Sword Mage

[kgauck]

Hero kings do have certain kinds of adventures marked out by them by myth and literature, and its well within players to expand those boundaries, but such hero kings are often surrounded by followers, be they knights of the round table, Beowulf's thanes, or the larger number of heroes who serve kings. Often becoming king comes at the end of a great adventure. Kings are really too busy to be primary adventurers.

An adventuring group sneaking past enemy lines to complete a crucial mission to win the war or otherwise put a stop to hostilities? Sounds like a job for the regent and his posse of scions.

Actually this sounds like a job for the regent's champion and his posse of scions. If something happens while the ruler is on this mission, it could mean defeat anyway. Kings need to stay at the center of the information flow, not at the center of the action. Putting yourself at the center of action generally puts you outside of the information.

There are generally three models you can find for command and kingship in the era before telegraphs and more modern communication:

• Stay back and oversee the whole operation from a short distance, you can see the whole battle, but are removed from direct command anywhere, and need to rely on subordinate commanders to execute.
• Take direct command of a part of the operation where you think the decisive action will occur.
• Lead from the front and throw yourself into the melee.

As you go down the list, you lose control over the whole and gain control over a smaller and smaller part. Generally what is most common (and for good reasons) is for the commander to stay in the overview position. Once the situation has clarified itself, the enemy has committed his reserves, resources have been committed, the other guy can't change plans without summoning unseen/unknown assets. Then the commander can shift to the second position, at the decisive point. If the commander selects this option too early, it can turn out that the decisive point is elsewhere and the battle is lost. Finally, the commander might enter the action as a final push to secure the victory with his personal body of warriors.

Someone like Caesar got plenty of direct, personal combat, but still spent most of their time in the big over-view position, only entering combat to rally a shaken legion or encourage a legion to break an opponent putting up a tough resistance.

Leaving the army to perform some critical raid is one of those ways that a king would be abandoning their office for a lower function. Such a role is better suited for a subordinate, such as Beowulf's friend Wiglaf.

However, there are times where it genuinely seems that there is one main threat, and that the king can pursue a single threat (say a dragon) as long as he has left his ducks in a row. During this time, the king may directly lead adventures. But for the most part, the king's duty is to the whole kingdom, not to be his own champion. Or his own diplomat, or his own treasurer, or his own architect. It is a temptation to be avoided. The king, who has worked his way up, like the Mhor's son and lieutenant, will be tempted to use himself as his critical asset and solve problems directly, but this is not the best role for the king. A king can also be too detached and leave everything to his household, but this is not optimal either. The best role for the king is to directly supervise their subordinates, making sure that each in their sphere is doing what the king wants, neither ignoring the subordinates and hoping for the best, or doing the work for them and having no time for supervising others.

[ThatSeanGuy]

Hero kings do have certain kinds of adventures marked out by them by myth and literature, and its well within players to expand those boundaries, but such hero kings are often surrounded by followers, be they knights of the round table, Beowulf's thanes, or the larger number of heroes who serve kings. Often becoming king comes at the end of a great adventure. Kings are really too busy to be primary adventurers.

But, isn't that the point of the setting? Instead of kingship coming at the end of the adventure, kingship's just the beginning?

I mean, I see what you're saying here, and it's logical stuff, but I thought the main idea of the setting was that, instead of being the champion or unlikely mercinary who carries out the king's orders, you were the ruler yourself doing the darring do.

Also, we've kind of spreaded off into a tangent, and I apologize for that, considering that this is supposed to be about the Sword Mage.

[kgauck]

BR gave us the domain rules too. Play can run from all domain and no adventure to all adventure and no domain turns taken using the domain rules. Players need to find their happy spot, doing the things they like to do, but there are also better matches between players and roles. Some players like to coordinate others, get involved in running a domain, rather than wanting to get out and slay some orogs. Others want to slay orogs.

While you should try and be flexible, I think a DM should also impose natural consequences for choices made. If a ruler is spending too much time away from the throne, opportunities should be missed, both to seize advantage and to avoid dangers.

[Rowan]

I agree with you, Kgauck, with some qualifications. I think it is more common in the Birthright setting's divine bloodlines and adventuresome-ness for rulers to direct some battle, but frequently leap in at decisive points, seeking out enemy commanders on the battle field. One does not win glory by testing one's noble mettle against mere peasant footsoldiers, but by defeating, capturing, or killing your noble foemen. That's where I think the regency storms occur.

Further, you talk about kings. Most of Birthright is about counts, barons, and dukes. As you go up the list, people become more important figureheads, and would likely act more like kings. But kings have their dukes, barons, and counts take those lead positions on the battlefield as well as in diplomacy or administration of the kingdom. Just because Anuire is currently divided does not mean this has broken down completely and everyone acts like a king.

I think the primary difference that still remains is that kings are tremendous symbols and figureheads for their nations; the fate of the MAN is extremely important, and the death of a king can cause great disruption. However, for lesser nobles individuals are less important than families. Successions are smoother (with relation to the impact on the state), since the people look to the noble family as their liege lords, not just the current patriarch of that family. The apparatus of state is likely to be less disrupted by the transition of rulers at those lesser levels.

I think this means that your typical BR counts, barons, and dukes are significantly more likely than a king to engage personally in events and even risk themselves seeking glory. After all, the king need not prove his prowess in most situations since he already has the highest station, whereas lesser nobles are always vying against each other to rise in the ranks of the valorous and honorable.

[kgauck]

I totally agree with your point Rowan, and that's what I was getting at saying that a lieutenant, like Beowulf's friend Wiglaf, would be involved in more adventures than Beowulf himself.

I didn't identify the titles of the subordinates who go out into the world, but counts, lords, and officers of the king would fit the bill. Dukes and Barons are effectively kings in Birthright, since they are the top of their own pyramids.

[Rowan]

Well, I'm suggesting that dukes and barons still aren't quite up to the part of kings, even though they're at the top positions in their respective realms. I just don't think the realms place as much emphasis on the person of the baron and duke as they would an emperor or king, and that they care more about the ruling family than the individual.

[kgauck]

Kings (and Queens) occupy realms no larger than those of dukes and barons. Is Stjordvik or Aerenwe more concerned with the person of their sovereign than Ghoere or Dauren?

Certainly if there were a new layer restored above the current top this person becomes even more essential, but that's a hypothetical.

[Rowan]

In small realms, the peasantry and nobility get to know the entire ruling family more easily than in larger ones, and can easily see the transition of the throne among the family members. The nobility and administrators are fewer in number, and thus it is easier to bring them under the wing of the successor. Given these factors, I think the transition of power within a ruling family is easier in smaller realms, and the people see the family as ruling more than the individual. The larger realms get and the more layers of hierarchy, the more important and distant the ruling individual, and therefore the more important his symbolic position.

Also, weren't duchies and baronies often more stable than monarchies? The stability of these lends, again, to the realm identifying with the ruling family moreso than with any one individual.

[kgauck]

Determining exactly how this plays out can involve a lot of factors and how they interact will determine how provincial a place is. Some place like France or the Empire (both in their own ways, models for Anuire) had more devotion to the local magnates than to the king, who was distant and remote. So developing a model of how, precisely, this works in Cerilia, would require a cultural history of the various places under consideration.

My own sense would be that where ever the PC's are in the feudal hierarchy has an elevated importance for the people.

But most importantly, I'd want it all to make sense for the area where the game takes place. Only Anuire is attached to the notion of an Emperor. The Brecht and Khinasi realms have the notion of a greater pan-union league, but I suspect that the regionalism of the preople would express itself most for their domain-sized rulers. For the Rjurik, there seems to be a lot of attachment to the jarls, at least in the older thinking. The newer urban Rjurik might well prefer kings, with their wider view of things.