Is this too real, or could this

[Kenneth Gauck]

I would not dice for capture in one meta-roll. This is the kind of thing
that should happen because of player actions or because you have a plot line
that would work with this kind of thing.

[Sindre Berg]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I would not dice for capture in one meta-roll. This is the kind of
> thing
> that should happen because of player actions or because you have a
> plot line
> that would work with this kind of thing.
>
> ****************************************
> **********************************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
> The dice roll was more intended if a PC wasn't at the battle site. Like
for NPC battles and such...I agree that capturing the player just
because a single die-roll is bad, I hadn't obviously made that clear...
Anyway what do people think of the idea ???

- --
Sindre

Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

www.uio.no/~sindrejb

[Gary V. Foss]

Sindre Berg wrote:

> The dice roll was more intended if a PC wasn't at the battle site. Like
> for NPC battles and such...I agree that capturing the player just
> because a single die-roll is bad, I hadn't obviously made that clear...
> Anyway what do people think of the idea ???

I like it. There aren't really any rules in the game for this sort of thing,
and the suggestions you make seem quite reasonable. I would agree with Kenneth
(and your own acknowledgment) that such events should be role-played whenever
possible, but having some sort of guidelines for it is reasonable.

As you noted, regents were not the only ones ransomed in medieval times. One
didn't get the same amount of money for lesser nobles, but a few barons and
counts could add up to quite a nice payday....

It seems to me that I remember reading that even commoners were ransomed off
sometimes, though they would often get screwed by the whole process, as was the
norm for common folks in that time. If that's the case, whole units could be
captured and ransomed. A regent might not want to spend much money ransoming
his people when he could just muster more, but doing that might have a serious
effect upon the loyalty of his soldiers. Someone who captured a unit could
potentially ask more for it than it was "worth" using that loyalty issue as a
bargaining chip.

Gary

[Kenneth Gauck]

Ransoms were set according to custom, and regulated (gasp) by heralds.
Deviation from custom could land you in a court of chivalry. So could
threating violence to obtain a ransom, holding a captive in unhealthy
conditions, or certain local violations. It would be much cheaper to ransom
common soldier than to muster new ones.

There are two purposes to such codes, 1) humane treatment, and 2) you'll
want the same treatment when the shoe is on the other foot.

[Gary V. Foss]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Ransoms were set according to custom, and regulated (gasp) by heralds.
> Deviation from custom could land you in a court of chivalry. So could
> threating violence to obtain a ransom, holding a captive in unhealthy
> conditions, or certain local violations. It would be much cheaper to ransom
> common soldier than to muster new ones.
>
> There are two purposes to such codes, 1) humane treatment, and 2) you'll
> want the same treatment when the shoe is on the other foot.

I think this is one of those real world vs. imaginary world differences that
tends to get overlooked.

The cultures of Cerilia are less restricted to codes of chivalry than rulers in
the real world (supposedly) were. Orders of knighthood imply a code of
behavior, but don't necessarily require it. Chivalry probably exists but I
haven't read anything that makes me think it is codified in Anuire like it was
in the real world. Even if it were, the state of the Empire means that those
who don't abide by it would face relatively little backlash. There are no
courts of chivalry on Anuire that I've heard of. The closest thing would
probably be going to the Chamberlain for judgment, but even a ruling by him
seems pretty unlikely to be enforced should a regent just decide to ignore it.

There are legal systems described in the various sourcebooks but, since the fall
of the Empire, holding a regent responsible seems pretty difficult. Roesone
could appeal to the court of public opinion for crimes committed by the baron of
Ghoere, for instance, but accountability among the rulers is rather hard to come
by in Anuire. Regents have other things to concern themselves what with
plotting constantly going on and awnsheghlien running around and all.

Under these circumstances, wouldn't it be easy for Osoerde to demand more money
for a unit of archers than they were worth in order to "compensate the people of
Osoerde" for the lives lost in battle? Pay more, Raenech could say, or they go
to work in the swamps....

Gary

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Ransoms were set according to custom, and regulated (gasp) by heralds.
> Deviation from custom could land you in a court of chivalry. So could
> threating violence to obtain a ransom, holding a captive in unhealthy
> conditions, or certain local violations. It would be much cheaper to ransom
> common soldier than to muster new ones.
>
> There are two purposes to such codes, 1) humane treatment, and 2) you'll
> want the same treatment when the shoe is on the other foot.

Just on a procedural note, it was very common for a captured noble to
"give his parole" to the capturer. This meant that the hostage gave his
sworn word that he would not attemt to escape or work to directly harm his
"host" until he was released by the captor upon receipt of the ransom.
This meant that the hostage had more or less complete run of the castle,
rather than being locked in a dungeon or tower room. The only wall that
kept him inside the castle in which he was being held was his own honor,
but of course, honor was very important to nobles of the middle ages, as
it should be for noble Anuireans. It also means, however, that the hostage
CAN act as a spy and source of information inside the enemy stronghold, as
long as he doesn't act DIRECTLY against his captor. However, some poeple
are more comfortable at splitting such fine hairs in matters of honor than
others. It might make for some interesting scenarios. It also means that
the captive cannot attempt to escape FOR ANY REASON. So even if her
friends broke into the castle in an attempt to spring her, her honor would
prevent the noble from going with them: her word was given.

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Kenneth Gauck]

The code of Chivalry is a self-interest code which worked accross
international lines even during war-time, because like most sensible PC's,
you don't want dirty tricks being played on you, so you don't play them on
anyone else. Chivalry evolved in under circumstances where there was no
central authority, and in multiple locations where the powers that might
exist in one place did not exist in the other. It worked because nobles
don't want to be executed on the field of battle. Unless nobles of Cerilia
are not rational, some warrior code exists, whether it resembles Bushido,
Chivalry, or some ancient warrior code of behavior. A noble's authority
(read RP's) rests on his reputation as worthy. Unworthy behavior has a
price.

Captivity can be a fun plot device for players.

[Gary V. Foss]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> The code of Chivalry is a self-interest code which worked accross
> international lines even during war-time, because like most sensible PC's,
> you don't want dirty tricks being played on you, so you don't play them on
> anyone else. Chivalry evolved in under circumstances where there was no
> central authority, and in multiple locations where the powers that might
> exist in one place did not exist in the other. It worked because nobles
> don't want to be executed on the field of battle. Unless nobles of Cerilia
> are not rational, some warrior code exists, whether it resembles Bushido,
> Chivalry, or some ancient warrior code of behavior. A noble's authority
> (read RP's) rests on his reputation as worthy. Unworthy behavior has a
> price.

I just don't buy it, Kenneth. If you think evil folks are going to abide by a
code of chivalry when they freely cast aside the more commonly accepted moral
code then fine. I just don't see it happening in Anuire, when such a code
might or might not exist (I don't see any evidence that it does in the
published materials) but the authority to enforce it certainly does not.

Chivalry isn't any more rational or logical than any other code of behavior. A
code of behavior that allowed you to kill a defeated opponent is just as
logical because that opponent isn't likely to come attack you again in the
future, preserving your life in years to come and establishing a Darwinian
strongest shall survive social system. Sure, your opponent could kill you
under the same circumstances, but... oh, wait... he's dead! Oh, well, better
luck next generation....

If you want to put it in terms of alignment, you could see it as a law vs chaos
dispute in which lawful characters might follow the precepts of chivalry
assuming they agreed to do so at some point in their lives while chaotic people
would cast them aside at will. Or you could use the same argument with good vs
evil as the basis of the conflict. Regardless, a chaotic evil character
probably not going to give much of a hoot about chivalry except in ways that he
might use it to his advantage.

Gary

[Gary V. Foss]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> A noble's authority (read RP's) rests on his reputation as worthy. Unworthy
> behavior has a
> price.

One last note on this (already tiresome) topic. RPs in BR are not actually
based on a ruler's reputation for worthiness. They come from a regent's
mystical tie to the land that started with the cataclysmic battle at Deismaar
when the gods infused both the earth and the people at the battle with their
divine essence. A regent could be a total schmuck and still collect regency in
Birthright. He may face rebellions, intrigues, coup attempts, etc. which could
influence his future RP collection, but they would have no influence on his
already existing pool of regency.

Gary

[Kenneth Gauck]

I was on an internet game of medieval warfare in which the assasinations,
kidnappings, and the gamesmanship (using the program in unintended ways) was
out of control. The players were brutal, but most NPC's were ransomed,
because next time it was just as likely to be yours captive, and even the
most cold hearted assasins did not want their NPC's executed. So I'll say I
saw it with my own eyes.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Gary V. Foss
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Sunday, November 01, 1998 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Is this too real, or could this be fun ?


>Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
>> The code of Chivalry is a self-interest code which worked accross
>> international lines even during war-time, because like most sensible
PC's,
>> you don't want dirty tricks being played on you, so you don't play them
on
>> anyone else. Chivalry evolved in under circumstances where there was no
>> central authority, and in multiple locations where the powers that might
>> exist in one place did not exist in the other. It worked because nobles
>> don't want to be executed on the field of battle. Unless nobles of
Cerilia
>> are not rational, some warrior code exists, whether it resembles Bushido,
>> Chivalry, or some ancient warrior code of behavior. A noble's authority
>> (read RP's) rests on his reputation as worthy. Unworthy behavior has a
>> price.
>
>I just don't buy it, Kenneth. If you think evil folks are going to abide
by a
>code of chivalry when they freely cast aside the more commonly accepted
moral
>code then fine. I just don't see it happening in Anuire, when such a code
>might or might not exist (I don't see any evidence that it does in the
>published materials) but the authority to enforce it certainly does not.
>
>Chivalry isn't any more rational or logical than any other code of
behavior. A
>code of behavior that allowed you to kill a defeated opponent is just as
>logical because that opponent isn't likely to come attack you again in the
>future, preserving your life in years to come and establishing a Darwinian
>strongest shall survive social system. Sure, your opponent could kill you
>under the same circumstances, but... oh, wait... he's dead! Oh, well,
better
>luck next generation....
>
>If you want to put it in terms of alignment, you could see it as a law vs
chaos
>dispute in which lawful characters might follow the precepts of chivalry
>assuming they agreed to do so at some point in their lives while chaotic
people
>would cast them aside at will. Or you could use the same argument with
good vs
>evil as the basis of the conflict. Regardless, a chaotic evil character
>probably not going to give much of a hoot about chivalry except in ways
that he
>might use it to his advantage.
>
>Gary
>
>************************************************** *************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Gary V. Foss wrote:

> Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
> > A noble's authority (read RP's) rests on his reputation as worthy. Unworthy
> > behavior has a
> > price.
>
> One last note on this (already tiresome) topic. RPs in BR are not actually
> based on a ruler's reputation for worthiness. They come from a regent's
> mystical tie to the land that started with the cataclysmic battle at Deismaar
> when the gods infused both the earth and the people at the battle with their
> divine essence. A regent could be a total schmuck and still collect regency in
> Birthright. He may face rebellions, intrigues, coup attempts, etc. which could
> influence his future RP collection, but they would have no influence on his
> already existing pool of regency.

Actually, I do tend to play that reputation does have some (minor) effect,
not on RP directly, but on bloodline score. I give my PC's small (1-3
point) bonuses for substantial defeats of hereditary enemies and
awnsheighlein. I explain it as an effect of Renown--they are increasingly
being seen as a person who matters, a person to be respected and
considered as an important factor in plans. However, it's just a home
rule.

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Pieter Sleijpen]

Gary V. Foss wrote:
>
> Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
> One last note on this (already tiresome) topic. RPs in BR are not
> actually based on a ruler's reputation for worthiness. They come from
> a regent's mystical tie to the land that started with the cataclysmic
> battle at Deismaar when the gods infused both the earth and the people
> at the battle with their divine essence. A regent could be a total
> schmuck and still collect regency in Birthright. He may face
> rebellions, intrigues, coup attempts, etc. which could influence his
> future RP collection, but they would have no influence on his already
> existing pool of regency.

Why is it then that a regent can loose RP (not earn less!) when he does
not react adequately to problems in his realms?

[HSteiner1@aol.co]

In einer eMail vom 01.11.98 19:01:12, schreiben Sie:

>

Godd Idea. Needs maybe a little more fleshing out.
But the GM should be careful in using this, because the players can try to
earn some real money with this kind of behaviour. ;-)



Aedric Maeras
Lord Mage of Roesone
Undead Master




######################################
Holger Steiner
Programmer & Object-Technology Consultant
h.steiner@host-it.de
http://www.host-it.de
Only the code gets executed, not the intentions...
######################################

[HSteiner1@aol.co]

In einer eMail vom 01.11.98 20:55:43, schreiben Sie: