Understanding Regency

[camelotcrusade]

Hi everybody,

We're still new at this and having a good time, but questions come up a lot that I'm not prepared to answer.

For example, last night I was reading the revised chapter 2 with the PCs, and we loved how it explained where regency comes from. Essentially it said the loyalty of the subjects of what you rule, among other things.

This raised three questions for us that we are interested in understanding.

1) Does divided loyalty still grant regency? For example, if I am law regent of a realm and I control all the law, I get regency from that. But let's say in the same province there's a templ 4 that I don't control, owned by a non-landed regent. She gets regency, too. Does this mean that
a) we both get regency from the same populace OR
B) the highest loyalty wins out, so people who are most loyal to the church send her regency, and most loyal to the realm give me regency

I can only really fathom choice B, since I don't understand why the more powerful regent in the area wouldn't simply suck up all the regency avialable. I'm afraid I'm not posing the question very well, so if you can think of a way to paraphrase what I'm trying to say, I'd be grateful. I'm just having trouble conceptualizing how multiple draws of regency can co-exist in one province in terms of regency. I mean, if I'm a law regent and I own all the temples, guilds, and sources and the law, I don't get a scrap of extra regency, but somehow these non-landers with these other structures can suck it out of my realm.

2) How then do wizards gain regency from sources? There isn't much loyalty involved there. I know the book of magecraft mentions wizards with a least a source 4 (2nd e. rules) can agitate, but still we had to wonder... we can think of several ideas but we suggest that you explain/clarify it in the same paragraph in the BRCS as you do the regency and loyalty connection.

Thanks in advance for all your wisdom on this topic.

[irdeggman]

Loyalty comes in different types.

A regent that controls temples has religious loyalty, a regent that controls the law holdings has the loyalty based on enforcing the law, etc.

The correct option to use is that both gain regency based on similar holdings only. That is is the law regent gains his based on how the loyalty to the law (his versus his competitors) while the temple regent gains his from who follows his religious teachings. These can cause conflicts but are treated as independent types of loyalty. Guilds reflect the confidence in the commerce ability - think in terms of having faith in the economy versus faith in the government/leadership. Use Pres Bush as an example. Currently his leadership rating is fairly high, while the faith of people in the economy is lesser.

Sources are a different animal. They are a reflection of the wizard's tie directly to the land. You can think of it in a broad sense as the lands faith in the wizard to protect and nurture it.

I hope that helps.

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, camelotcrusade wrote:

> Hi everybody,We're still new at this and having a good time, but

> questions come up a lot that I'm not prepared to answer.For example,

> last night I was reading the revised chapter 2 with the PCs, and we

> loved how it explained where regency comes from. Essentially it said

> the loyalty of the subjects of what you rule, among other things. This

> raised three questions for us that we are interested in understanding.1)

> Does divided loyalty still grant regency? For example, if I am law

> regent of a realm and I control all the law, I get regency from that.

> But let's say in the same province there's a templ 4 that I

> don't control, owned by a non-landed regent. She gets regency, too.

> Does this mean that a) we both get regency from the same populace OR

> <img src=`http://www.birthright.net/forums/html/emoticons/cool.gif`

> border=`0` style=`vertical-align:middle` alt=`cool.gif` /> the highest

> loyalty wins out, so people who are most loyal to the church send her

> regency, and most loyal to the realm give me regencyI can only really

> fathom choice B, since I don&#39;t understand why the more powerful

> regent in the area wouldn&#39;t simply suck up all the regency

> avialable. I&#39;m afraid I&#39;m not posing the question very well, so

> if you can think of a way to paraphrase what I&#39;m trying to say,

> I&#39;d be grateful. I&#39;m just having trouble conceptualizing how

> multiple draws of regency can co-exist in one province in terms of

> regency. I mean, if I&#39;m a law regent and I own all the temples,

> guilds, and sources and the law, I don&#39;t get a scrap of extra

> regency, but somehow these non-landers with these other structures can

> suck it out of my realm.2) How then do wizards gain regency from

> sources? There isn&#39;t much loyalty involved there. I know the book

> of magecraft mentions wizards with a least a source 4 (2nd e. rules) can

> agitate, but still we had to wonder... we can think of several ideas but

> we suggest that you explain/clarify it in the same paragraph in the BRCS

> as you do the regency and loyalty connection.Thanks in advance for all

> your wisdom on this topic.



Don`t think of RP as loyalty. You`re right, it`s inconsistent. RP are

power, and belief in power. In D&D, gods get power from followers and

worshippers, so it is for regents in Birthright.



Province rulers have power over the lives and lands of people in their

province. That is power. They get RP.



Law holders have authority over the way people live and behave. That is

power. They get RP.



Temple regents guide the spiritual and religious beliefs of the masses.

That is power, and they get RP.



Guilders control the economy and jobs of people in their province. That

is power, and they get RP.



Sourcerors control a source, giving them access to the phenomenal magic of

realm spells. That is power, and they get RP.



In answer to your question, both law holder and temple holders draw their

RP from the same pool of population, and that`s fine, they both collect.

The peasants can believe in the power of more than 1 person at a time. :)



--

Daniel McSorley

[kgauck]

Regency is a mechanism for political capital. Politics is a game of multual

obligation: I do this for you, you do that for me. As a ruler governs he

has opportunities to help people out, to create personal loyalty among key

officials, to get a suplus of favors owed to him. As the ruler spends

regency the process works in reverse. People do favors for the ruler, take

risks for his benefit, and develop the feeling that they have done enough.

A ruler with a small pool of political capital can ask for small favors from

many, or large favors from a few. Beyond that people will make excuses, and

will be unwilling to do much for you. people with a large pool of political

capital can go for a longer period of time asking favors as well as ask for

larger favors.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[camelotcrusade]

Thanks for these great replies. I like it and will share it with my group. However, I am still confused at the fine line between law and province regency. Why does this distinction exist? It seems to me that they should be combined, and that a province regent with no law would be severely weakend in his ability to collect regency from his province. I suppose I could see where you own the country but occupying forces own the law.... hmmm.

Another thing that bugs me is that all of your explanations make sense to me, but they seem to reinforce the idea that a regent who controls all of these types of holdings should get regency from all of them.

I know that&#39;s not how the game works, but it doesn&#39;t make sense to me that Lady Godspeak gets regency when she owns a temple in my realm, but if I&#39;m a law regency and I somehow get it from her I don&#39;t get any regency. Wouldn&#39;t influence and loyalty I can wield through that temple be significant enough to grant me regency? I wonder if somehow regents should get some tiny percentage of regency from things that aren&#39;t their forte but that they clearly control and influence. Has something like this been tried? Sounds really scary... aarg, logic and D&D can only go so far&#33;&#33; :rolleyes:

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by camelotcrusade@Jan 31 2004, 03:30 PM
Thanks for these great replies. I like it and will share it with my group. However, I am still confused at the fine line between law and province regency. Why does this distinction exist? It seems to me that they should be combined, and that a province regent with no law would be severely weakend in his ability to collect regency from his province. I suppose I could see where you own the country but occupying forces own the law.... hmmm.

Another thing that bugs me is that all of your explanations make sense to me, but they seem to reinforce the idea that a regent who controls all of these types of holdings should get regency from all of them.

I know that&#39;s not how the game works, but it doesn&#39;t make sense to me that Lady Godspeak gets regency when she owns a temple in my realm, but if I&#39;m a law regency and I somehow get it from her I don&#39;t get any regency. Wouldn&#39;t influence and loyalty I can wield through that temple be significant enough to grant me regency? I wonder if somehow regents should get some tiny percentage of regency from things that aren&#39;t their forte but that they clearly control and influence. Has something like this been tried? Sounds really scary... aarg, logic and D&D can only go so far&#33;&#33; :rolleyes:
Check out the Book of Regency (a free download from WotC) it specifically addresses the role of law holding in rulership. It should help to understand the relationship.

[geeman]

At 01:37 PM 1/31/2004 -0500, Daniel McSorley wrote:



>Don`t think of RP as loyalty. You`re right, it`s inconsistent. RP are

>power, and belief in power. In D&D, gods get power from followers and

>worshippers, so it is for regents in Birthright.



"Loyalty" is kind of a loaded term in this context, so--if I can step in to

extend the distinction--holdings and provinces themselves might be better

described as the domain level of "control" or "executive power" of a

regent. Provinces have a loyalty rating (I`ve argued in the past that

holdings should also have a loyalty rating) which determines the

population`s attitude or how firmly in control a regent might be, but the

levels themselves represent the extent of the regent`s control of some

aspect of a population`s activities (legal, religious, economic, or as a

population itself) while RP represents the actual power that such control

earns for the regent, whether the population is particularly loyal to that

regent or not.



Loyalty can, of course, influence whether a regent will remain in control

of his provinces (and holdings too--even in the absence of a loyalty rating

for them) but a regent can be hated in his domain but still earn RP.



Gary

[geeman]

At 09:30 PM 1/31/2004 +0100, camelotcrusade wrote:



>However, I am still confused at the fine line between law and province

>regency. Why does this distinction exist? It seems to me that they

>should be combined, and that a province regent with no law would be

>severely weakend in his ability to collect regency from his province. I

>suppose I could see where you own the country but occupying forces own the

>law.... hmmm.



I don`t think that`s at all unreasonable. In fact, I`m contemplated a

"province-less" domain system in which all pretty much all the features of

the province are combined into the law holding. In the long run I think it

might solve a few of the issues that regularly crop up around here

regarding the rationalization of population level increases using the Rule

action, contesting control of provinces, etc.



> Another thing that bugs me is that all of your explanations make sense

> to me, but they seem to reinforce the idea that a regent who controls all

> of these types of holdings should get regency from all of them.



Can`t argue with that either... especially since I`ve argued exactly that

in the past. I should note, however, that in 3e/3.5 its so easy to

multi-class that the problem itself is less of an issue, and from a simple

"them`s the rules of the game" POV it`s not that big a deal the way it was

in 2e. If a player really wants his PC to control both temple and guild

holdings he should multi-class to reflect that emphasis.



Gary

[Trithemius]

Dan McSorley:

> Sourcerors control a source, giving them access to the phenomenal magic

> of realm spells. That is power, and they get RP.



Lets not forget those wicked metal staves...



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Trithemius]

camelotcrusade:

>However, I am still confused at the fine line between law and province

>regency. Why does this distinction exist? It seems to me that they

>should be combined, and that a province regent with no law would be

>severely weakend in his ability to collect regency from his province. I

>suppose I could see where you own the country but occupying forces own the

>law.... hmmm.



In my games, I base taxation off of Law Holdings, not Provinces. I find this

cuts out the need for "law claims" on the provincial income.



I mentioned in an earlier post that I made today that in one of the games I

ran a wizard PC had a LT who took care of the administration of the realm. The

LT directly controlled the Law Holdings, and was in charge of the taxation.

The wizard collected a portion (a large portion!) of the tax generated to fund

his research and the remainder was used by the LT to pay the militia and

maintain the forts. The LT also collected the RP from the Law Holdings, and so

was able to do minor improvements to the lands and holdings as well as being

able to deal with everyday problems and the odd contestation. The wizard was

still the ruler of the provinces, and so collected the RP from them - which

was used to research and cast spells and improve the wizard`s leyline network.



Ideally, the LT would have been played by another human player, however I had

already decided upon an "each to their throne" model for the game.



I should note that the reason that the wizard PC sought a LT to administer the

law was not due to any 2e-style class RP-collection restrictions. It was

simply that the wizard wanted his realm to be run efficiently by someone who

could devote time to it.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Trithemius@Feb 1 2004, 04:10 AM
I mentioned in an earlier post that I made today that in one of the games I

ran a wizard PC had a LT who took care of the administration of the realm. The

LT directly controlled the Law Holdings, and was in charge of the taxation.

The wizard collected a portion (a large portion&#33;) of the tax generated to fund

his research and the remainder was used by the LT to pay the militia and

maintain the forts. The LT also collected the RP from the Law Holdings, and so

was able to do minor improvements to the lands and holdings as well as being

able to deal with everyday problems and the odd contestation. The wizard was

still the ruler of the provinces, and so collected the RP from them - which

was used to research and cast spells and improve the wizard`s leyline network.



Ideally, the LT would have been played by another human player, however I had

already decided upon an "each to their throne" model for the game.



I should note that the reason that the wizard PC sought a LT to administer the

law was not due to any 2e-style class RP-collection restrictions. It was

simply that the wizard wanted his realm to be run efficiently by someone who

could devote time to it.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.


It sounds like the Lt in question was really a vassel and not a Lt. A Lt. can&#39;t (and couldn&#39;t in 2nd ed) collect RP on his own. If the Lt. had his own set of domain actions (something I infered by your description of his role) then he must technically be a vassel otherwise he would have had a single domain action per turn that he could perform - an ineffective way of executing law holdings, IMO.

A wizard realm regent having a vassel in charge of &#39;his&#39; law holdings makes a lot of sense gamewise by the way. The vassel has a lot of incentive to keep up his end of the bargain and not try to &#39;take over&#39; since the wizard could always play havoc on him via realm spells.

[teloft]

I view RP&#39;s as the stuff you have thet alows you to force cooperation of your fellow man. be it of the office you have combinde with the person you are and stand for.

geting people to volentear there work. keeping the knigths loyal even thow you dont have any gold for them. thet kind of stuff.

by spending your Rp you are draining your person or office of this kredit you have with the common man. and by spending it all. you will no longer be able to see the people volunteering there propertyes and there work to your agenda by your presence alone. now you acsuly need to try other means. like giving them gold. Or forcing them with the militia.

Think how people volunteer at church.

The Rp is divine. and everyone loves to have a pice of the divine blessings. therefore thay do what ever you want, and suck your rp pool dry in the prosess.

Some players like to think of there PC&#39;s as tierd, and dryed out when thay are low at there Rp, while when thay have filled there Rp pools thay radiade of some golden glow.

you can get Rp for what you do, or are.

if you define your PC as a guilder. then you get Rp for your work as a guilder. but not as a temple regent. even thow you controle some temples you do not have what it takse to use the regency you could gain from the temples.

but if you on the other hand are ready to but forth some intrest in the temples, you would in fact need to give your followers howm see you as a guilder some less attention. and therefore not gain the full Rp from thows holdings. Thows followers can be the same, but dont trust you for both there guild maters and temple maters.

now It depends upon the system your DM is using whether you can gain full acsess to more then one type of Rp. then by maxsimising your skilles on thows area. but thet sould render you even less able to handle any normal adventure maters as PC DD characters usualy do.

[Trithemius]

irdeggman:

> It sounds like the Lt in question was really a vassel and not a Lt. A

> Lt. can`t (and couldn`t in 2nd ed) collect RP on his own. If the Lt. had

> his own set of domain actions (something I infered by your description

> of his role) then he must technically be a vassel otherwise he would

> have had a single domain action per turn that he could perform - an

> ineffective way of executing law holdings, IMO.



Fair enough; apologies for my sloppy terminology. The fellow controlled his own

holdings which automatically (I believe) makes him a vassal by 2e terms.



Perhaps we should, after reading Kenneth`s post on the matter, call 2e

lieutenants "vassals" and 2e vassals "vassal-regents"? I always assumed that

lieutenants had sworn oaths to their ruler (were vassals) even if they were not

land-holding (or holding-holding!).



> A wizard realm regent having a vassel in charge of `his` law holdings

> makes a lot of sense gamewise by the way. The vassel has a lot of

> incentive to keep up his end of the bargain and not try to `take over`

> since the wizard could always play havoc on him via realm spells.



I thought so to. However, ultimately, the people of the realm came to identify

with the law-ruler, not the official ruler (the wizard pc). There were some

troubles with "greatness" being thrust upon the law-ruler (unsought "Great

Captain" events) which led to tensions between the PC wizard and the NPC

governer. It was a great pity that the governer was not a PC also.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Trithemius@Feb 1 2004, 09:50 PM
Fair enough; apologies for my sloppy terminology. The fellow controlled his own

holdings which automatically (I believe) makes him a vassal by 2e terms.



Perhaps we should, after reading Kenneth`s post on the matter, call 2e

lieutenants "vassals" and 2e vassals "vassal-regents"? I always assumed that

lieutenants had sworn oaths to their ruler (were vassals) even if they were not

land-holding (or holding-holding&#33;).

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.


Actually Lt (in 2nd ed and in 3/3.5) have the same basic relationship with their leige. They do, usually swear some sort of allegience and support. This does require a domain action on the part of the regent (usually I&#39;ve interpreted this action as more floating and constituting more along the lines of interviewing and trying to establish the desired relationship inorder to designate the character a Lt. The action was generally pre-spent with the actual designation (or finding of a suitabel candidate) accuring a later time).

An oath of vasselage requires both participants to spend a domain action since both are regents.

To better get a handle on what a Lt is - in 2nd ed terms think of a supercharged henchmen. In 3rd ed think of a highly trusted cohort.

So bottom line is don&#39;t refer to 2nd ed Lt as vassels, you will just make the distinction even more confusing - there were both Lt and vassels in 2nd ed too.


Here are some simplified definitions that may help:

A vassel must be a regent of some type (landed or non-landed).

A Lt is not a regent, but can be a scion.

Both have arrangements with their liege.

Both arrangements can be broken by either party.

If a scion controls holdings or provinces he is a regent (non-landed if he doesn&#39;t control provinces).

Just noticed that these terms wern&#39;t included in the glossary of the BRCS, we will have to &#39;fix&#39; that during the revision.

[camelotcrusade]

Good idea, irdeggman.

So then I understand this, then if Lt. gets a holding (maybe he creates one using a create holding actin, which is possible) AND if he is a scion... then is he STILL a Lt., or does he become a vassal? Or would it make sense to say that until there is some sort of vassalage ceremony, he&#39;s still a Lt.? Or does he actually create holdings for the REGENT and not for HIMSELF, so therefore no change in his status occurs?

This is an interesting thread for me, so thanks to everyone for their replies.

Oh, I must have missed it, but does it explicitly say anywhere in the BRCS 3e that Lietenants get a free action? I&#39;m using this rule from 2nd edition anyway... but I was wondering about that. It might also help if it was specificied what actions they can and cannot take... we ruled almost anything is fair game except declaring war, investiture, swearing in other lieutenants and vassals, etc.

[Birthright-L]

> Regency is a mechanism for political capital. Politics is a game of

> multual

> obligation: I do this for you, you do that for me. As a ruler governs he

> has opportunities to help people out, to create personal loyalty among key

> officials, to get a suplus of favors owed to him. As the ruler spends

> regency the process works in reverse. People do favors for the ruler,

> take

> risks for his benefit, and develop the feeling that they have done enough.

> A ruler with a small pool of political capital can ask for small favors

> from

> many, or large favors from a few. Beyond that people will make excuses,

> and

> will be unwilling to do much for you. people with a large pool of

> political

> capital can go for a longer period of time asking favors as well as ask

> for

> larger favors.

>



I`d like to disagree with this understating of regency if I may. What you described is common for rulers of all countries in any age. What makes regency unique in Birthright is that it is available only to the Blooded. Any ruler can influence people, gain their loyalty to use it later, etc, but only the Blooded rulers have this divine bond with their land and their subjects that let`s them ask for some additional favors.

[kgauck]

Regarding my contention that Regency represents political capital:



----- Original Message -----

From: "Milos Rasic" <mrasic@YUMETAL.NET>

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 4:28 PM





> What you described is common for rulers of all countries in any age.

> What makes regency unique in Birthright is that it is available only to

> the Blooded. Any ruler can influence people, gain their loyalty to use

> it later, etc, but only the Blooded rulers have this divine bond with

their

> land and their subjects that let`s them ask for some additional favors.



Arguing from a 14th century perspective, I say that it is simply not true

that anyone can rule. All rulers in all countries in any age have used

regency to govern. No one can govern without the mandate of heaven.

Different cultures and eras give it a different name, and describe it in

different terms, but it amounts to the same thing, the sacred bond between

the ruler and the people. The Egyptians knew it, the Chinese knew it, the

Romans knew it, the Hebrews knew it, the English knew it, the Mayans knew

it, and so on and so on and so on.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Birthright-L]

> Arguing from a 14th century perspective, I say that it is simply not true

> that anyone can rule. All rulers in all countries in any age have used

> regency to govern. No one can govern without the mandate of heaven.

> Different cultures and eras give it a different name, and describe it in

> different terms, but it amounts to the same thing, the sacred bond between

> the ruler and the people. The Egyptians knew it, the Chinese knew it, the

> Romans knew it, the Hebrews knew it, the English knew it, the Mayans knew

> it, and so on and so on and so on.



Yes, but in Birthright we assume that it is true. There may be some people who don`t believe that rulers actually have Divine Blood or that the Old Gods ever existed at all, but as all-knowing DMs we usually assume that the Battle of Mount Deismaar did happen as the official products say it happened. Of course, you may run an altered campaign in which Bloodlines are mere superstition, but I`m talking about the canon here.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Milos Rasic" <mrasic@YUMETAL.NET>

Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 6:23 PM



> Yes, but in Birthright we assume that it is true.



They assumed it was true then, so I assume its true in my game, as they

understood it. People used to line up to be touched by the kings of France

and England because it was believed that they could cure scrofula by touch.

(see the bottom paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laying_on_of_hands ).

That sounds like a blood power to me.



> Of course, you may run an altered campaign in which Bloodlines are

> mere superstition, but I`m talking about the canon here.



You don`t get it. I assume that what medievals belived is true. I play

with what Ars Magica calls the Medieval Paradigm.

* The premise of the medieval paradigm is that the world

* is the way medieval folk perceived it; their fears, dreams,

* beliefs and legends are manifest. This means the stories and

* myths of that time are true within the game setting. Faeries

* live in the fields and forests. Demons tempt the weak-hearted.

* Magi cast potent spells. Kings derive their right to rule

* from God.

(p 212 of the 4th ed)



The Birthright materials are based on very clear historical analogs. The

Rjurik are Norse. The Brecht are Germans. There is a Celtic overlay to the

whole campaign world. Some things are mixed up a bit, there is some

invention. There is nothing particularly new here, its old familiar ideas

given a different presentation than other settings. The emphasis is

different. Some things are given more development. But Cerilia is not a

world fundamentally different from the world we can find in the literature

or in the cultural history of Europe. So the ideas that I surround things

like politics with are the ideas of the medievals themselves. Not a modern

analysis of the medievals, the medievals own take on their own world.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Birthright-L]

> > > Yes, but in Birthright we assume that it is true.

> >

> > They assumed it was true then, so I assume its true in my game, as they

> > understood it. People used to line up to be touched by the kings of

> > France

> > and England because it was believed that they could cure scrofula by

> > touch.

> > (see the bottom paragraph

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laying_on_of_hands

> > ).

> > That sounds like a blood power to me.



You have every right to assume that in your game.







> >

> > > Of course, you may run an altered campaign in which Bloodlines are

> > > mere superstition, but I`m talking about the canon here.

> >

> > You don`t get it. I assume that what medievals belived is true. I play

> > with what Ars Magica calls the Medieval Paradigm.

> > * The premise of the medieval paradigm is that the world

> > * is the way medieval folk perceived it; their fears, dreams,

> > * beliefs and legends are manifest. This means the stories and

> > * myths of that time are true within the game setting. Faeries

> > * live in the fields and forests. Demons tempt the weak-hearted.

> > * Magi cast potent spells. Kings derive their right to rule

> > * from God.

> > (p 212 of the 4th ed)







As I said, not a problem, that`s your setting.







> >

> > The Birthright materials are based on very clear historical analogs.

> The

> > Rjurik are Norse.







Not that clear I`d say. Rjurik have a lot of Celtic traits.







> > The Brecht are Germans.







Yet less militaristic and more commercial like Italians, wouldn`t you say?







> There is a Celtic overlay to

> > the

> > whole campaign world.







There are Celtic traits among Rjurik and their language was used as base

for Sidhelien, but I don`t see more than that.







> Some things are mixed up a bit, there is some

> > invention.







Well, a lot is mixed up. The Khinasi are probably the only "pure" nation

if we consider analogy with real world nations. The Vos, the strangest

mix, are mix of Mongols and Slavs.







> > There is nothing particularly new here, its old familiar ideas

> > given a different presentation than other settings. The emphasis is

> > different. Some things are given more development. But Cerilia is not

> a

> > world fundamentally different from the world we can find in the

> literature

> > or in the cultural history of Europe. So the ideas that I surround

> things

> > like politics with are the ideas of the medievals themselves. Not a

> > modern

> > analysis of the medievals, the medievals own take on their own world.

> >



I`m not trying to copy the real world into everything. Yes, we can

use what we know about our late medieval world and apply a lot of it in

Birthright, but we don`t have to make an exact copy. For example, Haelyn`s

churches don`t have to be exactly the same as Catholic church, although I

guess that they would have similar buildings and clerical hierarchy.

Cerilia is based on a part of real world, yes, but it doesn`t have to be a

copy, and I don`t want "it didn`t work that way in middle ages" to be an

argument against my actions in some game.

[geeman]

At 11:49 PM 2/2/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> > Of course, you may run an altered campaign in which Bloodlines are

> > mere superstition, but I`m talking about the canon here.

>

>You don`t get it. I assume that what medievals belived is true.



What medievals believed had fundamental aspects to it which were very

different from BR`s system of bloodline. It matches up in some of the most

general aspects of divinity, but in its specifics BR`s system of rulership

and bloodline is quite different. There is, of course, no event that

created real the world right to rule among medieval people`s rulers (though

some might claim ancestry back as far as Egyptian pharaohs.) There is no

"derivation" to the medieval concept of divine right to rule, except

perhaps in the good/evil--God/Devil sense. There is no bloodline strength

rating. The powers of blood ability are quite different. Most importantly

to the issue of regency in particular, however, is that the capacity to

gain the energies of the people through holdings, provinces, etc. is not a

medievalist mindset. Divine rulers ruled by mandate of heaven, where BR`s

system assumes that it is the people who provide the energies that they

manipulate. A medieval mindset barely considers the power of the masses

belief at all. Such a thing is distinctly post-medieval, and I would argue

that it really does not even fit very well into Renaissance thought very

well. It`s more the product of 20th century fantasy fiction

reinterpretation, a version of what a literary critic might call the

magical realism of monarchy, not a real world historical

recreation. Mixing the two concepts makes for a fun campaign world, but

it`s a mistake to associate them too closely.



In fact, regency isn`t really a requirement at all to describe a system of

medievalist thinking like you describe. A system without the concept is

just as viable, and probably more accurately describes the kinds of

medievalist thinking you espouse.



Gary

[geeman]

At 03:25 PM 2/3/2004 +0100, Milos wrote:



> > The Brecht are Germans.

>

>Yet less militaristic and more commercial like Italians, wouldn`t you say?



Personally, I think the Brecht are more Dutch than anything else. There

is, of course, a fusion thing going on with regards to the BR cultures, but

the vibe I get isn`t really German or Italian--neither of whom really had

the kind of sea power-based mercantile system as did the Dutch.



> > > There is a Celtic overlay to the whole campaign world.

>

> There are Celtic traits among Rjurik and their language was used as base

> for Sidhelien, but I don`t see more than that.



In particular, I don`t get a very Celtic vibe out of the Vos, Brecht or

Khinasi. One could argue, however, that the existence of the Shadow World

is in many ways of Celtic origin--or that it is more of a nod towards the

Celtic mythology than to any other mythos that has a similar thing going

on--and that since the SW permeates the whole planet the whole campaign as

a Celtic theme. It`s a bit of a tenuous argument, but there it is.



> Well, a lot is mixed up. The Khinasi are probably the only "pure" nation

> if we consider analogy with real world nations. The Vos, the strangest

> mix, are mix of Mongols and Slavs.



Personally, I find the Khinasi a rather strange (and fun) mix of African

through Persian cultures with a bit of Asian philosophy thrown in. I find

Anuire to be the most "pure" culture in that it is English/French and in

real world history those two mixed themselves pretty well in a series of

mutual invasions at about the same time that the BR setting is analogous

to. The Mongol/Slav mix of the Vos (kind of need to throw the Rus in there

too for the sake of generality) is slightly more vague, but has a similar

thing going on in that there was the occasional horde running around to

suit the mix.



> I`m not trying to copy the real world into everything. Yes, we can

> use what we know about our late medieval world and apply a lot of it in

> Birthright, but we don`t have to make an exact copy. For example, Haelyn`s

> churches don`t have to be exactly the same as Catholic church, although I

> guess that they would have similar buildings and clerical hierarchy.

> Cerilia is based on a part of real world, yes, but it doesn`t have to be a

> copy, and I don`t want "it didn`t work that way in middle ages" to be an

> argument against my actions in some game.



Personally, I would stay away from any comparisons of the temple structure

of BR to the Church. Not for fear of offending anyone (though I`m sure

that`ll happen sooner or later) but because I just don`t see them as very

well connected other than, perhaps, in the loosest "we are the secular

application of a non-secular organization" kind of way. There are too many

fundamental differences between the real world Church in its history,

demographic, core beliefs, conflicts with rulers, etc. than is very well

presented by the BR system of temples and polytheism.



Having noted that, I absolutely agree with the sentiment regarding the

application of history to the campaign`s themes. IMO history can provide

an interesting take on things, but I don`t think it`s the closest

connection to the themes of the setting. There are at least two degrees of

separation between history and BR; the legends and myths of the period, and

several centuries of fantasy fiction. BR (and D&D) is based more on the

fantasy fiction, which is in turn only loosely based on the mythology of

history. Historical paradigms can be interesting--to be fair they can be

quite useful--in that we get a view of the context of that mythology and,

therefore, the root of the fantastic fiction, but usually there are more

direct methods of getting at BR themes. _Highlander_ is more of an

influence on BR`s system of bloodline than medieval thought on the divine

right to rule.



Gary

[ConjurerDragon]

Gary schrieb:



> At 03:25 PM 2/3/2004 +0100, Milos wrote:

>

>> > The Brecht are Germans.

>> Yet less militaristic and more commercial like Italians, wouldn`t you

>> say?

>

Less militaristic than the Italian Roman Empire?

Or more commercial than the Fuggers or Welser familys? Or the Hanse? ;-)



> Personally, I think the Brecht are more Dutch than anything else. There

> is, of course, a fusion thing going on with regards to the BR

> cultures, but

> the vibe I get isn`t really German or Italian--neither of whom really had

> the kind of sea power-based mercantile system as did the Dutch.



Venice had a few ships. Without italian ships Lepanto would have looked

different.



> Well, a lot is mixed up. The Khinasi are probably the only "pure" nation

> Personally, I find the Khinasi a rather strange (and fun) mix of African

> through Persian cultures with a bit of Asian philosophy thrown in. I

> find

> Anuire to be the most "pure" culture in that it is English/French and in

> real world history those two mixed themselves pretty well in a series of

> mutual invasions at about the same time that the BR setting is analogous

> to. The Mongol/Slav mix of the Vos (kind of need to throw the Rus in

> there

> too for the sake of generality) is slightly more vague, but has a similar

> thing going on in that there was the occasional horde running around to

> suit the mix.



The Rus? If you mean russians are they not slavs?

bye

Michael

[kgauck]

The changes Gary identifies only intensify trends, they don`t change

attitudes. The magical reverence for the elite strata may be more tangible,

it may provoke less resistance, at may be more deeply embeded in Cerilian

society, but these are changes in degree, not in kind.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

At 10:31 PM 2/3/2004 +0100, Michael Romes wrote:



>>Personally, I think the Brecht are more Dutch than anything else. There

>>is, of course, a fusion thing going on with regards to the BR cultures, but

>>the vibe I get isn`t really German or Italian--neither of whom really had

>>the kind of sea power-based mercantile system as did the Dutch.

>

>Venice had a few ships. Without italian ships Lepanto would have looked

>different.



That`s a good point, but from a cultural standpoint, I still don`t get a

real Latin feel from the Brecht. Were there some examples other than trade

you had in mind? The artwork in the BR materials for the Brecht, for

instance, might be more reminiscent of Italian Renaissance costume....



>>The Mongol/Slav mix of the Vos (kind of need to throw the Rus in there

>>too for the sake of generality) is slightly more vague, but has a similar

>>thing going on in that there was the occasional horde running around to

>>suit the mix.

>

>The Rus? If you mean russians are they not slavs?



I don`t mean that so much as that I think Rus is a bit more general than

Slav. "Slav" nowadays probably has more of a southeastern European

connotation, while tossing in the Rus extends the concept a bit. Just me

maybe.



Gary

[geeman]

At 05:14 PM 2/3/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>The changes Gary identifies only intensify trends, they don`t change

>attitudes. The magical reverence for the elite strata may be more tangible,

>it may provoke less resistance, at may be more deeply embeded in Cerilian

>society, but these are changes in degree, not in kind.



Sure they are. They are fundamentally different. Where real world

medievals believe their leaders are divinely mandated that mean their

authority and power comes from God alone. In BR, the power facility to

rule (bloodline) comes from divinity, but the actual power to rule

(regency) comes from the people. That`s a vital difference, and very

different in its basis than any medieval concept. Furthermore the nature

of BR divine rule is that it can be transferred, both in the transfer of

bloodline and the exchange of regency. One could hardly make the same

argument of a real life medieval concept of divine right to rulership.



Gary

[Trithemius]

Milos Rasic:

> Yet less militaristic and more commercial like Italians, wouldn`t you

> say?



If the Brecht are not the Hanse, I`ll eat my hat.



> There are Celtic traits among Rjurik and their language was used as

> base for Sidhelien, but I don`t see more than that.



The sidhelien gave the Anuireans their written language, I am willing to credit

a fair bit of pseudo-Celtic impregnation of the cultures by way of the

Sidhelien contact.



> Well, a lot is mixed up. The Khinasi are probably the only "pure"

> nation if we consider analogy with real world nations.



And which nation is that? The Persians? The Arabians? The Egyptians? Or the

Phoenecians? The Basarji (Khinasi is an abbreviated place-name dammit! :)) are

the fusion of the culture from the Dragon Isles and the Masetians. This

provides the modern Basarji culture in Khinasi with its complicated mix.



> The Vos, the strangest mix, are mix of Mongols and Slavs.



The Vos confuse the hell out of me, I`ll freely admit that!



> I`m not trying to copy the real world into everything. Yes, we can

> use what we know about our late medieval world and apply a lot of it

> in Birthright, but we don`t have to make an exact copy. For example,

> Haelyn`s churches don`t have to be exactly the same as Catholic church,

> although I guess that they would have similar buildings and clerical

> hierarchy.



Some of the Haelynic churches might be episcopal in structure, I expect some of

them might be rather presbyterian though.



> Cerilia is based on a part of real world, yes, but it doesn`t have to

> be a copy, and I don`t want "it didn`t work that way in middle ages" to be

> an argument against my actions in some game.



Some of BR is clearly inspired by our history. I think it is silly to ignore

that.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 5:59 PM



> Where real world medievals believe their leaders are divinely

> mandated that mean their authority and power comes from God

> alone. In BR, the power facility to rule (bloodline) comes from

> divinity, but the actual power to rule (regency) comes from the people.



Perhaps you missed my first post in this thread? Its posted on Jan 31, 1:57

pm.



> That`s a vital difference, and very different in its basis than any

> medieval concept.



Which is why popular assemblies from the Estates General, the English

Parliament, the Anglo-Saxon Wittan, the Norse Athing, the Italian commune,

the German Diet, and so many others were so important? Check. This is why

the elective nature of monarchy was so fundamental? English, French, and

German monarchs were often elected, and when a presumptive heir had

herititary claims, the motions of electivity were applied, such the

presentation to the court, the royal oath (which in England was a guarantee

of limits).



Listen, you can make a case that there are differences, but no one is making

that an issue but you. You seem to lack the imagination to understand that

I can selectivly take ideas from history (and I have plainaly stated on

numerous occasions I don`t limit myself to medieval history) and build a BR

setting totally within the descriptions of the texts, entirely without

inventing a new concept. Remeber, I am only trying to mine ideas from human

history to serve the BR game in order to fill in concepts that game has not

filled in. Judging by the ideas the game has already presented, their

source is simply the human past as well. There is nothing new in BR.



What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is

nothing new under the sun.



> Furthermore the nature of BR divine rule is that it can be transferred,

> both in the transfer of bloodline and the exchange of regency. One

> could hardly make the same argument of a real life medieval concept

> of divine right to rulership.



This is an absurd statement. Certain you write this just to troll around

here. Fiefs were never transfered by marriage, purchase, vassalage,

inheritance, peace settlement, donation to religious orders, escheatment,

will, charter (usually to cities, but also monastaries), forfiture,

wardship, or transfer for service? Titles never moved from one person to

another by the same list as I presented for fiefs? The people of the new

fief, county, duchy, kingdom, &c never accepted the new ruler because this

was untransferable? The Roman concept of adoption has no parallel to

transfer of bloodline or right to excercise the rights of the paterfamilias?

Upon what principle exactly did Henry VII claim to be a Lancastrian?

Regarding regency, as it is political capital, it is transfered whenever a

king wins the cooperation of his vassals, or a noble wins the support of his

liege.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Trithemius]

Gary:

> I don`t mean that so much as that I think Rus is a bit more general

> than Slav. "Slav" nowadays probably has more of a southeastern European

> connotation, while tossing in the Rus extends the concept a bit. Just

> me maybe.



Rus says "Princes of Novgorod and Muscovy" to me.

Perhaps I am just being down on the Vos, but I don`t see them as that

organised (although that fellow in the Zhainge River Valley might almost

qualify...).



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[geeman]

At 11:22 AM 2/2/2004 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



> Here are some simplified definitions that may help:

>

> A vassel must be a regent of some type (landed or non-landed).



In the past I`ve found it useful to distinguish between a Vassal (cap V)

and a vassal (lc v) in that a vassal is anyone who has sworn fealty to a

liege, while a Vassal is someone who not only is a regent in his/er own

right, but whose fealty to their Liege (cap L) automatically transfers RP

or GB. Personally, I like the idea that the V/vassal issue is simply a

difference in scale, but we have no rules for what a swearing vassalage

does other than adventure level role-playing, really. (Green Ronin,

however, has put out some interesting stuff.) Most often a LT is a vassal

in the sense that he has some sworn sort of oath or has terms of service

with his liege, and his liege has performed some sort of domain level

action to establish that character`s role at the domain level, enabling him

to perform LT actions.



I`ve used several definitions for the role of characters in the domain

system, including Vassals, Lieutenants, advisors, vassals, cohorts or

followers, retainers, staff, subjects and clients. For the most part these

differences really come into play when DMing NPCs in that one can use their

status as a basis for how they will respond to a regent PC. That is, a LT

will fight for his liege, an advisor probably not, the staff of a holding

will likely obey all commands of a regent having to do with their duties,

while a mercenary may have his own agenda. It`s not a hard and fast rule

or anything, but it does provide a starting point for defining a NPC`s

attitude.



Vassals are regents who have a Vassalage agreement that automatically

transfers RP or GB to their Liege.

Lieutenants are agents of a regent who can operate at the domain action

and perform LT actions.

A vassal is a character who has sworn fealty to a regent (and cannot

perform domain level actions.)

Advisors are characters whose skills and efforts can aid a regent or LT

in performing domain level actions. (They provide a +2 bonus on checks.)

Cohorts and followers are characters who act at the adventure level of

play and are gained through the Leadership feat (or a Reputation system.)

Staff are characters who have been hired to perform duties within a

regent`s domain structure. The people who work within a province`s

bureaucracy, the reeves of a law holding, clerks of a guild or priests of a

temple are retainers.

Soldiers are hired warriors mustered from provinces in the regent`s

domain. They are loyal to the regent and to their homes.

Mercenaries are soldiers hired from outside the domain (including spies.)

Subjects are characters who live in a landed regent`s province over whom

he has influence.

Clients are characters under the influence a non-landed regents holdings.



> A Lt is not a regent, but can be a scion.



I`ll have to go through the BR materials to find them, but IIRC there are a

couple of occasions where the relationship between regents appears to be

that of a Regent/LT. It appears that originally a character could be both

a Vassal and a LT to the same Liege.



As a general rule of thumb I think I don`t think it is necessary to

actually write up guidelines for this kind of thing. If one leaves it open

ended then DMs and players can decide for themselves how they want to

portray the relationship between characters. A particularly controlling

regent might want his Vassals to also be his LTs or he might make his LTs

his Vassals by giving over a few holdings or provinces to them, while other

regents might take a more hands-off approach.



> Just noticed that these terms wern`t included in the glossary of the

> BRCS, we will have to `fix` that during the revision.



Sound good. Were the aforementioned definitions the ones that will go in

the glossary?



Gary

[Birthright-L]

>

> > Well, a lot is mixed up. The Khinasi are probably the only "pure"

> > nation if we consider analogy with real world nations.

>

> And which nation is that? The Persians? The Arabians? The Egyptians? Or

> the

> Phoenecians? The Basarji (Khinasi is an abbreviated place-name dammit! :))

> are

> the fusion of the culture from the Dragon Isles and the Masetians. This

> provides the modern Basarji culture in Khinasi with its complicated mix.



Arabs, who have, too, been influenced by Persians, Phoenicians, Egyptians and other less famous nations too numerous to list here. Masetians represent those ancient nations, mostly Egyptians, probably because they are best known.



>

> > The Vos, the strangest mix, are mix of Mongols and Slavs.

>

> The Vos confuse the hell out of me, I`ll freely admit that!



Slavic language and constitution with Mongol clothes, hair color and warfare. Religion could be called unique, although probably a little influenced by Christians writings about evil pagans.



>

> > I`m not trying to copy the real world into everything. Yes, we can

> > use what we know about our late medieval world and apply a lot of it

> > in Birthright, but we don`t have to make an exact copy. For example,

> > Haelyn`s churches don`t have to be exactly the same as Catholic church,

> > although I guess that they would have similar buildings and clerical

> > hierarchy.

>

> Some of the Haelynic churches might be episcopal in structure, I expect

> some of

> them might be rather presbyterian though.



I have no idea what these two things mean although I know that "episkop" is a title equivalent to bishop in Orthodox churches.



>

> > Cerilia is based on a part of real world, yes, but it doesn`t have to

> > be a copy, and I don`t want "it didn`t work that way in middle ages" to

> be

> > an argument against my actions in some game.

>

> Some of BR is clearly inspired by our history. I think it is silly to

> ignore

> that.

>



As much as it is silly to assume that everything should be the same. If you want to play a historical game, than do it.

[geeman]

At 12:16 AM 2/4/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



> > Where real world medievals believe their leaders are divinely

> > mandated that mean their authority and power comes from God

> > alone. In BR, the power facility to rule (bloodline) comes from

> > divinity, but the actual power to rule (regency) comes from the people.

>

>Perhaps you missed my first post in this thread? Its posted on Jan 31, 1:57

>pm.



I read it. I don`t see how it`s much related to the statements above

except in very abstract terms.... Care to describe how it relates? Here

it is again:



>Regency is a mechanism for political capital. Politics is a game of multual

>obligation: I do this for you, you do that for me. As a ruler governs he

>has opportunities to help people out, to create personal loyalty among key

>officials, to get a suplus of favors owed to him. As the ruler spends

>regency the process works in reverse. People do favors for the ruler, take

>risks for his benefit, and develop the feeling that they have done enough.

>A ruler with a small pool of political capital can ask for small favors from

>many, or large favors from a few. Beyond that people will make excuses, and

>will be unwilling to do much for you. people with a large pool of political

>capital can go for a longer period of time asking favors as well as ask for

>larger favors.



How is that related to the issue of BR`s political power (regency) coming

from the people rather than from a mandate from heaven as was the medieval

standard?



> > That`s a vital difference, and very different in its basis than any

> > medieval concept.

>

>Which is why popular assemblies from the Estates General, the English

>Parliament, the Anglo-Saxon Wittan, the Norse Athing, the Italian commune,

>the German Diet, and so many others were so important? Check. This is why

>the elective nature of monarchy was so fundamental? English, French, and

>German monarchs were often elected, and when a presumptive heir had

>herititary claims, the motions of electivity were applied, such the

>presentation to the court, the royal oath (which in England was a guarantee

>of limits).



There seems to be a confusion of two different things here: the domain

structure and regency. Going from the existence of an early bureaucracy or

feudal relationship to something like the BR system of regency is quite a

leap... and, I`m afraid, it`s not to the point because the things described

aren`t very well connected to the concept of regency in BR since they might

more easily be defined as part of the whole province (or law holding)

structure rather than the fuel that provides regency (the people actually

being ruled.) All one needs to describe any of the things listed above is

a domain structure. Regency is an entirely different proposition.



Also the nominal "election" of many medieval monarchs would hardly apply to

the concepts being presented here in that they were very far from what

would be represented by regency. An "election" by peers does not equate

very well to the concept of gaining political power through the

masses. Aside from the elections described above being a oligarchical they

are still better reflected by a system of holdings, not the system of regency.



The reality of the matter is that in the politically and theologically

orthodox world of the medieval period people were burned at the stake or

drawn and quartered for far less controversial suggestions than that rulers

derived their political power from what BR calls the "kismet" of the

people. Such a thing would have been considered heretical or treasonous,

and does not have the kind of role in the medieval mind that has been

suggested. It`s alien the medieval mind, the product of several centuries

of fantasy fiction culminating in later 20th century pop fantasy. That`s

all well and good, but to describe it as actually having a medieval basis

is fallacious and, frankly, not a very good portrayal of either the use of

historical analogy for the game or a very clear interpretation of regency.



>Listen, you can make a case that there are differences, but no one is making

>that an issue but you. You seem to lack the imagination to understand that

>I can selectivly take ideas from history (and I have plainaly stated on

>numerous occasions I don`t limit myself to medieval history) and build a BR

>setting totally within the descriptions of the texts, entirely without

>inventing a new concept.



Would that it were so difficult a thing to imagine....



>Remeber, I am only trying to mine ideas from human

>history to serve the BR game in order to fill in concepts that game has not

>filled in. Judging by the ideas the game has already presented, their

>source is simply the human past as well. There is nothing new in BR.

>

>What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is

>nothing new under the sun.



Well, I`ve argued that the source of the BR materials is not, in fact,

simply the human past. It is really fantasy fiction, which is in some

cases connected to history, but in others not. Regency is one of those

things that is not.



> > Furthermore the nature of BR divine rule is that it can be transferred,

> > both in the transfer of bloodline and the exchange of regency. One

> > could hardly make the same argument of a real life medieval concept

> > of divine right to rulership.

>

>This is an absurd statement. Certain you write this just to troll around

>here. Fiefs were never transfered by marriage, purchase, vassalage,

>inheritance, peace settlement, donation to religious orders, escheatment,

>will, charter (usually to cities, but also monastaries), forfiture,

>wardship, or transfer for service? Titles never moved from one person to

>another by the same list as I presented for fiefs? The people of the new

>fief, county, duchy, kingdom, &c never accepted the new ruler because this

>was untransferable? The Roman concept of adoption has no parallel to

>transfer of bloodline or right to excercise the rights of the paterfamilias?

>Upon what principle exactly did Henry VII claim to be a Lancastrian?

>Regarding regency, as it is political capital, it is transfered whenever a

>king wins the cooperation of his vassals, or a noble wins the support of his

>liege.



Wow, lots of stuff in that paragraph. Let`s see if I can address them in

some sort of order....



OK, in the above paragraph we`ve got "marriage, purchase, vassalage,

inheritance, peace settlement, donation to religious orders, escheatment,

will, charter (usually to cities, but also monastaries), forfiture,

wardship, or transfer for service," the transfer of titles and domains,

Roman paterfamilias, Henry 7, and the mutual support of nobles and lieges.



None of those things are very well represented by regency, nor (I`ll argue

below) bloodline. There are much more direct BR analogies for each of

them. For most, it seems to me to be a basic confusion of bloodline (the

divine right to rule) with regency (the power gained/manipulate through

rule.) Vassalage, of course, does have a regency transfer involved in BR,

but again the nature of regency is not defined by vassalage in

BR. Vassalage would exist in a system without regency. Other than peace

settlement--which I`m not sure has to do with anything at all here--most of

the above examples are handled by simple domain or money/asset

transfers. Regency and bloodline don`t even factor into them.



When it comes to the Roman concept of adoption, however, that is a very

interesting point. In general, I again think this is the real world

version of bloodline not regency being defined here, so I still think we`re

talking about the bloodline/regency distinction that seems to have been so

confused here, but I would be more inclined to think the transfer of the

imperial power of a "Caeser" might be closer to the BR equivalent of

regency in certain respects. I don`t know what it was that the Roman

empire had, but in the absence of a much larger domain system (a continent

spanning "empire level" of play) I`m content to call it regency, so I`ll

bow to that one as the exception that proves the rule. If one were

describing the more common, local versions of that Roman legal system,

however, then no I don`t find a lot of regency in it. It can still (and

probably should) be better exemplified with estate/domain and asset transfers.



In regards to the transfer of bloodline, I don`t think any of the above is

a good reflection of a real world analogy because what`s being transferred

is not something embodied in a person (which bloodline is) but the airs and

distinctions of an office. It`s the difference between controlling a

regent`s domain and having his bloodline. What one gains by marrying up,

inheriting a title, etc. are position, not bloodline. Bloodline exists

whether the character has those things or not. Bloodline is something

extraneous to the real world things described above. Furthermore, titles,

estates, inheritance, gifts to monasteries, etc. can all exist in BR

without a bloodline or regency, so why read bloodline or regency into them

when they don`t even exist as such in the setting?



It`s a mistake IMO to go further in defining regency or bloodline any

further than they do in the BR materials. Finding real life or fantasy

fiction inspiration for BR themes works and is a good way to enhance play,

but to do the reverse--to take BR themes and applying them to real life--is

a very shaky proposition. When it comes to Henry 7, for instance, I think

that he could work quite well as an argument that things like bloodline and

regency are not transferable in the real world.



Gary

[kgauck]

Gary must be supremely confident that his reading of Br is ironclad, well

supported by the text, and that it is in fact orthodox. Some other reading,

just as authentically obtained, is simply to be contradicted if it does not

suit him. And what readonable person would go around contradicting someone

else`s reading if they were not so confident that they, and only they, had a

monopoly on how BR should be played.



How cavalierly he declares another interpretation is not really what regency

ot bloodline represents. He addresses an intentionally eclectic mining of

historical ideas and concepts by tying to insist that a single idea must

conform to the contextual whole from which it was drawn. He thus demands

not only commitment to his own othrodoxy, but bows before the orthodoxy of

other eras and places.



Indeed such a narrow, unimaginative, and crimped reading surely must qualify

Gary to succeed Lavalan Briesen in the Orthodox Imperial Temple.



Nevertheless, I cannot see the point in a continuing and ongoing exchange in

which one person, such as myself, attempts to understand the other person on

their own merits and then to discuss those merits from his own point of

view, and another person simply imposes upon ideas their own rigorous test

of orthodoxy, declaring ideas not in humble conformance to be heretical.

Since the purpose of my writing is not to submit it to someone else`s

approval, I see no point in writing when that is the only apparent standard

being applied. As always I am more than happy to engage in a fruitful

discussion, wherein disagreement might occur, but the emphasis is on

understanding and appreciating, not in applying a test of one`s own

orthodoxy.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[irdeggman]

Ouch. :o

I haven&#39;t &#39;pissed&#39; you off lately have I Kenneth?

[Birthright-L]

> Nevertheless, I cannot see the point in a continuing and ongoing

> exchange in

> which one person, such as myself, attempts to understand the other

> person on

> their own merits and then to discuss those merits from his own point of

> view, and another person simply imposes upon ideas their own rigorous

> test

> of orthodoxy, declaring ideas not in humble conformance to be

> heretical.



That`s fine. You don`t have to. You are both very enaging and

passionate about your topics of interest and while it`s often

interesting to read the posts when you guys go into it, you`re not the

first one to be turned off by the conversation. Both of your opinions

on Cerelian history, real world historical models, and methods of

rhetoric are legend around here. Your objection to Gary`s posts lie far

beyond this current thread and if you don`t want to through with it

anymore... It`s okay. Believe me, we understand. Many of us stopped

following the conversation awhile ago. But that doesn`t mean we want to

read a three page troll about how insulting you can be to an active

member of our community or how your insult should be the final

difinitive post on the thread and its pointless to say anything beyond

the fact that you feel Gary`s a jerk. Keep it to yourself, okay? Or at

least make your insults short and witty so as to entertain the rest of

us....



You know for a fact that Gary is the Moderator of our list. He`s gonna

post something about not trolling people. He has to. It`s his job; we

elected him to do it. And you know it`ll make him look petty. Why do

that? Because this goes to the forum, I`m sure Irdegmon will post a

link to his "we should all be friends" post again just to try to keep

things civil.



This was largely unnecessary. And I`m not saying it because I have to.



Damn. I`ll probably get reprimanded too, now...





--Lord Rahvin

[geeman]

At 09:57 AM 2/4/2004 -0800, Lord Rahvin wrote:



>This was largely unnecessary. And I`m not saying it because I have to.



No, no. Nothing like that. Since its been brought up, however, here are

some guidelines that I wrote a while back that seem particularly apt to

describe this situation:



Recently there`s been a couple posts pretty much dedicated to hating

Gary. Now, as Gary, that`s pretty much OK by me. In the past plenty of

people have hated Gary, and in the future I`m sure many more will join

their ranks. Eventually, I imagine it`ll be a kind of club--like the Elks`

Lodge or the Shriners--with it`s own set of bylaws, membership dues, secret

handshake, etc. There will not, sadly, be any female members. (They

already have their own club for hating Gary and new membership is strictly

monitored.) The club could even have its own theme song... lots of things

rhyme with "Gary."



Anyway, as moderator of Birthright-l, I would like to offer up a few

guidelines for participation in the Gary Haters Club (GHC.) I call these

the "I hate Gary" rules.



1. "I hate ONLY Gary."



When hating Gary please refrain from letting any of that hate spill out

into hating other participants in the BR community. That is, put as much

hate into posts in response to Gary as you like, but should other folks

chime in please don`t subject them to the same level of hate directed at

Gary. They are, after all, innocent bystanders merely putting in their

two cents. For all you know, they might hate Gary too! Let`s avoid

collateral damage to other people who may not yet have learned to hate

Gary. Have faith in your own hatred of Gary that eventually their time

will come. Specifically, when hating Gary it`s easy for the insults to

start flying (after all, we hate Gary) but if someone new chimes into the

conversation don`t make the mistake of directing comments at that new

person that are really inspired by your hatred of Gary.



2. "I hate Gary AND..."



Try to make some sort of attempt at remaining on topic by not _just_ hating

Gary. At least maintain the pretext of discussing Birthright related rules

and themes by posting some sort of discussion of such things in the posts

dedicated to hating Gary. Even a little "Hey, guys, what do you think of

using rule variant X in BR" as a post script will do.



3. "I hate Gary gosh darn it!"



While Gary isn`t personally offended by "bad language" and wouldn`t be

concerned by reading naughty words directed at him, near him, in his

general direction, or performed in his presence, the use of obscenity and

profanity are not allowed by WotC who sponsors Birthright-l and allows so

much of their material to appear on Birthright.net. Please don`t use

obscene language in hating Gary--or for any other reason--when posting.



So there we go. If we abide by these few simple guidelines we can all hate

Gary and discuss Birthright in harmony.



United in Hatred of Gary,

Gary

[Nikolai II]

There have been a lot of talk about medievals not being able to grasp the idea of &#39;power from the people&#39;.

If we ignore the elected kings and the long-lived tradition of a king having to &#39;pass the muster&#39; (Eriksgata in Swedish) there is still another problem with the complaint - it can be ignored. :)

That&#39;s right, that regency comes from the land or the people can be completely ignored, since it is a rule and only a flavor one at that. The important thing is that regency is collected and that it can be spent, not where it comes from or even what it is (all that is flavor).

And, even if one were to use the rule that RPs come from the people the people need not know - it might be divine blessings as far as they are concerned, since they can&#39;t even (individually) affect the gathering of RP there is no way that they could ever prove that RPs didn&#39;t come from the gods - since it needs a major problem to crimp RP gain, and major problems are surefire signs of divine wrath, right? B)


(PS:I&#39;m not a hater - yet :P )

[Birthright-L]

>

> >>The Mongol/Slav mix of the Vos (kind of need to throw the Rus in there

> >>too for the sake of generality) is slightly more vague, but has a

> similar

> >>thing going on in that there was the occasional horde running around to

> >>suit the mix.

> >

> >The Rus? If you mean russians are they not slavs?

>

> I don`t mean that so much as that I think Rus is a bit more general than

> Slav. "Slav" nowadays probably has more of a southeastern European

> connotation, while tossing in the Rus extends the concept a bit. Just me

> maybe.

>



Nope, "Slav" really extends over all Slavs, even those who technically live in Asia. Rus is not equal to Russian and it is older. Old theories say that Rus is a Nordic tribe to which Rjurik and his band belonged. Rjurik and his brothers, Sineus and Truvor, established rule in Novgorod. When his brothers died of unknown cause(I guess he killed them), Rjurik moved his capital to Kiev and formed the first Slavic state. Old slavists reached such conclusion because first mentions of "Rus" hailed from that period. However, recent finds testify that "Rus" is much older than Rjurik and Slavic in origin.



Now, if you wanted to copy the real history into Birthright, just create a Rjuven adventurer with a part and maybe one unit of followers and try to forge your realm somewhere in Vos lands :-)

[Birthright-L]

> >This was largely unnecessary. And I`m not saying it because I have to.

>

> No, no. Nothing like that. Since its been brought up, however, here are

> some guidelines that I wrote a while back that seem particularly apt to

> describe this situation:

>

> Recently there`s been a couple posts pretty much dedicated to hating

> Gary. Now, as Gary, that`s pretty much OK by me. In the past plenty of

> people have hated Gary, and in the future I`m sure many more will join

> their ranks. Eventually, I imagine it`ll be a kind of club--like the

> Elks`

> Lodge or the Shriners--with it`s own set of bylaws, membership dues,

> secret

> handshake, etc. There will not, sadly, be any female members. (They

> already have their own club for hating Gary and new membership is strictly

> monitored.) The club could even have its own theme song... lots of things

> rhyme with "Gary."

>

> Anyway, as moderator of Birthright-l, I would like to offer up a few

> guidelines for participation in the Gary Haters Club (GHC.) I call these

> the "I hate Gary" rules.

>



Come on people, I can understand hardcore nazi freaks who fight all the time on political lists and forums, but why fight about your opinion about Birthright? I took a small part in this discussion, too, and it was my pleasure to hear Kenneth`s opinion about "Understanding Regency" topic which is radically different than mine, but I don`t hate him because of that. I mean, shouldn`t this list and forum be used to exchange opinions, to allow you to hear something new and reassess the matter in different way, to look at it from a different angle and see if you still think you are right?

[Birthright-L]

> And, even if one were to use the rule that RPs come from the people

> the people need not know - it might be divine blessings as far as

> they are concerned, since they can`t even (individually) affect the

> gathering of RP there is no way that they could ever prove that RPs didn`t

> come from the gods - since it needs a major problem to crimp RP gain, and

> major problems are surefire signs of divine wrath, right? B)



I`ll be damned if I understand what you are asking about. How do people have an idea of a Regency Point? IMHO, people can feel their bond with the ruler, and ruler can feel his bond with the people and the land, but they don`t have idea of Regency or Regency Points as we use them in game mechanics. That`s why, in my games, I allow Regency tribute for vassalages to be specified only in percents and only when the vassalage is created. Changing the RP tribute requires another Investiture, and RP tribute actually defines the strength of vassalage.

[Trithemius]

Milos Rasic:

> Arabs, who have, too, been influenced by Persians, Phoenicians,

> Egyptians and other less famous nations too numerous to list here.

> Masetians represent those ancient nations, mostly Egyptians, probably

> because they are best known.



I`m confused.

I think we may be differing in the Arabs we are referring to. I meant primarily

the pre-Islamic tribesmen of the southern Arabia.



I like my Masetians to be Persian over Egyptian. The only Egyptian feel I get

from the Masetians is via the Serpent. The problem is, I don`t believe either

of these historical people were especially nautically inclined. My preference

then is to assume that the Masetians would be Persians, since the Persian

preoccupation with astronomy and astrology would conceivable have some use in

maritime navigation.



> I have no idea what these two things mean although I know that "episkop"

> is a title equivalent to bishop in Orthodox churches.



Exactly. An episcopalian church is run by bishops. Presbyterian comes from, I

believe, presbuteroi, which I have been led to believe means "elders". A

presbyterian church has no "official" leaders (such as bishops) but instead

has "church elders". The Catholic, Orthodox, and High Anglicans are all

episcopalian. Most other Protestants (Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, etc.)

are presbyterian I believe.



> As much as it is silly to assume that everything should be the same. If

> you want to play a historical game, than do it.



Don`t worry, if I wanted to I would not have asked for your permission! :)

I rarely play truly historical RPGs. I play historical wargames to get my fix

of rigorous adherence to history. I don`t think anyone is saying, I am

certainly not, that we should play a rigorously historical BR game. I have

never said "There should be no Gorgon because there were never any giant stone

monster-men." My criticisms of the Gorgon are mainly directed at people

misusing his intelligence as an argument for why he should be a wizard.



I just think that it is obvious that BR is partly a game about pseudo-medieval

government and partly a game of high fantasy. We are happy to look at fantastic

sources for inspiration about how to add complexity to the fantastic parts of

the game; why do some people feel so bad about looking at historical sources

for inspiration about the parts of the game that resemble something from our

history?



Totally unrelated: Milos, I notice that someone with the same name as you a

Hero Quest PBeM now. Is that you? How do you find the game?



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Trithemius]

irdeggman:

> Ouch. :o

> I haven`t `pissed` you off lately have I Kenneth?



I`m certain if you had, you would have heard about it; there`s not a lot of

punch-pulling going on around here.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Trithemius]

Anthony Juarez:

> Many of us stopped following the conversation awhile ago.



Not me. Frequently some useful points come out of these furious arguments, if

repetition can be staved off long enough.



> Keep it to yourself, okay? Or at least make your insults short and witty so

> as to entertain the rest of us....



I`m personally okay with verbose and witty, to be honest. Must be all that Jack

Vance I have read.



> You know for a fact that Gary is the Moderator of our list. He`s gonna

> post something about not trolling people. He has to. It`s his job; we

> elected him to do it. And you know it`ll make him look petty. Why do

> that? Because this goes to the forum, I`m sure Irdegmon will post a

> link to his "we should all be friends" post again just to try to keep

> things civil.



I think its a terrible idea to mention the word "troll". They out to make a law

about it, like the one with Nazis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin`s_law

Sometimes people`s earnest attempts to make a point gets called "trolling".

It`s best to avoid the word entirely in my opinion. (I think Kenneth actually

brought it up first this time around, I`m not keeping score though).



> This was largely unnecessary. And I`m not saying it because I have to.

> Damn. I`ll probably get reprimanded too, now...



Yeah, I was going to say something about kettles and pots and the colour

black. ;)



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Trithemius]

Gary:

> United in Hatred of Gary,

> Gary



This reminds me of the old line:

"I`m self-employed. Yeah, the boss is a right pxxxk!"



BTW how much are the annual membership dues Gary ;P



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[geeman]

At 04:11 PM 2/6/2004 +1300, John Machin wrote:



>I`m certain if you had, you would have heard about it; there`s not a lot

>of punch-pulling going on around here.



Actually, I`ve been pulling a lot of punches. I give my posts a quick once

over before I send them and lately I`ve deleted nearly as much text from

them as I`ve sent because upon rereading I thought some stuff was too

provocative (not incorrect, mind you, just too provocative.) If I said

what I *really* thought I`m pretty sure that`d be a bad thing. Even the

edited versions raised accusations of trolling and some out and out flames....



Gary

[Birthright-L]

> Not me. Frequently some useful points come out of these furious

> arguments, if

> repetition can be staved off long enough.



True. Two points here: 1) I wasn`t speaking for everyone, and 2) I

really shouldn`t have made the comment because it kind of hurts those

who are following and hope to participate or lurk. The "no one wants to

hear this" is about the stupidest comment you can make on a list/board,

and I`m as proficient with my DEL key as anyone.



>> Keep it to yourself, okay? Or at least make your insults short and

>> witty so

>> as to entertain the rest of us....

>

> I`m personally okay with verbose and witty, to be honest. Must be all

> that Jack

> Vance I have read.



Okay, I don`t who Jack Vance is off the top of my head. Tomorrow I`ll

look through my book collection and if its not their I`ll bug my

librarian about it.



> I think its a terrible idea to mention the word "troll". They out to

> make a law

> about it, like the one with Nazis.



You can replace the word with another more to your liking, if you wish.



>> This was largely unnecessary. And I`m not saying it because I have to.

>> Damn. I`ll probably get reprimanded too, now...

>

> Yeah, I was going to say something about kettles and pots and the

> colour

> black. ;)



Yeah, yeah... You people and your archaic cookware... I know.



--Lord Rahvin

[ConjurerDragon]

John Machin schrieb:



>Milos Rasic:

>

>

>>Arabs, who have, too, been influenced by Persians, Phoenicians,

>>Egyptians and other less famous nations too numerous to list here.

>>Masetians represent those ancient nations, mostly Egyptians, probably

>>because they are best known.

>>

>>

>I`m confused.

>I think we may be differing in the Arabs we are referring to. I meant primarily

>the pre-Islamic tribesmen of the southern Arabia.

>

>I like my Masetians to be Persian over Egyptian. The only Egyptian feel I get

>from the Masetians is via the Serpent. The problem is, I don`t believe either

>of these historical people were especially nautically inclined. My preference

>then is to assume that the Masetians would be Persians, since the Persian

>preoccupation with astronomy and astrology would conceivable have some use in

>maritime navigation.

>

Especially nautiaclly inclined? As far as I remember most ancient sea

travles were nothing special nautically as most ships stayed if possible

in sight of the coast to navigate (remember the game Civilization in

which the early galley units have a chance to vanish if they are not

close to land on the end of the turn? ;-)). However that does not mean

that the early seafaring nations did not travel far and wide. Especially

the phoenizians were known to travel not only the mediterranian sea but

also to britannia (was it zinc or tin they bought there I don´t

remember). I remember to have heard about one early sea travel around

africa but I can´t remember if it was egyptian or phoenician, they

brought a gorilla with them.



Something else: The "Rus" that were no slavs that someone mentioned

earlier have been called "Waräger" in my german history lessons so I did

not recognize the name immediately.

bye

Michael

[geeman]

At 04:23 PM 2/6/2004 +1300, John Machin wrote:



>BTW how much are the annual membership dues Gary ;P



1RP.



Gary

[Trithemius]

Quoting Michael Romes <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>:

> Especially nautiaclly inclined? As far as I remember most ancient sea

> travles were nothing special nautically as most ships stayed if

> possible in sight of the coast to navigate (remember the game Civilization in

> which the early galley units have a chance to vanish if they are not

> close to land on the end of the turn? ;-)). However that does not mean

> that the early seafaring nations did not travel far and wide.

> Especially the phoenizians were known to travel not only the mediterranian

> sea but also to britannia (was it zinc or tin they bought there I don´t

> remember). I remember to have heard about one early sea travel around

> africa but I can´t remember if it was egyptian or phoenician, they

> brought a gorilla with them.



My point was that I see the Masetians as Persian-like EXCEPT that they were

nautically inclined. The Masetians had a sea-deity; the Persians did not

regard the sea as an ally.



Also: the Masestians are said to have encountered the Basarji, which would

involve a journey far away from coasts (to the Dragon Isles and/or the Golden

Archipelago)



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[irdeggman]

" A Lt is not a regent, but can be a scion."

I`ll have to go through the BR materials to find them, but IIRC there are a
couple of occasions where the relationship between regents appears to be
that of a Regent/LT. It appears that originally a character could be both
a Vassal and a LT to the same Liege.

Only regents could perform domain actions BRRB pg 50

Once per Domain Turn the regent may assign a Lt to a Domain Action. The LT maynot be used for any other action that Domain Turn including responding to random event or going on an adventure. BRRB pg 57

Book of Regency pg 71 has a section on The Lt becomes a vassal

Putting these all together seems to paint the picture that a Lt can&#39;t be a vassal and can&#39;t run his own holdings. For one only regents had domain actions and a Lt could only perform a sihgle domain action in a domain turn and not perform any other action if he did including adventuring. This latter one would seem to place an extreme restriction on any type of LT being a vassal or even being a regent.




" Just noticed that these terms wern`t included in the glossary of the
BRCS, we will have to `fix` that during the revision."

Sound good. Were the aforementioned definitions the ones that will go in
the glossary?

Gary

Unless something else comes up not based on house-rules to redefine these terms then I would say yes those will be the definitions since they are brief and descriptive.

[Trithemius]

irdeggman:

> Unless something else comes up not based on house-rules to redefine

> these terms then I would say yes those will be the definitions since

> they are brief and descriptive.



This is a curious sentence.

My understanding of what a house-rule is describes it as my personal reasonings

and musings about a subject; my ideas, you could say.



Is this sentence, in effect, asking for my ideas on a subject, provided that

these ideas are not just based on my ideas?



If so, that is plain weird.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Trithemius@Feb 7 2004, 09:20 AM
irdeggman:

> Unless something else comes up not based on house-rules to redefine

> these terms then I would say yes those will be the definitions since

> they are brief and descriptive.



This is a curious sentence.

My understanding of what a house-rule is describes it as my personal reasonings

and musings about a subject; my ideas, you could say.



Is this sentence, in effect, asking for my ideas on a subject, provided that

these ideas are not just based on my ideas?



If so, that is plain weird.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.


What I meant was if someone could point out somewhere in the canon (i.e., 2nd ed material) that points out where I am off base or missing something.

[Trithemius]

irdeggman:

> What I meant was if someone could point out somewhere in the canon

> (i.e., 2nd ed material) that points out where I am off base or missing

> something.



Oh. Right.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Osprey]

What I meant was if someone could point out somewhere in the canon (i.e., 2nd ed material) that points out where I am off base or missing something.

Well, whaddya&#39; know? Timing is everything. I&#39;ve just been fleshing out Boeruine for my current BR campaign, and in the Ruins of Empire book it very specifically states that both of Aeric Boeruine&#39;s lieutenants are regents in their own right, those being the mage Arlen Innis (source regent of Boeruine) and the guildmaster Arien Borthein (Boeruine Trading Guild).

Other places in RoE talk about Lts. as being either regents, scions, or unblooded.

In my mind, there was a definite assumption that Lts&#39; could be regents, Vassals (in Gary&#39;s &#39;capital V&#39; sense), or just about anything else.

The restriction of Lieutenants isn&#39;t on the Lt&#39;s personal or domain actions as regents in their own right, it is on their role as "substitute regent." A Lt. can only act in the regent&#39;s name (and thus perform a standard Domain Action using their character action w/ all advantages that conveys) once per season.

A regent Lt. would simply have to give up one of their own character actions in order to personally oversee a domain action for their liege. So if Arien Borthein was called on by Aeric Boeruine to perform an Espionage action in Boeruine&#39;s service, Borthein would have to relegate that month&#39;s guild domain action to his own court or one of his own Lieutenants, if he has one. Meanwhile, Borthein would use his own Character Action and Aeric Boeruine&#39;s Domain Action (backed by Aeric&#39;s regency) during that month. Aeric Boeruine is free to use his own Character Action during that month either in overseeing a Court Action (like training troops to higher levels), adventuring, or anything else that doesn&#39;t require a Domain Action to back it up.

It gets a little confusing, but hey...welcome to feudalism&#33; I think there is no conflict at all, mechanically at least, in having regent lieutenants. The conflict would be in-game, where regent vassals would resent losing their character actions to do the work of their liege instead of personally overseeing their own domains. Which is exactly what the description of Boeruine in RoE suggests.

[Osprey]

Masetians
I&#39;ve always thought that Masetians were heavily Phoenican more than anything else. Certainly the few references to them suggest a Mediterranean feel with a nautical focus, and since they&#39;re strictly the "ancient world" of Birthright, the historical analogy is pretty appropriate. The Phoenicians were unquestionably the "great seafarers" of the ancient world, at least in Europe and Asia Minor (where all of the other Cerilian tribes were modeled from).

If we look outside of that geographical area, however, I wonder about the Polynesians (or whatever is the correct PC term for the Pacific islander peoples as a historic group) as a potential model for a more exotic depiction of the Masetians? Kinda&#39; throws a whole different twist on the issue, though I&#39;m pretty certain it was Phoenicians (and maybe the closely-related early Greeks who succeeded them) that the BR designers had in mind.

Khinasi/Basarji
OK, can these guys be anything else (in "modern" Cerilia) other than a parallel of medieval Muslim Arabs? I mean, what about them doesn&#39;t jive with this? Granted, they&#39;ve got mages sitting in a high status position, but I&#39;ve always seen that as a fantasy extrapolation of the Arabs&#39; value on education and scholarship (Baghdad being the medieval center of learning and art in Europe and Asia Minor before the Mongols came along...). If the Masetians added their influence to the Khinasi, so too did Phoenecian culture (in all its layers through Egyptian, Persian, Greek, and Roman rulership) heavily influence the Islamic Arabs once they came to dominate the Mediterranean coast in Asia Minor.

Throw into this the fact that the Khinasi&#39;s greatest hero is a prophet (El-Arrassi, right?), and the Basarji rename themselves in his honor as Khinasi ("people of El-Arrassi"), and the parallels with Muhammed as the hero of the Muslims is almost overwhelming. In fact, I sometimes wish the BR creators had been a little more creative in coming up with something more original.

I may very well have a few of these facts wrong, as the Khinasi aren&#39;t my area of expertise (having never bought BR supplements when they were in print, I have only the original box set materials to go on). But I think I got the main ideas as they were originally presented.

[Osprey]

Brechts
These guys are the real confusing ones as ar as historical models go. Obvious German-based language, and a definite resemblance to the medieval German merchants&#39; leagues which dominated northern European trade in the early-high medieval period. They established many towns in the region (including Scandanavia as well as Germany) for trade purposes, and had a powerful influence on politics too.

However...what gets confusing is that many of their styles of dress, behavior (highly individualistic, adventuresome, roguish), etc. seems to be modeled off of Renaissance Italy. The Italian city-states in the Renaissance had many of the characteristics of Brecht society- great explorers by land and sea (regardless of who they worked for), individualistic, entrepreneurial, and a notoriety for their somewhat flamboyant styles and attitudes. Italian mercenary bands come to mind as great examples here, as do the politics of the region - constant feuding and occasional wars between city-states, important families rising and falling...

OK, so maybe we need to throw in the Portugese, too, as the other Renaissance/Age of Exploration great nation of nautical explorers. A bit of Portugese influence seems quite appropriate for the Brecht, too.

In other words, the Brecht are a real hodge-podge of different cultures blended together - potentially the most non-historical human race in Cerialia&#33;

Vos
Dark Age/ early medieval Slavs, definitely...the Slavs who never got overrun by the Golden Horde (the Adurians don&#39;t count, &#39;cause the Vos migrated to a whole &#39;nother continent to avoid them). Since the Vos live in such inhospitable and isolated lands, combined with the other humans&#39; stigma against them, means the Vos never really advance in technology because trade and outside contact/sharing is so limited. Combined with their own cultural resistance to outside influence.

On a personal note, though, I think the designers gave the Vos the shaft...if they pursue power and advantage so singlemindedly, wouldn&#39;t they be hungry for new technology, magic, or anything else that would give them an advantage over their adversaries and rivals for leadership? Even with limited trade, I just don&#39;t see how they&#39;d stay in the Dark Ages forever - there&#39;s always the greedy (Brecht and Khinasi) merchants willing to trade anything for a profit. And low-tech areas can offer raw materials and indigenous crafts at a low price (precious and useful metals/ores, precious stones, hides and furs, cured meat, liquors, and art, to name a few).

So I think there&#39;s real potential, if you want the Vos to be a threat, for them to rise up from their low-tech shackles and become a real threat to the civilized world (again)&#33;

-Osprey

[Birthright-L]

> >>

> >I`m confused.

> >I think we may be differing in the Arabs we are referring to. I meant

> primarily

> >the pre-Islamic tribesmen of the southern Arabia.



Yeah, I meant Islamic Arabs when comparing Basarji/Khinasi with them.



> >

> >I like my Masetians to be Persian over Egyptian. The only Egyptian feel I

> get

> >from the Masetians is via the Serpent. The problem is, I don`t believe

> either

> >of these historical people were especially nautically inclined. My

> preference

> >then is to assume that the Masetians would be Persians, since the Persian

> >preoccupation with astronomy and astrology would conceivable have some

> use in

> >maritime navigation.



The Egyptians did do a lot of sailing and astronomy for their age, I think. Masetians were the most advanced tribe of the oldest age that is remembered, so it would be logical to compare them with Egytians, especially considering, as you said, the Serpent`s Masetians.



> >

> Especially nautiaclly inclined? As far as I remember most ancient sea

> travles were nothing special nautically as most ships stayed if possible

> in sight of the coast to navigate (remember the game Civilization in

> which the early galley units have a chance to vanish if they are not

> close to land on the end of the turn? ;-)). However that does not mean

> that the early seafaring nations did not travel far and wide. Especially

> the phoenizians were known to travel not only the mediterranian sea but

> also to britannia (was it zinc or tin they bought there I don´t

> remember). I remember to have heard about one early sea travel around

> africa but I can´t remember if it was egyptian or phoenician, they

> brought a gorilla with them.



Since I can`t remember if it was Etruscans or Phoenicians, I think we should agree they were Phoenicians :-)



>

> Something else: The "Rus" that were no slavs that someone mentioned

> earlier have been called "Waräger" in my german history lessons so I did

> not recognize the name immediately.



There are similarities between between the Rus and the Varangians, but they are not the same. The Rus were Slavs who were ruled by Vikings. It was not uncommon in ancient times to have a state in which one nation makes up the nobility, and other the lower class. Scythians and Cimmerians had similar empires, for example. Varangians, however, were Slavs who adopted Viking fighting style and way of life, but kept Slavic religion, although slightly modified. They had no state but roamed the world, often looting and razing on their way. They fought with and against both Slavs and Vikings.

[kgauck]

> Especially the phoenizians were known to travel not only the

> mediterranian sea but also to britannia (was it zinc or tin they bought

> there I don´t remember).



Tin, which was used to make bronze. One theory of the origin of the

dwarves, a technically advanced people who lived under ground and made

marvelous things in Viking lore, is that they heard tell of the Phonecians

who arrived in places like Britain, started mining, had an advanced

technology (compared to the bronze age tribesmen), and could make or had

possession of nifty stuff. Make of it what you will.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Osprey]

One theory of the origin of the
dwarves, a technically advanced people who lived under ground and made
marvelous things in Viking lore, is that they heard tell of the Phonecians
who arrived in places like Britain, started mining, had an advanced
technology (compared to the bronze age tribesmen), and could make or had
possession of nifty stuff. Make of it what you will.


I&#39;ve heard stories of Viking raiders and settlers in the Orkneys and elsewhere in Scotlnad referring to the indigenous Picts (so it is believed, anyways, and little enough is known of the Picts&#33;) as dwarves - small, dark, hairy people who lived under the earth. Now likely this was just placing already developed folklore onto the strange new peoples they encountered (and dominated).

[irdeggman]

Time to reel this puppy back on topic. The original topic was Understanding Regency.

It has progressed into what are the different cultures and through what is a Lt and vassel.

This is one of the main reasons why it is so hard to find things that have been discussed, especially for newbies - the tremendous tendency to veer off topic (and yes, I am also one of those who go off on tangents).