So, I'm a first time GM, and we just finished Book 1 of Kingmaker. I'm having the PC's begin placing themselves and NPC's in the different leadership roles, and there is a big debate about if the General actually has any power over the Warden and the Marshal.
So my situation leads me to this... Is there any kind of a leadership hierarchy? Obviously the Ruler is at the top, but is there a chain of command after that, or are all roles created equal?
Thanks for any help you guys send my way!
For one thing, this forum is for the Pathfinder 2nd edition playtest that completed, primarily back at the end of the year and early January to include some Society Play.
So really this post probably should get moved to a forum about Adventure Path play, especially Kingmaker.
But, for one thing, the Roles are primarily just slots to give the different players a 'piece' to play in the Kingdom Building aspects of that subsystem. Any hierarchy would have to be defined by the players. In the campaign I was in as a player, we had a ruler, but much of the power rested in the council, which was the PCs. some of our trusted NPC's filled some of the lesser leadership roles.
I can tell you however, you should really consider using the more up-to-date rules that were put out from Ultimate Campaign. If you search for Pathfinder SRD Kingdom Building you can find the rules online quickly, or if you have Ultimate Campaign that would be handy to just pull out. It is my understanding it fixed some issues with handling of Magic Item in settlements, for instance as I am sure several other items. So basically, use the module, but use the Kingdom building mechanics from the Ultimate Campaign or SRD to complete the steps.
Enjoy and have fun in the campaign, we only got a little ways past where it sounds like you are at, but we did get to go through several years of Kingdom Building, which was fun, as far as a subsystem went. I was really sorry when the game eventually, fell apart due to real life constraints on us all.
Loreguard has given an excellent rundown.
To focus more on the specific question, no, not by the rules. The roles are mechanical titles for whoever manages a particular aspect of the kingdom - it’s quite reasonable for a kingdom to call its various leaders by completely different titles (in my players’ kingdom, the Royal Enforcer was called the Lord High Justice). It is entirely up to the players how their kingdom’s leadership is structured, though, and making the Warden and Marshall subordinate to the General is a valid hierarchy (though it would be roughly equivalent to the FBI and the CIA reporting to the Joint Chiefs of Staff the US).
So, there is no rules reason for what that player is asking, but the group could decide to make that a feature of their kingdom’s leadership structure.
No,by the rules there is no established hierarchy.
But I want to say that the General is basically the equivalent of the Joint Chief of Staffs (as already mentioned) or maybe the Secretary of Defense. A big difference being that the Chiefs are members of the military while the Secretary of Defense isn't.
Having the Marshall, the equivalent to a police force, reporting to the military is usually something countries try to avoid. The Warden is also basically a police force, with the difference being more like Sheriffs vs regular Police force, but it doesn't exactly translate.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether or not there is any sort of leadership hierarchy, do you want there to be? I've experienced plenty of games were one player takes a certain class (let's call it the Stick-up-the-Blank class). You'd think playing with a champion of justice and order would be a good thing until that player is dictating to the group what they can and cannot do because that player's character won't like it. Or they lose their powers from their god because the rogue did something shady and they didn't arrest them on the spot. Having players in positions of power above one another isn't going to be a good thing for your game. Just assume that all the roles have their own focus and decisions are made by all of the leadership positions together. Sure, story-wise you would have more power as the ruler but effectively at the table each player should have equal voice over what happens to the group's kingdom.
The General, the Marshal, and the Warden can't decide who is in charge?
...
That in itself might be a juicy bit of story, as all three of them jockey for influence in the kingdom.
Thank you guys for all of the input! I greatly appreciate it, and I think my players are enjoying it so far!