upstart fiefdoms would invite a neighbor to do the same to them.
I have a completely different understanding of the Aldori than you do :}
I have come across three ‘Aldori’ centres - Restov, Mivon and House Khavortorov (from ‘Knights of the Inner Sea’). House Khavortorov could be anywhere (I have them based just outside New Stetven) but I certainly don’t see anything that says the Aldori are ‘everywhere in Brevoy’.
There are, however, Rondolero duelling schools in Restov as well as Aldori as a well – and that has been around since the original Taldan colonisation. My own theory is that the Original Sword baron was a Taldan Rondelero duelist who (when he was beaten) travelled over the crown of the world to learn eastern fighting techniques. When he combined the two he was the best :}
The only other ‘Noble House’ that is said to like fine sword Play are the Lebeda, although there is nothing specific to link them with the Aldori style. While (in my world) there may be a an Aldori School in Silverhall - most are Rondolero. Somewhere, it implies (if not says directly) that the Northern noble houses are much less interested in fine sword play and still hark back to their barbarous roots.
For me, duelling in Brevoy is strongest in Rostland with duelling Schools in Restov, New Steven and Silverhall. And I treat Duelling Styles a bit like Martial Arts - with schools as Dojos and and Sword Lords as Black Belt equivalents. The First sword lord is head of her style. ‘Knights of the Inner Sea’ classifies the Aldori style as equivalent to a Knightly Order, I I give Sword Lords (ie masters of any of the styles) the same status as a knight.
Because there is such a love of duelling in Rostland, I have added a few ‘Modern Duelling Schools’ based on the Duellist prestige class in the CRB that teaches duelling etiquette along with Rapier and Dagger - or Short Sword and Dagger. While that school is picked up by some members of noble houses as ‘The type of thing a gentleman should understand’ it is still the least prestigious style.
So, planning on running kingmaker and I am digging for all the information I can about brevoy, its history, the noble houses, the cause of the conflict, as much about the vanishing as I can find out, the full thing. But, despite all my work trying to understand 100% of the regions and everyone involved, I just cant wrap my head around the plothook to get the entire campaign started - the charter.
Kingmaker is a very rewarding campaign for both players and DM. However, the DM needs to put in quite a bit of work to fill in the gaps in the description of the political landscape that underpins the campaign plot. You can go as shallow or as deep as you want in that exercise. It can become quite time-consuming, but I personally found it great fun. Also, browsing the forum here will provide great help and inspiration for your own ideas.
1: The Swordlords. Swordlord's are everywhere, and can be found in Brevoy (Both issia AND restov), Mivon, and other regions. Its simply a fighting style and martial schooling people take and can adopt.
2: The Swordlord's are not "only" in southern brevoy/restov. Many are in issia and mivon as well, as stated above.
The term "Sworlords" is used, rather confusingly, to describe two rather different, overlapping groups: One is a class of dueling swordsmen that originated in Restov, but can be found everywhere, and the other is a loosely defined political group of nobles who control Restov and are firmly opposed to House Surtova and Issia in general.
When the campaign books use the word "Swordlord", they mostly refer to the political group. Most other sources usually refer to the school of sword fighting. This is indeed confusing, but once you know that distinction, you can sort it out.
3: Brevoy does not have control over the river kingdoms.
And yet, the players are given a charter that gives them "The right" to travel there?
Brevoy doesn't have a legal right recognized by anyone else, but they don't care. They're just claiming that land rightfully belongs to them, for reasons explained in the book. Therefore, the chart will be recognized as valid by anyone in Brevoy. It won't be accepted by people in the River Kingdoms, but that's why the PCs have weapons and spells - to take it for their own by force of arms, backed by their country of origin.
4: The CHARTER IN THE PLAYERS GUIDE AND IN THE BOOKS, only mentions that the charter allows the players who have it in their possession have the "right" to explore the land. It does not say ANYTHING about having to map out the region
As others have mentioned, "explore" equates "map". OK, the language of the charter isn't as tight as what a modern lawyer would draft... I don't think it's a big issue.
the Mayor's power/influence.
The books are pretty vague on the actual power wielded by the mayor, together with the swordlords who control Restov. You'll have to do some interpretation if you need to have this very clear in your mind.
Before I started the campaign with my players, I wrote a few pages of political backgrounder (the great houses, their alliances and feuds, key members) for Brevoy and gave it to those of the PCs who have a noble background. I also fleshed out the group of swordlords who are in charge in Restov, including the mayor. I decided that they have common goals, but they also have personal agendas: Some want war with Issia, others prefer to lobby for peace even as they try to enhance Restov's tenuous position.
Brevoy does not control the stolen lands nor has any legal claims to it or rights, they don't police it (obviously, if the bandit activity is any indication), they have no military presence in it, nor do the riverfolk recognize their claim or authority (This includes Oleg HIMSELF, as he made the tradepost way out in the middle of nowhere to ESCAPE the city).
True. I interpreted Oleg as a typical pioneer: He isn't loyal to Brevoy anymore, but he still hopes for help, and he will be very loyal to anyone who saves him from the bandits.
the players can go -anywhere they want- and it does not matter, because each individual and community in the river kingdoms will never recognize brevoy's authority, charter or no charter.
True. But the exploration will take them a lot of time and resources, and frankly it would be hard for them to overstep the charter's "border" early on in the campaign. I agree this is ambiguous. For clarity, I simply let the PCs know, via a private talk with the NPCs sponsoring them, that the ultimate goal was to establish a domain of their own in the wild region. In that way, the charter becomes simply a way to carve out the Stolen Lands between the four exploration groups. Sure it's not legal, as the River Kingdoms would see it, but they're a pretty lawless land themselves anyway. At the end of the day, nobody will really care, except the neighboring exploration teams; and, as the following campaign books make clear, none of them ever becomes powerful enough to challenge the PCs' exploration activities.
How exactly are the players, or brevoy for that matter, not aggroing every settlement/mover/shaker in the river kingdom for trying to expand brevoy's territory into the river lands
Yup, that totally could happen. In fact, it does happen: Irovetti is one of those River Kingdom powers who doesn't take it kindly to the PCs' encroachment. As the DM, you're free to add other factions trying to get rid of the PCs and their upstart barony. This would be a very plausible expansion of the campaign.
For this, I recommend that you grab a copy of the Guide to the River Kingdoms, if you haven't already done so. It's packed with factions and NPCs would could be opponents for your group. At the same time, it explains rather well why it's possible those NPCs don't pay any attention until the new domain is well established.
|
I completely agree with Alyssia, this charter makes no sense whatsoever.
Whether you play the Swordlords like they are reduced to only a select few random wandering noble swordsmen, most of whom have congregated around Restov and made it their de facto settlement OR you play them as a large faction of people who were suppressed by the current rule (like Ireland/Scotland with the British back in the day), this charter is worded horribly. The Swordlords dislike the rule of Brevoy because it was based on destroying and conquering the swordlords. The only faction I can see them disliking more would be Mivon.
So, either the party would be affiliated with the Swordlords and this faction would be sanctioning the charter for any number of excellent reasons (this fits very well considering who Varn is and his backstory)...
Or,
...The Brevoy regent is sanctioning the charter, in which case, he would NEVER acknowledge the Swordlords by including them I the charter and legitimizing them.
The other issues the OP brought up are IMO best answered as metagame. The main reason I can see to have the charter is to justify the legitimate killing of any bandits, outlaws, or other troublemakers, freeing the party of any need to deal with capturing and holding bandits. So technically, it nothing else on this charter really matters other than they have been approved for exploration and enforcing the bandit killing rules of Brevoy.
The issue of Brevoy having a legitimate claim on the Stolen Lands is handled in the AP discussion...several kingdoms believe it belongs to them, but since none can hold it, its a moot point.
The charter is much like all currency, absolutely worthless unless it is recognized and respected by others. River Kingdoms will only care about whether the PCs can hold their Kingdom, the charter being worthless in their eyes. Whether the Swordlords/Restov or Regent Noleski recognize the PCs colony/kingdom really depends on their whims and which side the GM decides issued the charter.
~~~~
In case anyone is interested, I fixed this confusing mess of a charter by reworking the whole issue of who was granting the charter and why they were granting it.
IMC, a southern baron in Rogarvia whose lands bordered on the Stolen Lands went out on his own and issued these charters. He was hoping to expand his power and resources to vie for the empty role of Duke of Rogarvia. The PC ruler was his niece by marriage, and very supportive of the Baron and his efforts. This gave the party a support network early on in the AP and also served as a hook to drag them into Brevoy politics.
The PCs figured out the strength of their charter was flimsy and so worked to prepare for the day it might be challenged. By the time Brevoy ruling factions wanted to discuss the legitimacy of the charter (and whether or not the PC Kingdom was actually a holding of Brevoy and subject to rule and taxing), the PC army and fortifications were established and their independence was hard to change.
There is however, resentment, sneaky attempts to undermine their kingdom, and preparation for any sign of weakness that might let Brevoy annex them.
This may help. I found it on another forum. Map The huge riverlands map is an excellent resource.
I've confirmed that this map is to scale with the hexes, though the orientation and art is a bit different. I've also done some counting and here's how the nations break down:
House Garess 69
House Surtova 24
House Lodovka 67
House Orlovsky 190
House Medyved 130
House Rogarvia 122
Nomen Dunsward 29
Touvette 45
Mivon 107
Pitax 109
Daggermark 73+
From this we can see the relative sizes and positions of different factions that are on the brink of civil war. With Restov as the southern capital of the Rogarvia region, it's easy to see how they would resent the influence of a small region of northerners. Other alliances suggest themselves based on size and location.
The nation sizes can also be helpful in setting up diplomatic relations, which can happen as a result of kingdom events or player actions. For example, a diplomatic overture for a treaty might not mean much when the only guidance is "economy = kingdom size +2d6" Now you have a base for each kingdom.
With a brewing civil war between the northern and southern houses of brevoy, and the fact that the smallest house holds a huge southern house in regency, the need to protect the southern flank with a friendly, if not allied, nation is clear. Regardless of who has authority to issue a charter, a guild of honored mercenaries took it upon themselves to do what was necessary. This makes sense to me.
So, either the party would be affiliated with the Swordlords and this faction would be sanctioning the charter for any number of excellent reasons (this fits very well considering who Varn is and his backstory)...
Presumably you mean his 1st backstory in the book 1 sidebar? He has a different backstory in book 3.
So, either the party would be affiliated with the Swordlords and this faction would be sanctioning the charter for any number of excellent reasons (this fits very well considering who Varn is and his backstory)...
Or,
...The Brevoy regent is sanctioning the charter, in which case, he would NEVER acknowledge the Swordlords by including them I the charter and legitimizing them.
I resolved that contradiction by interpreting as sleight of hand on the part of the Swordlords. They are a local power, nominally belonging to Brevoy and therefore officially acknowledging the Regent's rule. Every official act is supposed to be in the name of the Regent, as in the phrase "the Swordlords of Restov, acting upon the greater good and authority vested within them by the office of the Regent of the Dragonscale Throne".
In reality, they wrote the Charter without bothering to inform the Regent, knowing perfectly well that he would not approve of it. This is an underhanded act of rebellion, but not one that is overt enough to necessarily cause war when discovered.
I thought this sort of political trickery is very plausible in the context of Brevoy as the vipers' nest described in the books. It more or less reflects the ways of medieval politics, too (refer to the political plays between Henry II of England, his wife and sons, as just an example of this). It's also made possible by the limitations of communication in the game world: in the absence of newspapers, telecommunications, etc, the Regent might never learn of this until the PCs' exploration is well under way.
In my own campaign, I decided that Surtova's spies saw through this fairly quickly, but the Regent decided to play it low-key and not make it a casus belli. Instead, he tried to get the PCs to move to his side with a combination of veiled threats and a very generous offer of BPs when the barony was established.