10-06-2019, 12:21 PM
I'm sure that Aldarron and Havard are already aware of this, but I wanted to add this to the discussion. I managed to find a passage on p. 5 of DA1 that seems to contradict the 4E timeline and some of my previous evidence that there was a king before Uther.
Here, unlike in the 4E timeline, there isn't a "claim to the throne." Uther declares himself king, and the last sentence refers to it as the "new crown."
This implies that Uther has declared himself the first King of Blackmoor. As added evidence, there is no mention of a king in any of the description leading up to this.
Two paragraphs above this passage in DA1, it is stated that the Northern Barons threw the whole of their strength into stopping the Afridhi invasion. The barons were scattered in the battle, but the Afridhi were shaken and retreated west.
Having heard news of a new imperial army moving north "to put down the baronial revolt," the barons sought to avoid the looming civil war. That's when the barons met and tried to open negotiations by sending two messengers.
There is no mention of a king in any of this, so clearly the DA1 background has taken the stance that there was no king before Uther. There were only the barons, and Uther was among them.
This may still be a retcon compared to the FFC. I wonder whether it came from Dave Arneson's notes or was a creation of David Ritchie to either clean up continuity problems dating back to the FFC or create a more compelling backstory for DA1.
But it's still strange that two passaages in the 4E timeline imply the existence of an unnamed king before Uther and an existing crown to which Uther made his claim. Given that ZGG was trying to maintain continuity with not only the FFC but the DA modules, I now suspect these were mistakes.
Ultimately, if you choose the FFC as your strict basis for Blackmoor history, you'd be inclined to maintain that there was a king in Vestfold at some point, and this king may have continued to reign until Uther became king or simply died and left the throne vacant until Uther claimed it. But then you have to ignore or rewrite a fair bit of DA1 history. And Uther's claim to the throne in DA1 would not only be a rebellion against Thonia but a rebellion against the reigning king of Blackmoor, whether he was a vassal king or not.
If you're looking for overall continuity between the FFC, the DA modules and the ZGG publications, the simpler choice is to declare the reference to Ra-All as King of Vestfold as invalid. Maybe Ra-All's rise happened in the original campaign but was later forgotten or retconned out of the setting. Whatever the case may be, Uther being the first King of Blackmoor seems to require the least effort or retconning and offers the better continuity with everything that followed the FFC.
That's what I would choosem but ultimately there's no right or wrong answer.
Quote:A council of barons meeting in Vestfold tried to open negotiations with the emperor to end the strife ...
A fortnight later, Uther ended forever the question of the North's allegiance. Declaring himself King of Blackmoor, he raised his standard and began forming an army to fight the empire ...
The Baron of Glendower and the Baron of the Lakes immediately rallied to his call. They were soon joined by a handful of other men, some noble, some mere adventurers, who swore to defend the new crown unto death.
Here, unlike in the 4E timeline, there isn't a "claim to the throne." Uther declares himself king, and the last sentence refers to it as the "new crown."
This implies that Uther has declared himself the first King of Blackmoor. As added evidence, there is no mention of a king in any of the description leading up to this.
Two paragraphs above this passage in DA1, it is stated that the Northern Barons threw the whole of their strength into stopping the Afridhi invasion. The barons were scattered in the battle, but the Afridhi were shaken and retreated west.
Having heard news of a new imperial army moving north "to put down the baronial revolt," the barons sought to avoid the looming civil war. That's when the barons met and tried to open negotiations by sending two messengers.
There is no mention of a king in any of this, so clearly the DA1 background has taken the stance that there was no king before Uther. There were only the barons, and Uther was among them.
This may still be a retcon compared to the FFC. I wonder whether it came from Dave Arneson's notes or was a creation of David Ritchie to either clean up continuity problems dating back to the FFC or create a more compelling backstory for DA1.
But it's still strange that two passaages in the 4E timeline imply the existence of an unnamed king before Uther and an existing crown to which Uther made his claim. Given that ZGG was trying to maintain continuity with not only the FFC but the DA modules, I now suspect these were mistakes.
Ultimately, if you choose the FFC as your strict basis for Blackmoor history, you'd be inclined to maintain that there was a king in Vestfold at some point, and this king may have continued to reign until Uther became king or simply died and left the throne vacant until Uther claimed it. But then you have to ignore or rewrite a fair bit of DA1 history. And Uther's claim to the throne in DA1 would not only be a rebellion against Thonia but a rebellion against the reigning king of Blackmoor, whether he was a vassal king or not.
If you're looking for overall continuity between the FFC, the DA modules and the ZGG publications, the simpler choice is to declare the reference to Ra-All as King of Vestfold as invalid. Maybe Ra-All's rise happened in the original campaign but was later forgotten or retconned out of the setting. Whatever the case may be, Uther being the first King of Blackmoor seems to require the least effort or retconning and offers the better continuity with everything that followed the FFC.
That's what I would choosem but ultimately there's no right or wrong answer.