Politics of War: please help!

[Mongrel]

So I just started DMing a 5e game for a party of 2 newer players and 2 experienced players. During character creation, I tried to get a feel of the type of game my players wanted, and while the newer players were a little at a loss (they wanted "cool things to happen") the experienced player wanted a political game with lots of roleplaying, and combat that isn't a slog when it happens. I figure the newer players are interested in combat (most new players are I find), so I'd like to have a campaign that mixes combat with subterfuge and negotiation. My solution: war between empires that the PCs find themselves in the middle of! The only problem is, my experience with war (and the politics behind it) is limited to Game of Thrones and video games...so not terribly expansive =(. Even my knowledge of how empires/kingdoms function is a little shaky. So I turn to you, fellow gamers more experienced/knowledgeable than I! =D

I'm looking for advice on how to spice up this type of game and make it believable. I want to give the experienced player the opportunity to "play politics," pitting rivals against each other, making friends/contacts through persuasion or deceit, and overall socially using the situation to his advantage. I want to do this while keeping enough combat for the new players to feel cool (though not so much that the experienced ones get bored; the new players seem to enjoy roleplaying enough to where I'd err on the side of less combat)

Here are the campaign specifics, which I have put in spoiler tags because they're lengthy. If you'd like to ignore that wall of text and just give some general advice, please feel free; the bold "tl;dr" under the spoiler should be enough for that. Specific advice is obviously preferable, but general advice is more than welcome.



This campaign started with the party each in debt to an expansive thieve's guild known as "The Road" (the paladin voluntarily took on on his scoundrel brother's debt). The party (which just made level 2) consists of:

Air genesai bow ranger. An outsider due to his lineage, abandoned by his parents at a young age. Wears a cloak and heavy clothing to disguise his race. (CN I think, he might be CG)
Human paladin of Selene, a goddess of his own design who espouses goodwill, helping the less fortunate, and protecting the weak. Folk hero known for standing up to a nobleman who was trying to buy the land on which his small hamlet was built and using it for his own ends. (LG) (a note: this player is contemplating switching characters after seeing how unscrupulous his companions were, though I personally think that the dynamic of a LG character in an unscrupulous party is a fun thing to play around with. I get the feeling he kind of wants to "play the hero," something I feel I should be able to facilitate for him as a DM even with nongood party members)
Tiefling cleric of Io. Former slave who earned his freedom as a deckhand for pirates. Skilled manipulator. Wears a veiled helm and scale mail to hide his ancestry (NE)
has not made a character yet (we've only played one session) but I think he's planning on "filling the gaps" in the party, so will probably play an arcane caster or rogue. Not sure of alignment, potentially evil.

They're playing in a world of my own creation that I've been fine tuning over the years. It's a fairly standard fantasy setting, but the points that are relevant to the situation are as follows:

The level of magic is somewhere between medium and high. Magic users (both arcane and divine) are relatively common, as are magic items, but it's not as ubiquitous as "crystal ball telephone networks" or anything like that. Mass production of magic items is a thing, but these tend to be standard and "boring" items (like +1 weapons or armor). If a magic user makes an item him/herself it is likely to have a significant unique quality (unique magic items are common in this world, and are not limited to artifact level items; I like to come up with my own stuff outside the DMG, though the items in it also exist). The tech level is also relatively high; flintlock pistols, though expensive, are not uncommon, and the gnomish kingdom has dirigibles and a plethora of clockwork/steampunk contraptions, though such tech is not commonly in the hands of non-gnomes.

There is conflict (soon to be war) between the two most expansive empires in the setting (both of which are good aligned):
A lawful good (though more "law" than "good") primarily human empire; other races are uncommon and are often treated as second class citizens by the law. Slavery is frowned upon, but legal. Ruled by a king, with several noble families running their areas of the kingdom. There's some bickering and political maneuvering among these houses (think Game of Thrones with considerably less murder and more negotiation; the king tends to harshly punish those who attack the noble houses, even if they are of another noble house). Military is well trained, known for elite gryphon rider regiments and the very powerful Crimson Wolves regiment, which serves as special forces and bodyguards to the king.
A neutral good empire ruled (they would say "guided") by religious leaders; the de-facto ruler is a Patriarch/Matriarch elected from a pool of devoted worshipers of approved deities. The worship of all good and most neutral gods is encouraged here (and this setting has LOTS of gods, though they have not interfered directly in mortal affairs for centuries unless you count granting clerics spells and whatnot). Mostly human, but considerably more diverse than the Dalarian empire, even including some savage humanoids (gnolls, minotaurs, orcs, hobgoblins, etc.) that have been converted from their evil ways (their presence is uncommon, but not rare). Most populous kingdom in the world with the largest standing military, but rank-and-file is poorly trained and not very coherently managed, often relying on the guidance of heroic leaders. Military strengths include powerful and plentiful divine casters as well as strong, charismatic leaders.

Note: there are also nations of dwarves, gnomes, and elves, as well as an "underdark" type area called The Deep, a "frozen north" area of barbarians, and a lawless swamp/archipelago region home to pirates/smugglers/merfolk etc., though since these are not currently involved I won't go into much detail with them.

Though the Dalarians and Teluvians are both good kingdoms, there is much disagreement between them. In particular, the Teluvians find the Dalarian treatment of nonhumans to be despicable (though it should be noted that nonhumans are not explicitly mistreated, just often stereotyped/mistrusted, particularly in court proceedings) and cannot abide slavery. The Dalarians believe that Teluvia is too loosely governed, and scoff at what they perceive as reluctance to enact and enforce law. Diplomats have kept this under control for some time, but this peace has finally broke down; Teluvia attacks Dalaria with the intent of liberating the people they perceive as being oppressed, bringing the region in line with the tenants of the Collective by any means necessary. This gives the Dalarian houses a common enemy to rally behind, but might also provide an opportunity for the balance of power among them to shift...

The central continent on which the Teluvians and Dalarians both reside is almost completely divided by a massive mountain range home to dangerous creatures (giants, dragons, etc.). The Teluvians are on the western side of this range with the Dalarians to the east. This limits the avenues of approach for invaders: there are passes to the extreme north and south of the mountain range, an expansive ocean that can be traversed, and potential paths through The Deep (though this is of course a treacherous option). Teleportation is also a thing; key cities are protected against it and spellcasters powerful enough to teleport are not common, but it's potentially a way for small groups to get from one side to the other.

The party is in Blackrock, a Dalarian port city adjacent to a bay that separates Dalarian territory from Teluvian; it is a strategic location built for trade with the Teluvians, a practice that is quite heavily regulated given the current conflict but still operational. The PCs met when they ere each taken together to an agent of The Road regarding their debt and given a week to get the next payment. A patron at the local tavern overheard them talking about how to get gold and offered to pay them if they help him waylay some smugglers. The party agreed, and successfully found and conquered the ship in question, only after realizing that it was not a smuggler's ship but a legitimate trade vessel of the Teluvian empire (their employer is Captain Goldtooth, a pirate). The ship was looted and sabotaged in a way that was reparable, but the crew that survived the attack (including the captain) were allowed to live. They then returned to Blackrock so that Goldtooth and his men could fence the take on the black market and pay them the PCs their due.

My biggest objective is to make this game revolve around the players, their characters' motivations and the effects their decisions have on others rather than my own setpieces or plotlines, while throwing in cool magic items, NPC allies/foes, and locations/events for them to interact with to keep them interested in the world. I don't want to get too focused on cool NPCs, locations, or plotlines independent of PC backstory as this has been campaign bane for me in the past, but obviously some planning must be done. For this game I intend to focus on flexibility, setting up "this is what happens if the PCs don't interfere" situations and just letting the situation play out.

tl;dr: a NG racially diverse empire is at war with a LG human-centric one because the former perceives the latter as an oppressor to its people. The two kingdoms have been allies in the past, but disagreement has boiled over into conflict. The geography of the world makes it difficult (but not impossible) to travel between the nations (they are separated by a massive and dangerous mountain range).

I'd like advice on how a fantasy kingdom would approach this. The NG kingdom seeks to liberate those they perceived to be oppressed from the LG one, how would they go about that with a "medieval fantasy" military campaign? Is conquering territory feasible and if so, how is it done/what challenges are associated with it? Each of these kingdoms have one major "emperor" figure to lead them, but several independent powers (noble houses, city-states, etc) that, though beholden to said emperor, may not be on board with war...how is this situation approached politically? This situation is designed to be one in which both sides are in the right in their own way, how can I play this up and make the players feel like the conflict is not black/white good/evil, that it's up to them to choose which side, if any, their characters decide to support? What are some ways in which fantasy tropes might work into war (for instance, casters, flying mounts, etc.)? What might actually legitimately evil powers, either members of the kingdoms in question or outsiders to the conflict (monstrous or otherwise), do to take advantage of the situation? If you were running this campaign with these campaign goals, how would you go about it?

My current plan is for there to be a "Pearl Harbor" style decisive strike against the trade city the PCs are currently in, the objective being to establish a beachhead for a land invasion. This is the event that pushes the empires from "in conflict" to "all out war." If the PCs are present for this, I want them to get the sense that they are involved in this war, and to give them the opportunity to make allies/friends in the fires of combat. It is possible that the party will choose to sail away as crew of a small pirate ship they did a job for last session, meaning they won't be present for the attack. This could lead either to them being attacked (and probably captured) by a pirate hunting vessel (after which they will be given the "do this quest for us or hang" choice), or making their way to a "pirate city" a la Shipwreck Cove from Pirates of the Caribbean, with the above mentioned attack happening off screen (or not at all), and potentially getting involved in the war later. Does this seem like a good idea, both from a DM's perspective and a military one? Any advice about how to handle it, or about alternatives to this?

[Waterdeep Merch]

Let it be complicated. There should be heroes and villains on both sides. Slavery is historically the tool of evil empires in D&D, not simply something the good guys "frown upon". Even if this weren't the case, the fact that there's still clearly not much of it would mean any movement by the multi-racial nation would be a strictly evil act of razing a neighboring nation under the guise of civil rights. They acknowledge that the other nation also hates this thing, so their answer is to sack and raze them? Smacks of a poor justification by a greedy ruler to expand their realm, or worse, petty revenge taken to extremes.

If the multi-racial nation is in any way even remotely good aligned, they shouldn't easily stomach their forces acting this way. Their ruler is likely going to face a serious civil war unless they act the despot and start putting down any and all talk of rebellion. Which is going to make things worse before it gets any better, but if he can make enough serious examples out of his critics, they might be too frightened to move on their own. In any case, morale is going to be in the toilet from the moment the fighting starts.

The human-centric nation has every right to be angry at the invaders, escalating a national conflict into an international crisis. The dissenting voices in their nation are likely to fall quiet behind determined patriotism. Defending nations get like that. They won't suffer the same morale issues as their enemy. In fact, if both nations are roughly of equal power, this is the nation that will win the war, hands down. Their turf, better reason for everyone to fight, and the morale high ground despite the weak liberation justification. Since slavery is apparently super rare, those uprisings are unlikely to cause much of a stir. Hard to do that when you're an extreme minority.

If you still want to use this setup, the multi-racial kingdom is ultimately the best enemy nation, and should be enormously more powerful than the human-centric one or else the war effort makes zero sense militarily. You have some great tension in the fact that in the midst of all this jingoism, there's still something awful happening (slavery), and interesting allies in the dissenting rebels of the multi-racial kingdom. You'll need to figure out the real reason they invaded, because as stated, the slavery excuse is extraordinarily flimsy. This is the act of the worst sort of imperial dictator.

[BigKaiju]

Not to mention that certain noble houses will be better at things than others (which you seem to have at least a grasp of, talking about the trade city). Some houses will be richer than others, some will have more soldiers than others, some will have special soldiers like cavalry or archers. When the characters are playing politics at court or choosing where to travel, keep this in mind and make their decisions impact the story based on those aspects of the houses. This will intersect with the alignments and moral decisions, giving you a bit of an x-y axis to work with.

There's also the always-popular 'fifth column" option of one of the noble houses inciting the war for their own purposes and not the best interests of the empire. Very Littlefinger, since your experience is GoT based....

[War_lord]

There is conflict (soon to be war) between the two most expansive empires in the setting (both of which are good aligned)

States shouldn't have alignments, they can lean a certain way due to religious influence or the policies of a powerful rulers, but they're ruled by a multitude of organizations, with competing ideologies and goals, which are themselves made up of individuals, who often have competing ideologies and goals inside their organization.


A lawful good (though more "law" than "good") primarily human empire; other races are uncommon and are often treated as second class citizens by the law. Slavery is frowned upon, but legal.

Soooo, they're xenophobic racist slavers who rule an Empire? They sound like generic lawful evil badguys to me. You're better off defining these guys as just "Lawful", with figures ranging through the whole spectrum of Good-Neutral-Evil. I'm not sure what slavery being "frowned upon, but legal" is meant to actually mean. If Slavery was widely "frowned upon" in this place, it would just be banned. Clearly a majority of the wealthy land owning class do not frown upon slavery if it's legal to benefit from it.


Ruled by a king,

I thought you said it was an Empire?


with several noble families running their areas of the kingdom. There's some bickering and political maneuvering among these houses (think Game of Thrones with considerably less murder and more negotiation; the king tends to harshly punish those who attack the noble houses, even if they are of another noble house).

In order for that to work, the king/emperor would have to be far more powerful then his disloyal vassals combined. Not impossible, but something to keep in mind when you're drawing the internal borders.


Military is well trained, known for elite gryphon rider regiments and the very powerful Crimson Wolves regiment, which serves as special forces and bodyguards to the king.

I'd suggest using a more glamorous term then "regiment", in medieval terms a "regiment" is just any raised force. Heck maybe even just call them "The Crimson Wolves". You say that the military is "well trained", what kind of force are they? Most historical medieval states relied on armies of levied infantry backed by a sledgehammer made up of a warrior class of knights, particularly wealthy rulers supplemented that with companies of mercenaries who were the closest thing to professional soldiers at the time. Standing armies were very rare, because training and outfitting a permanent force was very expensive.


A neutral good empire ruled (they would say "guided") by religious leaders; the de-facto ruler is a Patriarch/Matriarch elected from a pool of devoted worshipers of approved deities. The worship of all good and most neutral gods is encouraged here (and this setting has LOTS of gods, though they have not interfered directly in mortal affairs for centuries unless you count granting clerics spells and whatnot). Mostly human, but considerably more diverse than the Dalarian empire, even including some savage humanoids (gnolls, minotaurs, orcs, hobgoblins, etc.) that have been converted from their evil ways (their presence is uncommon, but not rare). Most populous kingdom in the world with the largest standing military, but rank-and-file is poorly trained and not very coherently managed, often relying on the guidance of heroic leaders. Military strengths include powerful and plentiful divine casters as well as strong, charismatic leaders.

The only problem I have with this one, (other then the casual tossing around of the word "Empire" again) is that they don't really seem like the kind of state that would have a standing army. Integrating monstrous warriors and relying on Charismatic and pious individuals as leaders would lend itself to an army of warrior bands, rather then the kind of ultra-centrism required to field a professional force.


Though the Dalarians and Teluvians are both good kingdoms, there is much disagreement between them. In particular, the Teluvians find the Dalarian treatment of nonhumans to be despicable (though it should be noted that nonhumans are not explicitly mistreated, just often stereotyped/mistrusted, particularly in court proceedings) and cannot abide slavery.

If you're going to have the Dalarian Empire be a racist slaveholding empire, you need to commit to it. You keep saying they're slavers "but it's frowned upon" and they mistreat other races, but it's institutional racism rather then Human supremacy. It just comes across as inconsistent. You can have elements of their culture be repugnant to the audience, while the Dalarians as a people remain complex. Just like the Teluvians can have an admirable culture, while the Teluvian people remain complex.


The Dalarians believe that Teluvia is too loosely governed, and scoff at what they perceive as reluctance to enact and enforce law. Diplomats have kept this under control for some time, but this peace has finally broke down; Teluvia attacks Dalaria with the intent of liberating the people they perceive as being oppressed, bringing the region in line with the tenants of the Collective by any means necessary. This gives the Dalarian houses a common enemy to rally behind, but might also provide an opportunity for the balance of power among them to shift..

That's a really weak cause for war, if the Teluvians really felt the Dalarian Empire was that repugnant, why did they ally with them for years before declaring what is essentially (from a medieval perspective) a holy war? I think we need something a bit more complex then that.


The central continent on which the Teluvians and Dalarians both reside is almost completely divided by a massive mountain range home to dangerous creatures (giants, dragons, etc.). The Teluvians are on the western side of this range with the Dalarians to the east. This limits the avenues of approach for invaders: there are passes to the extreme north and south of the mountain range, an expansive ocean that can be traversed, and potential paths through The Deep (though this is of course a treacherous option). Teleportation is also a thing; key cities are protected against it and spellcasters powerful enough to teleport are not common, but it's potentially a way for small groups to get from one side to the other.

It's going to be extremely difficult for the two sides to conduct a war with the equivalent of the alps between the two sides. Naval transport isn't much of an option because, much like a standing army, a professional navy costs a lot to maintain, and that's without getting into issues of supply.


The NG kingdom seeks to liberate those they perceived to be oppressed from the LG one, how would they go about that with a "medieval fantasy" military campaign?

As I mentioned, they wouldn't use that as a cause for war. They might make a point of freeing slaves in order to weaken their foe socially and economically, but the cause of the war would be something more directly related to Teluvia. Perhaps a dispute over a strategic pass, or disagreements over the precise terms of a previous treaty between the two sides.


Is conquering territory feasible and if so, how is it done/what challenges are associated with it?

You capture territory by taking Castles, Cities and Fortified towns. The challenge is that these locations are expecting hostile forces to show up, and are well prepared for a siege. Medieval warfare consisted of a campaigning season in the summer months, which was mostly taken up by sieges and low level conflict, pitched battles where two full armies clashed were rare, because they were decisive, and therefore risky.


My current plan is for there to be a "Pearl Harbor" style decisive strike against the trade city the PCs are currently in, the objective being to establish a beachhead for a land invasion. Does this seem like a good idea, both from a DM's perspective and a military one? Any advice about how to handle it, or about alternatives to this?

Pearl Harbor happened in late 1941, and was carried out using tactics that were advanced even for that time period. I'd say it's totally inappropriate for the 1500's tech level you seem to be aiming for. Maybe have a faction within the city be plotting an insurrection to open the gates to the Teluvian army when they show up outside the walls? That sort of thing did happen historically.

[Mongrel]

Thanks for the advice! I'll go through some of major points of discussion and answer some questions posed to me in the above posts.

First of all, I'll say that alignment is pretty grey all around in my game. I find it makes things more dynamic if good characters can have debatably evil motivations, or if evil characters sometimes do something good; I've never really liked the idea of good and evil as forces rather than descriptors, it makes sides too black and white, which just isn't the style of game I run. This is personal preference, and it's fine if you disagree, but please understand, this is my game. My views on alignment are therefore what matter to this discussion, I do not intend to debate them.

@Waterdeep Merch:
To go into detail about some of the things you asked about:


Complicated: This was exactly my intention. I wanted the conflict to essentially be morally grey, it's one of the reasons I chose to send two generally good aligned nations to war with each other.
Regarding slavery: It exists in the human-centric empire in certain situations, essentially. Victors in war are legally allowed to take slaves from the losing side, for example. This practice is frowned upon, but allowed and tolerated due to tradition as well as the letter of the law (which also ensures slaves get a certain level of lodging/care, by the way. They're not barbarians). The more warlike houses in the empire tend to have slaves while the more peaceful ones have few, none, or indentured servants (which are basically the same thing). Non-nobles almost never have slaves, although some merchants manage to acquire them.
Reasons for war: The multi-racial nation has been trying to influence the human-centric one to adopt policies fairer to nonhumans and do away with slavery for some time, sending ambassadors and missionaries to this end, but there have been no changes. Some houses of the human centric kingdom even openly mock their efforts. In addition to this, there are disputes over trade, treaties, and long forgotten promises as there are between any large nations. All of these factors finally reached a boiling point, and the peace talks failed. You are correct that this may not be good justification, but cite the wrong flaw that led them to this path. It wasn't greed, evil, or lust for expansion, but self-righteousness. To the human centric nation, of course, all of those accusations ring true.
Military strength: As imagined, they are similarly powered, but have different strengths. The multiracial nation has the strength of numbers, devotion of troops, and heroic/inspiring leaders. It also has more diversity in its ranks, but less cohesion. The human-centric one has better training, equipment, and discipline. I agree that as stated things don't look too good for the invaders in the long run, but since it will take some time for the defenders to muster their forces and march them to meet the invasion force, things will be going pretty well for them in the beginning I'd imagine. Of course, discussing this is also why I started this thread. How else might one nation go to war with another if not through invasion? In a way that would be cinematic, of course (no one wants to play the DnD campaign focused around crippling economic sanctions, for instance)



Not to mention that certain noble houses will be better at things than others (which you seem to have at least a grasp of, talking about the trade city). Some houses will be richer than others, some will have more soldiers than others, some will have special soldiers like cavalry or archers. When the characters are playing politics at court or choosing where to travel, keep this in mind and make their decisions impact the story based on those aspects of the houses. This will intersect with the alignments and moral decisions, giving you a bit of an x-y axis to work with.

There's also the always-popular 'fifth column" option of one of the noble houses inciting the war for their own purposes and not the best interests of the empire. Very Littlefinger, since your experience is GoT based....

Indeed, I have the various houses worked out in some detail in that regard. Each has its own specialties and motivations. I like the idea of having the houses have their own "signature unit," that does offer some more depth as you say. I will keep your final suggestion in mind as well (Littlefinger is one of my favorite characters in GoT heh).




States shouldn't have alignments, they can lean a certain way due to religious influence or the policies of a powerful rulers, but they're ruled by a multitude of organizations, with competing ideologies and goals, which are themselves made up of individuals, who often have competing ideologies and goals inside their organization.

I agree completely, those were offered simply as a reference for how the nations are generally governed (although each nations rulers are indeed of those alignments, so it works that way too). Dalaria is a place that generally believes in order and justice, as well as protection of the weak, helping the needy, and other good tropes. Teluvia believes in those good tropes too, but thinks that a softer hand is necessary regarding rule of law. Their court system is more like a trial by jury than trial by judge, for instance, and laws are often open to interpretation with rules being bent when it appears appropriate. This is all I meant by those terms. Certainly, nongood (even evil) characters exist in each nation, some of whom in positions of political or military power. They are, of course, far rarer than good aligned citizens.


Re: slavery/evil: see above




I thought you said it was an Empire?

The term fits in this instance. Definition:

em·pire
ˈemˌpī(ə)r
noun
1.
an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.
"the Roman Empire"
synonyms: kingdom, realm, domain, territory, imperium



In order for that to work, the king/emperor would have to be far more powerful then his disloyal vassals combined. Not impossible, but something to keep in mind when you're drawing the internal borders.

The various houses of Dalaria are bound to the ruling house by ancient pacts to that end, although these are not magical bindings so it is true that they could potentially revolt if they wanted to. They each have their own standing militaries, though they must offer up a sizeable amount of their soldiers to serve in the army of Dalaria itself as per these pacts. The king has access to the standing military of his own house plus these offered soldiers. The standing forces that answer to the king are therefore vaster than any single house, probably even moreso than multiple houses combined depending on which houses you look at, but if all of the houses were to band together they could probably overthrow him. Of course, this would require not only that the houses be dissatisfied with the king's rulership (which is not so, at least not to a significant degree), but also that a significant number of them be able to negotiate and plan with each other without being executed for treason.




I'd suggest using a more glamorous term then "regiment", in medieval terms a "regiment" is just any raised force. Heck maybe even just call them "The Crimson Wolves". You say that the military is "well trained", what kind of force are they? Most historical medieval states relied on armies of levied infantry backed by a sledgehammer made up of a warrior class of knights, particularly wealthy rulers supplemented that with companies of mercenaries who were the closest thing to professional soldiers at the time. Standing armies were very rare, because training and outfitting a permanent force was very expensive.

Funny you should mention this, in my setting they are indeed simply called the Crimson Wolves, I added "regiment" into the post later because I wanted to make sure it was obvious that these were people rather than trained beasts. I will need to come up with a name for their gryphon riders though, can't believe I never thought of that before heh.

As for the Dalarian forces, here is what I envision (keep in mind, I am no expert in medieval military tactics/strategy): Most soldiers are footmen, with general formation being sword-and-shield wielders in the first rank followed by spearmen. They have skilled calvary units (mostly horse mounted, and like in your example often where officers of the noble class are found) and archers (longbowmen and crossbowmen). Casters are sprinkled throughout, wizards are used as utility and ranged artillery. Clerics are usually out of combat healers but there are some battle medics in the ranks as well. In terms of "well trained," to provide some frame of reference the basic Dalarian soldier would be CR 1 while the basic Teluvian one is more like CR 1/2 or maybe 3/4.

Regarding mercenaries, there is a global mercenary organization in the world. They generally are more focused with "adventure" jobs, offering small but skilled teams rather than rank-and-file grunts, but could conceivably be tapped by either side in this conflict.




The only problem I have with this one, (other then the casual tossing around of the word "Empire" again) is that they don't really seem like the kind of state that would have a standing army. Integrating monstrous warriors and relying on Charismatic and pious individuals as leaders would lend itself to an army of warrior bands, rather then the kind of ultra-centrism required to field a professional force.

Warrior bands is pretty much what I was going for with that nation. The idea is that they are basically a series of hamlets, villages, and city-states that are internally governed, but also beholden to an overarching power structure (sort of like the USA in structure, though not so much with regard to political process). Each population center in the Collective pays a portion of its taxes to the central government, which uses it for things like infrastructure, research, and disaster relief. There is a standing military for the nation itself, but it is based exclusively in the nation's capital, a sprawling mega-city. The individual population centers that make up the Collective are expected to respond to the Patriarch/Matriarch's call for aid should it be issued. Refusing the call does not carry any immediate penalty (apart from being seen as cowardly/disrespectful), but the refusing party is expected to send an agent to the capital to defend this decision, facing potential repercussions if the reason is deemed inadequate, the worst punishment being removal from the Collective.

Indeed, the Teluvians are not really supposed to be a "professional force" in the sense of disciplined career soldiers and complicated command structures. Their strength is numbers, they're more like a horde in terms of battle strategy. There would be agents appointed by the central power structure to gather and lead the individual regiments, but they would mostly just be deciding when and where to attack; actual battlefield command is left to the units themselves. Dalaria definitely has the advantage in tactics and warcraft.



If you're going to have the Dalarian Empire be a racist slaveholding empire, you need to commit to it. You keep saying they're slavers "but it's frowned upon" and they mistreat other races, but it's institutional racism rather then Human supremacy. It just comes across as inconsistent. You can have elements of their culture be repugnant to the audience, while the Dalarians as a people remain complex. Just like the Teluvians can have an admirable culture, while the Teluvian people remain complex.

I would argue that the Dalarians are complex rather than inconsistent. The slavery is due to their lawfulness (it has been law/tradition since the nation was formed, they feel that alone gives it merit even though changing social norms have made it a questionable practice). The institutional racism is born of privilege (all of the houses are human, meaning the entire ruling class is human). If you have a suggestion on how to change them to be more interesting though, I'm interested. I came here for ideas, after all ;)


That's a really weak cause for war, if the Teluvians really felt the Dalarian Empire was that repugnant, why did they ally with them for years before declaring what is essentially (from a medieval perspective) a holy war? I think we need something a bit more complex then that.

Centuries ago, the two human nations were on a diplomatic council that included all of the good nations (sort of like the UN). Back then there was a third human nation, one ruled by a tyrannical prophet-king, in the center of the supercontinent. Long story short, the good nations discovered that this third nation was committing atrocities in pursuit of power, and it was working. They all banded together to defeat it, and the gods ended up getting involved on both sides. At its conclusion, the central human kingdom was obliterated in an event so destructive that it formed the central mountain range and cracked continents off of the central continent, forming island continents. Due to events surrounding the war and its conclusion, the elven nation resigned from the council soon after this event. With no common enemy to fight, the remaining nations inevitably bickered with themselves, even sometimes coming to skirmishes/war, though the council allowed a channel for diplomacy that cooled some of these conflicts before they got too bad. When one of these conflicts did get too bad, the dwarven nation ended leaving because of it, and never returned even after it was resolved. Over the following centuries, the gnomish nation ended up leaving as well, at which point only the two human nations remained. With no one to mediate, relations between the two nations began to sour, and diplomacy eroded over the years, finally culminating in a war over ideals.

That is how I imagine they went from being allies of necessity to war over a significant timeline. Does that seem like a good enough explanation to you, and if not, what would you change?




It's going to be extremely difficult for the two sides to conduct a war with the equivalent of the alps between the two sides. Naval transport isn't much of an option because, much like a standing army, a professional navy costs a lot to maintain, and that's without getting into issues of supply.

Indeed, the geographical difficulties are significant for invasion, but I can see a few ways to make it work. For one thing, the Dalarian kingdom is pretty land locked due to its positioning (there's a lot of virtually uninhabitable swampland to its south, mountains to the west, and elf-inhabited forest to the north). It has a port to the southwest across a bay from a Teluvian port, and a few ports to its eastern border. Teluvia, on the other hand, touches water at its southern and eastern borders, giving it considerably more shipyards and sailors, resulting in a considerably better navy. This should give them a massive advantage in taking Blackrock, though unless they sail through treacherous waters to reach Dalaria's eastern border the navy will be all but useless after that.

Also this is a medium-high magic setting, so teleportation exists. Of course, key areas are warded against it, and it really isn't widely available enough to use on something as large as an army, but it does allow for small forces to be strategically positioned.




As I mentioned, they wouldn't use that as a cause for war. They might make a point of freeing slaves in order to weaken their foe socially and economically, but the cause of the war would be something more directly related to Teluvia. Perhaps a dispute over a strategic pass, or disagreements over the precise terms of a previous treaty between the two sides.

Those are good ideas, thanks. =)


You capture territory by taking Castles, Cities and Fortified towns. The challenge is that these locations are expecting hostile forces to show up, and are well prepared for a siege. Medieval warfare consisted of a campaigning season in the summer months, which was mostly taken up by sieges and low level conflict, pitched battles where two full armies clashed were rare, because they were decisive, and therefore risky.

It sounds like these campaigns would be very slow-going, which is not bad for a politically oriented campaign. Ariel units and spellcasters might quicken the process a little, I'd imagine, but only if they're not busy doing something else.


Pearl Harbor happened in late 1941, and was carried out using tactics that were advanced even for that time period. I'd say it's totally inappropriate for the 1500's tech level you seem to be aiming for. Maybe have a faction within the city be plotting an insurrection to open the gates to the Teluvian army when they show up outside the walls? That sort of thing did happen historically.

Hm, what about the tactics of Pearl Harbor was especially before its time? My impression is that this discrepancy is due to the advent of aerial war machines, something true medieval forces of course did not have. In a fantasy setting, however, magical flight and winged mounts can provide an air force, and magic offers even more options, so I figure fantasy tactics would have to be more complex than medieval tactics to adapt to this.

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you meant, and if so I wonder if you could clarify for me. An alternative suggestion would would also be welcome in that case.

[Unoriginal]

In case of border-to-border conflicts, it's often the nobles who are in charge of such areas (Marquis and the like) who get an army to defend at first, before the other parts of the realm send help.

I think if you want a complicated war scenario, you need to define a certain number of "people in charge of X", determine how they would act in a few circumstances (ex: "Count Vard hates Baron Lodun, but he would never let enemies take a stronghold on Lodun's territory if he can do anything about it"; "the king's treasurer is an ally of Marquis Anatas, meaning he'll try to make the Emperor give him funding in priority.") and then see how things plays out with the PCs' intervention.

Might want to make the PCs be involved in small scale first (like, they're here when a town is attacked) before it opens their way to the large scale stuff (like, the local ruler recognise their skills and send them to help in the upper ranks of the realm's war effort)

[EvilAnagram]

[Slavery isn't necessarily evil]

Yes it is. Your defense of why this empire is still lawful good is entirely unconvincing. I get that it's more akin to Roman slavery than chattel slavery, but Roman slaves were worked to death in mines by the thousands. It's evil.

More importantly, if you want a grey war between two groups that think they're doing right, just make them both neutral. Governments tend to be neutral anyways.

Anyways, having the neutral confederation (that's what you're describing more than an empire) attack the lawful empire because slavery is bad doesn't quite fit. Big, powerful nations don't fight over big, important ideals. They fight over little pieces of land that both could do without.

I would have Lawful annex a small, resource-rich nation that is associated with, but not part of Neutral. Maybe there's a dwarven or halfling nation that does a lot of trade, but zealots have been committing terrorist acts in Lawful because of the oppression there. So Lawful busts down the little nation in retaliation (and for those sweet resources) and Neutral gets pissed. Both have legitimate grievances, and both feel they're in the right.

[Trum4n1208]

I agree with Evil Anagram. Wars tend to have very little to realistically do with ideals, and more to do with 'realpolitik.' I would argue that nations don't truly care about morals, except in how they can be used to motivate a populace. Again, I would agree with Evil Anagram. There's a buffer of smaller states separating two great powers. The early portions of the game are spent with the two great powers using indirect methods to take over the smaller nations. Have tensions steadily rise, as Great Power A weakens Great Power B's position and security until eventually war breaks out. Consider the manipulations and machinations going on not just between the great powers, but also between various nobles and powerful organizations within the powers, and the wants/needs/desires of the smaller nations. Give the players options of who they ally themselves with. Are they going to try and secure the independence of the small buffer nations? Do they think the world would be better off if one of the great powers wins? Or maybe they work with one of the powers whilst secretly backing a coup against their rulers. If one of them is a Noble, that player could even begin to start his own maneuverings within to gain power. Options are key for this kind of game.

Don't make it binary, and don't make one side obviously good and another obviously evil; gray and gray morality is good for these games, where everyone ends up looking kind of bad. I actually think Fallout New Vegas did a decent job of this, with the major factions all bringing something good to the table, whilst also having very obvious flaws and issues.

[MrMcBobb]

I quite like the idea of the "Pearl Harbor" moment being the abuse or destruction of Teluvian missionaries.

Teluvia, sick of Delaria's ill treatment of non-humans and slaves, has redoubled their efforts to show them the light. Missionaries bring new religion and hope to the downtrodden of Delaria. Slaves and non-human's, now with hope of a new life in their hearts, begin to drain from Delaria. Mostly Delarian nobles don't give to shakes of a lamb's tail about what their subjects believe or don't believe but when their property (slaves) start leaving they sit up and take notice.

Missionaries begin going missing from the streets with some city states banning them officially, instead of just ushering them out the door. Not to be dissuaded the Teluvian clerics begin holding secret masses and continue to assist people in leaving Delaria. This escalates until eventually one particularly awful noble decides to imprison a large group of Teluvians and maybe hangs them for their crimes against the state. BLAM! Pearl Harbor moment of Teluvian citizens being hanged, under official orders from the Delarian state. Perhaps a Teluvian hero is among them. Some Cleric big-wig who's known to be super devout and great.

Also kudos for sticking to your guns on the slavery thing. It's evil by today's standards sure, but this is a medieval fantasy setting with different moral obligations than us. I'd probably go LN rather than LG though....

[War_lord]

Regarding slavery: It exists in the human-centric empire in certain situations, essentially. Victors in war are legally allowed to take slaves from the losing side, for example. This practice is frowned upon, but allowed and tolerated due to tradition as well as the letter of the law (which also ensures slaves get a certain level of lodging/care, by the way. They're not barbarians). The more warlike houses in the empire tend to have slaves while the more peaceful ones have few, none, or indentured servants (which are basically the same thing). Non-nobles almost never have slaves, although some merchants manage to acquire them.

Slavery is still evil, it inherently fits into the D&D definition of evil.


Reasons for war: The multi-racial nation has been trying to influence the human-centric one to adopt policies fairer to nonhumans and do away with slavery for some time, sending ambassadors and missionaries to this end, but there have been no changes. Some houses of the human centric kingdom even openly mock their efforts. In addition to this, there are disputes over trade, treaties, and long forgotten promises as there are between any large nations. All of these factors finally reached a boiling point, and the peace talks failed. You are correct that this may not be good justification, but cite the wrong flaw that led them to this path. It wasn't greed, evil, or lust for expansion, but self-righteousness. To the human centric nation, of course, all of those accusations ring true.

Medieval states didn't go to war over civil rights, because "civil rights" as a concept independent of religion didn't exist yet and was still hundreds of years way, it's an Enlightenment concept.


Military strength: As imagined, they are similarly powered, but have different strengths. The multiracial nation has the strength of numbers, devotion of troops, and heroic/inspiring leaders. It also has more diversity in its ranks, but less cohesion. The human-centric one has better training, equipment, and discipline. I agree that as stated things don't look too good for the invaders in the long run, but since it will take some time for the defenders to muster their forces and march them to meet the invasion force, things will be going pretty well for them in the beginning I'd imagine. Of course, discussing this is also why I started this thread. How else might one nation go to war with another if not through invasion? In a way that would be cinematic, of course (no one wants to play the DnD campaign focused around crippling economic sanctions, for instance)

The Hundred Years War (actually a bunch of smaller wars one after the other) started over friction between the Kings of France and England over sovereignty in land the English crown had inherited in France and ruled as Duke of Aquitaine. The English King was simultaneously a King in England and a Duke in France, and was legally expected to pay Homage (which was an oath of loyalty and service), a further flashpoint was that the English royal line had a claim to the French throne through Isabella of France, the youngest daughter of former French king Philip IV. I would suggest you do some reading on the Hundred Years War, both the politics of it, and the actual campaigns as it's a great example of a large scale late medieval conflict.


Dalaria is a place that generally believes in order and justice, as well as protection of the weak, helping the needy, and other good tropes.

They're slaveholders, they're not Good, a generally Good aligned people would seek to end slavery.


The term fits in this instance. Definition:

em·pire
ˈemˌpī(ə)r
noun
1.
an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress.
"the Roman Empire"
synonyms: kingdom, realm, domain, territory, imperium

In Medieval Europe "emperor" was a very significant title with a strong religious meaning beyond "really big kingdom". An Emperor would use the title Emperor, because it puts them above "mere" kings.


The various houses of Dalaria are bound to the ruling house by ancient pacts to that end, although these are not magical bindings so it is true that they could potentially revolt if they wanted to.

The vassals of Medieval Europe were bound to their lord by a pact of Homage, they still defied them constantly and occasionally broke into open rebellion. In medieval politics, all sides have their own powerbase, rebellions were not uncommon as a result. A king who antagonized his powerful vassals too much could easily find himself rotting in a cell.


They each have their own standing militaries, though they must offer up a sizeable amount of their soldiers to serve in the army of Dalaria itself as per these pacts.

How are they all affording standing armies? If they all have the resources to do that, then they have enough resources concentrated behind them to strong arm the central authority, and the king should not have such an iron grip on his vassals. The stronger the Dukes, Counts and Barons of a realm are, the weaker the ruler will be.


The king has access to the standing military of his own house plus these offered soldiers. The standing forces that answer to the king are therefore vaster than any single house, probably even moreso than multiple houses combined depending on which houses you look at, but if all of the houses were to band together they could probably overthrow him. Of course, this would require not only that the houses be dissatisfied with the king's rulership (which is not so, at least not to a significant degree), but also that a significant number of them be able to negotiate and plan with each other without being executed for treason.

If the King is dependent on detachments from the other houses for a strong army, then the central authority is not that strong, and he needs to keep the Houses, or at least most of the Houses on side. Which means he doesn't have the power to go executing members of those houses on suspicion of treason, because that's going to make even loyal houses jumpy.


Warrior bands is pretty much what I was going for with that nation. The idea is that they are basically a series of hamlets, villages, and city-states that are internally governed, but also beholden to an overarching power structure

Add Castles to that, and you've basically described Feudalism. Everything was decentralized.


(sort of like the USA in structure, though not so much with regard to political process).

If you're doing a medieval political setting, and you feel you can describe anything about it as "like the United States", you've made an error. Nothing in the structure of the United States is anything like medieval political and social structures. I find Americans often have trouble grasping this, but if you went back in time to 1453 and explained the American system to even the most educated men of the era, it would be incomprehensible. I don't mean democracy, I mean the basic ideological assumptions it makes about rights and the role of the state. You're talking about a pre-Enlightenment society, if you want to simulate that for a game about politics, you need to first understand its thought process.



Each population center in the Collective pays a portion of its taxes to the central government, which uses it for things like infrastructure, research, and disaster relief.

Modern concepts that don't belong in a medieval setting. A local Count or prince-Bishop might build a bridge over a river, or a Mayor a dock but he's going to levy a big toll on its use, there's no central planning.



There is a standing military for the nation itself, but it is based exclusively in the nation's capital, a sprawling mega-city. The individual population centers that make up the Collective are expected to respond to the Patriarch/Matriarch's call for aid should it be issued. Refusing the call does not carry any immediate penalty (apart from being seen as cowardly/disrespectful), but the refusing party is expected to send an agent to the capital to defend this decision, facing potential repercussions if the reason is deemed inadequate, the worst punishment being removal from the Collective.

If the worst consequence for not sending men and money to the ruler is that you'll be free of your vassalage, no one would pay up. Both sides of the actual feudal contract had rights and duties, it was never a one way agreement.


Indeed, the Teluvians are not really supposed to be a "professional force" in the sense of disciplined career soldiers and complicated command structures. Their strength is numbers, they're more like a horde in terms of battle strategy. There would be agents appointed by the central power structure to gather and lead the individual regiments, but they would mostly just be deciding when and where to attack; actual battlefield command is left to the units themselves. Dalaria definitely has the advantage in tactics and warcraft.

That's all Medieval armies, no one had a complex command structure. Command was by birth, not merit, and the chain of command was non-existent, a Duke would not take an order from another Duke for example. The French Knights had a habit of trampling their own Crossbowmen in their eagerness for the Knightly Charge.


I would argue that the Dalarians are complex rather than inconsistent. The slavery is due to their lawfulness (it has been law/tradition since the nation was formed, they feel that alone gives it merit even though changing social norms have made it a questionable practice). The institutional racism is born of privilege (all of the houses are human, meaning the entire ruling class is human). If you have a suggestion on how to change them to be more interesting though, I'm interested. I came here for ideas, after all ;)

Well see that is inconsistent, because you keep saying they're a "Lawful Good" kingdom, yet they're not acting in a lawful good manner.


Centuries ago, the two human nations were on a diplomatic council that included all of the good nations (sort of like the UN).

Again, highly anachronistic for a medieval level society. I don't know about your fantasy setting, but in actual Medieval Europe the closest thing they had to a political neutral arbitrator was the Papacy, because the Pope was God's representative on earth, and all kings derived their right to rule from divine sanction, at least on paper.


Back then there was a third human nation, one ruled by a tyrannical prophet-king, in the center of the supercontinent. Long story short, the good nations discovered that this third nation was committing atrocities in pursuit of power, and it was working. They all banded together to defeat it, and the gods ended up getting involved on both sides. At its conclusion, the central human kingdom was obliterated in an event so destructive that it formed the central mountain range and cracked continents off of the central continent, forming island continents. Due to events surrounding the war and its conclusion, the elven nation resigned from the council soon after this event. With no common enemy to fight, the remaining nations inevitably bickered with themselves, even sometimes coming to skirmishes/war, though the council allowed a channel for diplomacy that cooled some of these conflicts before they got too bad. When one of these conflicts did get too bad, the dwarven nation ended leaving because of it, and never returned even after it was resolved. Over the following centuries, the gnomish nation ended up leaving as well, at which point only the two human nations remained. With no one to mediate, relations between the two nations began to sour, and diplomacy eroded over the years, finally culminating in a war over ideals.

That is how I imagine they went from being allies of necessity to war over a significant timeline. Does that seem like a good enough explanation to you, and if not, what would you change?

Going to war over ideals is a modern concept. If this central kingdom was an existential threat to the others, they would band together, not because of the atrocities but because one state was amassing too much power. And then they'd immediately fall out over the new power vacuum that everybody wants to fill.


Indeed, the geographical difficulties are significant for invasion, but I can see a few ways to make it work. For one thing, the Dalarian kingdom is pretty land locked due to its positioning (there's a lot of virtually uninhabitable swampland to its south, mountains to the west, and elf-inhabited forest to the north). It has a port to the southwest across a bay from a Teluvian port, and a few ports to its eastern border. Teluvia, on the other hand, touches water at its southern and eastern borders, giving it considerably more shipyards and sailors, resulting in a considerably better navy. This should give them a massive advantage in taking Blackrock, though unless they sail through treacherous waters to reach Dalaria's eastern border the navy will be all but useless after that.

If they take Blackrock without a major fight they already have a huge advantage. A major trade city has well developed docks and thick city walls. Combined with the Teluvian naval superiority, that gives them an almost unassailable beachhead to ship in everything they need for a prolonged conflict.


It sounds like these campaigns would be very slow-going, which is not bad for a politically oriented campaign. Ariel units and spellcasters might quicken the process a little, I'd imagine, but only if they're not busy doing something else.

A siege against a determined foe in a strong position could last for months. Taking a castle by assault was possible, but not often attempted since it was guaranteed to cause high losses for the attacker.


Hm, what about the tactics of Pearl Harbor was especially before its time? My impression is that this discrepancy is due to the advent of aerial war machines, something true medieval forces of course did not have. In a fantasy setting, however, magical flight and winged mounts can provide an air force, and magic offers even more options, so I figure fantasy tactics would have to be more complex than medieval tactics to adapt to this.

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you meant, and if so I wonder if you could clarify for me. An alternative suggestion would would also be welcome in that case.

Both sides had planes, having a technology, or in your case magic that mimics a technology doesn't necessarily they're using it in the most efficient way possible.

So yeah TL;DR version: Your major flaw in this undertaking is that you're trying to replicate a medieval political and military world, through 21st century conceptions.

[Isaire]

I'm not sure I understand NG nation very well, but I only read the tldr section. The LG nation however, is a little easier. For an empire, ruled by an individual with vassals underneath him, the vassals will always be jockeying for power, or for the favour of the ruling faction. If one noble house is too successful in the war, then other noble houses can try to find ways to stop them being so successful - perhaps encouraging them to enter into unfavourable battles, for example. Perhaps an assault on a captured city - even if successful, you can guarantee high casualties and a loss of power as a result.

I suppose you have to decide, how much reward is there to the noble houses for earning the ruler's favour? That will determine how far they will be willing to go to earn favour, and prevent others from doing so. Perhaps most of the houses cooperate, apart from a one or two rivalries left over from a previous war. If one house grew powerful enough, maybe they can't challenge the central power directly, but if they have a line of succession to the throne, they might be able to press a claim with their army should the king unfortunately die, while their army happens to be defending the capital.


I feel like there should be a lot of ways to conduct an invasion in a fantasy universe too, across sea or not. Say a new ambassador is sent over, who on the sly starts drawing up large teleportation circles away from prying eyes. Or drawings of spirals start appearing all over the city in groups, no one can figure out what they mean / if they are harmless graffiti or not. Then bam, they all activate, troops pour out into the centre of the city. Or an infiltration group moves over by boat into unoccupied territory, draws up a large number of circles, and facilitates an invasion in this way. As long as the city doesn't close its gates in time, it'll fall to an invasion, as no armies will have been raised by the defending nation by this point.

Not sure any of these ideas will be useful, but they might give a little inspiration for you to come up with your own at least :)

[Mongrel]

@Unoriginal: good suggestions, thanks

@EvilAnagram: as I said, I will not debate alignment in this thread. Thank you for the other suggestions nonetheless.


There's a buffer of smaller states separating two great powers.

I like this idea. Indeed, perhaps the initial invasion was born out of a dispute between individual city-states rather than the central leadership of the nations themselves?


Consider the manipulations and machinations going on not just between the great powers, but also between various nobles and powerful organizations within the powers, and the wants/needs/desires of the smaller nations.

What are some good wants/needs/desires of smaller nations/city-states? Or rather, what would they realistically not be getting from their rulers? Surely things like food, shelter, and protection should be provided with enough consistency to satisfy them (especially considering they are probably pretty self-sustaining in at least some of those categories) right? What other motivations might they have that they could be manipulated over?


Options are key for this kind of game.

Don't make it binary, and don't make one side obviously good and another obviously evil; gray and gray morality is good for these games, where everyone ends up looking kind of bad. I actually think Fallout New Vegas did a decent job of this, with the major factions all bringing something good to the table, whilst also having very obvious flaws and issues.

Indeed, this is what I was going for. I've never played New Vegas, but I'll read up on it for inspiration.

@MrMcBobb: I really like the idea of the execution of a Teluvian hero missionary being an instigating event (perhaps even a calculated one to incite war for the benefit of the house that ordered the execution), thanks!


Also kudos for sticking to your guns on the slavery thing. It's evil by today's standards sure, but this is a medieval fantasy setting with different moral obligations than us. I'd probably go LN rather than LG though....

Thanks. The Dalarians sometimes behave in a LN manner (in my mind, I'd place them pretty much halfway between LG and LN). Essentially, I see them as behaving in a lawful manner first, but their secondary motivation after that is to do the "good" thing. So their laws are strict, but not tyrannical, and their rulership and citizenry are mostly benevolent.


Slavery is still evil, it inherently fits into the D&D definition of evil.

I said I wouldn't debate alignment, and I meant it. I will point out, though, that one evil act does not an evil man (or nation) make, just as one good act does not a good man make.


I would suggest you do some reading on the Hundred Years War, both the politics of it, and the actual campaigns as it's a great example of a large scale late medieval conflict.

Thank you for the suggestion, it sounds like a good source of inspiration for this situation.



The vassals of Medieval Europe were bound to their lord by a pact of Homage, they still defied them constantly and occasionally broke into open rebellion. In medieval politics, all sides have their own powerbase, rebellions were not uncommon as a result. A king who antagonized his powerful vassals too much could easily find himself rotting in a cell.

Yes, this is the state of the Dalarian kingdom. The various houses do occasionally bicker and skirmish, and the house that sits on the throne has been careful to cater to the other houses so that there would be no rebellion. Still, politics are politics, and rebellion is not (and should not) be an impossible event.



How are they all affording standing armies? If they all have the resources to do that, then they have enough resources concentrated behind them to strong arm the central authority, and the king should not have such an iron grip on his vassals. The stronger the Dukes, Counts and Barons of a realm are, the weaker the ruler will be.

The cost of maintaining armies has come up more than once in this thread. I'll admit that "how is everything in this kingdom funded" is the kind of bookkeeping that I find tedious and ultimately unnecessary, so I'll ask: why wouldn't a kingdom (or expansive noble house with multiple holdings) be able to afford an army, especially in a fantasy realm where not only do bandits exist, but monsters as well? Surely city-states don't just build walls and pray?

Perhaps "standing forces" would be a better term to use than "standing army." Certainly, the houses themselves don't have legions of troops. They mostly have enough men to protect their own holdings with the more military focused houses having more/better soldiers.


If the King is dependent on detachments from the other houses for a strong army, then the central authority is not that strong, and he needs to keep the Houses, or at least most of the Houses on side. Which means he doesn't have the power to go executing members of those houses on suspicion of treason, because that's going to make even loyal houses jumpy.

The house that sits on the throne has the largest force even without the contributions from other houses. With them, they easily outstrip the others, though these forces are expected to protect the entire kingdom rather than a single house's private holdings.

As far as executing nobles for treason, this isn't done lightly. There are court proceedings and the like, and it is quite a rare occurrence for a treasonous plot (that is to say, one that is focused on assassinating the ruler and/or seizing the throne) to even exist. I have trouble believing that if such a plot were to be found out, and a noble executed for it, other nobles would somehow become less loyal, or fear that they may be next. I don't see the logic there.


If you're doing a medieval political setting, and you feel you can describe anything about it as "like the United States", you've made an error. Nothing in the structure of the United States is anything like medieval political and social structures.

I think this is a little unfair. I'm using analogies to modern concepts because we live in a modern world, so it's easier to communicate points with them. I don't know why you take this to mean that I somehow cannot differentiate between modern and medieval concepts. In fact, your statement that "nothing in the structure of the United States is anything like medieval political and social structures" is contradicted by yourself not one line earlier, when you describe the explanation I put forth for how the Teluvian Collective operates (the very explanation that the parenthetical quote you object to was referring to) as "add Castles to that, and you've basically described Feudalism. Everything was decentralized." So...nothing in medieval political structures is even remotely similar to the political structure of the USA, but my description of a nation's structure of power that I likened to that of the USA is just one step short of feudalism?

Here is what I meant by "sort of like the USA in structure, though not so much with regard to political process:" the nation is comprised of a serious of individual, self-governed population centers (analogous to states) which are all under the singular rule of the central government (the Patriarchy/Matriarchy; analogous to the Federal Government). That's it. I wasn't implying that they were a democracy, merely trying to describe the basic political connections of the nation in a way that those living in the modern era would be able to quickly understand.



Modern concepts that don't belong in a medieval setting. A local Count or prince-Bishop might build a bridge over a river, or a Mayor a dock but he's going to levy a big toll on its use, there's no central planning.

What are taxes used for, in that case?



If the worst consequence for not sending men and money to the ruler is that you'll be free of your vassalage, no one would pay up. Both sides of the actual feudal contract had rights and duties, it was never a one way agreement.

This is not a vassalage. Those part of the Collective aren't feudal lords, they are individual hamlets, villages, and city-states. They choose to be part of the Collective because of mutual benefit. Those in its care receive protection and aid when necessary, and have a variety of other benefits involving trade, information sharing, and mediation of disputes. The society is intended to espouse the virtues of the "greater good" without being too controlling with regards to law. The consequence for not sending men/money, then, is a withdrawal of the safety net, removal of benefits, and loss of common alliance with the other parts of the Collective (which technically makes you fair game for conquering, should another more powerful city-state wish to do so).


Again, highly anachronistic for a medieval level society. I don't know about your fantasy setting, but in actual Medieval Europe the closest thing they had to a political neutral arbitrator was the Papacy, because the Pope was God's representative on earth, and all kings derived their right to rule from divine sanction, at least on paper.

In this setting, the closest thing they have to the Papacy is the Teluvian Collective. It definitely isn't directly analogous to medieval society. Magic and easily displayable miracles change a lot, not to mention the inclusion of a wide variety of new often dangerous flora, fauna, and supernatural creatures.




If they take Blackrock without a major fight they already have a huge advantage. A major trade city has well developed docks and thick city walls. Combined with the Teluvian naval superiority, that gives them an almost unassailable beachhead to ship in everything they need for a prolonged conflict.

Indeed they do, though you yourself said in an earlier post that this conflict heavily favors the defender, assuming equal military strength. The Teluvians will have a good start to their campaign, but rocky progression. This is by design.



Both sides had planes, having a technology, or in your case magic that mimics a technology doesn't necessarily they're using it in the most efficient way possible.

Why would the "technology" of flying (through mounts or magic) exist since the dawn of time without tactics being developed to properly utilize them?


For an empire, ruled by an individual with vassals underneath him, the vassals will always be jockeying for power, or for the favour of the ruling faction. If one noble house is too successful in the war, then other noble houses can try to find ways to stop them being so successful - perhaps encouraging them to enter into unfavourable battles, for example. Perhaps an assault on a captured city - even if successful, you can guarantee high casualties and a loss of power as a result.

This is an interesting dynamic, thanks for pointing it out.



I feel like there should be a lot of ways to conduct an invasion in a fantasy universe too, across sea or not. Say a new ambassador is sent over, who on the sly starts drawing up large teleportation circles away from prying eyes. Or drawings of spirals start appearing all over the city in groups, no one can figure out what they mean / if they are harmless graffiti or not. Then bam, they all activate, troops pour out into the centre of the city.

This is a neat idea, I like it! Could build some tension later on too if the PCs find themselves in a walled off city and notice the same spiral glyph in the city that they saw in Blackrock before it fell...surely there must be an enemy agent about!

[Kane0]

Tips for when you're done fleshing out basics and details:

- Present situations with no set solution of your own in mind. Think of possibilities but just let your players figure something out. Failure can be an option.

- Put names and faces to the themes and aspects of the game you want to focus on. Something the players can interact with invests them more in it. It helps to have a strong character hased story rather than coincidence and external events driving plot.

- allow player creativity. No matter how much you plan and cover there are four players and one of you so there will always be something they think of that throws you off, so just bounce off their ideas and run with it. This also means dont bother overdeveloping stuff that probably wont see much (or any) use.

[CaptainSarathai]

Regarding mercenaries, there is a global mercenary organization in the world. They generally are more focused with "adventure" jobs, offering small but skilled teams rather than rank-and-file grunts, but could conceivably be tapped by either side in this conflict.

Frankly, there's a lot to unpack here. The one thing that I latched onto, however, was this.

(This is taken from a campaign that I ran personally)
You want two nations that the party can't figure out who is right and who is wrong? Fine, make two perfect angels of your nations. They are peaceful, they have been allies for centuries perhaps.
Why would they fight?
Why, indeed?

Enter this massive mercenary "Adventurer's Guild." Who else would stand to profit from such a war than a massive, global mercenary company?
The players are members of this mercenary guild, initially. This puts them in an interesting position - the mercenaries are playing both sides of the conflict, so the guild itself isn't going to be pushing any line of propaganda. To them, this war is "strictly professional." A company gets hired to fight, they go fight; simple as that.

It's only once they are out in the war that things start breaking down. The party starts to realize that the mercenaries, who are supposed to just be helping in fights with the rest of the kingdoms' soldiers, are actually making raids on their own. It's a false-flag operation.
The social intrigue and politics comes in trying to work out how to stop the war, and convince the kingdoms involved that they aren't fighting one another.

You can add lots of complications here, as the story allows.
1. Obviously, once the party is "in on" the mercenaries treachery, they will probably become public enemy #1. The mercenaries could either try to handle this under cover and quietly, or they could frame the party as war criminals or turncoats, spies, whatever. That could create a situation where it's the Guild's word against the party, when trying to expose the situation to the ruler.

2. It might not be the entirety of the guild at all. Maybe the guild really is just doing an honest job, doing what they've always done - fighting for hire. The issue is that there is a splinter faction within the guild which wants to instigate this war and maybe even implicate guild leadership. This would be a twist within a twist.

3. What if the kingdoms realize that the Guild has fabricated this war, and simply don't care? What if there are those within the kingdoms who wanted this war anyway? What if one of the kingdoms actually payed off that splinter faction within the guild, to start the war? Twist within a twist within a twist!

4. So, the kingdoms realize that this whole thing has been orchestrated by the Guild. Alright, well, the Guild still has the biggest army in the land. The kingdoms have been at war, they've been killing each other and burning farmsteads and sieging and destroying castles, and all the while they've been paying the Guild. The Guild is in a great position to lay waste to both kingdoms, maybe it's even exactly what they wanted. Now the players must not only stop the war, but rally the two kingdoms together and lead a desperate last stand against the all-powerful guild. Twist within a twist within a twist with a twist! That's 4 layers of twists!

This is basically the plot of the anime 'Tiger and Bunny,' but that's a good anime, so go to town.

[Unoriginal]

Slavery is still evil, it inherently fits into the D&D definition of evil.

[...]

They're slaveholders, they're not Good, a generally Good aligned people would seek to end slavery.

While I would usually agree, I have to point out that in 5e, the chaotic good Djinns have slaves. Though it's basically a reversal of the relationship between Aladdin and the Genie in the first Aladdin movie.




In Medieval Europe "emperor" was a very significant title with a strong religious meaning beyond "really big kingdom". An Emperor would use the title Emperor, because it puts them above "mere" kings.

Less religious and more "this means I'm above the kings thanks to my conquest and my heritage".

[Coretex]

How else might one nation go to war with another if not through invasion? In a way that would be cinematic, of course (no one wants to play the DnD campaign focused around crippling economic sanctions, for instance)


In addition to the various comments about the flimsy justification for war there must be the mention of terrain. A mountain range separating these empires is going to make war very hard, much more guerrilla than otherwise. Sure, if one side gets a foothold advantage there could be plains fighting and map dancing. Otherwise most combat will just be between highly fortified mountain passes and their attempted sieges.

Thus I suggest a solution to both of these hairy problems:

A kettle.

A third party situation has arisen, in a place that is adjacent to both kingdoms but controlled by neither and of interest to both.

Perhaps a small village in a/the valley bisecting the mountain range is being used as a refuge by orcs fleeing a raid on one of the empires. The village is owned by one empire who has a closer military presence but the raid was on the other. Now you have a neutral point where both empires want to be in control of the situation. Both will want to distribute their means of justice to the raiding party (both having been wronged at this point by the army having raided their towns/currently squatting in one). Both will want to distribute the loot to themselves (it came from MY TOWNS/It is currently IN my town). Both will want to be the one to attack the raiding party, although the empire to which the town belongs actually has that right.

Military commanders on the ground will be paralyzed by diplomacy between empire heads and thus no-one can act until an agreement is reached (which won't happen because then you have no war) or... more likely, a military commander in the field will see something happening (execution of prisoners, etc) that will force action. That alone is probably enough to engage military action but the OTHER military commander reacting and sending troops in is exactly the kind of escalation that can lead to war.

This is the Kettle boiling over. A situation which in addition to the other tensions mentioned could lead two "good" empires to war.

Any variation of the neutral ground can work.

Maybe it is over the dealing with a large refugee group from another kingdom. There is a large camp in LG empire and NG wants to make sure the non humans have a choice at freedom so they send a stealth delegation sparking tensions. (or basically any reason why one empire has troops deep in another).

Maybe it is that old classic resource deposit, artifacts of religious value, etc.

The world you have created suggests a pot that is simmering but has no reason boil over as it is. You need an incident to ignite what is otherwise going to be a somewhat strained but cordial relationship into full blown war.

Alternately, you could make one empire less grey than the other. Then one can just invade the other on moral reasons (wipe these scum from the earth sort of thing).

Despite what I have read in a few comments, the slave owning empire being LG is fine. There are plenty of reasons why an empire might take a hard stance on multispecieism and a soft stance on slavery. A traumatic history of power abuse where lawfulness becomes akin to god is an easy one. Nevertheless the reason for the war is going to end up being the most important thing in your game. Every argument will come back to it. Every diplomatic engagement and combat with either side. There will be room to explore all of the other tensions no matter what the spark is, but there needs to be a good spark. A "misunderstanding" type situation is just useful because the war once started is hard to stop until many of those other tensions are dealt with (or one side loses).

[Trum4n1208]

I like this idea. Indeed, perhaps the initial invasion was born out of a dispute between individual city-states rather than the central leadership of the nations themselves?



What are some good wants/needs/desires of smaller nations/city-states? Or rather, what would they realistically not be getting from their rulers? Surely things like food, shelter, and protection should be provided with enough consistency to satisfy them (especially considering they are probably pretty self-sustaining in at least some of those categories) right? What other motivations might they have that they could be manipulated over?



Indeed, this is what I was going for. I've never played New Vegas, but I'll read up on it for inspiration.


I was more going for the war starts because these two powers are attacking each other's positions in these smaller states. So maybe a nation that is a protectorate of Great Power A has its ruler overthrown and killed in a Coup that is supported by Great Power B. Great Power A, unwilling to see its position weakened, invades this smaller nation to re-install someone more amenable to them. Perhaps while this is happening, Great Power A inadvertently attacks an ally of Great Power B, thing spiral out of control, etc. Just like Coretex said, you have a kettle boiling over and this leads to a ignition of hostilities between the major powers and their respective allies. This give the players time to ease into the politics (maybe they start off by working for the ruler of one of these smaller powers or something) so that the players will actually have a little bit of clout by the time the war starts.

As for the smaller powers and their needs, they're going to be much the same as the great powers, just on a smaller scale. They want power, position, more independence to pursue their own goals, etc. If this whole political situation is a game, then they're players just as much as anyone else. So maybe one of those rulers wants to use the chaos of this war to start absorbing the kingdoms of his neighbors so that he's stronger and can better negotiate with the great powers, or maybe become one in his own right. This gives the players something to latch onto. Maybe they think that a world with 3 great powers is better than a world with 2 of them, so maybe they start helping that guy. And then they find out something that is reprehensible about the guy, so they decide he has to go, and that in turn creates new opportunities for the players and other rulers to make their own moves. This allows the players to have more influence on the world and the end results.

As for the New Vegas thing, it's just to provide some food for thought. Maybe the Lawful Empire brings stability to an area at the cost of also bringing slavery and discrimination. Maybe the more 'Good' Empire (again, I highly recommend ditching the alignments of the kingdoms; concentrate on the people in the upper echelons of power and their own ambitions and how they interact with the players) brings more economic and personal freedoms, but also with a greater decentralization of power that makes the countryside more dangerous, that kind of stuff. Give the players valid reasons to oppose or support any group.

I'd also argue for a situation where the Kings are much more reliant on the support of the nobility. It sounds like you want an absolutist monarchy where the nobility still has power, but that kind of defeats the purpose of absolutism. Plus, having a more powerful nobility provides options and more people your players can work with and interact with.

[War_lord]

I said I wouldn't debate alignment, and I meant it. I will point out, though, that one evil act does not an evil man (or nation) make, just as one good act does not a good man make.

Slavery is a series of evil acts.


The cost of maintaining armies has come up more than once in this thread. I'll admit that "how is everything in this kingdom funded" is the kind of bookkeeping that I find tedious and ultimately unnecessary, so I'll ask: why wouldn't a kingdom (or expansive noble house with multiple holdings) be able to afford an army, especially in a fantasy realm where not only do bandits exist, but monsters as well? Surely city-states don't just build walls and pray?

Perhaps "standing forces" would be a better term to use than "standing army." Certainly, the houses themselves don't have legions of troops. They mostly have enough men to protect their own holdings with the more military focused houses having more/better soldiers.

it's not bookkeeping, I'm not asking you to keep track of every spear and every bushel of grain. A standing army costs money and resources. If a man has the occupation "soldier" he's not working the fields, or mining ore, or sheeptending, he's spending all his time training, marching, or fighting and he's relying on you for all his expenses, food, armour, weapons and other gear. Providing all those things was very expensive, and was beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest kingdoms.

Most medieval states, and even their ancient predecessors, relied on a levy system. In the feudal system each vassal was granted an area of land by his overlord, called a fief, which had farmland or other value producing properties, like a mine or rich fishing ground on it. In exchange for the right to collect tribute from the farmers or other workers living off that land, the vassal had to provide military service in his lord's army. Which meant being able to bring his own "Lance" of men, which meant the Knight, his squire, a light horseman and a couple of archers or spearmen, all fully equipped. The wealthier the vassal, the more he was expected to provide. Every village owned service to a knight who provided this to a Baron, who then provided service to a Count, who was themselves beholden to a Duke, who reported to the King. The beauty of this system is that it doesn't require paying a large body of men to sit around in a Barracks doing nothing except draining the royal treasury, every level of the system is providing their own gear, and is only called up when there's actually a campaign to fight.

City states had the advantage of concentration, so they could just directly call up citizens to serve, with their equipment based on their personal wealth, this system was ancient, dating back to the Ancient Greek City states, and being used by the Roman Republic in their wars against Carthage. The Italian Cities were rich in coin thanks to trade, so they preferred to hire entire mercenary armies to fight for them, but they were incredibly rich. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condottieri


The house that sits on the throne has the largest force even without the contributions from other houses. With them, they easily outstrip the others, though these forces are expected to protect the entire kingdom rather than a single house's private holdings.

They might be "expected" to do that, but functionally they're going to be loyal to whoever's paying them/were ever their farm is.


As far as executing nobles for treason, this isn't done lightly. There are court proceedings and the like, and it is quite a rare occurrence for a treasonous plot (that is to say, one that is focused on assassinating the ruler and/or seizing the throne) to even exist. I have trouble believing that if such a plot were to be found out, and a noble executed for it, other nobles would somehow become less loyal, or fear that they may be next. I don't see the logic there.

Impartial court proceedings didn't exist in Medieval times, the Supreme Court of Medieval times was the king's court. So yes, if the King had the ability to arbitrarily try, imprison, and execute even the most powerful nobles, it would concern the other nobles because they could end up tied to a plot, even by mere association.


I think this is a little unfair. I'm using analogies to modern concepts because we live in a modern world, so it's easier to communicate points with them.

But you're not asking about the modern world, you're asking about "a political game" with "subterfuge and negotiation" in a "believable" medieval fantasy. Thus, a lot of the modern assumptions that slip into most people's D&D worlds I let go, because they're not trying to actually do believable medieval politics, I'm trying to give you advice, but I'm on the verge of giving up. I try to actually explain how the Feudal system, which was both the civil and military system under which government worked, and instead of actually trying to grasp how this system worked and the assumptions that underpinned it, You get irate at me because you refuse to understand that they didn't have standing armies, because the economy was largely subsistence farmers, and taking peasants out of that work force would damage finances on two ends. They didn't have proper courts, because the final legal authority in the kingdom, was the king.


What are taxes used for, in that case?

They didn't have taxes to spend on public works and "disaster relief", for two reasons. One, they didn't have taxes as we know them, because only merchants, mercenaries, clergy and nobles used coin. The peasants paid in kind, so for example, if I'm a grain farmer, I harvest a certain amount of grain each spring. I use a certain amount of that to bake bread to feed my family, I trade some of it to my neighbors in exchange for goods or services I myself don't have but need, and the rest of it goes to the lord who actually owns the land I'm farming as tribute. In exchange for that tribute, I have the rights of protection and justice from my lord. I can also be called up for brief military service, and I'll be expected to bring my own equipment, which often ended up being made from old farm tools. The goods that get sent to the local lord by the peasants on his land are similarly used for practical purposes, he has to feed his own family, in addition to keeping a stable full of horses, and horses are incredibly expensive to keep.

The second reason is that, even in cases when tribute was in coin, or intrinsics like Gold it didn't work like modern taxes. Your Taxes go to the government, and the government is expected to spend that money on improving things for the whole country. In Medieval times, tribute was the personal property of the lord receiving it, who had no duty to improve the lives of his serfs, beyond upholding his side of the feudal oath.


I don't know why you take this to mean that I somehow cannot differentiate between modern and medieval concepts. In fact, your statement that "nothing in the structure of the United States is anything like medieval political and social structures" is contradicted by yourself not one line earlier, when you describe the explanation I put forth for how the Teluvian Collective operates (the very explanation that the parenthetical quote you object to was referring to) as "add Castles to that, and you've basically described Feudalism. Everything was decentralized." So...nothing in medieval political structures is even remotely similar to the political structure of the USA, but my description of a nation's structure of power that I likened to that of the USA is just one step short of feudalism?

Here is what I meant by "sort of like the USA in structure, though not so much with regard to political process:" the nation is comprised of a serious of individual, self-governed population centers (analogous to states) which are all under the singular rule of the central government (the Patriarchy/Matriarchy; analogous to the Federal Government). That's it. I wasn't implying that they were a democracy, merely trying to describe the basic political connections of the nation in a way that those living in the modern era would be able to quickly understand.

There's no quickly understanding medieval structures from a modern perspective. Most of what we take for granted in the politics of modern countries is a product pf the Enlightenment, which came long after the medieval period. What you're describing is more like the Swiss canton system, but with a kind of religious figurehead was a sort of executive branch. That's still nothing like the United States. In fact the Founding Fathers wanted to specifically avoid a Swiss direct democracy, because they feared mob rule.


This is not a vassalage. Those part of the Collective aren't feudal lords, they are individual hamlets, villages, and city-states. They choose to be part of the Collective because of mutual benefit. Those in its care receive protection and aid when necessary, and have a variety of other benefits involving trade, information sharing, and mediation of disputes.

So the Swiss cantons then, not the United States?


The society is intended to espouse the virtues of the "greater good" without being too controlling with regards to law.

People espousing the "greater good" tend to end up with a lot of controlling laws, regardless of intent.


The consequence for not sending men/money, then, is a withdrawal of the safety net, removal of benefits, and loss of common alliance with the other parts of the Collective (which technically makes you fair game for conquering, should another more powerful city-state wish to do so).

So it's actually more of a protection racket with benefits? Good, now it's acting like an actual federation.




In this setting, the closest thing they have to the Papacy is the Teluvian Collective. It definitely isn't directly analogous to medieval society. Magic and easily displayable miracles change a lot, not to mention the inclusion of a wide variety of new often dangerous flora, fauna, and supernatural creatures.

All things medieval societies actually believed existed. The only thing that really changes is the lack of a powerful Church, which is a major difference, but it just means the nobility don't have a check on their power.


Why would the "technology" of flying (through mounts or magic) exist since the dawn of time without tactics being developed to properly utilize them?

Maybe magic users have a tradition of of fighting one on one honor duels above the battlefield, maybe an ancient Empire did use massed aerial attacks by magic users, but the tactic was lost when that Empire broke up, maybe magic was traditionally used as ground artillery and flight only used for scouting, and no one ever thought to combine both?

Military tactics are not a endless forward march.

[furby076]

Lots to read, so I'll keep my suggestion simple to 3 things
1. The party eventually gets a reputation. Good or bad depends in how they act. The town, city, country and opposing country react accordingly.
2. Consequences of action and inaction. At some point the party will need to make a decision: pursue adventure 1 or adventure 2. There is a time sensitive component. The monsters in the missed adventure may get more powerful, leave and not be found, destroyed the village. ..nullfying the adventure, and making the survivers curse the adventurers for not saving them
3. At some point, allow them to spend money on buying a home. It could be a row home in some nice part do town (do the neighbors even want roudy adventurers in their back yard). Maybe they give interviews to the local news paper organization. Who do they ally themselves with politically, and what enemies does that bring


Looks like you will have a fun game

[Mongrel]

I've been busy with a masters program I'm enrolled in, so my posting was delayed, but I have managed to have a session since my last post in which I incorporated some of the ideas within this thread. Here's what happened (and thanks to all who helped):


After their successful sacking of what they now know to be a Teluvian merchant ship rather than a smuggler, the PCs return to Blackrock with Captain Goldtooth and his crew. The crew unload the stolen cargo, bringing it to a predetermined fence to exchange for gold. The paladin wanders a park in Blackrock at this time, and encounters a halfling missionary who gives him a pamphlet and proselytizes to him about Melisandra, the Maiden of Many Masks, a chaotic good deity of diversity, creativity, and trickery. The paladin converses with the missionary, politely pointing out that he already worships Selene, but saying he'll take Melisandra's tenants into consideration. When he returns to the ship (where the other PCs had remained, not trusting the pirate captain to necessarily pay them), the cargo has been sold, and Goldtooth pays the PCs their share as promised. While the paladin appears to be happy that his business with pirates is concluded, the cleric offers his services to Goldtooth as quartermaster (something the somewhat ramshackle ship could use), and Goldtooth accepts. The party then seeks out the Road agent and pays them off, clearing their debt. The paladin wants to head east to meet his brother and inform him his debt is paid (and have a stern talk with him about what choices led him to go into debt with the Road). The ranger plans to head north to the mountains he came from. Before they part ways, however, they hear a commotion coming from the center of town and go to investigate, finding five missionaries of Melisandra (they wore pretty distinctive robes) standing on a raised platform with nooses round their necks while a mob of jeering Dalarian citizens looked on and a court official (accompanied by a few guards) reads off a list of of "crimes" including things like "disrupting the peace" and "heresy." A few of the players (and Captain Goldtooth, who also came to see what was happening) recognize one of the missionaries as Tormund, a Teluvian hero of some note. The paladin gets the attention of the court official and expresses that this doesn't seem like justice, but the official just says "the law's the law" and pulls the lever, dropping the floor out from under the missionaries. All of them die instantly save for Tormund, who is still choking. The paladin actually charges the stage, scattering the crowd, and the ranger makes a difficult shot to cut the rope holding Tormund, but ultimately the scuffle ends with the paladin and ranger captured and Tormund dead. When Goldtooth learns that the paladin is imprisoned, he goes to the lockup and bribes the guard (an old friend of his) to let him go, knowing that as a paladin he would be duty bound to repay him. He frees the ranger as well, though is a little more explicit in the debt owed, in that case.

They leave that night, not wanting to deal with the tumultuous situation, and after days of travel end up at Knucklebone Isle, a pirate shanty-town a la Shipwreck Island from Pirates of the Caribbean. There they meet a few pirate captains (a burly half-orc female who's friends of goldtooth, and a sharp featured genesai who takes a liking to the ranger given their shared race) as well as the fourth PC: Zug-Zug the goblin Oracle (divination wizard), a CN doomsayer who has visions that may or may not be portents...but he believes they are regardless. Goldtooth obtains a treasure map from the half-orc (who sells it to him because treasure hunting doesn't involve fighting), and offers Zug-Zug a position on the crew on the condition that he guide them to the treasure. He accepts, and after a couple days of leisure on Knucklebone Isle (in which the ranger receives some training from his new friend and the cleric stocks up on supplies for the trip, including picking up a new cat to deal with the ship's rat problem) they depart and, after some searching, find the place the map points to (an island) and start digging at the place designated by the "X" on the map. After some time, they uncover a medium sized chest of good make that disturbingly has "DO NOT OPEN. CURSED" painted atop it. Goldtooth scoffs, saying that this is the oldest trick in the book, but Zog-Zog warns (as he often does) that it is a portent of doom! The goblin casts detect magic, finding that the lock on the chest glows with power. One identify spell later and they have successfully found the Glyph of Warding trap, which Goldtooth uses some strange sparkling dust to dispel. The party wisely stays a good distance back while he opens the chest, but no more traps appear to be there to be sprung.

The chest is filled to the brim with gold pieces, but they are of an unfamiliar minting and have a strange red tint to them. The chest is hauled back to the ship, and a course is set for Blackrock, more than a weeks travel from their position. The gold is counted out and divvied up (with the captain taking the majority share, of course). The cleric declines his portion, but the rest of the party accept ten pieces of the red gold a'piece. A few days into their travel, their ship is attacked by merfolk raiders who mistake it for a lightly defended merchant vessel. The merfolk climb onto the ship, but are clearly outmatched. After a few of them are cut down, the remainder flee back into the water.

While the party and crew catch their breath after the fight, an eerie portal appears in the air from which a black carriage drawn by wispy black horses emerges, flying lazily through the air and wheeling around to land on the ship. Out of it, the Dead Man (a "voodoo papa" type character) appears, dropping two more red tinted gold pieces onto the ship's deck as a couple of his zombie minions emerge from the carriage and drag the merfolk corpses back inside it. Then the Dead Man tips his hat, gets back into the carriage, and flies back into the portal which closes behind him.

The party discusses these odd events, but ultimately stays on course to Blackrock. After several days, they reach their destination with no further incident.

The cleric takes a few of the crew into town with him to restock the ship.

The ranger visits the local market, purchasing some special (but nonmagical) arrows. Though the arrows ultimately only cost a few silver pieces, the ranger felt compelled (failing a wisdom saving throw) to spend one of the red tinted gold pieces instead...

The paladin returns to the park, seeking out a meeting place that was indicated in the pamphlet to Melisandra, but finds it empty and in a state of disrepair. He lingers for a bit before eventually making his way back to the ship, but notices he's being followed by a cloaked figure. He stops to confront his tail, who cryptically warns him not to be in the city center this night before showing him a talisman with the holy symbol of Selene, then disappears down an alley.

The goblin, meanwhile, went to the local graveyard to try and buy some corpses, convinced that the presence of corpses is what brought the voodoo papa out and eager to get more gold from him (he essentially botched a divination earlier and believes that the gold is actually lucky). This almost gets him arrested, though with a few good persuasion checks he manages to just get kicked out instead.

Now fully stocked, the party spends the night in port with the intent of leaving in the morning...but around midnight there are some explosions at a section of the docks reserved for military vessels and sounds of battle coming from the city center. Goldtooth swiftly moblizes the crew to get the ship moving and tries to flee, but due to the darkness of the starless night (and some other shenanigans not immediately evident), they end up sailing right into the approaching Teluvian invasion fleet...which is where the session ended.

Tormund's execution, though on the surface just an overreaction to bolder and bolder missionary action, was in fact a calculated order given from the head of one of Dalaria's noble houses (the one whose territory includes Blackrock) intended to incite war between the two nations. He intends to use this as a distraction to better secure his own house's holdings by taking territory from other houses weakened by the attack. Quite possibly, he is working with an outside party to avoid overtly attacking fellow Dalarians. This house potentially even seeks the throne...

The red gold is indeed cursed; whenever a person who possesses one or more pieces of it kills a sentient creature, a call is sent out to those who have attuned to the gold with a special ritual notifying them of exactly where this kill had taken place. Exclusively, these are powerful spellcasters, all in fact clones of a single ancient human being kept alive in a sort of comatose slumber, and all identifying themselves as the "Dead Man." The dead they harvest are used to add to a magical tower in the swamp made of the corpses of sentient creatures, in which the ancient necromancer from whom these entities were cloned was embedded. Ultimately, he seeks to ascend to godhood by building this dark tower large enough to where the dark energy gathered within could animate it, shunting his spirit inside and granting him obscene amounts of power; this would also make him the only godlike entity directly manifesting on the prime material plane at the time.

Now, there is more to the red gold than simply calling out to Dead Men; every thirteen days it is in a particular person's possession,
that person must make a constitution saving throw. If this is failed, the subject loses 1d8 max hitpoints for as long as they have any red gold in their possession. If this reduces their maximum hp to 0, they effectively die and become a mindless zombie servant of the Dead Men (who are notified of this, and appear to pick them up). Furthermore, a person cannot willingly discard the gold. The only way to get rid of it is to spend it (or destroy it, which is not easy). Whenever someone who holds the gold attempts to buy something, they must make a wisdom saving throw. If they fail, they must spend exactly one piece of red gold on the purchase (in addition to any other normal gold they might spend on the purchase). If they make the save, they may spend as many or as few pieces of the gold as they wish, but still cannot discard it without exchanging it for something.

This is essentially done to set up a potential future plotline for the characters to explore if they choose once they are higher level.
The gold itself had been found and buried by heroes many years ago in order to stunt the tower's construction, but now that the gold has been uncovered it will spread across Dalaria (and perhaps even further), making it fairly easy for corpses to be harvested (particularly with the coming military conflict).

tl;dr: the party joins up with pirates, leaving Blackrock after witnessing an execution of a Teluvian hero by Dalarian agents. They travel to a pirate shantytown on a lawless island, whereupon they acquire a treasure map that leads them to a chest filled with red tinted gold. Despite warnings on the chest that the gold is cursed, all of the PCs save the cleric take some of it before returning to Blackrock. The ranger disturbingly can't help but spend one of the coins in the market. During the night, Blackrock is attacked, and when the party tries to flee they end up running right into a Teluvian invasion fleet!

Before I get into responding to previous comments, I'd like to take a moment to discuss where I plan to go with this (and would appreciate any advice or ideas to help me out.

Where the party is now, it seems inevitable that they will be captured by the Teluvian fleet. I plan to hold them until the battle for Blackrock is concluded and the city taken, at which point the Teluvian fleet commander will decide what to do with them. I sort of want to separate the party from Captain Goldtooth and his crew so that they can go forward into Dalaria and start to take some part in political intrigue. Thus, I plan to have Goldtooth be recognized as a pirate (he has sacked many Teluvian ships, after all). The fleet commander will mention that pirates are usually hanged, but given the current situation will offer the alternative of forced conscription of Goldtooth and his crew to the Teluvian war effort, with a full pardon being given in exchange for X years in service to them. The party, however, will be given a different deal; they will stand out because all except the paladin are non-humans (and Goldtooth's band is all human apart from them) while the paladin is a folk hero and a worshiper of Selene, so the fleet commander will have heard of his exploits. She will offer them a paying job as part of the Teluvian war effort, sending them off with the goal of convincing Dalarian houses to stay out of the conflict or even indirectly disrupt rival houses who are resisting the invasion (which will consist of the the forces under the command of the king, those of some of the more warlike and/or patriotic houses, and those that are being directly attacked by the Teluvians). This will hopefully kick off the political fun my players are after.

Also, if anyone has any advice on engaging the players I'm all ears. The paladin player seems to be having a blast, and I think the ranger is having fun too. The goblin has only played one session so far, but he seemed to enjoy it. I'm particularly having difficulty, I think, engaging the cleric player though. It seems he's not very interested in combat (he mostly just buffs or heals when it comes up, I'm not sure if his character even has any weapons), and the way he has been built and described to me I think he wants to be a guy who plays people against each other to his own advantage or builds up an impressive contact list to use to his own ends, though he hasn't really seemed to be trying to do that. I'm not sure if I'm just not including opportunities for this overt enough for him to pick up on, or if I've misjudged what he wants, but apart from some instances where he's gotten some good roleplaying in with the other players or NPCs, he seems less engaged than I would like. He has had visions of his demonic ancestor as part of his backstory, so that's something to potentially play with, and I am planning on putting him in contact with an entity with which he could form a warlock pact some time in the future (as this is something he's hinted at being interested in after getting at least 5 levels in cleric), but I'm having trouble incorporating those things into the current goings-on. Perhaps I could let him find a book related to pacts and extraplanar creatures or something?

I'm also interested in ways to distribute equipment to this group. There hasn't been much combat yet, and I'm planning on having less combat than average in this campaign, so it hasn't been as easy to give them loot (indeed, pretty much all the loot they've got so far has been that cursed gold). What are good ways to distribute loot in combat-light campaigns?

@Kane0: These are good suggestions. Could you maybe explain your second point a little more? Like, do you mean there should be, for example, a Dalarian merchant lord associated with slavery and a Teluvian captain who embodies freedom and liberation?

@CaptainSarathai: ...I like the way you think! =D This idea is especially neat because many of the players in this game played in my previous campaign, in which they were all members of this mercenary guild, so it seems likely that they wouldn't really expect that twist. Thanks >=D

@Coretex: This is a good idea, and I wish I could have incorporated it more into the campaign so far. As of now, I think I will have it be one of the many things that led to the war, and something the PCs might discover in the future. Thanks.

@Trum4n1208: A lot of these suggestions are essentially what I was going for. It seems like a lot of the political intrigue fun of this game will be found in playing the Dalarian houses (and indeed the Teluvians) against one another. I have considered the possibility of overthrowing the Dalarian king eventually being a goal (especially if he does a poor job repelling the Teluvian invasion force, in which case the nobility might fairly ask "why do we need a king anyway?"), though the potential ramifications would likely be chaos in Dalaria. This sounds like a pretty good way for the Teluvians to come out the victors in this conflict, and certainly something to keep in mind.

@furby076: Thanks for the suggestions. I definitely like the idea of giving the party an opportunity to own some property, since this will certainly make them more involved in the conflict and probably more inclined to side with the faction in which their property is located.


Most medieval states, and even their ancient predecessors, relied on a levy system. In the feudal system each vassal was granted an area of land by his overlord, called a fief, which had farmland or other value producing properties, like a mine or rich fishing ground on it. In exchange for the right to collect tribute from the farmers or other workers living off that land, the vassal had to provide military service in his lord's army. Which meant being able to bring his own "Lance" of men, which meant the Knight, his squire, a light horseman and a couple of archers or spearmen, all fully equipped. The wealthier the vassal, the more he was expected to provide. Every village owned service to a knight who provided this to a Baron, who then provided service to a Count, who was themselves beholden to a Duke, who reported to the King. The beauty of this system is that it doesn't require paying a large body of men to sit around in a Barracks doing nothing except draining the royal treasury, every level of the system is providing their own gear, and is only called up when there's actually a campaign to fight.

City states had the advantage of concentration, so they could just directly call up citizens to serve, with their equipment based on their personal wealth, this system was ancient, dating back to the Ancient Greek City states, and being used by the Roman Republic in their wars against Carthage. The Italian Cities were rich in coin thanks to trade, so they preferred to hire entire mercenary armies to fight for them, but they were incredibly rich.

This is fairly similar to what I was imagining; the heads of the various houses would essentially be the "Dukes" in this arrangement, with the lesser lords of the houses being similar to "Counts" and non-family court officials who governed lesser population centers acting similar to "Barons." It is helpful to get some perspective on this though, so thanks for that.




They might be "expected" to do that, but functionally they're going to be loyal to whoever's paying them/were ever their farm is.

True, though as I brought up earlier in this post the loyalty of the other houses is dependent on how well they see the ruling house as fulfilling its duties. You pointed out earlier in this thread that if the ruling house were to execute a noble for treason it could potentially shake this loyalty. Similarly, if the ruling house were obviously corrupt, or refused to fulfill the duties of a monarch in the eyes of the noble houses, they would risk revolt.




Impartial court proceedings didn't exist in Medieval times, the Supreme Court of Medieval times was the king's court. So yes, if the King had the ability to arbitrarily try, imprison, and execute even the most powerful nobles, it would concern the other nobles because they could end up tied to a plot, even by mere association.

Yep, court proceedings are going to be skewed to the idea of "justice" held by the judges, this is true in pretty much every court system. The key, then, is to have enough evidence to where the nobility would not view imprisonment or execution as "arbitrary." If enough of them are satisfied with the trial, then there should be no loss of loyalty. Surely you're not suggesting that if an obvious plot to overthrow the king were uncovered with damning evidence, nobles of other houses or who were not involved in the plot would be concerned about the king taking action against it?


You get irate at me because you refuse to understand that they didn't have standing armies, because the economy was largely subsistence farmers, and taking peasants out of that work force would damage finances on two ends. They didn't have proper courts, because the final legal authority in the kingdom, was the king.

Incorrect. I get irate when you nitpick at things that don't actually matter, or take modern analogies merely meant to provide a general idea for the layman and assume there is more to them than that, or generally criticize anything in this swords and sorcery fantasy setting that doesn't directly compare to non-magical medieval history. Keep in mind, I came here for advice on fantasy politics; I am no medieval scholar, nor are you an expert on incorporating magic into a medieval setting. You may need to be patient if I don't know something you do rather than getting defensive, particularly when your suggestion doesn't mesh very well with a setting that incorporates magic, or with the general themes of the nations. This doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be believable to my players and provide enough opportunity for political maneuvering to be interesting and fun.

My advice to you is this: don't get defensive if I disagree with you, or decide not to take some of your advice. I'm not attacking your historical knowledge (you are clearly far superior to me in that respect), but some of what you suggest just doesn't really fit with the setting, theme, or overall world of the campaign, and since it's a fantasy rather than purely medieval setting that is to be expected. I do appreciate the considerable effort and time you've put in to educating me on these facts, really I do, and lots of what you've said has been incredibly insightful.


In cases when tribute was in coin, or intrinsics like Gold it didn't work like modern taxes. Your Taxes go to the government, and the government is expected to spend that money on improving things for the whole country. In Medieval times, tribute was the personal property of the lord receiving it, who had no duty to improve the lives of his serfs, beyond upholding his side of the feudal oath.

Indeed, this is essentially one of the differences between the Teluvians and the Dalarians; the Teluvians DO consider it the responsibility of the rulers of city-states (and indeed the "central government" itself) to improve the lives of their serfs. This is one place where this fantasy world might differ from historical power structures.



So the Swiss cantons then, not the United States?

Maybe that is a more accurate comparison. I wouldn't know because I (and I suspect the majority of the people reading these posts) don't really know much about the Swiss cantons. Since my goal was for people to understand the basics of what I was describing rather than to be as precisely accurate as possible, I think my choice of description was the right one.



So it's actually more of a protection racket with benefits? Good, now it's acting like an actual federation.

Yes, that sounds like an accurate description. What are the specifics of a federation when compared to other power structures?



All things medieval societies actually believed existed. The only thing that really changes is the lack of a powerful Church, which is a major difference, but it just means the nobility don't have a check on their power.

True, though there's a very big difference between believing in something and having that something actually tangibly affect your life. Lots of people today believe in the Judeo-Christian God, for instance, but I guarantee you life everywhere on the globe would be dramatically different if that entity actually regularly interfered with the goings-on of the realm, or frequently gave his worshipers the ability to perform miracles on a whim.

[Kane0]

@Kane0: These are good suggestions. Could you maybe explain your second point a little more? Like, do you mean there should be, for example, a Dalarian merchant lord associated with slavery and a Teluvian captain who embodies freedom and liberation?


Indeed. If slavery is going to be a primary focus of your campaign then a notable slaver/merchant that the PCs run into multiple times helps bring that to their attention and demonstrate the points you make. Like all characters make them more than one dimensional but this doesn't mean that 'slaver' cant be a defining trait.

Example: Gao the Greater, prominent fine wares / spice merchant and member of a particular slavery ring specialising in household servants. He is very conscious of a disfiguring mark on his left hand and always goes to great lengths to conceal it, almost always wearing gloves. Gao is suspected to possess ties to the black market, but so far has avoided scrutiny.
Gao is a civil but severe middle aged businessman that doesn't mind rolling up his sleeves, taking a certain amount of pride in the fact that he breaks in fresh slaves himself. This doesn't mean he does not delegate, in fact his son Gao the Lesser is a powerful and talented agent in his own right and is fully capable of taking over operations should the need arise despite his immense arrogance. Together their small enterprise has been gathering quite a clientele lately, potentially drawing the atttention of quite a few regional movers and shakers.

Likewise come up with characters that really show off the aspects of the game you want to emphasise. Things you want to make sure of:
- They are fully fledged characters in their own right. Likewise don't crowbar them into another plotline, they need to stand on their own merits or they will fall flat.
- They have reason to mingle with the PCs. This doesn't necessarily mean straight up allies or nemeses either.
- You have a contingency or plan B should they be killed or otherwise removed. Just be careful to provide actual closure if the PCs put the effort into dealing with them.