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: 2277836" data-attributes="member: 30001">What about the Thrinnian knights on the side of Ulfius?  Are there significant vassals on either side with mixed allegiances?  It would seem to me that since both are heads of their respective states (the duchy seems virtually independant) they could fight each other with impunity.  Perhaps one force that would keep it secret would be that the King would be afraid of alienating rival dukes.  But introducing these other significant centers of power would require that you define their beliefs and allegiances as well.   It all seems very delicate - which it seems was your intention.  I made an assumption of a certain level of power held by the gods - and it seems that is not the case in your campaign.  Neither of the gods (through their priesthoods) seems to drive the policy of their fighting orders.  So as far as I can tell, it seems that both your knightly orders are really extensions of the collective state - and by my half-baked DnD theories, I would think it would be hard to apply RL religious fighting orders to either group.  Well, exactly.  And not only do the Kings recognize the significant powers of their own fighting order, but they would recognize the power of other king's as well.  I don't think it would be unreasonable that eventually membership to a fighting order would be equated with membership to a state - and so membership in a rival knightly order might be equivalent to treason - especially as the role of the gods in their policy seems somewhat remote.  WHen I said "move the heads of the orders" I meant to do so as a DM - depending on how permanent of a design decision this was in your campaign.  On what basis to Odin and Ksarul align?  Is it possible that both define a consistent set of beliefs/policies that could be treated as a whole?  The priesthoods of these gods seem to be of little consequence, as I have mentioned.  That's unorthodox (pardon the pun) compared to what I'm used to.  Have you made a concious decision to limit the political power of clerics in your campaign?  To me, the extremely signifcant attribute of the Pope in Medieval Europe was the he was the head of "Christendom".  This theoretically put him at the top of the power heirarchy.  He also had a tremendously strong religious and moral authority - excommunication was like a high level meteor swarm.  Kings put up with him for that reason - IMO they were essentially his vassals - but very rebellious ones.  When that situation changed (think Protestants) then I think that is a good example of actual religious differences - and in the case of Europe they were extremely violent.  It's the Protestant vs. Catholic situation in Medieval Europe that I think resembles your campaign more than the situation of a Universal Church - but of course I could have misread some details due to the complexity of your campaign.  In a "typical" kingdom that I envision, the former ruling family must have commanded some measure of loyalty that would make them extremely dangerous to whoever took over power.  IMO former ruling families (and all identifiable decendants) would all be killed as first order of business by a new king, and any personal centers of power would probably have to be destroyed in order for the new king to be legitimately considered the head of the kingdom.  So it's difficult for me to imagine the circumstances under which a former ruling family would be allowed to continue to operate a fighting order within a kingdom that they formerly ruled.  I supposed if they were voted out by Electors, but then I'd imagine that the new king would have to nerf their power as a matter of self preservation.</blockquote>

Verification