Page 1 of 1

The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-25
by Sir Caetrel
Friday at the campout a ceremony was held to commence the emergence of a new country in Darkon. For any who did not attend, here is a brief explanation.

The Kingdoms of Albion, Chendrolyn and Sarum have formed into one nation, known as The Northen Kingdoms. Our old country identities will remain a strong part of our cultural background, but we are now one Nation.

Our country leader is Lord Rza. We selected the title Emperor, because he now is a ruler of three kingdoms, and we did not want to confuse his title with that of High King, or of the King of Darkon's court. Again, this is no mere alliance, we are a single sovereign nation.

We have an elaborate government and will present more of our country identity in character, at events, throughout the rest of the year. One of our major goals is to engage as much of the Realm as possible in roleplay and relationships, both friends and foes alike. We want to try our best to make Darkon busy!

You can expect from us what you would have expected from Albion, Chendrolyn and Sarum. We are likeminded in many ways, but we also each have our own flavor. We hope to exemplify what was best of our individual identities in this new endeavor.

I hope we can add alot to this great Game, and look forward to many years of fun.

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-25
by fingers630
good to hear friend :) much success wished to you all.

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-26
by Lord Cailen Sendor
agreed 100% I wish all of you the best!!! Great idea - Great times are ahead for all of you !

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-29
by Gore Bludklaw
So does that mean that, Albion and Chendrolyn have given up all of their hexes for the new country's 13 hexes?

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-29
by Amazing_Iltztafein
Gore Bludklaw wrote:So does that mean that, Albion and Chendrolyn have given up all of their hexes for the new country's 13 hexes?

Why would they? One of them is simply changing its name and the other is going defunct.

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-29
by PadreCaedes
Find it in the rulebook.

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-29
by Amazing_Iltztafein
There is nothing that says you cannot change your name, and it's been done in the past several times.

In fact, it just happened last year.

For the record, I DON'T understand why anybody would be against this. It seems petty and silly to fight it. By consolidating two existing countries into one, they lose two senate seats (and a potential 2 more if Sarum had redeclared), and quite a few hexes that revert when Chendrolyn goes defunct. What is the point of being against this?

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-29
by Gore Bludklaw
Are both countries being named The Northern Kingdoms?

Iltz, Sir Caestrel's post said "new country", I'm just asking not being a jackass.

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-29
by Amazing_Iltztafein
Gore Bludklaw wrote:Are both countries being named The Northern Kingdoms?

Iltz, Sir Caestrel's post said "new country", I'm just asking not being a *.

I was referring to Drew's post. I apologize if I made it seem like I was talking to you. I was not.

From what several people said at the campout, it is not a "new" country. I guess the definition of "new" means different things. In a way it would be a "new country", but on the map, it is not a new county being created from scratch. Hopefully that makes sense.

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-30
by Prince Andrick
This was all done on the up and up. They retained the lands of one of the exisiting nations and renamed it The Northern Kingdoms... The other lands will go back to unexplored.

Andrick

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-30
by Saris Fey-Branche
Should we expect a similar declaration in the IC boards?

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-30
by PadreCaedes
Amazing_Iltztafein wrote:
Gore Bludklaw wrote:Are both countries being named The Northern Kingdoms?

Iltz, Sir Caestrel's post said "new country", I'm just asking not being a *.

I was referring to Drew's post. I apologize if I made it seem like I was talking to you. I was not.

From what several people said at the campout, it is not a "new" country. I guess the definition of "new" means different things. In a way it would be a "new country", but on the map, it is not a new county being created from scratch. Hopefully that makes sense.


Be not confused. I'm all for it! But just because there's "nothing in the book that says you can't" makes it a huge grey area argument. The section on countries is short and sweet. Perhaps a rewrite or an add-on?

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-30
by Amazing_Iltztafein
Saris Fey-Branche wrote:Should we expect a similar declaration in the IC boards?

They declared it IC at the campout. It was quite the spectacle.

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-30
by Lord Cailen Sendor
From my prospective what the "Northern Kingdoms" have done is both great for the game and great for roleplaying. Within the rules they have clearly had years of storyline... AND I MEAN YEARS of roleplaying and it has evolved to the point thier new country has a background RICH in roleplaying. Every part of thier country has a history ... a reason ... and established characters to flesh it all out. Few other countries have that much indepth characterization involved with what they have done... Sure countries have failed or chosen to go defunct in the past and they later just reformed under a new banner or new history ... BUT IN THIS CASE they have taken several groups that alone are rich in history but at times few in numbers and converted that to one large country with a HISTORY. They have kept true to thier characters -true to thier pasts -true to thier ideals and in the end have formed something to be extreemly proud of.

Our game is supposed to be about roleplaying while kicking the * out of each other - now while they are roleplaying they have more ability to do just that! If for some reason them forming this country gives you thoughts that they did not follow the rules or tried to skirt the rules in some way think again... what they did is consolidate thier strengths so as to be a unit that will need to be recconed with. This is what other countries have done for years... most older countries have taken in people that for one reason or another no longer had a country by the rules to call home, this is nothing new... What is NEW here is that the country that is taking in these players HONORS those players by renaming themselves and including all the past histories into one long history that tells the story of all of thier pasts and at the same time the history of Darkon.

I could not support thier actions more - they have honored themselves by making this choice and honored the game by keeping intact the long history of who and what they are about.

Bravo,
Prince Cailen Sendor

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-30
by Sir Caetrel
Thank you Cailen for an eloquent explanation, you do us honor.

Saris, I don't like to RP on the forums, I prefer mud and blood. I can say that you will see alot of RP from us in person. Many of us have been extremely quiet in the last few months because we wanted this to be a surprise. Obviously, this is why Sarum did not redeclare.

We are all giving up alot to do this, not the least of which is a net loss of 4 Senate votes. It has taken a great passage of time for us to even consider it.

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-30
by Maeve
Lord Cailen Sendor wrote: They have kept true to thier characters -true to thier pasts -true to thier ideals and in the end have formed something to be extreemly proud of.


Prince Cailen Sendor


Very eloquently put.

In my specific case, Maeve Siobahn Connaught, although a Lord of Sarum, was named a sister of Albion years ago and given a triskel to wear because of a shared Celtic heritage and love of kicking ass. That was almost ten years ago and when I returned to Darkon, the realm was greatly changed. We put a lot of thought into what we were doing, and a lot of work into our IC declaration - glad it was appreciated and caused a reaction IC... which is where I like my politics to stay :).

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-30
by BaiterofBAMC
Not to take this on a tangent, but.....

We don't need new rules for every situation that occurs. The combining of countries that occurred is a great role playing venture, one that helps enrich the game. More of this stuff needs to happen.

There was a time long ago when Darkon had a lot of gaps and loopholes, much more than we have now. We got through it with brainstorming and being strong enough to say. " That's not cool" and everyone agreed that it was a bs thing to do and stopped it.

If we take this to a real world situation, have you ever looked at the piles and piles of laws that we have in our local government? It's enough to kill a goat with. We can't make laws to cover every minute detail that can occur, we just go with the intent and interpret from there.

That being said, the metric that we should use is "Is doing xyz a good thing for the game?" Does it foster better roleplay, more conflict, looking better, playing smoother while being safe? If so, let that damn thing ride.

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-30
by DrSquirrel
^like this and also welcome The Northern Kingdom as a great new role-playing power of fun

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-31
by Inox
BaiterofBAMC wrote:Not to take this on a tangent, but.....

We don't need new rules for every situation that occurs. The combining of countries that occurred is a great role playing venture, one that helps enrich the game. More of this stuff needs to happen.

There was a time long ago when Darkon had a lot of gaps and loopholes, much more than we have now. We got through it with brainstorming and being strong enough to say. " That's not cool" and everyone agreed that it was a bs thing to do and stopped it.

If we take this to a real world situation, have you ever looked at the piles and piles of laws that we have in our local government? It's enough to kill a goat with. We can't make laws to cover every minute detail that can occur, we just go with the intent and interpret from there.

That being said, the metric that we should use is "Is doing xyz a good thing for the game?" Does it foster better roleplay, more conflict, looking better, playing smoother while being safe? If so, let that damn thing ride.


This, 100%.

Our rulebook has been gradually growing over the years with exceptions and technicalities and rephrasing. It's gotten to the point where the sections on combat are so lengthy that most new players aren't even reading them through.

We'd be much better off to promote a culture of respecting the gameplay and each other, rather than trying to come up with infinitely granular rulesets.

The munchkins and metagamers love complexity, because it actually gives them room to maneuver. As a lawyer, I can comfortably say that even the laws on the books often fail to address an issue properly. There's just no way we are going to craft something that covers every contingency.

Rather than fight a battle with people over interpretations, it's easier to simply say, "Hey, this is a game, and we are all trying to have fun, and that's a little much. Please stop." We have an EB, a Senate, and an NC; they can handle these things as they come up without having to draft packets of new code like the U.S. Congress.

Remember, we're out here to have fun. It's a GAME. None of the land, gold, power, etc. is any more real than us all agreeing to honor it while we play.

Sometimes (a lot of times) I think we need to go back to red rulebook days (+ safety rulings & a simplified hit system) and be done with it.



Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-03-31
by fingers630
Sure, as long as we go back to weapons being made from pvc pipe and blue walmart camping foam!

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-04-01
by GAWARR1
I'll second that!

Re: The Northern Kingdoms

Posted: 2012-04-02
by Thrush Svartehjertet
-Inox- wrote:
BaiterofBAMC wrote:Not to take this on a tangent, but.....

We don't need new rules for every situation that occurs. The combining of countries that occurred is a great role playing venture, one that helps enrich the game. More of this stuff needs to happen.

There was a time long ago when Darkon had a lot of gaps and loopholes, much more than we have now. We got through it with brainstorming and being strong enough to say. " That's not cool" and everyone agreed that it was a bs thing to do and stopped it.

If we take this to a real world situation, have you ever looked at the piles and piles of laws that we have in our local government? It's enough to kill a goat with. We can't make laws to cover every minute detail that can occur, we just go with the intent and interpret from there.

That being said, the metric that we should use is "Is doing xyz a good thing for the game?" Does it foster better roleplay, more conflict, looking better, playing smoother while being safe? If so, let that damn thing ride.


This, 100%.

Our rulebook has been gradually growing over the years with exceptions and technicalities and rephrasing. It's gotten to the point where the sections on combat are so lengthy that most new players aren't even reading them through.

We'd be much better off to promote a culture of respecting the gameplay and each other, rather than trying to come up with infinitely granular rulesets.

The munchkins and metagamers love complexity, because it actually gives them room to maneuver. As a lawyer, I can comfortably say that even the laws on the books often fail to address an issue properly. There's just no way we are going to craft something that covers every contingency.

Rather than fight a battle with people over interpretations, it's easier to simply say, "Hey, this is a game, and we are all trying to have fun, and that's a little much. Please stop." We have an EB, a Senate, and an NC; they can handle these things as they come up without having to draft packets of new code like the U.S. Congress.

Remember, we're out here to have fun. It's a GAME. None of the land, gold, power, etc. is any more real than us all agreeing to honor it while we play.

Sometimes (a lot of times) I think we need to go back to red rulebook days (+ safety rulings & a simplified hit system) and be done with it.




Obviously not true, have you tried to explain why letting people form Warbands is a good idea for RP? It doesnt work...

Thrush
berserk