Regent classes

[Birthright-L]

So I`m trying to reconcile 3e`s free-for-all multiclassing with the 2e
notion that certain classes get regency from certain holdings. With 3e, a
fourth level character (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) could get full
regency from all holdings. Actually, if you ignore the restrictions on
paladin multiclassing (and many people do), you could do it at third
level, paladin/rogue/wizard.

I`ve seen suggestions that:
- a regent should pick a `main` class and that`s his effective one for
holding stuff.
- just accept the multiclassing, allow them to get RPs as any class they
have.
- the highest level class is the one that counts.
- probably more I`ve forgotten.

I think the prestige/advanced class mechanic provides a good answer here.
I`m going to use 4 prestige classes that solve the problem for me, and
give a couple of other good features, too. They`re similar to the d20
modern advanced classes in that their prereqs are rather low- many
characters could go into them after first level in a regular class.

Default: All characters gaing full regency from provinces in their realm.
No RP is gained from any other holding the character controls.
Additionally, by default all actions can only be domain actions- realm
actions, affecting multiple holdings, are available only at prestige
levels.

**Lawyer**
-Prereq: Knowledge (law) 3; blooded scion
[knowledge-law is the equivalent of the Law proficiency from the
BR rulebook. Class skill for anyone with general Knowledge as a
class skill.]
-BAB: As rogue
-Good save: Will
-Hit Die: d8
-Class skills: As Aristocrat
-Skill points: 6+Int modifier

Class Features
Level 1: Half Regency from law holdings.
Level 2: Realm Actions. Rule (law holdings), agitate, and contest can be
used as realm actions by the character.
Level 3: Full Regency from law holdings.
Level 4: Free action: Declare War can be used as a free action 1/domain
turn.
Level 5: Regent Privilege.


**Templar**
-Prereq: Knowledge (religion) 3; blooded scion; ability to cast 1st level
divine spells
-BAB: As rogue
-Good save: Will
-Hit Die: d8
-Class skills: As Aristocrat and Cleric
-Skill points: 6+Int modifier

Class Features
Level 1: Half Regency from temple holdings.
Level 2: Realm Actions. Rule (temple holdings), agitate, and contest can
be used as realm actions by the character.
+1 spellcaster level (of original class).
Realm spells can be cast at the character`s spellcaster level.
Level 3: Full Regency from temple holdings.
Level 4: Free action: Agitate can be used as a free action 1/domain turn.
+1 spellcaster level.
Level 5: Regent Privilege.
+1 spellcaster level.


**Guilder**
-Prereq: Appraise 3; blooded scion
-BAB: As rogue
-Good save: Will
-Hit Die: d8
-Class skills: As Aristocrat
-Skill points: 6+Int modifier

Class Features
Level 1: Half Regency from guild holdings.
Level 2: Realm Actions. Rule (guild holdings), agitate, contest, and
espionage can be used as realm actions by the character.
Level 3: Full Regency from guild holdings.
Level 4: Free action: Espionage can be used as a free action 1/domain turn.
Level 5: Regent Privilege.

**Sourceror**
-Prereq: Knowledge (arcana) 3; blooded scion; ability to cast 1st level
arcane spells
-BAB: As wizard
-Good save: Will
-Hit Die: d6
-Class skills: As Aristocrat and Wizard
-Skill points: 6+Int modifier.

Class Features
Level 1: Half Regency from source holdings.
Level 2: Realm Actions. Rule (source holdings) can be used as realm
actions by the character.
+1 spellcaster level (of original class).
Realm spells can be cast at the character`s spellcaster level.
Level 3: Full Regency from source holdings.
Level 4: Free action: Scry can be used as a free action 1/domain turn,
targetting any province where the regent controls a source.
+1 spellcaster level.
Level 5: Regent Privilege.
+1 spellcaster level.

**Notes**
The regent privilege gained at level 5 for these classes is one of the
privileges some genius came up with for pbem games. I`ve seen them
several places, but an example list can be found at
http://sdpbem.wz.cz/joining.html (hi Anakin). To these I would add:

Merchant Prince (guilder): the character gains RPs from trade routes, as
the thief did in the original rules. In addition, Trade Route as a realm
action becomes available.

By basing these only on a couple of low requirements, it makes the class
available to pretty much anyone that`s willing to work for it. But to get
full RPs for all holdings, rather than at 3rd level (worst case scenario),
it would take a level of cleric, a level of wizard, and three levels of
each class, total character level 14, and he`d be pretty ineffective.

A spellcasting character who goes all the way in one of these loses two
levels of spellcasting, but gains realm spells, RP, a free action, and a
regent privilege.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 13:15, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> So I`m trying to reconcile 3e`s free-for-all multiclassing with the 2e
> notion that certain classes get regency from certain holdings.

It`s not a 2e notion - it`s a BR notion. That`s a huge distinction. It
would be most incorrect to state that "in 2e this happened..." when in
actuality it is nothing of the sort.

The original BR rulebook:
(1) restricted regents from collecting RP from all types of holding;
such restriction was based on the regents character class
(2) did not mention how multi-classed or dual-classed characters should
collect regency

The question raised by the (2) is of minor importance when the majority
of characters have only one character class. But still requires a fair,
equitable and justifiable answer - and one that takes into account the
majority rule - and (1) - IS the majority rule.

The difference now (in 3e) is that multi-classing is commonplace. An
answer to (2) is more urgently required - but need not be any different
(should not be) to an answer for 2e.

With 3e, a
> fourth level character (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) could get full
> regency from all holdings. Actually, if you ignore the restrictions on
> paladin multiclassing (and many people do), you could do it at third
> level, paladin/rogue/wizard.
>
> I`ve seen suggestions that:
> - a regent should pick a `main` class and that`s his effective one for
> holding stuff.

The above suggestion is the most obvious, and most conforming to the
spirit of the original BR rulebook.
(I) The majority rule holds in all cases, regardless of how many
character classes a character has.

It does however have some drawbacks:
(i) Should such a decision be voluntary, or involuntary - i.e. can the
player decide which character class to use in collecting RP
(ii) `When` is this decision made?
(iii) Can it be changed?, if so how often and under what circumstances?
e.g. The situation can change as,
(a) A player takes a new character class
(B) A regent gains new holdings/provinces
© A regent dies and his holdings/etc pass to his heir - who may be of
a different character class


> - just accept the multiclassing, allow them to get RPs as any class they
> have.
Seems very much against the spirit of the BR rules, but solves (a), (B),
and ©. Certainly though, it has the effect of discouraging
specialization - and encouraging domains that are:
(A) pretty much similar in appearance/makeup (realm+guild+temple|source)
(B) always a realm of some kind -- (but standard BR encourages this too)
© almost always ruled by a realm/caster regent

> - the highest level class is the one that counts.
One method (an involuntary one) of deciding points (i), (ii), and (iii)
above.

> - probably more I`ve forgotten.
>
> I think the prestige/advanced class mechanic provides a good answer here.
> I`m going to use 4 prestige classes that solve the problem for me, and
> give a couple of other good features, too. They`re similar to the d20
> modern advanced classes in that their prereqs are rather low- many
> characters could go into them after first level in a regular class.
>
> Default: All characters gaing full regency from provinces in their realm.
> No RP is gained from any other holding the character controls.
> Additionally, by default all actions can only be domain actions- realm
> actions, affecting multiple holdings, are available only at prestige
> levels.

Daniels solution suffers only one major drawback (and one minor), as it
solves (a), (B), but not © above. (A character which `inherits` a
domain - other than a realm - may be unprepared to collect regency in an
efficient manner. Of course it could be argued that this would be a poor
choice of heir for the previous regent to make, however it`s a more
restrictive choice than previously. In fact (B) is only partially solved
as well - characters who wish to add holdings of a different type to
their base class may gain no benefit from them.)

In effect he has created not four but five classes as `realm-ruler` is
given to all by default. It has the elegance of allowing a character to
rule any type of domain efficiently regardless of character class.

The minor drawback is that he still hasn`t answered the original
question (2) above. He`s just changed the `names` of the classes
involved. It could be argued that it`s a `slip-in-under-the-table`
argument for `collect from all` but we`ll make all a little more
difficult. As such it`s tainted with the `not the intention of BR`
argument.

Personally, I like the simplest solutions best.

My solution for 2e: (which of course works for 3e as well - but it`s
much simpler as is less likely to appeal to those who like more
convoluted systems)
(1.1) `Regent class` not `character class` determines RP collection.
(1.2) There are five(5) regent classes; realm, faith, guild, govern, and
magic --- similar to what Daniel proposes
(1.3) `Realm` regents collect RP for provinces, `Guild` regents collect
RP for guilds/trade, etc etc --- Daniels classes have more complex
collection rules, but are not dissimilar
(1.4) A regent can have many `regent classes`. There is no cost, no
penalty or restriction whatsoever. ---
(1.5) But, a regent may only collect RP for one of his/her regent
classes at his/her choice - but duh! - usually the one that yields the
highest RP --- this final piece is an answer to (2), as well as (a),
(B), and ©



>
> **Lawyer**
> -Prereq: Knowledge (law) 3; blooded scion
> [knowledge-law is the equivalent of the Law proficiency from the
> BR rulebook. Class skill for anyone with general Knowledge as a
> class skill.]
> -BAB: As rogue
> -Good save: Will
> -Hit Die: d8
> -Class skills: As Aristocrat
> -Skill points: 6+Int modifier
>
> Class Features
> Level 1: Half Regency from law holdings.
> Level 2: Realm Actions. Rule (law holdings), agitate, and contest can be
> used as realm actions by the character.
> Level 3: Full Regency from law holdings.
> Level 4: Free action: Declare War can be used as a free action 1/domain
> turn.
> Level 5: Regent Privilege.
>
>
> **Templar**
> -Prereq: Knowledge (religion) 3; blooded scion; ability to cast 1st level
> divine spells
> -BAB: As rogue
> -Good save: Will
> -Hit Die: d8
> -Class skills: As Aristocrat and Cleric
> -Skill points: 6+Int modifier
>
> Class Features
> Level 1: Half Regency from temple holdings.
> Level 2: Realm Actions. Rule (temple holdings), agitate, and contest can
> be used as realm actions by the character.
> +1 spellcaster level (of original class).
> Realm spells can be cast at the character`s spellcaster level.
> Level 3: Full Regency from temple holdings.
> Level 4: Free action: Agitate can be used as a free action 1/domain turn.
> +1 spellcaster level.
> Level 5: Regent Privilege.
> +1 spellcaster level.
>
>
> **Guilder**
> -Prereq: Appraise 3; blooded scion
> -BAB: As rogue
> -Good save: Will
> -Hit Die: d8
> -Class skills: As Aristocrat
> -Skill points: 6+Int modifier
>
> Class Features
> Level 1: Half Regency from guild holdings.
> Level 2: Realm Actions. Rule (guild holdings), agitate, contest, and
> espionage can be used as realm actions by the character.
> Level 3: Full Regency from guild holdings.
> Level 4: Free action: Espionage can be used as a free action 1/domain turn.
> Level 5: Regent Privilege.
>
> **Sourceror**
> -Prereq: Knowledge (arcana) 3; blooded scion; ability to cast 1st level
> arcane spells
> -BAB: As wizard
> -Good save: Will
> -Hit Die: d6
> -Class skills: As Aristocrat and Wizard
> -Skill points: 6+Int modifier.
>
> Class Features
> Level 1: Half Regency from source holdings.
> Level 2: Realm Actions. Rule (source holdings) can be used as realm
> actions by the character.
> +1 spellcaster level (of original class).
> Realm spells can be cast at the character`s spellcaster level.
> Level 3: Full Regency from source holdings.
> Level 4: Free action: Scry can be used as a free action 1/domain turn,
> targetting any province where the regent controls a source.
> +1 spellcaster level.
> Level 5: Regent Privilege.
> +1 spellcaster level.
>
> **Notes**
> The regent privilege gained at level 5 for these classes is one of the
> privileges some genius came up with for pbem games. I`ve seen them
> several places, but an example list can be found at
> http://sdpbem.wz.cz/joining.html (hi Anakin). To these I would add:
>
> Merchant Prince (guilder): the character gains RPs from trade routes, as
> the thief did in the original rules. In addition, Trade Route as a realm
> action becomes available.
>
> By basing these only on a couple of low requirements, it makes the class
> available to pretty much anyone that`s willing to work for it. But to get
> full RPs for all holdings, rather than at 3rd level (worst case scenario),
> it would take a level of cleric, a level of wizard, and three levels of
> each class, total character level 14, and he`d be pretty ineffective.
>
> A spellcasting character who goes all the way in one of these loses two
> levels of spellcasting, but gains realm spells, RP, a free action, and a
> regent privilege.
> --
> Communication is possible only between equals.
> Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

My answer is more hands-down. IMC I solvet things like this:

The character class inwhich you have the most levels determines which type
of regency you can collect.

If you have at lerast five levels in another class, you gain the additional
benefit of collecting regency like a member of that class as well.

The same applies to all class-specifc regency actions (realm spells, the
rogue`s free espionage action and so on).

/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
Följ VM på nära håll på Yahoo!s officielle VM-sajt www.yahoo.se/vm2002
Håll dig ajour med nyheter och resultat, med vinnare och förlorare...

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Keovar]

I posted something similar to your idea in another thread. I also feel that regency should be handled via Prestige Classes, but I think that they should be obtainable as early as 2nd level. If you set up the requirements in certain ways, you allow the proper types of classes to meet the requirements for their type of domain earlier than others. Remember, one of the main guidelines for Prestige Classes is that you do not specifically require levels in certain classes, but you can certainly shape the "best" way to qualify for a class around key class features.

~Regency~
There would be 4 types of Regent prestige classes, Law Regent, Temple Regent, Guild Regent, and Source Regent. These each have simple requirements, such as:

Law Regent Requirements
Template: Blooded
Base Attack Bonus: +1
Proficiency in all Martial Weapons
Knowledge (Law): 2 ranks
Special: Must be an heir or current ruler of a Law domain.

(These requirements would only be easily met by one of the fighter-type classes, like Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, etc.)

Temple Regent Requirements
Template: Blooded
Knowledge (Religion) or Knowledge (Nature): 4 ranks
Spellcasting: must be able to cast 1st level Divine spells.
Special: Must be an heir or current ruler of a Temple domain.

(These requirements would limit access to Clerics, Druids, and higher level Paladins and Rangers.)

Guild Regent Requirements
Template: Blooded
Appraise: 4 Ranks
Diplomacy: 4 Ranks
Bluff: 4 Ranks
Profession (Merchant): 4 ranks
Special: Must be an heir or current ruler of a Guild domain.

(These requirements wouldn't completely limit the access to any classes, but only Rogues, Bards, Experts, and Aristocrats would have an easy time meeting the requirements at a low level.)

Source Regent Requirements
Template: Blooded
Spellcraft: 4 ranks
Spellcasting: must be able to cast 1st level Arcane spells.
Special: Must be an heir or current ruler of a Source domain.

(These requirements would limit access to Wizards, Sorcerors (if used) and higher level Bards)


---

Each pclass would give the regent access to the proper domain actions to rule a domain. Having to take levels in these pclasses would be self-balancing, in that a player that wanted to rule all 4 types would need at least 7 classes to do so (Cleric, Temple Regent, Wizard, Source Regent, Fighter, Law Regent, and enough accumulated skill points to get Guild Regent), and would be rather weak as a whole.

I think the Regent classes only need to be about 5 levels long, but alot of domain abilities could be packed into each level. To balance this, the progression of the "main feature" of each class type would be slowed in it's associated regent class. Law regents would gain Base Attack Bonus at the medium (cleric/rogue) rate, guild regents would only get 6 skill points per level, and temple and source regents would only advance their spellcasting abilities on levels 1, 3, and 5. This means that a Wizard 5/Source Regent 5 would be a weaker spellcaster than a Wizard 10, with a 5th-level familiar, one fewer Bonus Feat, and with an effective spellcaster level of only 8.

Levels of these prestige classes could be added to existing BR NPCs, and their original class levels could be left intact or adjusted slightly. For example, the High Mage Alies could be a Wizard 15/ Source Regent 1 rather than a Wizard 16. His spellcasting abilities would be the same, and his limited regent abilities could be one reason for his tendency not to get involved with the politicking of other domains.

[Peter Lubke]

On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 06:16, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:
> > > So I`m trying to reconcile 3e`s free-for-all multiclassing with the 2e
> > > notion that certain classes get regency from certain holdings.
> >
> > It`s not a 2e notion - it`s a BR notion. That`s a huge distinction. It
> > would be most incorrect to state that "in 2e this happened..." when in
> > actuality it is nothing of the sort.
>
> I think it was a 2e thing, though. In that version, character concept was
> extremely closely tied to class.
Agreed - a matter of style which is not in vogue, but not without it`s
good points.

With free multiclassing, that`s no
> longer the case- this gets taken to its extreme in d20 modern, where
> classes are made as transparent as possible and the character concept is
> what matters.
>
> When, in 2e, they needed to assign regent roles to characters, they did it
> by class, but that`s not really necessary, and it wasn`t completely
> well-done in the first place.

Agreed (perhaps). (unless) Do you mean that regents shouldn`t have
roles?, or that the roles shouldn`t be assigned by character class?

>
> The mapping of the (sneaking, trap-finding, back-stabbing rogue) to guild
> holdings was so loose that they just went ahead and created a new Guilder
> class in the Havens book. The tying of warrior-types to aristocratic
> heirarchies of law holdings was similarly poorly defined, and I`m not sure
> it was real-world justifiable in the first place. Most kings were not
> good personal combatants, and the ones that were (Richard the Lionheart)
> are often remembered as poor kings. Those that could do both were rare.

Agreed - although they didn`t tie warrior types to realm/law very well
at all

>
> I know /why/ it was done, to create four types of holdings which
> corresponded to the four overall character types, and which could coexist
> in one area in a way paralleling the teamwork of adventuring parties.
> I`m just not sure it was a good enough reason.

Disagree. I think that it is a good idea to create specialist regents.
If all regents are basically the same, there will be much less `give and
take`, and much less actual diplomacy. Diplomacy will become little more
than a threat-based event, because of the one-winner syndrome. Win/Win
situations become not possible - there`s always going to be a downside
for someone. i.e. Always a winner and a loser in any negotiation.

However, this is more a matter of personal preference/style - a minor
issue on which it`s easy to agree to disagree.

>
> So, in 3e, with prestige type classes, I think we get a chance to break
> that coupling entirely, from `adventurer class` to `domain type`.

Agreed, it`s a good idea. But not that the implementation *needs*
prestige classes to work or not though. OTOH, I`m not saying you can`t
do it using prestige classes either.

> I`m not
> even convinced you should need divine spellcasting to rule a temple-
> however, the presence of miraculous casting in D&D is enough to sway me on
> this point. The head of a temple should be capable of spells if he wants
> RP for the temple. Otherwise he just gets money.

Agreed. I`d go even further and say that the head of a faith/set of
temple holdings need not be a priest to cast realm spells - there are
enough priests within the organization for this already. e.g. The Queen
of England is not a priest, but is the head of the Church of England.
And why not collect RP too - the prestige is only truly useful within
the organization.

>
> > > I think the prestige/advanced class mechanic provides a good answer here.
> > > I`m going to use 4 prestige classes that solve the problem for me, and
> > > give a couple of other good features, too. They`re similar to the d20
> > > modern advanced classes in that their prereqs are rather low- many
> > > characters could go into them after first level in a regular class.
> > >
> > > Default: All characters gaing full regency from provinces in their realm.
> > > No RP is gained from any other holding the character controls.
> > > Additionally, by default all actions can only be domain actions- realm
> > > actions, affecting multiple holdings, are available only at prestige
> > > levels.
> >
> > Daniels solution suffers only one major drawback (and one minor), as it
> > solves (a), (B), but not © above. (A character which `inherits` a
> > domain - other than a realm - may be unprepared to collect regency in an
> > efficient manner. Of course it could be argued that this would be a poor
> > choice of heir for the previous regent to make, however it`s a more
> > restrictive choice than previously.
>
> Not much more restrictive. Before, a temple regent had to leave her
> holdings to another blooded cleric for it to be fully utilized.

Actually, that`s untrue. An heir can inherit a bloodline and domain even
if the heir is unblooded. In fact most heirs do inherit the bloodline of
the donor (extinguishing any prior bloodline). A blooded heir has little
advantage over a blooded heir for the purposes of inheriting a domain.
(of course their usefulness as lieutenants is not germane to the
discussion here)

I`d argue that it is very much more restrictive. However, as we both
point out - a judicious selection of candidates for heir avoids the
issue. This is a bit of a fudge though - a requirement for convenience
sake.

[As a side point: I don`t really like the `designated heir` as a
primary/single method of succession. I think the incumbent such have
some say, but except for source networks, the organization itself should
more commonly decide on the `heir`.]

> The
> prestige class way just requires a slight bit more forethought, that you
> should groom a potential heir into one of these classes ahead of time (the
> requirement is just `blooded scion`, not being a regent, so it`s not hard
> to work that far ahead.) In fact, in a good sized temple like the WIT
> (for example), you`d probably have a bishop every couple of provinces who
> had at least one level in the Templar class, for redundancy or ambition`s
> sake.

>
> > In fact (B) is only partially solved as well - characters who wish to
> > add holdings of a different type to their base class may gain no
> > benefit from them.)
>
> They get money, which is often the main reason for going into another type
> of holding. If they want RP, I think they should have to work harder.
Agreed - in principle. And I think this was the issue that the BR
designers were trying to address when they restricted RP collection in
the first place. Game balance and interaction between regents of
different holding types (although not necessarily cooperation or
contention).

The comment that reflects the practical strategy of a BR regent player,
rather than the ideal. Rules which dictate strategy are, IMO, less
desirable than those that allow a more open-ended game, where a
player/regent can determine their own `success` criteria.

Actually the main type of "holding" that players try to add is a
province (unless they already have some) - which always adds RP under
the original rules (and your proposal if I understand it correctly).

If they do have provinces, they try to add guilds - and trade routes.
(for the GB as you correctly point out)

[for the purpose of argument above - "holding" is defined as any asset
held by a regent that may potentially generate RP.]

>
> > In effect he has created not four but five classes as `realm-ruler` is
> > given to all by default. It has the elegance of allowing a character to
> > rule any type of domain efficiently regardless of character class.
> >
> > The minor drawback is that he still hasn`t answered the original
> > question (2) above. He`s just changed the `names` of the classes
> > involved. It could be argued that it`s a `slip-in-under-the-table`
> > argument for `collect from all` but we`ll make all a little more
> > difficult. As such it`s tainted with the `not the intention of BR`
> > argument.
>
> I`m not trying to just rename the classes, I`m trying to divorce regency
> collection from adventuring. So yes, they`re different classes, but a
> law-regent isn`t much like a fighter at all. Neither is a guilder much
> like a rogue, nor does a templar have to be a powerful priest to guide his
> flock. They`re specialized in their administrative field.
*sniff* smells like a rose, looks like a rose ---- so you tinkered a
little, but didn`t change the essential nature of things. Renamed and
modified - how`s that?

Again, though: What`s your answer to point (2) ?
i.e.
How many classes can you collect regency for ? (cumulatively)

The implication is:
"As many base/pre classes as you take"

>
> > My solution for 2e: (which of course works for 3e as well - but it`s
> > much simpler as is less likely to appeal to those who like more
> > convoluted systems)
> > (1.1) `Regent class` not `character class` determines RP collection.
> > (1.2) There are five(5) regent classes; realm, faith, guild, govern, and
> > magic --- similar to what Daniel proposes
> > (1.3) `Realm` regents collect RP for provinces, `Guild` regents collect
> > RP for guilds/trade, etc etc --- Daniels classes have more complex
> > collection rules, but are not dissimilar
> > (1.4) A regent can have many `regent classes`. There is no cost, no
> > penalty or restriction whatsoever. ---
> > (1.5) But, a regent may only collect RP for one of his/her regent
> > classes at his/her choice - but duh! - usually the one that yields the
> > highest RP --- this final piece is an answer to (2), as well as (a),
> > (B), and ©
>
> If your realm and governing classes are disjoint, then one cannot gain RP
> from both provinces and law at the same time.
Yes, correct. And this is a huge step forward allowing a much greater
diversity of government types than before. e.g. You can have a ruler of
a realm/province who is little more than a puppet - with the law holder
pulling the strings - although it should be noted that, for any single
province - the province ruler will always have at least as much power
than the law holder. There are many benefits to this.

But, you did this yourself too.

> That was a pretty sizeable
> benefit under the original rules, that anyone who ruled a province got RP
> for it no matter what else they were.
Yes, that was so. All the original play-testers had realms - regardless
of their character class. And, as long as all regents have realms - they
are *more or less* in the game. As you probably know from actual games,
the first priority of a non-realm regent is to gain a realm. (or ally
temporarily with a realm regent hoping to stab him in the back later and
take his realm)

> I think this was intentional- the
> land and beliefs of people in Cerilia are powerful and simple enough that
> simply lording over them gives you power.
Yes, and how did I change that?

> Drawing power from something
> less substantial, like the beliefs of people in an economic system, or the
> rule of law, or awe towards another entity (a god), or flowing tides of
> mebghail, was more difficult and so available to fewer regents.
A temple, guild, or law holding will always generate less than or
equivalent RP than the province in which it sits, and these holdings
generally have to be built up at great cost. (*You dare to insinuate
that the Grand Wizard Zzekhiel is not a match for a puny Vizier?*) ---
just kidding on the last.

But not `fewer` regents surely? Isn`t it more likely that there would be
more non-realm regents than realm regents? While the hearts and minds of
the populace of a province can (in their majority) only be given to one
regent - they can easily be divided in their loyalties to temples. Also
the struggle for economic or magical dominance should be a *struggle*.
While all regents seek to have some influence in the interplay of
government - a regent controlling a province(4) with a law(4) as well is
quite a dictator, which is fine in some cases but should not be seen as
the `normal` situation IMO.

>
> Also, it looks like a fighter could collect full regency from temples or
> sources under this method, and that doesn`t sound right to me. He should
> have to demonstrate some magical ability.
(see comments re: temple/faiths above)
But, yes - a fighter/warrior type could control and gain RP from many
sources. Such will do him very little good however, as sources
themselves aren`t good for much except casting spells. Consider that a
ranger type however, dedicated to the preservation of wilderness/natural
surrounds/magic potential, might have some interest in the endeavor.
(not that I`d suggest it`s a game winning strategy)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 10:53, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> > > I`m not even convinced you should need divine spellcasting to rule a
> > > temple- however, the presence of miraculous casting in D&D is enough
> > > to sway me on this point.
> >
> > And RW religious figures, from Sumerian priests to medieval Popes to
> > modern televangelists, convince me that being perceived as the provider of
> > divine guidance is a source of immense political power. I`d suggest at
> > least half RP for non-spellcaster temple regents.
>
> Thing is, I don`t think temple regents get RP for their political power.
> I think they get it for their religious power- political power is
> represented by law holdings. Sumerian priests and medieval Popes, if run
> in BR, would have been big law and province regents, and I think you`re
> mixing that in with their religious power because real-world historically,
> there`s no difference. (Televangelists would be guilders, I suppose.)
>
> In a game with miraculous divine spellcasting, though, I think religious
> power deserves to be counted separately from economic power and political
> power. We have no historical parallel here, though, so it`s hard for me
> to justify that concretely.

I agree with Daniel. `Regency` can be derived from many sources (not
meant to be a pun) - and the `regency` you get from temples is
fundamentally different from other forms (hence the various forms). The
mechanism of RP representing all the forms of `regency` is an
abstraction, allowing us to treat RP more or less the same regardless of
its origin.

>
> Province rulers get power from the human life of the province.
> Law rulers get power from people`s belief in their political authority.
> Temple rulers get power from people`s belief in their god.
> Guilders get power from people`s belief in the economic system.
>
> This breaks down for source holders, who get power not from people, but
> from the natural life of the province. They`re closer thematically to
> province rulers than to law, temple, or guilders I guess.

Here, you`re trying to get too specific (to tie it to people and
belief). There`s no need to do so. It doesn`t really break down in any
case as regency from sources can not readily be used in quite the same
manner due to the restriction on source actions. (i.e. more or less the
same)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "daniel mcsorley" <mcsorley@CIS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 5:53 PM


> Thing is, I don`t think temple regents get RP for their political power.
> I think they get it for their religious power- political power is
> represented by law holdings. Sumerian priests and medieval Popes, if run
> in BR, would have been big law and province regents, and I think you`re
> mixing that in with their religious power because real-world historically,
> there`s no difference. (Televangelists would be guilders, I suppose.)

I will hesitantly suggest that Ryan may have been identifying that the
ideological source of political power of the temples is different from the
political power of markets, courts, or fortresses. Even if he wasn`t, I`ll
elaborate anyway. :-)

The ideological power of the temple comes from providing meaning, norms, and
ritual, but can then be applied to any political sphere, often on the basis
of advancing the norms of the religion. The televangelist does not get a
free espionage action, nor a free trade action, or any other action
associated with a guilder. The televangelist does not collect RP from trade
routes. The televangelist does get a free agitate action in which to
denounce pornographers, abortionists, godless liberals, music, movies, the
internet, D&D, and anything else that crosses his or her mind.

Ideological power then, is a source of broadly applicable and widely
distributed power to effect the activities of the whole province. Since the
templar can control the way people understand their world, identify the way
people ought to properly interact, and gain the prestige of spellcraft and
ritual, they can excercise a great deal of latitude in the application of
their power.

I don`t think that Ryan meant that the power of the templars was political
in the sense that he meant it was bounded territorially (by the state`s
formal lines of authority), nor that it is drawn from the operations of the
local or provincial operation of the state. My reading was that this use of
political power was that "RP`s can have a game effect beyond the temple
holding or the realm spell".

> In a game with miraculous divine spellcasting, though, I think religious
> power deserves to be counted separately from economic power and political
> power. We have no historical parallel here, though, so it`s hard for me
> to justify that concretely.

And beyond the effect of realm spells?

> Province rulers get power from the human life of the province.
> Law rulers get power from people`s belief in their political authority.
> Temple rulers get power from people`s belief in their god.
> Guilders get power from people`s belief in the economic system.

Actually, I think province rulers get power from the excercise of military
power. They defend the province and have the power to wield a very big
stick. The provincial ruler can easily undertake muster actions. He can
also bar others from raising units if he wishes.

Guilders get respect that follows from great wealth and the actual
satisfaction of their material needs and wants through economic processes.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> > I`m not even convinced you should need divine spellcasting to rule a
> > temple- however, the presence of miraculous casting in D&D is enough
> > to sway me on this point.
>
> And RW religious figures, from Sumerian priests to medieval Popes to
> modern televangelists, convince me that being perceived as the provider of
> divine guidance is a source of immense political power. I`d suggest at
> least half RP for non-spellcaster temple regents.

Thing is, I don`t think temple regents get RP for their political power.
I think they get it for their religious power- political power is
represented by law holdings. Sumerian priests and medieval Popes, if run
in BR, would have been big law and province regents, and I think you`re
mixing that in with their religious power because real-world historically,
there`s no difference. (Televangelists would be guilders, I suppose.)

In a game with miraculous divine spellcasting, though, I think religious
power deserves to be counted separately from economic power and political
power. We have no historical parallel here, though, so it`s hard for me
to justify that concretely.

Province rulers get power from the human life of the province.
Law rulers get power from people`s belief in their political authority.
Temple rulers get power from people`s belief in their god.
Guilders get power from people`s belief in the economic system.

This breaks down for source holders, who get power not from people, but
from the natural life of the province. They`re closer thematically to
province rulers than to law, temple, or guilders I guess.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

We have had this discussion before.

For the record - I still beleive class-resticted RP collection is a good
idea.

/Carl


__________________________________________________ ___
Gratis e-mail resten av livet på www.yahoo.se/mail
Busenkelt!

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 07:42, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, daniel mcsorley wrote:
>
> > When, in 2e, they needed to assign regent roles to characters, they
> > did it by class, but that`s not really necessary, and it wasn`t
> > completely well-done in the first place.
>
> Agreed. It was necessary in so far as they wished to avoid creating
> additional classes -- but now that we have several NPC classes, and
> prestige classes are a dime a dozen, it is no longer so.

3e character class is more about character abilities and character
design/development rather than the more traditional `defining of
direction/attitude`. (which creates issues for such classes as paladins
as discussed recently - which are inherently attitude-focused)

A primary question to my mind at least is whether regent roles are
necessary, or desirable or neither. I would argue that they are
desirable at the least.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 15:26, daniel mcsorley wrote:

>
> > > I`m not even convinced you should need divine spellcasting to rule a
> > > temple- however, the presence of miraculous casting in D&D is enough
> > > to sway me on this point. The head of a temple should be capable of
> > > spells if he wants RP for the temple. Otherwise he just gets money.
> >
> > Agreed. I`d go even further and say that the head of a faith/set of
> > temple holdings need not be a priest to cast realm spells - there are
> > enough priests within the organization for this already. e.g. The Queen
> > of England is not a priest, but is the head of the Church of England.
> > And why not collect RP too - the prestige is only truly useful within
> > the organization.
>
> Casting priest realm spells- do you see it drawing from the congregation,
> like wizards do from sources, or does it come from the god? If it comes
> from the god, the regent needs to be a priest to cast them. If from the
> congregation, then I can see your argument for non-priestly realm casting.

Well both really. i.e. must both exist. The god and the followers. I
interpret the temple level to be a proportion of the province
population. (somewhat strict BR interpretation given many persons
preference for interpreting BR province levels as pure development)

But equally, the temple holding must have some actual priests as well.
I hadn`t thought about it so much in terms of micro-requirements. i.e.
how many worshipers, priests, buildings, altars etc -- rather just
assuming that `what was necessary` was contained within the definition
of a `temple level x`.

Better vassalage/lieutenant rules would probably make the question
obsolete though.

>
> > [As a side point: I don`t really like the `designated heir` as a
> > primary/single method of succession. I think the incumbent such have
> > some say, but except for source networks, the organization itself
> > should more commonly decide on the `heir`.]
>
> The in-game mechanics of selecting the heir can be anything the DM and
> players come up with. In Anuire, most landed realms apparently go to the
> oldest child. A temple might have an official heirarchy which decides who
> gets the chair when the old priest kicks it. But to ensure that these in
> fact happen, and that the realm doesn`t just dissolve on the regent`s
> death, the incumbent has to designate an heir and Invest him as such.

Whereas, I`m inclined to say that such rules for succession are more
than just custom when it comes to deciding the realm`s monarch. A regent
that skips over his first-born son may be able to bribe/coerce a priest
regent into investing someone else as `heir` -- but how will the
`people` (and, quite importantly, the other nobles) feel about this.
(Of course investing his bloodline may be a different matter - and it`s
entirely possible that a prior-commoner with a bloodline of 35 will be
preferred over a matural-heir with a weaker bloodline)
Anyway, not really on topic ....


>
> > Again, though: What`s your answer to point (2) ?
> > i.e.
> > How many classes can you collect regency for ? (cumulatively)
> >
> > The implication is:
> > "As many base/pre classes as you take"
>
> Yep. You qualify for the prestige class, and then you take levels in it,
> and you earn RP.
>
> The simplest solution to your objection here (that a regent can get RP
> from too many sources) is to make them exclusive, or to make them so that
> you can`t go above level 1 in more than 1 (to allow for clerics to get
> half RP from law holdings as in the original rules, for example).

It`s not so much an objection as an observation that it didn`t solve the
basic question (left unanswered in original BR) of what to do with
characters with more than one class -- given a decided emphasis on
restricted collection. I think you are on the right track - just need to
balance the situation for those players who will take as many base
classes as they want - there should be an advantage and a disadvantage
-- in domain terms alone -- for doing so, rather than relying on the
multi-classing rules to solve the problem.

In 2e collecting for all would be a distinct no-no. The use of character
class to dictate regent attitude isn`t that bad - but we still want
realm regents that are rogues, priests, and wizards to fill in a full
spectrum of government types. So the better solution is to not rely on
character class to define it at all.

But in 3e, the matter is less straightforward. Character class has a
different meaning in 3e, that of ability rather than attitude. Dictating
regent attitude by (additional) character class in 3e hasn`t fully
realized the goal. The exclusive idea is okay (there`s that word again),
but what if you want to change?


>
> > > I think this was intentional- the land and beliefs of people in
> > > Cerilia are powerful and simple enough that simply lording over them
> > > gives you power.
> >
> > Yes, and how did I change that?
>
> Originally, everyone could do it, now you either pick provinces OR law OR
> temples, etc. For instance, Talinie would be screwed.

Really? Let`s see shall we? [I don`t really want to push `my rules are
better than yours` type of argument, that wasn`t really my point - more
that they are more similar in effect than they are different - but in
defense of the indefensible...]

DP from temples is 33
DP from provinces is 18
DP from law is 10

Under standard BR, DP = 33 + 18 + 10/2 = 56
But, Donalls bloodline is 30, therefore RP is min(30, 56) = 30

Under my `regent classes` DP = max(33, 18, 10) = 33
I actually use RP = max(bloodline, DP) = max(30, 33) = 33,
but even min(33, 30) is still 30.

I`d give Donalls 33 RP (even without the `max` rule it`s still 30)
Original rules would give her 30 RP

Certainly, Talinie isn`t screwed. (or saved for that matter - the
heretic! variation of 0% or +10%)

In fact it makes very little difference to the great majority of the
sourcebook realms. Tuarhievel is the most changed of the realms (in
RoE). (although he get`s saved by the `max` rule IMC)

Source DP = 34
Law DP = 13
Province DP = 22

How that adds up to 69 (the sourcebook value), I don`t know. But
Fhileraene is one of those multi-classed characters, so either their
math is wrong (34+13+22) = 79, or there is a secret formula they didn`t
let us in on. Fhileraene`s bloodline is 55, so by the `min` rule he
should top out at 55 in any case.
There is however, absolutely zero support for the `min` rule in any of
the sourcebooks. Mostly they use the `max` rule - or come to a number
that cannot be explained using either rule.

So, in this case: (pick one)
Original rules(min rule): 55 RP
Original rules(max rule): 79 RP
Sourcebook data(untouched): 69 RP

My home rules (max rule): 55 RP -- variations of 0%, -30%, -20%
My Home rules (min rule): 34 RP -- variations of -38%, -57%, -51%


>
> > > Drawing power from something
> > > less substantial, like the beliefs of people in an economic system, or the
> > > rule of law, or awe towards another entity (a god), or flowing tides of
> > > mebghail, was more difficult and so available to fewer regents.
> >
> > But not `fewer` regents surely? Isn`t it more likely that there would be
> > more non-realm regents than realm regents?
>
> I didn`t mean there would be numerically fewer guilders or temple regents
> than province regents- I meant that fewer have the ability to get RP from
> temples. Anyone could get it from provinces, only a couple classes could
> from temples.
>
> What you`ve essentially done with your five regent roles is create
> templates which give benefits but no real penalties.
Ah, can`t have it both ways - either I`m screwing Talinie or I`m not.
Hmmm what does Donalls look like under all that armor?

Seriously though, there`s less than 5% variation in RP collection across
all domains in the sourcebooks. (Which proves little I know) What it
does do is:

(-) Specializing in a certain holding type returns the best RP for the
investment in actions/whatever, but ..

(-) A more diverse set of holdings allows for greater freedom of action

(-) I find it balances out quite nicely, realm regents are more likely
to invade a neighboring realm than take over guilds -- and guilds are
more likely to `war` (contest) over trade routes than attempt to usurp a
realm. --- which is contrary to how things used to happen.

> Do you give them an
> ECL modifier? And they can pick a new template every domain turn if they
> want? That`s a bit flighty compared to the original state of things.

Details, details. (no 2e or 3e specific concepts involved)

Each regent can (if he has the holdings for it) wear many caps during
the domain turn. A regent in BR (esp. Anuire) typically acts as Head of
State and Head of Government (province and law) - although not always,
e.g. DA controls the government in Taeghas and HK is pretty much a
figurehead. However, in his endeavors/actions he`d be seen as a powerful
wizard and as such still has significant influence.

Flighty?, I miss your point here - especially as I see no real diff
between this and your proposed 3e classes (Q. how many players won`t
take at least two base classes? - A. ? none?)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> > Province rulers get power from the human life of the province.
> > Law rulers get power from people`s belief in their political authority.
> > Temple rulers get power from people`s belief in their god.
> > Guilders get power from people`s belief in the economic system.
>
> I have generally supported the "RP is magical energy" argument over the
> "RP is political influence" argument, but now that you put it this way I
> may have to change my mind. Getting power from human life or belief in
> gods I could see, but getting power from the consumer confidence index
> strikes me as too outlandish for anyone but regents of temples to Sera.
> Captains of industry should have political power because they are rolling
> in dough and the favors to trade that follow the money, without regard to
> whether the peasants prefer Adam Smith to Karl Marx.

I didn`t necessarily mean the `consumer confidence index`, heh. Just the
way BR people every day pass around copper, gold and silver, there`s
belief there in each exchange, the belief that the coins are worth
something and that they are being traded for something of roughly
equivalent worth. That`s the only way I could justify in my mind getting
RP from trade routes.

I don`t think RP is just political power, because then unblooded lords
could get it too. I think it`s similar to the way D&D gods get power from
the belief of their worshippers; same way for regents. So it`s more:
RP = belief in power
than
RP = power.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:
> > So I`m trying to reconcile 3e`s free-for-all multiclassing with the 2e
> > notion that certain classes get regency from certain holdings.
>
> It`s not a 2e notion - it`s a BR notion. That`s a huge distinction. It
> would be most incorrect to state that "in 2e this happened..." when in
> actuality it is nothing of the sort.

I think it was a 2e thing, though. In that version, character concept was
extremely closely tied to class. With free multiclassing, that`s no
longer the case- this gets taken to its extreme in d20 modern, where
classes are made as transparent as possible and the character concept is
what matters.

When, in 2e, they needed to assign regent roles to characters, they did it
by class, but that`s not really necessary, and it wasn`t completely
well-done in the first place.

The mapping of the (sneaking, trap-finding, back-stabbing rogue) to guild
holdings was so loose that they just went ahead and created a new Guilder
class in the Havens book. The tying of warrior-types to aristocratic
heirarchies of law holdings was similarly poorly defined, and I`m not sure
it was real-world justifiable in the first place. Most kings were not
good personal combatants, and the ones that were (Richard the Lionheart)
are often remembered as poor kings. Those that could do both were rare.

I know /why/ it was done, to create four types of holdings which
corresponded to the four overall character types, and which could coexist
in one area in a way paralleling the teamwork of adventuring parties.
I`m just not sure it was a good enough reason.

So, in 3e, with prestige type classes, I think we get a chance to break
that coupling entirely, from `adventurer class` to `domain type`. I`m not
even convinced you should need divine spellcasting to rule a temple-
however, the presence of miraculous casting in D&D is enough to sway me on
this point. The head of a temple should be capable of spells if he wants
RP for the temple. Otherwise he just gets money.

> > I think the prestige/advanced class mechanic provides a good answer here.
> > I`m going to use 4 prestige classes that solve the problem for me, and
> > give a couple of other good features, too. They`re similar to the d20
> > modern advanced classes in that their prereqs are rather low- many
> > characters could go into them after first level in a regular class.
> >
> > Default: All characters gaing full regency from provinces in their realm.
> > No RP is gained from any other holding the character controls.
> > Additionally, by default all actions can only be domain actions- realm
> > actions, affecting multiple holdings, are available only at prestige
> > levels.
>
> Daniels solution suffers only one major drawback (and one minor), as it
> solves (a), (B), but not &copy; above. (A character which `inherits` a
> domain - other than a realm - may be unprepared to collect regency in an
> efficient manner. Of course it could be argued that this would be a poor
> choice of heir for the previous regent to make, however it`s a more
> restrictive choice than previously.

Not much more restrictive. Before, a temple regent had to leave her
holdings to another blooded cleric for it to be fully utilized. The
prestige class way just requires a slight bit more forethought, that you
should groom a potential heir into one of these classes ahead of time (the
requirement is just `blooded scion`, not being a regent, so it`s not hard
to work that far ahead.) In fact, in a good sized temple like the WIT
(for example), you`d probably have a bishop every couple of provinces who
had at least one level in the Templar class, for redundancy or ambition`s
sake.

> In fact (B) is only partially solved as well - characters who wish to
> add holdings of a different type to their base class may gain no
> benefit from them.)

They get money, which is often the main reason for going into another type
of holding. If they want RP, I think they should have to work harder.

> In effect he has created not four but five classes as `realm-ruler` is
> given to all by default. It has the elegance of allowing a character to
> rule any type of domain efficiently regardless of character class.
>
> The minor drawback is that he still hasn`t answered the original
> question (2) above. He`s just changed the `names` of the classes
> involved. It could be argued that it`s a `slip-in-under-the-table`
> argument for `collect from all` but we`ll make all a little more
> difficult. As such it`s tainted with the `not the intention of BR`
> argument.

I`m not trying to just rename the classes, I`m trying to divorce regency
collection from adventuring. So yes, they`re different classes, but a
law-regent isn`t much like a fighter at all. Neither is a guilder much
like a rogue, nor does a templar have to be a powerful priest to guide his
flock. They`re specialized in their administrative field.

> My solution for 2e: (which of course works for 3e as well - but it`s
> much simpler as is less likely to appeal to those who like more
> convoluted systems)
> (1.1) `Regent class` not `character class` determines RP collection.
> (1.2) There are five(5) regent classes; realm, faith, guild, govern, and
> magic --- similar to what Daniel proposes
> (1.3) `Realm` regents collect RP for provinces, `Guild` regents collect
> RP for guilds/trade, etc etc --- Daniels classes have more complex
> collection rules, but are not dissimilar
> (1.4) A regent can have many `regent classes`. There is no cost, no
> penalty or restriction whatsoever. ---
> (1.5) But, a regent may only collect RP for one of his/her regent
> classes at his/her choice - but duh! - usually the one that yields the
> highest RP --- this final piece is an answer to (2), as well as (a),
> (B), and &copy;

If your realm and governing classes are disjoint, then one cannot gain RP
from both provinces and law at the same time. That was a pretty sizeable
benefit under the original rules, that anyone who ruled a province got RP
for it no matter what else they were. I think this was intentional- the
land and beliefs of people in Cerilia are powerful and simple enough that
simply lording over them gives you power. Drawing power from something
less substantial, like the beliefs of people in an economic system, or the
rule of law, or awe towards another entity (a god), or flowing tides of
mebghail, was more difficult and so available to fewer regents.

Also, it looks like a fighter could collect full regency from temples or
sources under this method, and that doesn`t sound right to me. He should
have to demonstrate some magical ability.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Keovar wrote:

> Law Regent Requirements
> Proficiency in all Martial Weapons

Why do you think this is important? The Knowledge skills are probably a
fine idea (I might even recommend that all regents be required to have
Diplomacy or Bluff), and I agree that spell casting is essential to Source
Regents, but why is someone who is good with a mace but bad with a
broadsword prevented from becoming an effective police chief?

Yes, it gives fighter-types an avantage at something in the regency
system, but I think this is a mistake: I think pure fighters ought to be
rather bad at administering realms, and require that they focus on
something other than being good at personal combat.

This might be a cultural thing -- in Vosgaard, perhaps you can only
exercise the power of law regency over people whom you can personally beat
up, but in Khinasi I would prefer that most law regents actually be
priests of Avani dedicated to understanding and interpreting the
intellectual aspects of the law as a body of knowledge. In the latter
case, requiring martial prowess to serve as a judge strikes me as highly
inappropriate to the society.

Sure, the individual people employed as ground-level enforcers who by
following orders bring about the results of law holding domain actions
ought to be capable of engaging a criminal in a fistfight, but I see no
reason to require that the person giving the orders should necessarily be
good at carrying them out.

That is the reason I distinguish Source Regents from all others, whom I
tend to lump together: ruling provinces and law, temple and guild holdings
is all about giving people orders, which is about mental stats (especially
Cha) and skills based on them (especially Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive
and Knowledges) rather than prowess at picking locks or killing monsters;
but ruling source holdings is about giving *mebhaighl* orders, which is
basically the same thing as spell casting AFAICT.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> Sumerian priests and medieval Popes, if run
> in BR, would have been big law and province regents,

Agreed, but the Pope`s primary power was not that he was effectively king
of a portion of central Italy, but that every single temple regent on the
continent was his vassal, and all those temple holdings were pretty
faithful at following his orders to either support or oppose all the
province regents` actions, and even Agitate or Contest against them.

Just being a temple (or any other kind of) regent gives political
influence, because once you have it, all the other regents had better
either negotiate with you or take you out, lest you use your position to
make trouble for them.

> In a game with miraculous divine spellcasting, though, I think
> religious power deserves to be counted separately from economic power
> and political power. We have no historical parallel here, though, so
> it`s hard for me to justify that concretely.

I agree that spellcasting makes a difference: Bless Land and Curse Land
can be a very effective carrot-and-stick system. However, I think that
even without spellcasting, temple regents should have political power.

> Province rulers get power from the human life of the province.
> Law rulers get power from people`s belief in their political authority.
> Temple rulers get power from people`s belief in their god.
> Guilders get power from people`s belief in the economic system.

I have generally supported the "RP is magical energy" argument over the
"RP is political influence" argument, but now that you put it this way I
may have to change my mind. Getting power from human life or belief in
gods I could see, but getting power from the consumer confidence index
strikes me as too outlandish for anyone but regents of temples to Sera.
Captains of industry should have political power because they are rolling
in dough and the favors to trade that follow the money, without regard to
whether the peasants prefer Adam Smith to Karl Marx.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> When, in 2e, they needed to assign regent roles to characters, they
> did it by class, but that`s not really necessary, and it wasn`t
> completely well-done in the first place.

Agreed. It was necessary in so far as they wished to avoid creating
additional classes -- but now that we have several NPC classes, and
prestige classes are a dime a dozen, it is no longer so.

> Most kings were not good personal combatants, and the ones that were
> (Richard the Lionheart) are often remembered as poor kings. Those
> that could do both were rare.

This argument has been raised before, and I continue to agree completely.
I think it also applies to priests and thieves, but for wizards I think
domain skill and adventuring skill are largely the same. For all
non-source holdings, power is expressed through being an able
administrator of an organization consisting of a large number of
people; a source regent, however, manages only mebhaighl.

> I know /why/ it was done, to create four types of holdings which
> corresponded to the four overall character types, and which could
> coexist in one area in a way paralleling the teamwork of adventuring
> parties. I`m just not sure it was a good enough reason.

Agreed.

> So, in 3e, with prestige type classes, I think we get a chance to break
> that coupling entirely, from `adventurer class` to `domain type`.

I think base classes can also do the job quite well, such as Kenneth`s
suggestion of 2e Fighter -> 1/3 Fighter, 2/3 Aristocrat.

> I`m not even convinced you should need divine spellcasting to rule a
> temple- however, the presence of miraculous casting in D&D is enough
> to sway me on this point.

And RW religious figures, from Sumerian priests to medieval Popes to
modern televangelists, convince me that being perceived as the provider of
divine guidance is a source of immense political power. I`d suggest at
least half RP for non-spellcaster temple regents.

> The head of a temple should be capable of spells if he wants
> RP for the temple. Otherwise he just gets money.

Personally, I`d only use spellcaster status for realm spells, not RP.

> I`m not trying to just rename the classes, I`m trying to divorce
> regency collection from adventuring.

A fine idea, which I heartily encourage.

> So yes, they`re different classes, but a law-regent isn`t much like a
> fighter at all. Neither is a guilder much like a rogue, nor does a
> templar have to be a powerful priest to guide his flock. They`re
> specialized in their administrative field.

Yes, they`re different from adventurers, but I`m unconvinced they`re very
different from each other. To my mind, temple-regent is actually very
similar to guild-regent, vastly moreso than priest-adventurer is to
rogue-adventurer; in fact, I think temple-regent is much more similar to
guild-regent than temple-regent is to priest-adventurer.

My current thought is to have a single Regent class -- perhaps a sort of
"sub-class", to use the old terminology, of Expert -- which differentiates
temple, guild, and law regents from each other only in specific choices of
rulership skills and feats selected. That is, at 1st level, a Regent
collects full regency from provinces, and perhaps one other holding type
of their choice. Every 3-to-5 levels thereafter, as a class feature they
get to choose an additional holding type from which to collect full
regency. Regency from source holdings, however, would be a metamagic
feat, accessible to blooded wizards (and sorcerers) only -- but to balance
that, wizards would not gain any regency from provinces without taking at
least one level of the Regent class. Class skills would include most of
the Cha-based personal interaction ones (Bluff, Diplomacy, etc.) and
relevant Knowledges -- but perhaps, for example, Knowledge (Religion)
would not become a class skill unless and until the feat Rule Holding
(Temple) was selected.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:
> > When, in 2e, they needed to assign regent roles to characters, they did it
> > by class, but that`s not really necessary, and it wasn`t completely
> > well-done in the first place.
>
> Agreed (perhaps). (unless) Do you mean that regents shouldn`t have
> roles?, or that the roles shouldn`t be assigned by character class?

Yes roles, but not by adventurer class. The regent prestige classes were
an attempt to assign them another way, as are your regent templates (see
below).

> > I`m not even convinced you should need divine spellcasting to rule a
> > temple- however, the presence of miraculous casting in D&D is enough
> > to sway me on this point. The head of a temple should be capable of
> > spells if he wants RP for the temple. Otherwise he just gets money.
>
> Agreed. I`d go even further and say that the head of a faith/set of
> temple holdings need not be a priest to cast realm spells - there are
> enough priests within the organization for this already. e.g. The Queen
> of England is not a priest, but is the head of the Church of England.
> And why not collect RP too - the prestige is only truly useful within
> the organization.

Casting priest realm spells- do you see it drawing from the congregation,
like wizards do from sources, or does it come from the god? If it comes
from the god, the regent needs to be a priest to cast them. If from the
congregation, then I can see your argument for non-priestly realm casting.

> [As a side point: I don`t really like the `designated heir` as a
> primary/single method of succession. I think the incumbent such have
> some say, but except for source networks, the organization itself
> should more commonly decide on the `heir`.]

The in-game mechanics of selecting the heir can be anything the DM and
players come up with. In Anuire, most landed realms apparently go to the
oldest child. A temple might have an official heirarchy which decides who
gets the chair when the old priest kicks it. But to ensure that these in
fact happen, and that the realm doesn`t just dissolve on the regent`s
death, the incumbent has to designate an heir and Invest him as such.

> Again, though: What`s your answer to point (2) ?
> i.e.
> How many classes can you collect regency for ? (cumulatively)
>
> The implication is:
> "As many base/pre classes as you take"

Yep. You qualify for the prestige class, and then you take levels in it,
and you earn RP.

The simplest solution to your objection here (that a regent can get RP
from too many sources) is to make them exclusive, or to make them so that
you can`t go above level 1 in more than 1 (to allow for clerics to get
half RP from law holdings as in the original rules, for example).

> > I think this was intentional- the land and beliefs of people in
> > Cerilia are powerful and simple enough that simply lording over them
> > gives you power.
>
> Yes, and how did I change that?

Originally, everyone could do it, now you either pick provinces OR law OR
temples, etc. For instance, Talinie would be screwed.

> > Drawing power from something
> > less substantial, like the beliefs of people in an economic system, or the
> > rule of law, or awe towards another entity (a god), or flowing tides of
> > mebghail, was more difficult and so available to fewer regents.
>
> But not `fewer` regents surely? Isn`t it more likely that there would be
> more non-realm regents than realm regents?

I didn`t mean there would be numerically fewer guilders or temple regents
than province regents- I meant that fewer have the ability to get RP from
temples. Anyone could get it from provinces, only a couple classes could
from temples.

What you`ve essentially done with your five regent roles is create
templates which give benefits but no real penalties. Do you give them an
ECL modifier? And they can pick a new template every domain turn if they
want? That`s a bit flighty compared to the original state of things.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Ideological power then, is a source of broadly applicable and widely
> distributed power to effect the activities of the whole province.
> Since the templar can control the way people understand their world,
> identify the way people ought to properly interact, and gain the
> prestige of spellcraft and ritual, they can excercise a great deal of
> latitude in the application of their power.

Precisely what I meant, Kenneth. Thank you for putting it so well.

> I don`t think that Ryan meant that the power of the templars was
> political in the sense that he meant it was bounded territorially (by
> the state`s formal lines of authority), nor that it is drawn from the
> operations of the local or provincial operation of the state.

Indeed, it is bounded by the population distribution of religious belief
(the words of priestess of Kriesha will carry little weight with the
followers of Avani, and vice versa), and it is drawn from the operations
of people`s own minds (I`d better not do that, or the gods will get angry
at me) and of individual human interactions (hmm, that`s the tenth person
today who`s told me they won`t shop here anymore because I spoke out
against something their priest said their god favors).

> My reading was that this use of political power was that "RP`s can
> have a game effect beyond the temple holding or the realm spell".

Or rather that RPs are the mechanic for all exercises of influence by any
regent, whether based on spells, public opinion, or anything else. Since
some of the influence of religion over people`s behavior comes from
ideology rather than spellcraft, some of the RPs from temple holdings
ought to be available to regents who can`t cast spells. In this case, the
important kind of belief is not whether the worshippers believe in the
temple`s god per se, but rather whether they believe the temple`s regent
when he says something like, "our god thinks the king is wicked, so you
shouldn`t pay your taxes until he abdicates."

> Guilders get respect that follows from great wealth and the actual
> satisfaction of their material needs and wants through economic
> processes.

Ditto. Plus their ability to make life materially easier for those who
support them, and materially harder for those who oppose them -- for
example, Guilder Kailen offers a 5% discount on their next purchase to
anyone who goes into a tavern and says, "That nasty el-Hadid cheated me!"


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, daniel mcsorley wrote:

> there`s belief there in each exchange, the belief that the coins are
> worth something and that they are being traded for something of
> roughly equivalent worth.

Interesting. That`s not something I`d considered, so your interpretation
makes more sense to me now, but I`m still not sure I buy it. =)

> That`s the only way I could justify in my mind getting
> RP from trade routes.

I would have said that controlling access to luxury goods is a rich source
of favors and punishments. In either your interpretation or mine,
however, I think TRs generate both too much money and too many RPs:
they`re much too unbalancing.

> I don`t think RP is just political power, because then unblooded lords
> could get it too.

Yeah, that is an issue. My current thought on the matter is that anyone
who becomes ruler of a holding gains RP from it; if the new regent has no
bloodline, they automatically spend themselves to create one for him.
For example, an unblooded person who suddenly acquires holdings which
would generate 21 RP does not gain those RP his first turn; instead, he
gets a bloodline of 6, because that`s what he`d get if he spent a total of
21 RP to raise his bloodline from zero in successive steps: 1+2+3+4+5+6=21.

I am considering having this be the case for any amount of potential RP
collection (i.e. domain power - bloodline) that is wasted, so that all
regents` bloodlines would slowly increase to match their domain power.
To continue the above example, this would mean that on turn 2, the regent
would gain 6 RP which could be spent on actions, but still waste 15
potential RP which instead would lift his bloodline from 6 to 8. On turn
3, he collects 8 RP and has his bloodline jump to 9, with 4 bloodline-
increasing RP left over. His bloodline continues to increase with time,
ever more slowly, hitting 12 on turn 6, 15 on turn 11, 18 on turn 22, and
not reaching the maximum of 21 until turn 58.

This reflects my belief that the prestige of an office gradually rubs off
on an officeholder who just does a mediocre job while avoiding major
screw-ups, and unknowns become somewhat known quickly but the pace of
growing affection for them tapers off; but that only really impressive
leaders (or those from famous dynasties) can much outshine the limitations
of their job. Having a system where lost bloodline points grow themselves
back over time would make me more willing to have handling of random
events cause minor bonuses or penalties to bloodline score as well as
stored RP; again in a modern political sense, scandals not only cause you
to forfeit "political capital" you`d been saving up but also make it
harder to acquire more in future, until enough time passes and people
forget and say things like, "well, he is the president, after all" and
sort of give support by default.

It also works in the throwaway comment made in the rulebook about
bloodline score increasing significantly upon attaining high office: the
section about determining a child`s bloodline score says it wouldn`t go
*up* if its mother "became High Queen". I tend to think that family
members` bloodlines should continue to influence each other throughout
life, but I do like the idea that some of the ability to wield huge piles
of RPs just comes with the office.

> I think it`s similar to the way D&D gods get power from
> the belief of their worshippers; same way for regents. So it`s more:
> RP = belief in power
> than
> RP = power.

This is an interesting idea, and may actually be more akin to what the
designers had in mind, but I still would prefer to try to save RP=power.
That said, your way might be the only really consistent interpretation of
RP-based magic. Anyone else care to comment?


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

Ryan Caveney writes:
> I think TRs generate both too much money and too
> many RPs: they`re much too unbalancing.

This is true as they are written, but that assumes a level of local trade that I think pre- supposes a railroad network. Most trade was historically long distance trade. Like all holdings, I regard trade routes as generally pre-existing. My conception of trade routes is based in place theory, and so I have established 4 trade routes that run across the continent from east to west, with more local trade networks connecting to one of these main lines. The way it works out, most guilders have one trade route. Some have none.

[kgauck]

On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> > I think it`s similar to the way D&D gods get power from
> > the belief of their worshippers; same way for regents. So
> > it`s more:
> > RP = belief in power
> > than
> > RP = power.

This bottom-up source of power strikes me as against the theme of BR, which
is based on the rights of those born to power, not those accepted by the
mob. I see the setting as one that allows the top down application of
aristocratic sensibilities. The all powerful gods picked me to rule, and
gave me special powers to facilitate my governance.

Hence RP is power which creates belief, rather than belief that creates
power.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> > I don`t think RP is just political power, because then unblooded lords
> > could get it too.
>
> Yeah, that is an issue. My current thought on the matter is that anyone
> who becomes ruler of a holding gains RP from it; if the new regent has no
> bloodline, they automatically spend themselves to create one for him.
> For example, an unblooded person who suddenly acquires holdings which
> would generate 21 RP does not gain those RP his first turn; instead, he
> gets a bloodline of 6, because that`s what he`d get if he spent a total of
> 21 RP to raise his bloodline from zero in successive steps: 1+2+3+4+5+6=21.

Whoa, you just boggled my mind there. That`s a very interesting use of
the land`s choice rule.

Quibbles: Bloodlines boundary conditions were poorly defined. What
happens when someone with bloodline 1 has a child with a commoner? Is the
kid unblooded (because you can`t have a bloodline less than 1), bloodline
0 (because you can have a bloodline less than 1, but round fractions
down), or bloodline 1 (because divine essense doesn`t just vanish, so you
round fractions up)? In any case, I would say unblooded is not equivalent
to bloodline 0.
My rule would be
bloodline 1 + unblooded= bloodline 0 (nothing useful, but potential is
there)
bloodline 0 + unblooded= unblooded

Also, isn`t there a rule that you can only invest RP into your bloodline
once per domain turn? I think I remember that.

So I`d say, an unblooded guy get a domain. The first turn, he gets no RP,
but a bloodline of 0 is created for him. The RP he didn`t collect isn`t
banked, I don`t like that.

Second turn, he gets bloodline 1. Third turn, bloodline 2. This could
only continue as long as there`s uncollected RP around to raise his
bloodline in one turn, it shouldn`t bank. So his best bloodline he could
get `free` like this would be half his domain power.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, kgauck wrote:

> This is true as they are written, but that assumes a level of local
> trade that I think pre- supposes a railroad network.

=) Then again, with enough magic, just maybe... but that would presumably
require the expenditure of immense numbers of RP in a fairly difficult
"Enchant Road" realm spell.

> Most trade was historically long distance trade.

Yes, and of a small amount of luxury goods.

> My conception of trade routes is based in place theory, and so I have
> established 4 trade routes that run across the continent from east to
> west, with more local trade networks connecting to one of these main
> lines.

What exactly is "place theory", and do you have a map of these online?


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 10:38, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, daniel mcsorley wrote:
> > > I think it`s similar to the way D&D gods get power from
> > > the belief of their worshippers; same way for regents. So
> > > it`s more:
> > > RP = belief in power
> > > than
> > > RP = power.
>
> This bottom-up source of power strikes me as against the theme of BR, which
> is based on the rights of those born to power, not those accepted by the
> mob. I see the setting as one that allows the top down application of
> aristocratic sensibilities. The all powerful gods picked me to rule, and
> gave me special powers to facilitate my governance.
>
> Hence RP is power which creates belief, rather than belief that creates
> power.

Ah, but doesn`t a bloodline give you a measure of self-belief?

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:31 PM


> > Hence RP is power which creates belief, rather than belief that creates
> > power.
>
> Ah, but doesn`t a bloodline give you a measure of self-belief?

That would be an example of a power creating a belief.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

Place theory is a geographical abstraction to explain why cities are where
they are, and why certain concentric zones of economic activity form around
them. It was developed by Walter Christaller in the 19th century. It is
based on two basic concepts. 1) There is a minimum market size necessary to
sustain a market in non-edibles. For example, if we use the chart from S.
John Ross` demographics web page, we see that 150 people can support one
shoemaker. 250 people will support one furrier, one maid, and one tailor.
350 people are required before there are enough customers to support a
barber. 2) There is also a maximum distance people are willing to travel to
obtain goods. If this space limitation were not present, people would
always obtain goods from their place of origin.

The fact that the standard rules allow me to build a trade route from
Bhalaene to Bheline (adjacent provinces in Ghoere) suggests that people are
not willing to travel from Bheline to Bhalaene for their trade needs. In
fact, they would prefer to pay (in aggregate) 5 GB to shift the labor to
someone else. Not only that, the profit from moving goods about 30 miles is
100% of the value of the goods. This presumes standard BR roads. I`m
pretty sure that peasants, making 1 sp per day, can`t afford 100% price
increases, and so trade must strictly be a property of the wealthy. But
even still, there just isn`t enough wealth to justify 5GB in profit for
moving products 30 miles. If a horse walks 5 mph (per MM) then the average
maximum distance for regular trade is closer to 40 miles, and its going to
amount to something much, much smaller than 5GB between adjacent provinces.

Place theory uses hexes to map the areas served, because circles overlap.
Familiar to gamers.

Place theory assumes that in a perfectly flat world without political
impediments, the distribution would towns, cities, and large cities would be
regular and evenly distributed. But, the world has an uneven distribution
of resources, is geographically irregular, and has political boundaries (and
the varied opportunities that follows from them). So, we also have the
Transportation Principle and the Political Principle. The transportation
principle states that cities on major transportation routes (roads, rivers,
coastlines) will be larger because a greater proportion of economic activity
makes use of these transportation routes, and that cities and towns which
are not on such routes will be smaller than they would otherwise be. The
political principle is similar in its effect, but is based on the
differential opportunities of different political environments. For
example, Jaison Raenech is hostile to his major guilder, seems harsh in all
his laws, and generally does not promote trade. This inhibits all economic
activity, making the minimum necessary market larger to overcome this
obstacle. Aerenwe, on the other hand, has a less restrictive ruler, a
peolpe who worship the godess of the ocean, and can be expected to divert
some of that economic activity away from Brothendar, Algael, and Spiritsend,
and into Dhoenel and Calrie. Given a choice to do business on either side
of the unnamed river that flows between the two realms, the political
principle tells us to expect that towns and cities are smaller in Osoerde
than in its neighbors, most of whom are politicaly much friendlier to trade
and the guilders in action there.

So every town and city has a hinterland. The towns` hinterland is the rural
area around them. They are a market for agricultural produce and provide a
market for craftsmen who serve the whole hinterland. Small cities will have
several towns in its hinterland. It will act as a town itself, but also as
a catchment area for services that are not provided in the towns itself.
Every town will have a butcher, but perhaps only the cities will have
dedicated spice merchants. Every town will have carpenters who can make a
door or a chest, but only in cities are there locksmiths. Finally there are
the large cities who have a group of smaller cities in their catchment
areas. These cities will provide services not found even in the small
cities, such as banking, or bookselling.

So let`s look at the Highland/Overland Traders. Guild Master Ghorien has
level 2 holdings in Alaroine, Maesford, Soutmoor, anmd Cwlldon, and a 3 in
Tenarien. Ghorien has here a penetration into the markets of others here.
All of those except Alaroine are towns, probabaly in the catchment area of
Ghieste. Riumache is identified as a city, but note that it falls on the
River Maesil. So, I imagine a trade route connecting Endier to Ghiere on to
Riumache, and then overland to Bhalaene and on to Ansien. From Ghiere to
Achiese, Master Ghorien controls the trade route and profits from it.
Bhalaene provides the big city services to all of the areas in the
Highland/Overland catchment area. I imagine a large bank with clerks and
bookkeepers, and everything else you`ve ever seen from a Dutch painting in
which money was displayed on a table. There is a small office in Ghieste,
Alaroine, and Caudraight, but they just function as extentions of the place
where the gold is in Bhalaene. The best craft experts are in Ghieste and
Bhalaene, but there many more in Bhalaene. Factors in Bhalaene buy goods
comming from the east (immediately out of Ansien) and store them in
warehouses for distribution between now and the next caravan. A much
smaller set of warehouses exist in Ghieste. At Ghieste and Bhalaene goods
comming from the west are purchased, but most of these goods continue moving
east. Auditors from Bhalaene keep an eye on holdings throughout Ghorien`s
domain. The archives are in Bhalaene.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 13:51, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> Place theory is a geographical abstraction to explain why cities are where
> they are, and why certain concentric zones of economic activity form around
> them.
Never heard of it - but expected something like it to exist.

>
> The fact that the standard rules allow me to build a trade route from
> Bhalaene to Bheline (adjacent provinces in Ghoere) suggests that people are
> not willing to travel from Bheline to Bhalaene for their trade needs. In
> fact, they would prefer to pay (in aggregate) 5 GB to shift the labor to
> someone else. Not only that, the profit from moving goods about 30 miles is
> 100% of the value of the goods. This presumes standard BR roads. I`m
> pretty sure that peasants, making 1 sp per day, can`t afford 100% price
> increases, and so trade must strictly be a property of the wealthy. But
> even still, there just isn`t enough wealth to justify 5GB in profit for
> moving products 30 miles. If a horse walks 5 mph (per MM) then the average
> maximum distance for regular trade is closer to 40 miles, and its going to
> amount to something much, much smaller than 5GB between adjacent provinces.

I agree.

Standard BR trade route rules are poor. (let`s be honest)
They tie trade zones and provinces together, and they are too easy to
create and generate far too much GB.

I, personally, restrict them quite severely. A trade route out of
Bheline to anywhere isn`t possible. Although trade from Bheline may
occur to neighboring provinces in Ghoere, this is subsumed in Bheline`s
guild activity.


>
> Place theory uses hexes to map the areas served, because circles overlap.
> Familiar to gamers.
>
> Place theory assumes that in a perfectly flat world without political
> impediments, the distribution would towns, cities, and large cities would be
> regular and evenly distributed. But, the world has an uneven distribution
> of resources, is geographically irregular, and has political boundaries (and
> the varied opportunities that follows from them). So, we also have the
> Transportation Principle and the Political Principle.

Interesting, the theory seems to mirror exactly how I have restricted
trade. This is a real theory? Can I have a reference to back up my
*arbitrary* trade decisions please?

The transportation
> principle states that cities on major transportation routes (roads, rivers,
> coastlines) will be larger because a greater proportion of economic activity
> makes use of these transportation routes, and that cities and towns which
> are not on such routes will be smaller than they would otherwise be. The
> political principle is similar in its effect, but is based on the
> differential opportunities of different political environments. For
> example, Jaison Raenech is hostile to his major guilder, seems harsh in all
> his laws, and generally does not promote trade. This inhibits all economic
> activity, making the minimum necessary market larger to overcome this
> obstacle. Aerenwe, on the other hand, has a less restrictive ruler, a
> peolpe who worship the godess of the ocean, and can be expected to divert
> some of that economic activity away from Brothendar, Algael, and Spiritsend,
> and into Dhoenel and Calrie. Given a choice to do business on either side
> of the unnamed river that flows between the two realms,

Spirit River poss ?

Spirit`s End

the political
> principle tells us to expect that towns and cities are smaller in Osoerde
> than in its neighbors, most of whom are politicaly much friendlier to trade
> and the guilders in action there.
>
> So every town and city has a hinterland. The towns` hinterland is the rural
> area around them. They are a market for agricultural produce and provide a
> market for craftsmen who serve the whole hinterland. Small cities will have
> several towns in its hinterland. It will act as a town itself, but also as
> a catchment area for services that are not provided in the towns itself.
> Every town will have a butcher, but perhaps only the cities will have
> dedicated spice merchants. Every town will have carpenters who can make a
> door or a chest, but only in cities are there locksmiths. Finally there are
> the large cities who have a group of smaller cities in their catchment
> areas. These cities will provide services not found even in the small
> cities, such as banking, or bookselling.
>
> So let`s look at the Highland/Overland Traders. Guild Master Ghorien has
> level 2 holdings in Alaroine, Maesford, Soutmoor, anmd Cwlldon, and a 3 in
> Tenarien. Ghorien has here a penetration into the markets of others here.
> All of those except Alaroine are towns, probabaly in the catchment area of
> Ghieste. Riumache is identified as a city, but note that it falls on the
> River Maesil. So, I imagine a trade route connecting Endier to Ghiere on to
> Riumache, and then overland to Bhalaene and on to Ansien. From Ghiere to
> Achiese, Master Ghorien controls the trade route and profits from it.
> Bhalaene provides the big city services to all of the areas in the
> Highland/Overland catchment area. I imagine a large bank with clerks and
> bookkeepers, and everything else you`ve ever seen from a Dutch painting in
> which money was displayed on a table. There is a small office in Ghieste,
> Alaroine, and Caudraight, but they just function as extentions of the place
> where the gold is in Bhalaene. The best craft experts are in Ghieste and
> Bhalaene, but there many more in Bhalaene. Factors in Bhalaene buy goods
> comming from the east (immediately out of Ansien) and store them in
> warehouses for distribution between now and the next caravan. A much
> smaller set of warehouses exist in Ghieste. At Ghieste and Bhalaene goods
> comming from the west are purchased, but most of these goods continue moving
> east. Auditors from Bhalaene keep an eye on holdings throughout Ghorien`s
> domain. The archives are in Bhalaene.

Curious, almost 100% identical.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ConjurerDragon]

Hello!

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, daniel mcsorley wrote:
>
>Yeah, that is an issue. My current thought on the matter is that anyone
>who becomes ruler of a holding gains RP from it; if the new regent has no
>bloodline, they automatically spend themselves to create one for him.
>For example, an unblooded person who suddenly acquires holdings which
>would generate 21 RP does not gain those RP his first turn; instead, he
>gets a bloodline of 6, because that`s what he`d get if he spent a total of
>21 RP to raise his bloodline from zero in successive steps: 1+2+3+4+5+6=21.
>
That´s 2E, when you spend your bloodline +1 to gain one more point of
bloodline.
And you forgot p. 37 of the 2E rulebook: A character can raise his
bloodline strenght by no more than 1 point per domain turn in this
fashion, so to get a bloodline of 6 he would need 6 domain turns or 18
month - else bloodlines raise much too fast.
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 05:38 PM 12/4/2002 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>This bottom-up source of power strikes me as against the theme of BR, which
>is based on the rights of those born to power, not those accepted by the
>mob. I see the setting as one that allows the top down application of
>aristocratic sensibilities. The all powerful gods picked me to rule, and
>gave me special powers to facilitate my governance.
>
>Hence RP is power which creates belief, rather than belief that creates
>power.

Using the above description, wouldn`t it be better stated that bloodline is
the power that creates belief? The "top-down application" as it were, but
that application is possible only because of "the bottom-up transfer of
power." That is, the RP/power created by belief. (Which is pretty well in
line with the published materials.)

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Michael Romes wrote:

> That´s 2E, when you spend your bloodline +1 to gain one more point of

What does 2e or not 2e have to do with anything? Bloodline as a part of
the domain rulership system is entirely separate from whatever RPG system
is used to adjudicate character and adventure actions, or even whether you
bother to choose to have such a system at all.

> And you forgot p. 37 of the 2E rulebook: A character can raise his
> bloodline strenght by no more than 1 point per domain turn in this
> fashion, so to get a bloodline of 6 he would need 6 domain turns or 18
> month - else bloodlines raise much too fast.

I didn`t forget this rule -- I am deliberately suggesting a modification
of it, or even perhaps its elimination. What I proposed is not a new way
regents may choose to use RP they normally collect, but rather something
new that might happen to those RP their domains generate but their
bloodlines are too small for them to collect. Raising up quickly from
zero is I think a good thing about the system, not a bad, in that regents
with bloodlines of 30 or 31 are about equally OK, and regents with
bloodlines of 0 or 1 are about equally doomed. Having a short growth time
from zero to something useful is essential to allow a newly-starting
once-commoner regent to survive; of course, if you think such people ought
to be squashed like flies, or forbidden outright, then there`s nothing to
worry about.

Even in standard game play, I actually see nothing wrong with allowing
people to increase their bloodlines by as many points at a time as they
want, since the number of RP required is extremely high: going from 0 to 6
requires 21 RP, but going from 30 to 36 requires 201 RP! One of the
things my "grow to fill the job" suggestion is intended to do is actually
provide a way for the bloodline increase rule to come into play; since
increasing the bloodline is spending RP in order to earn more RP in
future, for it to be a sensible investment the projected payoff must
exceed the up-front cost -- in order for spending the 201 RP to raise your
bloodline from 30 to 36 to be a good idea, you have to expect that your
reign will exceed 37 domain turns in length; this is unlikely to be
reached in the time horizon of most campaigns I`ve heard of. Even that is
based on spending them all at once -- if, as is probably a more reasonable
model for number of RPs saved and available for tasks other than real
actions, you only save a couple of RP per turn to be put to this project,
it will take a hundred domain turns, or 25 game years, or lay aside that
much, and not until turn 64 (year 16) do you show a profit.

At one point I thought about providing an immediate incentive in order to
encourage spending on bloodline increases: since you are in come sense
investing mystical energy to make you more powerful as a regent, why not
also have it make you more powerful as an adventurer, and declare that RP
spent to increase bloodline also increase XP? Amusing, but at present I
prefer my newer idea of "bloodline just grows on its own."


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.