Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 2275150" data-attributes="member: 30001">If there are detailed design issues, perhaps this is a topic for another thread - but I'd be interested in following it so make note of it here if you do.  In the meantime, here are my thoughts: 1.  I can't image a king hosting a military order within his kingdom headed by another king.  I can't think of a RL precedent for that.  I think the risks outweight the advantages.2.  I don't know what similarities would be significant with RL orders of knighthood.  One feature of the RL versions, for instance, is that they seemed to get kicked out of places and fought with various kingdoms over power.  But in your campaign it seems that heads of kingdoms are, in fact, heads of these fighting orders.  That would closely tie the policy of the order with the policy of the kingdom - making them identical.  And so the fighting orders would not have their own political identities.  3.  So given #2, I would move the heads of the orders to be relatives/allies of the heads of state, giving them natural alliances but leaving room for intrigue and seperate policies for the fighting orders.  This way if the King of Imarr ticks off Odin, the fighting order can register it's displeasure.  Where the knights of the RL orders vassals of kingdoms?  Seems to me that even that would lead to conflicts of interest.  If the highest goal of the Knights of Odin is to fight for Odin, you would think that membership in the order would trump all other allegiances.  If not, you're not doing the will of Odin.</blockquote>

Verification