Holdings as 3e Classes

[Birthright-L]

Hello,

well, just an idea I´m playing with. It´s not even being tested in real play, just a draft. The thing is doing holdings like character classes: the law, the temple,... Here goes an example (hope the tabulation doesn´t go crazy):

(BAB = Base Action Bonus ;) )

************************************************

The Law Holding

Level Law BAB Temple BAB Guild BAB Source BAB Abilities
0 +0 +0 +0 +0 -
1 +1 +1 +1 +0 Tax +1
2 +2 +2 +2 +0 Security (+1 against hostile Contests)
3 +3 +2 +2 +1 Tax +2
4 +4 +3 +3 +1 Security (+2 against hostile Contests, Detect Hidden Holdings)
5 +5 +3 +3 +1 Tax +3, Loyalty I
6 +6 +4 +4 +2 Security (+3 against hostile Contests, Protect)
7 +7 +5 +5 +2 Tax +4
8 +8 +5 +5 +2 Security (+4 against hostile Contests)
9 +9 +6 +6 +3 Tax +5
10 +10 +7 +7 +3 Security (+5 against hostile Contests), Loyalty II

Tax
------

The law holding can try to claim some GB from the income of another holding situated in the same province (or from the population). The base DC is 10 + Number of GB claimed + Level of Target. The law holding adds to his roll his law BAB.

Security
-------------

Every even level starting at level 2, the law holding gets +1 law defense bonus against contest actions.

At level 4, it can try to detect hidden holdings located in the same province: The DC is 15 - Hidden Holding Level + Hidden Holding Level Law BAB.

At level 6, the law holding can protect another holding situated in the same province against a contest action at the cost of losing itself his law defense bonus agains contests that round.

Loyalty
----------

At level 5 and 10, the law holding recieves one of his most powerful abilities: being capable of ignoring or impeding loyalty changes. Loyalty I allows the law holding to try to avoid loyalty changing from poor to rebelious or from going from average to high. The DC for this is 15 + the population level + the bab of the trying holding (if there´s one). The law holding can add his law BAB.

At level 10, the law holding can try to avoid greater changes: impeding loyalty going down from average or higher than poor. The DC for this is 15 + population level + the bab of the trying holding (if there´s one). The law holding can add his law BAB.

************************************************

Well, that is. I don´t have very clear the "powers" of each holding or how to address bab and saving throws (resistance modifiers against actions), but I think some 3e concepts fit quite nicely in developing holdings like classes (I couldn´t resist the BAB one ;).

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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 Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Zaor wrote:

> (BAB = Base Action Bonus ;) )

Amusing. =)

> The law holding can try to claim some GB from the income of another
> holding situated in the same province (or from the population). The
> base DC is 10 + Number of GB claimed + Level of Target. The law
> holding adds to his roll his law BAB.

So you pick a number of GB you want to try for, and if you miss you get
nothing? I would prefer a method in which you rolled a die against some
resistance and how much you succeeded by would tell you how many GB you
got, perhaps as a fraction of the target`s income. On that note, see how
this will change the existing mechanic: it becomes easier to always take
every GB a small holding makes, and harder to get even one GB from a big
one. The base rulebook table I think makes a better balancing agent.

> At level 5 and 10, the law holding recieves one of his most powerful
> abilities: being capable of ignoring or impeding loyalty changes.

This I think is where the holding level to character level mapping breaks
down worst. A substantial majority of provinces are less than level 5,
and only one in all Cerilia is level 10, so most regents will lose all
ability to resist loyalty changes. I think the base rulebook idea of
basing loyalty change resistance on fraction of available holdings
controlled is a better one.


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]

Hello,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

sorry for not answering faster, I wasn´t out (free day here in spain ;)

> So you pick a number of GB you want to try for, and if you miss you get
> nothing? I would prefer a method in which you rolled a die against some
> resistance and how much you succeeded by would tell you how many GB you
> got, perhaps as a fraction of the target`s income. On that note, see how
> this will change the existing mechanic: it becomes easier to always take
> every GB a small holding makes, and harder to get even one GB from a big
> one. The base rulebook table I think makes a better balancing agent.

the ability was just a suggestion. You could also say the base dc is
15+objetive holding level and you earn what is said in the rulebook table.
For every 5 points you succed you get 1 extra gb, for every 5 points you
fail, you don´t get 1 gb.

> This I think is where the holding level to character level mapping breaks
> down worst. A substantial majority of provinces are less than level 5,
> and only one in all Cerilia is level 10, so most regents will lose all
> ability to resist loyalty changes. I think the base rulebook idea of
> basing loyalty change resistance on fraction of available holdings
> controlled is a better one.

Well, you could change the ability to level 3 and 6 (or 4 and 8). It´s
true that when using holdings as character classes some abilities can´t have
the same effect as they had in the old rulebook. But maybe with those
abilities the law levels would change (encouraging people to get higher law
levels, something you don´t have nearly any reason to do in the rulebook...
And something I find quite strange (as it´s quite expensive)). I´ll play
some more with this idea ;)

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel]

This is an interesting idea. True that it needs some refinement, for balance sake, but interesting. It also opens up the idea of holding prestige classes, such as covert holdings, fortified holdings, etc; perhaps these abilities can be represented as feats. A lot of options become available if you overlay the d20 system onto birthright. I'll start brainstorming.

[Birthright-L]

Hello,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arch-Sorcerer Gargamel" <brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG>

> This is an interesting idea. True that it needs some refinement, for
balance sake, but interesting. It also >opens up the idea of holding
prestige classes, such as covert holdings, fortified holdings, etc; perhaps
these >abilities can be represented as feats. A lot of options become
available if you overlay the d20 system onto >birthright. I`ll start
brainstorming.

Prestige holdings is something that has been discussed here in the
birth-l. You can search the archives for more information.

The feats part is a quite interesting one. But I don´t know if it adds
too much bookeeping, and some "strange" choices have to be done: for
example, if you have something like "skill focus" (a bonus to one action),
you have only that bonus when you do that action with that holding? Then,
you have to say from where you do your actions (I don´t see many problems
with that, but it´s something I´m not used to do except with some actions
(contest, agitate,...)). You could even play with the +10/+5 bonus to
actions (and get to actions from one holding), etc etc. But it needs a lot
of playtesting and brainstorming.

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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 Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Zaor wrote:

> You could also say the base dc is 15+objetive holding level and you
> earn what is said in the rulebook table. For every 5 points you succed
> you get 1 extra gb, for every 5 points you fail, you don`t get 1 gb.

That sounds better to me -- less wild variation turn-to-turn.

> > I think the base rulebook idea of basing loyalty change resistance
> > on fraction of available holdings controlled is a better one.
>
> Well, you could change the ability to level 3 and 6 (or 4 and 8). It`s
> true that when using holdings as character classes some abilities
> can`t have the same effect as they had in the old rulebook.

I think the 3e class system is flexible enough to handle it. In the PHB,
we find that whether one rogue can flank attack another is based not on
the absolute levels of the two, but the difference between their levels.
Thus I think you could still keep the rulebook loyalty change resistance
rule unchanged, defining it as a feature of the law holding class from the
first level. If you used differences instead of ratios (e.g., ignore one
level change if your holding level is within three of the province level)
then some of the relative flavor would be preserved, but I think a set of
numbers that worked well for low-level provinces would be too hard for
high-level ones, and a set of numbers that worked well for high-level
provinces would be too easy for low-level ones.

> But maybe with those abilities the law levels would change
> (encouraging people to get higher law levels, something you don`t have
> nearly any reason to do in the rulebook...

Really? IMO, high law holdings are a must for any province ruler, because
they are the true source of income -- you can`t make much in taxation
without strong law holdings, and you need to claim as much from guilds and
temples as you can -- and essential to holding on to control of the
province.


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]

Zaor:
> But maybe with those abilities the law levels would change
> (encouraging people to get higher law levels, something you don`t have
> nearly any reason to do in the rulebook...

Ryan B. Caveney:
> IMO, high law holdings are a must for any province ruler, because

The regional guides are donwnright goofy on this point. It tries to make a
virtue (from the POV of chaotic alignment) of abdication of duty. Rather
than arguing that a good chaotic ruler attempts to hold all the law and use
it to protect the individual choices of the people, it just assumes they
abdicate any role (and potentially leaves the holdings available for other
cruel or abusive rulers). Historically, peasants would resist abuses by the
shield of the law. If the law is not held by the ruler, that ruler can`t
determine what that law says or how its applied.

Its great that some chaotic regent doesn`t want to be a burden to their
people. They should hold all the law, enshrine concentual government into
the law through estates (mechanic - setting the tax rate to severe requires
a diplomacy action, this action can be a realm action. Performing the
action in only one province is a free action). Both guilders and templars
have an interest in setting up commercial law courts and church courts.
From the chaotic ruler`s POV, it would be best to make sure that church or
merchantile courts are not set up to impose church law or defend
confiscatory guild operations.

Even the random events understand that the people will demand good laws and
legal protections (Matter of Justice).

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]

Hello,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

> I think the 3e class system is flexible enough to handle it. In the PHB,
> we find that whether one rogue can flank attack another is based not on
> the absolute levels of the two, but the difference between their levels.
> Thus I think you could still keep the rulebook loyalty change resistance
> rule unchanged, defining it as a feature of the law holding class from the
> first level. If you used differences instead of ratios (e.g., ignore one
> level change if your holding level is within three of the province level)
> then some of the relative flavor would be preserved, but I think a set of
> numbers that worked well for low-level provinces would be too hard for
> high-level ones, and a set of numbers that worked well for high-level
> provinces would be too easy for low-level ones.

Haven´t thought about the flanking mechanics from the phb. The explain
very well the law holding loyalty change resistance (in ratios and in
differences. So I think I´ll let the ratios thing because as you point,
differences are going to be hard to get for one extreme or the other. Or
maybe a mix...)

> Really? IMO, high law holdings are a must for any province ruler, because
> they are the true source of income -- you can`t make much in taxation
> without strong law holdings, and you need to claim as much from guilds and
> temples as you can -- and essential to holding on to control of the
> province.

Yes, they are a must. But I don´t see having all the levels of them as a
must. With half (or half+1 don´t remember), you could ignore one loyalty
change and don´t get problems with medium taxes. One loyalty change is
enough, most times, to get your realm safe. And the resources (and actions)
you need to develop high level holdings could be used everywhere.

And with guilds and temples the reasons to get high level holdings are
less and less. The income table of holdings is quite a mess (IMO) and they
don´t get many extra uses...

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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, 12 Dec 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Rather than arguing that a good chaotic ruler attempts to hold all the
> law and use it to protect the individual choices of the people, it
> just assumes they abdicate any role

Yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes! The books are insane on this point.
Chaotic regents ought to have maximum law holdings for precisely this
reason. Even Sidhelien regents ought to have maximum law holdings, if
simply to mechanic the fact that no non-elf should have any chance at all
of persuading an elf to do anything. Personally, I am inclined to think
non-elves should not be able to create any non-source holding at all in an
elven province (and probably non-dwarves in dwarven and non-orog in orog;
humans, halflings and goblins I see as much less picky on this point).
Rhuandice Tuarlachiem should hold about half the law in Tuarhievel, to
reflect her continuing political struggle with Fhileraene over proper
policy towards humans.

> (and potentially leaves the holdings available for other cruel or
> abusive rulers). If the law is not held by the ruler, that ruler can`t
> determine what that law says or how its applied.

Yes. As I have complained before about the alignment system, it assumes
that everyone is an idiot and cannot or will not predict the likely
consequences of their actions, and the impact those will have on the
ideals they seek to support and promote. A chaotic government with an Int
above three seeks to limit itself by enacting and enforcing strong laws to
curtail any intrusion into its citizens` lives, including its own.

> Its great that some chaotic regent doesn`t want to be a burden to
> their people. They should hold all the law, enshrine concentual
> government into the law through estates
> From the chaotic ruler`s POV, it would be best to make sure that
> church or merchantile courts are not set up to impose church law or
> defend confiscatory guild operations.

Most definitely.


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]

Hello,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>

> The regional guides are donwnright goofy on this point. It tries to make
a
> virtue (from the POV of chaotic alignment) of abdication of duty. Rather
> than arguing that a good chaotic ruler attempts to hold all the law and
use
> it to protect the individual choices of the people, it just assumes they
> abdicate any role (and potentially leaves the holdings available for other
> cruel or abusive rulers). Historically, peasants would resist abuses by
the
> shield of the law. If the law is not held by the ruler, that ruler can`t
> determine what that law says or how its applied.

I think the rulebook asumes that a chaotic ruler will use his actions to
avoid other people getting law holdings in his lands (quite time and
resources cosuming). IMO, the rulebook asumes that having law holdings is
the same as taking out the freedom of your subjects (happens with chaotic
rulers, but also with elven rulers), and that is not necesarily true...

Something similar related to loyalty and law happens that I can´t finish
to understand: you have a province with high loyalty, you tax them with
severe taxes, but you have all the law. The loyalty continues being high. I
can´t understand it: I can understand that the province doesn´t go to
rebellion because the law holdings ensure some order (through guards,
soldiers,... even martial law), but I can´t understand the people continuing
having high loyalty towards you if you tax them severily turn after turn...

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:20 PM


> Personally, I am inclined to think non-elves should not be able to
> create any non-source holding at all in an elven province (and
> probably non-dwarves in dwarven and non-orog in orog;

I`d be inclined to require a diplomacy action with a high DC to get the
opportunity to build holdings. In a realm like Tuarhievel it seems that
approval has been given, likewise in Baruk-Azhik, both have granted guilds
some access. If you can`t get the local people to agree that you would be
welcome to set up your holding, it just won`t collect GB or RP, effectivly
limiting you to a 0-level holding.

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]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zaor" <zaor81@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:23 PM

> Something similar related to loyalty and law happens that I can´t
finish
> to understand: you have a province with high loyalty, you tax them with
> severe taxes, but you have all the law. The loyalty continues being high.

I think this reflects a situation where the ruler has the rights to collect
high taxes (acknowledged by the people). Their loyalty becomes an issue
because severe taxes are a hardship. But, once the tax goes away, the
grievance goes too. These kinds of taxes were known as extraordinary taxes.
As I put it on Nov 29, 1998,
"Light taxation would represent the regent`s hereditary income, but moderate
taxation would represent the normal hearth taxes, salt taxes, which people
have become accustomed to. Severe taxation represents the extraordinary,
barely tolerated for the shortest duration, under the most extream
circumstances, and otherwise cause for rebellion." These extraordinary
taxes are legal, and if applied when neccesary are accepted in hindsight
(the loyalty doesn`t drop).

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 Fri, 2002-12-13 at 09:57, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:20 PM
>
>
> > Personally, I am inclined to think non-elves should not be able to
> > create any non-source holding at all in an elven province (and
> > probably non-dwarves in dwarven and non-orog in orog;
>
> I`d be inclined to require a diplomacy action with a high DC to get the
> opportunity to build holdings.

I think that diplomacy is subsumed in many actions. However ...

I wouldn`t like to think that you`d be non-humanly racist in these
matters. :-)

After all, ANY ruler in ANY realm, might want to discourage the setting
up of temples, law, guilds and even sources.

The creation of a new holding "Create Holding" may be opposed by "any
regent with a similar holding in the province, or by the province
ruler". The modification to the success number happens at no cost to the
opposing regents. I personally think that such is sufficient to show
resistance. So realm regents already have a significant advantage in
determining holdings in their realm.

Forget for the moment that the mechanic for doing so is pretty flaky.
e.g. (and see if you can guess where the example comes from)
Create holding in a province(3) where the ruler is opposed is: 13
Create law holding in a province(10) where the ruler is opposed and
where the ruler has a law of 3, would be success: 23.

On a slightly off-tangent topic is the consideration that a 0-level
holding is (usually) quite different to any non-zero level holding. In
fact, it`s possible to argue that a 0-level holding and a contested or
neutralized holding are more similar.

I`d be more inclined to change the rule so that:
(i) creating a 0-level holding is not opposed; but;
(ii) rule holding is opposed (free resistance) instead;

Such a rule would increase the realm regents advantage re holdings
significantly if you retain the original mechanic however.

************************************************** **************************
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: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:30 PM

> I wouldn`t like to think that you`d be non-humanly racist in these
> matters. :-)

Not at all, I regard the gheallie Sidhe as a branch of the chamber of
commerce, welcoming human regents in with temples and guilds. :-)

> After all, ANY ruler in ANY realm, might want to discourage the setting
> up of temples, law, guilds and even sources.

If you don`t see the difference between a Medoerean holding in Roesone, and
one in the Sielwode, there really isn`t any purpose is continuing this
discussion.

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.

[ryancaveney]

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:

> I think that diplomacy is subsumed in many actions. However ...

Very true.

> I wouldn`t like to think that you`d be non-humanly racist in these
> matters. :-)

It`s not that I`m being racist, it`s that I`m trying to model the fact
that some Cerilian races are, much more than others.

> After all, ANY ruler in ANY realm, might want to discourage the setting
> up of temples, law, guilds and even sources.

Any *ruler*, sure. But what I`m talking about is the *people*, regardless
of what the ruler may want, or be able to do anything about. I am
inclined to say that even if someday the regent of the Sielwode were
officially to allow human guilders to set up shop in her forest, none of
the people would go along. That gnollish temple near the
Vosgaard/Brechtur border (Hjorig?) in human lands seems really, really
silly to me. Thousands of humans there are not worshipping Yeenoghu!
The only thing I can think of to explain it is that the province
population has now changed to the point where it actually consists not
mostly of humans, but about equally of humans and gnolls; the temple level
reflects mainly how many gnolls there are in residence.

> The modification to the success number happens at no cost to the
> opposing regents. I personally think that such is sufficient to show
> resistance.

Sufficient to show normal within-race resistance. But as I said, I think
in some cases even if the province ruler used their levels to *support*
the new holding, they should *still* fail, because all of their underlings
will refuse to carry out that particular order. Perhaps you would say
that rather than forbid it, what I should do instead is allow it, with the
consequence that the province in question immediately rises in rebellion,
and military units sympathetic to it occupy and destroy the new holding?

> So realm regents already have a significant advantage in
> determining holdings in their realm.

Yes, but your example...

> Create holding in a province(3) where the ruler is opposed is: 13

...shows that the advantage just isn`t nearly significant enough to
correctly model some interactions, IMO.

> (i) creating a 0-level holding is not opposed; but;
> (ii) rule holding is opposed (free resistance) instead;

I allow opposition in both cases.


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 Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I`d be inclined to require a diplomacy action with a high DC to get
> the opportunity to build holdings.

Maybe. For some realms, though, I`d even forbid diplomacy -- a dwarf
diplomat sent to an orog realm is coming home in pieces, if at all.

> In a realm like Tuarhievel it seems that approval has been given,

To me, the entire description of Tuarhievel is one of the most downright
goofy things in any of the books. Not even counting the inconceivable
silliness of the PS, Ruins of Empire doesn`t describe nearly as deep an
internal division over Fhilerane`s human policy as I think must exist.
IMC, though, I`ve solved that: Rhuandice is Queen, and Tuarhievel is as
aggressively isolated as the Sielwode -- except for the fact that they
have a lot of adjoining forest in the hands of those verminous humans...

> likewise in Baruk-Azhik, both have granted guilds some access.

Baruk-Azhik makes more sense, in that dwarves are much more inclined to
follow their leader, whatever he may say, than elves are. I`d have that
province`s loyalty drop, to reflect the people grumbling about the
Overthane doing a bad job of looking out for his people`s interests; but
being dwarves they`d mostly just go along while muttering. Elves, on the
other hand, would openly reject the ruler`s decision, and I suspect such
an announcement would spark significant, open resistance, likely to
blossom into full-scale civil war.

> If you can`t get the local people to agree that you would be welcome
> to set up your holding,

Right, this is what I`m thinking. Convincing the regent may not be the
same thing as convincing the people. I am inclined to think that any
regent who has a social agenda radically different from his people is
going to be deposed by a land`s choice great captain if he doesn`t change
his tune real soon now. This is not in my mind an argument that power
ultimately derives from the people -- rather, that a regent`s job (in DROK
terms) is to act as god`s steward of the flock, so if he starts feeding
them to the wolves, god is going to fire him. It`s sort of a Calvinist
DROK -- if you act in a way not befitting a king of our people, then
obviously you aren`t the rightful king, and it is our duty to find the
rightful one and replace you with him, you wicked, weird impostor!


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 Sat, 2002-12-14 at 02:59, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

> Any *ruler*, sure. But what I`m talking about is the *people*, regardless
> of what the ruler may want, or be able to do anything about. I am
> inclined to say that even if someday the regent of the Sielwode were
> officially to allow human guilders to set up shop in her forest, none of
> the people would go along. That gnollish temple near the
> Vosgaard/Brechtur border (Hjorig?) in human lands seems really, really
> silly to me. Thousands of humans there are not worshipping Yeenoghu!
> The only thing I can think of to explain it is that the province
> population has now changed to the point where it actually consists not
> mostly of humans, but about equally of humans and gnolls; the temple level
> reflects mainly how many gnolls there are in residence.

Well a DM can always create loyalty shifts if he/she deems that a realm
regents actions have affected the loyalty of a province or two. In
general though, I think that we should consider that the regent does
represent the wishes and interests of the population more or less.
Sometimes, it`s best to leave such decisions to be subjective.

>
> > The modification to the success number happens at no cost to the
> > opposing regents. I personally think that such is sufficient to show
> > resistance.
>
> Sufficient to show normal within-race resistance. But as I said, I think
> in some cases even if the province ruler used their levels to *support*
> the new holding, they should *still* fail, because all of their underlings
> will refuse to carry out that particular order. Perhaps you would say
> that rather than forbid it, what I should do instead is allow it, with the
> consequence that the province in question immediately rises in rebellion,
> and military units sympathetic to it occupy and destroy the new holding?

When you say "support" do you mean passive support in that they do not
oppose?

>
> > So realm regents already have a significant advantage in
> > determining holdings in their realm.
>
> Yes, but your example...
>
> > Create holding in a province(3) where the ruler is opposed is: 13
>
> ...shows that the advantage just isn`t nearly significant enough to
> correctly model some interactions, IMO.

Yeah well - I find most of the domain actions to be biased in odd ways.
I personally, do not like the rule that allows a guild(0) to create a
trade route. This makes them quite different to other holding types. A
guild(1) I can live with.

I try and model the domain actions proportionately.

For 0-level holdings, I find this akin to a regent gaining a foothold in
a province. This is not enough for them to undertake many actions
themselves or to earn any income. (except for trade routes as noted
above) To the point of sending an ambassador of trade to the Sielwode
with gifts in an attempt to persuade the regent and influence the people
of the Sielwode - I would regard such as setting up a guild(0). It`s not
a difficult attempt really - of course how long it stays there is
another matter.

[create holding] = 10 + ({current levels} / [province size])*(20-10)
e.g. Creating a 0-level holding, in a province(3)
Success = 10 ; where non-one opposes it (no others exist)

Of course, at this point the regent of Sielwode can [contest holding]
with a pretty good chance of success. The two parties could continue
this dance (at great expense) until one or the other gets tired and
quits.


[rule holding] = 10 + (([proposed level] + {province level}))
/([province level] + {province level}))*(20-10)
For province(N), and holding(0);
Success number = 15+; when the ruler of the province is opposed
e.g. A ruling a (non-source) holding(0) in a province(3) would be:
Success = 16 if the ruler were opposed (20%)
Success = 13 if the ruler were not (35%)

>
> > (i) creating a 0-level holding is not opposed; but;
> > (ii) rule holding is opposed (free resistance) instead;
>
> I allow opposition in both cases.
>
>
> 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.

************************************************** **************************
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: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:26 AM


> I am inclined to think that any regent who has a social agenda
> radically different from his people is going to be deposed by a
> land`s choice great captain if he doesn`t change his tune real soon
> now. [...] rather, that a regent`s job (in DROK terms) is to act
> as god`s steward of the flock.

"But their descendant did not follow their example, and great Heaven sent
down calamities, employing the agency of our ruler- who was in possession of
its favoring appointment. Our king of Shang brilliantly displayed his
sagely prowess; for oppression he substituted his generous gentleness; and
the millions of the people gave him their hearts."

From the Chinese Classic of History (Shu Jing) on the Mandate of Heaven.

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]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zaor" <zaor81@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:39 AM

> I don´t have any problem if they are extraordinary taxes. I totally
> agree with your explanation. The problem is that the ruler can keep them
> forever without much concern if he has more than half or all law holdings,
> because the loyalty doesn´t change. I address it reducing the ruler rp
> income, but loyalty should go down sooner or later too, but I don´t know
> when.

So, in terms of role play, what happens when a ruler holds on to severe
taxation too long? The first sign a DM should send are the humble
petitioners. This stream of hopefulls doesn`t let up until the taxes return
to moderate. Next look at giving random events an anti-tax shading.
Festival: If the regent spends the money, rumors begin to circulate that the
high taxes are really only there to make the court extravagant. Go forward
with a Diamond Necklass affair (scandal over court expences).
Feud: The feud occurs between your minister who is in charge of tax
collection or is outspoken in favor of sever taxes, and either a guilder or
a noble who stands up for the hardships of the common subjects.
Diplomatic Matter: An otherwise friendly realm is concerned that your realm
intends to become the next Ghoere. Why else impose such severe taxes
outside of a crisis unless to fund an army with which to intimidate your
neighbors?
Corruption or Crime: Taxes are being diverted to line the pockets of your
own tax collectors. They have become absolutly reviled- loose a grade of
loyalty. Clean up the abuses of the tax collectors.
Brigandage: Robin hood has come to your realm to steal from the rich and
give to the poor. Some say he and his band are well connected figures in
your realm who are acting covertly. Or, maybe its just peasants collecting
"taxes" of their own.
Trade Matter: Someone has set up a trade entreupot just beyond your borders
and your own subjects are going across the border to avoid your taxes, and
smuggling their goods back in. You`ve turned your own people into
smugglers.
Intrigue: A faction opposed to the high taxes moves to discredit the
minister most associated with the severe tax policy. Even if its the ruler
who is behind this, a minister must be sacrificed, or the plotters
uncovered. Warning, a ruler who is too severe with such plotters is digging
himself a pretty deep hole.
Unrest or Rebellion: Vive le roi sans gabelle was one of the common slogans
of unrest during the 16th and 17th centuries in France. Long live the king
without the salt tax. The rebellious subjects protested their loyalty while
opposing the tax, and the hated minister who was behind the tax. This is a
very logical follow-up to any anti-tax intrigue squashed by the regent.
Matter of Justice: The petitioners have gotten organized. The stakes have
gotten higher. Now, if the ruler gives in, he sacrifices a point of
bloodline strength. If he refuses, he lowers the loyalty in every province
by one grade.
Great Captain: A key anti-tax figure has emerged. This could be a nice
follow-up event to many of the others, including Brigandage, Intrigue, or
Unrest. It obviously goes after law holdings. At the DM`s discression, it
could only steal half law holdings, but attack twice as many provinces. The
RP loss is the same for the ruler, but it strikes more effeciently at his
ability to impose severe taxes without loyalty problems. The captain in
question stops when he has 50% of the ruler`s law holdings in each province,
if the DM thinks a peaceful settlement is possible. If the ruler is gearing
up the war machine, the captain may continue to establish himself as a
legitimate ruler in place of the established ruler.

A ruler who starts getting these random events will pretty quickly see he`s
on the road to a particular relationship with his realm and people. If he
persists, he will be veiwed as a tyrant, and his support will shrink along
with his tyranny. At such point its better to call the loyalty grade the
"satisfaction grade" because that`s all it really measures.

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]

Hello,

> > > Create holding in a province(3) where the ruler is opposed is: 13
> >
> > ...shows that the advantage just isn`t nearly significant enough to
> > correctly model some interactions, IMO.

I let the land ruler oppose, and other holding owners of the same type
also play part of that difficulty (you want to set up law, the ruler and
other law holders can help or oppose you). Also, the owner of the land can
make some rulers get a "contested rule". For example: a province (6) with
two guild rulers, one with a guild (4) and another with a guild (2). Let´s
say the province ruler supports the guild (4) ruler. So, the guild (4) ruler
could do a contested rule, and get from level 4 to 5 and lower the other
guild holding from level 2 to 1 (the other guilder wouldn´t be able to do
this). It´s always nice to be in good ways with the land ruler ;)

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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]

Hello,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Gauck" <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>

> "Light taxation would represent the regent`s hereditary income, but
moderate
> taxation would represent the normal hearth taxes, salt taxes, which people
> have become accustomed to. Severe taxation represents the extraordinary,
> barely tolerated for the shortest duration, under the most extream
> circumstances, and otherwise cause for rebellion." These extraordinary
> taxes are legal, and if applied when neccesary are accepted in hindsight
> (the loyalty doesn`t drop).

I don´t have any problem if they are extraordinary taxes. I totally
agree with your explanation. The problem is that the ruler can keep them
forever without much concern if he has more than half or all law holdings,
because the loyalty doesn´t change. I address it reducing the ruler rp
income, but loyalty should go down sooner or later too, but I don´t know
when.

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
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.