Mark A VanderMeulen wrote:

Am I the only one who enforces the idea that a vassal
MUST be an NPC (and thus not available for player control as a
lieutenants is)? I thought that this was a part of the rules, but I may
be mistaken. In this case, yes the regent theoretically gets an extra
three domain turns, but must deal with the DM on a give and take basis.
Yes, the vassal is theoretically under the rule of the lord, but any
quick perusal of medieval political history gives you an adequate idea
of how well that works in actual practice (i.e. about as long as its in
the vassal's best interests).

In response Mark, I have to say that no, I don't normally have PCs as
vassals. However, when my campaign began I had to make some allowances
for one PC who wanted to play a religious regent in the area of Tuornen.
I didn't want him to be in charge of the Western Imperial Temple of
Haelyn so I made him a vassal to the "Arch Prelate" of the church and
religious advisor to the regent of Tuornen (the main PC character). If
someone wants to be a vassal in my campaign I certainly wouldn't stop
him/her from doing so but my experience so far has shown that PCs pretty
much want the whole pie instead of just one piece.

I normally treat most other vassals as NPCs solely controlled by the DM.
This allows me to have much more control (and fun!) in making the
regent's life a bit more difficult than he would like it to be.
However, James has a point. It would much easier, in terms of role
playing, to have someone play the vassal character with real ambition,
greed, loyalty, or whatever, than for me to simply act out my
perceptions of the NPC's normal actions.

"If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving definitely isn't for

Bryan Palmer
Arizona State University