Hello good folks! I'll be DM'ing the kingmaker campaign soon (we gave up waiting on the 11th anniversary edition) and I've been deep diving into the campaign and all the lore I could read and digest, plus I've digged the forums for all the help I could find and I'll be using some of the most popular mods around. I know that the topic at hand isn't exactly new, but maybe I missed something or maybe I hoped I could drawn from the updated collective mind of the community.
Like many before me, I can't get myself around the fact that the political aspect of the campaign is really...downplayed, to say the least. That's ok though, I can and will buff it up on my own. What I can't understand - and i'm afraid that if I change something in that regard It might have repercussions down the path - is the legality of the charter that grants settling rights to the PCs and how the new settlement ties to brevoy.
Dialing it back a little: The first charter has problems of its own. How rostland, through the agency of the swordlords (or so I get), sanctions an unknown, inexperienced group upon an extremely crucial political venture. Sure, ok, its not the only enterprise (drelev, varn), but its still important. Really, why wouldn't rostland send its own pro-rostland agents, or at least ensure that the pc's aren't anti-rostland, or who knows, maybe even remotely actually help them out and actually fulfill their planned agenda instead of gambling with their nation and resources. There's no mention of any background check, the campaign traits don't give any good political reasonability, they just entrust this super important task like they are the innkeeper of a rundown tavern... But sure, ok, let's turn off suspension of disbelief for a second and say its all in the name of good 'ol rpg adventuring, i can work around that with my PCs.
Now, back in track. The group proved competent and now receives a colonization charter. Its ok because I worked with my pcs to make it believable they would (even if the book doesn't enforce that). Now that's what I don't get, and maybe I haven't read through well. They - or the ruler - becomes a baron. Which makes the newland a barony, which makes them subjected to brevoy's crown. Is that it?
For the whole book I got the sense that the PCs would build this third-party sort of neutral land. Why would they be barons? Or is this just a mechanical subtitle (baron, duke, king) for the kingdom rules bearing no regards to the narrative whatsoever?
There's some conundrum here the book raises but don't address:
1)The charter has legitimacy but it was given under the table. Sooner or later as months go by its almost a given the houses and the regent will hear about it and a)enforce their - rightful - dominion upon the newland, maybe even reordering the titles and people in power b) investigate who, how and why this mission happened under their nose and possibly expect amends or dispend punishment c) both or something I haven't thought about
2) The charter has legitimacy and everybody knows about it. (I think venture capital uses this). It's still subjected to the crown and the book doesn't help this at all, because there's a world of power play to happen, and no reason for these powers to actually regognize the PCs unless they all have some VERY GOOD narrative reasons, which would require some noble background or some intrigue adventures set in brevoy to ensure they could remain in charge of the land. Not addressed by the book at all.
3) The charter has nominal but no practical legitimacy or no legitimacy at all. Its just a fancy paper because as soon as they raise their first house they are a kingdom on their own. Not barons, not counts. They are lords, rulers, maybe not kings yet, but not barons either. Unless I really misunderstood how the feudal system works. Maybe its just a memento? A frail attempt from the swordslords to sway the pcs to their side with some sort of honor bound paper? Still, not a safe -let alone smart- move from restov.
Speaking of powers, there's also no mention of any factions that would be interested or caught amidst the formation of the new kingdom. How come for example, there's no mention of the Pathfinder Society? I reckon they would be interested in a new exploration and colonization of the stolen lands. I guess it's due to lack of space. So, has anyone worked up with success inserting faction's in their games? I'm not saying things like the noble houses and the religions, things like the aforementioned PFS. I used to play and gm 7th sea and factions and secret societies were a big thing there, wish I could work with something like that here.
---------
So, to sum it up:
- Any updated take on making the charters and the swordlord's interest in the pc's more believable?
-What's the point and/or the legitimacy of the RRR charter and what are the legal ties that the pc's land will/should have to restov/rostland and the other houses, or more importantly, the regent of brevoy, if any at all? I think the intent is that there's none, but the book sure makes it confusing to understand it.
-I can't seem to find it, but where in the book does it say restov cut ties to the pcs land? I see it allured in the books and here in the forums, but I can't find the exact text.
-Has anyone worked on putting (non-houses/religions)factions in their games? Any good links?
-How many expeditions set to the stolen lands? There's the pc's, drelev's and varn's that i know. I've seen mention of a fourth, but I can't remember if it was from someone else's campaign or if there's something in the books that slipped past me.
,
Cheers!
So, to sum it up:
- Any updated take on making the charters and the swordlord's interest in the pc's more believable?
-What's the point and/or the legitimacy of the RRR charter and what are the legal ties that the pc's land will/should have to restov/rostland and the other houses, or more importantly, the regent of brevoy, if any at all? I think the intent is that there's none, but the book sure makes it confusing to understand it.
-I can't seem to find it, but where in the book does it say restov cut ties to the pcs land? I see it allured in the books and here in the forums, but I can't find the exact text.
I think that for these three concerns, the 2nd charter is fine if you look at it from the right perspective.
Rostland is trying to maintain a balance between influence but not direct authority. 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. I don't recall anywhere in the books where it says that Rostland or Brevoy officially cut ties with the PCs' nation, but if you accept the perspective above, it makes sense that they won't go out of their way to get too close to them.
To sum up, they just want the PCs' nation there, but not overtly hostile.
-Has anyone worked on putting (non-houses/religions)factions in their games? Any good links?
I added that the men around Melianse's grove were members of the Lumber Consortium, intending to have them be recurring antagonists. I never took that very far, however.
-How many expeditions set to the stolen lands? There's the pc's, drelev's and varn's that i know. I've seen mention of a fourth, but I can't remember if it was from someone else's campaign or if there's something in the books that slipped past me.
The sidebar on page 13 of book 1.
Also, to address you concerns about titles:
I don't know how widespread this is across Golarion, but I think for this purpose, the titles applied to the PCs' nation's ruler does not have the same ramification as used traditionally. Baron/Duke/King or Baroness/Duchess/Queen are just intended to reflect the size and power of the nation.
Finally had a chance to read it properly and reply. Thank you both! It has already been very helpful.
I'll totally play the "Varn was my move" from rostsland and "Drelev is my move" from Issia. But what is still bugging me is that the "pcs move" isn't totally neutral and are also a rostland move, even if they take a much less influential approach than Varn's. What would be Issia's new move?
I wouldn't think the Surtovas mostly, assuming the "everybody knows its a plot but is playing along", would leave things to chance and wouldn't try to swing things their favor. Even if Venture fix some of these and one could play up their offers it still may sound like a bribe the PCs won't take. Well, pcs are always the exception so I can work with that I guess.
I figure I'm more concerned because one of my players will be playing a half-orc ex-docker from Issia that became an insurgent due to poor conditions (and an insurgency ploy from the swordlords) and burned down a few ships before fleeing to Rostland. Imagine their faces when they see an ex-docker become a hot shot in the south. Still, I'll still try to refrain from 'Issian's bad Rostland good' mentality, and try to come with some good and bad from all sides.
But I digress...
Regarding the charter per se. It seems my option 3 (no legitimacy at all) is the de facto option. I can play the fact that it's a gentleman's agreement only. Still, it seems like something that could bite the swordlords in the ass if found out by the other houses/crown...
Concerning the titles, it seems my suspicions were true and only a mechanical gimmick. Nevertheless it's weird to use it since a barony evokes a vassalage system, and even if it would be different in Golarion, this was not established in the books. Easy fix anyway, people will just call them Lords (or whatever their claim is) if they want to be on their good side or they will call them usurpers, barbarians, etc if they don't care about them. Eventually they can defend their claim to be Kings or Queens.
-It remains a mystery when and where in the books Restov cut ties with the pc's kingdom, IF it actually happens. Should a good soul have this knowledge, please tell us so :)
Edit: I've been thinking that maybe the PCs party are a second wave to the stolen lands. Maybe the Issians DID make a move, and the first wave (sent maybe a month or a few weeks or so before the pcs)were perhaps an Issian-heavy group, or maybe a mix of both, and maybe the Swordlords ambushed and killed them (even their owns to cover it up, to add INTRIGUE), and the pcs are really a wildcard they are willing to endure because all their cards are in Varn's. When things go woosh they may redirect their attentions to the greenbelt and the rest is history.
Alternatively, there could be a whole rival party gimmick going on. I just fear that it may get things too complicated. I'm really curious if the 11th anniversary will have the rival party thing from the crpg. Anyone else done this with success?
Here's the plan I was noodling with - the PCs were sent into the Stolen Lands by one of the Houses. Exactly which one is going to be a collaborative effort with the players when we decide what roles in the kingdom the different characters will take down the line. The exact charter they'd get would be a little different than the one in the book. Officially, they're being hired explore and map the Stolen Lands. Unofficially, the House hopes that if the PCs do a good enough job, that they might be granted the land as a reward. The House wasn't expecting the Stag Lord, but wow, that looked real good on their scion's resume.
And at first, the House is helping, like sending Kesten Garess and his mercs to back the adventures up. (Though I was going to move that event until after the PCs defeat Kressle and find out how big the Stag Lord's army is.)
Once the PCs take down the Stag Lord, their House presses for them to be granted the land. They'll send some resources and advisors to "help" get the new kingdom going. Some of them will be 100% legit and helpful. But a couple of them will be spies for the House, to make sure the new Baron does things the way the House wants to.
Eventually, the House and the PCs will have friction. I don't want to just have the "oh no, my uncle is secretly a priest of Asmodeus and the House wants to make Narland into New Chelliax" sort of black and white badness. Just find something that the House wants done differently, and have that be a complication. Sort of like how Grigori isn't there to burn the town down, he's just there to stir up trouble.
It's at the start of Varnhold Vanishing that Restov is supposed to cut ties with the colonies under threat from the Regent. That's the pretext for having the PCs investigate Varnhold instead of the Swordlords.
I like the idea of there being a tit-for-tat between Restov and the Regent in picking Varn and Drelev. There's a question of what Varn's background is exactly, the 1st and 3rd adventures contradict one another, but if you go with him being a Swordlord then it makes some sense there was a Surtova loyalist in the mix of colony leaders.
I do think that the Regent's plan was to let Restov/the colonies do the heavy lifting of pacifying the Stolen Land and then absorbing them through force or intimidation when the time seemed ripe. And then handing those lands over to the Great Houses that have been loyal to the Surtovas. Restov's ploy is the far riskier one - when push comes to shove, will the new kingdoms join the rebel cause, or would they sit out the conflict or even side with Surtova?
I loved GMing this AP but it unfortunately ended before we got to book 3. Here is what I made for my group:
I believe there is a trait that lets you be a minor noble, but its limited to the known houses. Make up your own minor house and have a conglomerate of those houses bankroll the charter. The houses funneled the official act through the mayor for plausible deniability, but once the PC's are successful, the noble sponsors begin populating your land with their distant cousins. So you get a host of minor nobles as well. (it was my RP way of describing the kingdom rules outside mechanics)
The issue of the kingdoms (stolen lands area)is that this area is notorious for not being able to keep a steady ruler/kingdom so it not unexpected that petty barons/kings pop up all the time and last for 10-20 years until the founder dies or is killed. What really matters is recognition from your neighboring kingdoms.
One thing I dabbled with is the southernmost river kingdom having a say especially because the last hexes in the southwest are actually part of Mivon. Use the pathfinderwiki on Mivon it states they have several stone keeps along the rivers and such. And it made up of former swordlords, that kingdom would be more than willing to help your PC's and have mercenaries, weapons and are hostile to Pitax. Really odd that this wasnt developed further in the AP.
I also used an evil druidic society from one of the pathfinder npc codex as a faction. And lastly I added a faction of exiled elves in the SW part of the forest who may or may not be part of the evil druidic faction. These elves are noted in the Mivon wiki as well.
|
I'm rebooting Kingmaker for another run with a new group and this time am heavily borrowing from Redcelt's "game of thrones" style setup. If you search them on this forum, you'll find a wealth of good stuff.
In a Session 0, you'll want to tie your PCs into the politics. You're right: why would the Swordlords give these powerful charter rights to nobodies? The charter is a big political dance. Surtova knows exactly what the Swordlords are doing but it's willing to let it happen because Surtova sees this as an opportunity. What would happen if a barony loyal to Issia forms a pincer around Rostland?
Barony: only the Regent can grant land and title, and Surtova can take it away in theory. There's no "under the table" dealings when building settlements on the border. Issian Houses would go to war if they thought Rostland was blatantly increasing its military might, and that's part of the dance if you want a more political game. The Swordlords have to remain at arms length and hope the PCs might support them when the day comes that they go to war. But, the PCs obviously get occupied with other things...
Severing Ties with Brevoy: At the end of Varnhold Vanishing, in the concluding section, it notes the escalation of tension between Issia and Rostland forces the swordlords to sever all contact with the PCs (or face civil war, which they aren't ready for, is my take why). I think they'd still risk subterfuge to keep priming the PCs as an ally, as would Rostland Houses.
|
Brevoy doesn't own the Stolen Lands, and thus can't actually grant them to anyone. What the charter really does is affirm that Brevoy will recognize the claim. It's much easier to establish a territory when your closest neighbor agrees to recognize your legitimacy.
By sending neutral claimants, Pitax and Mivon can't accuse Brevoy of invading contested land. The new barony provides a buffer between Rostland and any potential enemies to the south, allowing them to focus on the possible conflict with Issia. The Stolen Lands are very rich with farmland, timber, and other resources. With a small investment, Restov gains a wealthy trade partner, giving them even more leverage against the north.
And if it doesn't work? (And it probably won't. They've tried to tame this area several times) They've lost a handful of vagrants and rabble-rousers that would otherwise be stirring up trouble in Brevoy proper.
The charter isn't a deed. It's more of a conditional treaty and trade agreement.
|
|
Brevoy doesn't own the Stolen Lands, and thus can't actually grant them to anyone....
That's the fun of it all. Brevoy acts like it has claim to the lands, but if the PCs were later to declare themselves an independent state, how would the Rostland Swordlords or Issian Houses react? In my previous run (and future return to it occurring in about a month), it was a major issue. If Surtova felt the Rostlanders were financing a military zone outside the general purview of the Brevoy crown, it might trigger civil war. The same would be true if the PCs were to appear to be creating a hostile state to the Swordlords. They'd be forced to act before the PC kingdom became a real threat and they would be sandwiched on two fronts.
For the Regent Surtova, the reason he's not king is because he can't garner enough Houses (or duchies if you will) to validate the claim. Imagine if the PCs realm became as powerful as any other duchy and he were to press his authority as Regent to create a new Duchy/House, which then, if allied with him, would push him over the vote threshold to assume the Crown.
This is all why Brevoy politics should continue to be a major part of the game, even after PCs are deep in the Kamelands or Narlmarches.