relve@Otdk.Helsinki.F
09-22-1997, 03:18 PM
James Abiati wrote:
> 2. The RP's derrived from a holding are based upon the class of the regent. If
> a PC priest owns a law holding (therefore gaining 1/2 RP's) and he wanted to
> ally himself with the warrior in the party (who would gain full RP's from the
> law holding), and the warrior agrees to give the priest 1/2 the RP's generated
> from the law holding, how would the 2 PC's go about cementing this
> relationship?
To my regret, I am just another newbie and I cannot answer your
question. But as I have another question that is closely
connected to yours, I considered it wise to present them together.
First, I'd like to restate your question:
Can a regent conclude a vassalage agreement with the blooded
character of another class (and obtain through this character RP's
which he could not normally collect due to his class) ?
For example, can Savane (in Tuarhievel) conclude a vassalage
agreement with a wizard? (As a ranger she has no use for
sources under her control)
Secondly, the other question (actually three questions):
Can the parties of a vassalage agreement change the amount of
transferred RP's without another investiture action?
If yes, then: Can a vassal donate more RP's without the consent of
the Regent?
and : Can a regent refuse to receive some of the RP's which he
is entitled to according to the agreement?
The last two questions are of course rather theoretical but it would
still be interesting to know.
Most likely answers to these questions depend on "the concept"
of regency and vassalage agreement. As I do not have the rulebook
with me, I am not going to write anything thorough - just some
thoughts:
BR rulebook mentions that the vassalage agreement is not binding, but
the regent (who receives RP's) is instantly aware of the violation of
the pact. It seems that regency is something that flows from the
vassal to the regent constantly and the regent perceives when "the
flow" weakens. If this concept of regency holds true, then
the regent shouldn't even know at first the reason of this weakening,
i.e. he cannot know whether the vassal has violated the agreement or
has ....hmm .. died for example. (I beg your mercy if remembered
incorrectly how the death influences the regency- I have not the
rulebook with me!)
Your thoughts?
KaaRel
> 2. The RP's derrived from a holding are based upon the class of the regent. If
> a PC priest owns a law holding (therefore gaining 1/2 RP's) and he wanted to
> ally himself with the warrior in the party (who would gain full RP's from the
> law holding), and the warrior agrees to give the priest 1/2 the RP's generated
> from the law holding, how would the 2 PC's go about cementing this
> relationship?
To my regret, I am just another newbie and I cannot answer your
question. But as I have another question that is closely
connected to yours, I considered it wise to present them together.
First, I'd like to restate your question:
Can a regent conclude a vassalage agreement with the blooded
character of another class (and obtain through this character RP's
which he could not normally collect due to his class) ?
For example, can Savane (in Tuarhievel) conclude a vassalage
agreement with a wizard? (As a ranger she has no use for
sources under her control)
Secondly, the other question (actually three questions):
Can the parties of a vassalage agreement change the amount of
transferred RP's without another investiture action?
If yes, then: Can a vassal donate more RP's without the consent of
the Regent?
and : Can a regent refuse to receive some of the RP's which he
is entitled to according to the agreement?
The last two questions are of course rather theoretical but it would
still be interesting to know.
Most likely answers to these questions depend on "the concept"
of regency and vassalage agreement. As I do not have the rulebook
with me, I am not going to write anything thorough - just some
thoughts:
BR rulebook mentions that the vassalage agreement is not binding, but
the regent (who receives RP's) is instantly aware of the violation of
the pact. It seems that regency is something that flows from the
vassal to the regent constantly and the regent perceives when "the
flow" weakens. If this concept of regency holds true, then
the regent shouldn't even know at first the reason of this weakening,
i.e. he cannot know whether the vassal has violated the agreement or
has ....hmm .. died for example. (I beg your mercy if remembered
incorrectly how the death influences the regency- I have not the
rulebook with me!)
Your thoughts?
KaaRel