Dragonmarked PCs upholding Korth-bound neutrality during the Last War - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Dragonmarked PCs upholding Korth-bound neutrality during the Last War

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
paulos
Jun 14, 2010 7:41:38
My PbP players out.

I'm running a campaign in Eberron set toward the end of the Last War in Cyre, with the party largely Cyran citizens. Some of them are strongly affiliated with Orien too. What do I need to know about the Korth edicts and what the Houses would know and practice (or fudge) about "neutrality" as it applies to House heirs? Also, as a DM, how can I get them involved in the actual war raging all around without constantly running into the problem of the marked PCs having to choose to oppose the House policies and break the edicts of neutrality? I seem a bit stuck on that one, especially since it seems like most of the fun in a Last War campaign is related to the actual battles and political intrigue.

I mean can the party actually assist the Cyran military on a covert mission against Karrnath? Can they assist in an overt mission against Karrnath? Can the assist in defense against Thranish invasion just because they're in the same place at the same time? Can the help only if they're paid? I'm just not sure how the Edicts work and, after almost a millenium from the signing and after a century of war, how closely the Houses are bothering to follow the edicts since no overarching governing body really exists to enforce them.

Any thoughts are very welcome.
#2
AvonRekaes
Jun 14, 2010 9:16:41 Can the Cyran military purchase the abilities of the Mark of Passage? Sure!

So can Aundaire, Karrnath, Thrane, and Breland.

You can play it so that the "neutrality" applies to the House as a whole. Cyre can call in favors to ask your Orien pcs to do something for them, but the Cyran military knows full well the other nations can do the exact same thing with other Orien heirs (or potentially, the same PCs).

This might lead the Cyran military not to divulge sensitive information about the mission they're asking the PCs for help on. But that can be more fuel for story rather than a hindrance.

The part about being paid, that's sorta true. The House can't be seen to be giving services away to some nations for free while charging others. But here's the thing: Payment does not need to be monetary, and even if it is, payment can go straight to the House and never touch PC hands.
#3
Alas
Jun 14, 2010 10:59:14 Just another bit of brainstorming:
Dragonmarked heirs have been likened to nobility in social status. In some historic wars, ransoming captured nobles was a standard practice (one with a lot of incentive, too). I wouldn't expect combatants to cut the Dragonmarked any slack during battle, but after the battle, there's all sorts of reason to treat such PCs based on their potential as a source of compensation.

Remember that there's a slight difference between the Dragonmarked houses and their Guilds. A Deneith mercenary might be working with the Blademarks Guild, or he might be operating completely on his own as a freelance. The Guilds are less personal but also contractually limited in what they'll do, whereas an individual can do what he wants but puts the house reputation at greater risk. (At least, that's how I'd do it.)

I expect that in light of the above point, the Houses make some effort to make sure their assets don't end up fighting each other. Very embarrassing otherwise.

As you point out, the Edicts of Korth are centuries old, and during the Last War, the courts are probably in disarray. If I were DMing, I'd have lawyers invoking obscure amendments, clauses, and interpretations of the Edicts to achieve whatever the story requires at the moment.

#4
Sarlax
Jun 20, 2010 2:55:13
n just because they're in the same place at the same time? Can the help only if they're paid? I'm just not sure how the Edicts work and, after almost a millenium from the signing and after a century of war, how closely the Houses are bothering to follow the edicts since no overarching governing body really exists to enforce them.

That's the key. With Galifar's dissolution, I don't think neutrality matters in a legal sense. The Houses would have had treaties with Galifar, which is dead. Now, given that Galifar was a hereditary kingdom, it's possibly that many of the treaties which established limits on House powers are still in effect - they might refer to the obligations between Orien and the ir'Wynarns, both of whom still exist. Likewise, many treaties were probably sealed by House Sivis, which, more than any other house, lives by its reputation, and might apply subtle pressures to keep others in line.

That said, once the Last War began, who can an aggrieved noble turn to if he thinks a House isn't playing fair?

Early in the war, I think the Houses would have stuck to the original rules as much they could, given that anyone might come out on top. After a couple decades, new people would be born into the houses, young people who would ask, "Why should we hold to a treaty between our dead ancestors and a dead empire?" Still, with no obvious front-runner for victory, the Houses would probably have at least pretended at neutrality, while perhaps secretly favoring certain nations.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 paulos Jun 14, 2010 7:41:38	My PbP players out. I'm running a campaign in Eberron set toward the end of the Last War in Cyre, with the party largely Cyran citizens. Some of them are strongly affiliated with Orien too. What do I need to know about the Korth edicts and what the Houses would know and practice (or fudge) about "neutrality" as it applies to House heirs? Also, as a DM, how can I get them involved in the actual war raging all around without constantly running into the problem of the marked PCs having to choose to oppose the House policies and break the edicts of neutrality? I seem a bit stuck on that one, especially since it seems like most of the fun in a Last War campaign is related to the actual battles and political intrigue. I mean can the party actually assist the Cyran military on a covert mission against Karrnath? Can they assist in an overt mission against Karrnath? Can the assist in defense against Thranish invasion just because they're in the same place at the same time? Can the help only if they're paid? I'm just not sure how the Edicts work and, after almost a millenium from the signing and after a century of war, how closely the Houses are bothering to follow the edicts since no overarching governing body really exists to enforce them. Any thoughts are very welcome.
#2 AvonRekaes Jun 14, 2010 9:16:41	Can the Cyran military purchase the abilities of the Mark of Passage? Sure! So can Aundaire, Karrnath, Thrane, and Breland. You can play it so that the "neutrality" applies to the House as a whole. Cyre can call in favors to ask your Orien pcs to do something for them, but the Cyran military knows full well the other nations can do the exact same thing with other Orien heirs (or potentially, the same PCs). This might lead the Cyran military not to divulge sensitive information about the mission they're asking the PCs for help on. But that can be more fuel for story rather than a hindrance. The part about being paid, that's sorta true. The House can't be seen to be giving services away to some nations for free while charging others. But here's the thing: Payment does not need to be monetary, and even if it is, payment can go straight to the House and never touch PC hands.
#3 Alas Jun 14, 2010 10:59:14	Just another bit of brainstorming: Dragonmarked heirs have been likened to nobility in social status. In some historic wars, ransoming captured nobles was a standard practice (one with a lot of incentive, too). I wouldn't expect combatants to cut the Dragonmarked any slack during battle, but after the battle, there's all sorts of reason to treat such PCs based on their potential as a source of compensation. Remember that there's a slight difference between the Dragonmarked houses and their Guilds. A Deneith mercenary might be working with the Blademarks Guild, or he might be operating completely on his own as a freelance. The Guilds are less personal but also contractually limited in what they'll do, whereas an individual can do what he wants but puts the house reputation at greater risk. (At least, that's how I'd do it.) I expect that in light of the above point, the Houses make some effort to make sure their assets don't end up fighting each other. Very embarrassing otherwise. As you point out, the Edicts of Korth are centuries old, and during the Last War, the courts are probably in disarray. If I were DMing, I'd have lawyers invoking obscure amendments, clauses, and interpretations of the Edicts to achieve whatever the story requires at the moment.
#4 Sarlax Jun 20, 2010 2:55:13	n just because they're in the same place at the same time? Can the help only if they're paid? I'm just not sure how the Edicts work and, after almost a millenium from the signing and after a century of war, how closely the Houses are bothering to follow the edicts since no overarching governing body really exists to enforce them. That's the key. With Galifar's dissolution, I don't think neutrality matters in a legal sense. The Houses would have had treaties with Galifar, which is dead. Now, given that Galifar was a hereditary kingdom, it's possibly that many of the treaties which established limits on House powers are still in effect - they might refer to the obligations between Orien and the ir'Wynarns, both of whom still exist. Likewise, many treaties were probably sealed by House Sivis, which, more than any other house, lives by its reputation, and might apply subtle pressures to keep others in line. That said, once the Last War began, who can an aggrieved noble turn to if he thinks a House isn't playing fair? Early in the war, I think the Houses would have stuck to the original rules as much they could, given that anyone might come out on top. After a couple decades, new people would be born into the houses, young people who would ask, "Why should we hold to a treaty between our dead ancestors and a dead empire?" Still, with no obvious front-runner for victory, the Houses would probably have at least pretended at neutrality, while perhaps secretly favoring certain nations.