Vassalage Arrangements

[Herald Williams]

This may have been discussed before, and if so I apologize in advance
for reopening any cans of worms, but our group has gotten into this
debate recently.

Can a vassalage arrangement allow a regent to collect more RP than his
bloodline strength. E.g., if a regent has a bloodline of 20, but his
domain generates 40 RP every domain turn, can he farm out half of the
domain to a vassal and then require the vassal to return 10 points each
turn, thus allowing him to collect 30 RP?

[Pieter Sleijpen]

Herald Williams wrote:
>
> This may have been discussed before, and if so I apologize in advance
> for reopening any cans of worms, but our group has gotten into this
> debate recently.
>
> Can a vassalage arrangement allow a regent to collect more RP than his
> bloodline strength. E.g., if a regent has a bloodline of 20, but his
> domain generates 40 RP every domain turn, can he farm out half of the
> domain to a vassal and then require the vassal to return 10 points each
> turn, thus allowing him to collect 30 RP?


Yes, I think it was even in Sage Advice. That is one of the benefits of
vassals. Of coarse there is no way to be completely sure of the loyalty
of vassals, so there always is the risk of betrayel.

[Jim Cooper]

Herald Williams wrote:
> Can a vassalage arrangement allow a regent to collect more RP than his
> bloodline strength.<

This is correct (IMC at least).

Cheers,
Darren

[Sindre Berg]

Herald Williams wrote:

> This may have been discussed before, and if so I apologize in advance
> for reopening any cans of worms, but our group has gotten into this
> debate recently.
>
> Can a vassalage arrangement allow a regent to collect more RP than his
>
> bloodline strength. E.g., if a regent has a bloodline of 20, but his
> domain generates 40 RP every domain turn, can he farm out half of the
> domain to a vassal and then require the vassal to return 10 points
> each
> turn, thus allowing him to collect 30 RP?
> *****************************************
> *********************************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
> In my campaign I play it that way at least..Though I can't see why the
vassal should be allowed half the RP :) Anyway what do you others think
about this deal if the vassal also is the Lt of the regent ?

- --
Sindre

Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

www.uio.no/~sindrejb

[Sindre Berg]

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/3/99 4:13:20 PM Central Standard Time,
> sindre@vision-
> computer.no writes:
>
> In my campaign I play it that way at least..Though I can't see why
> the
> vassal should be allowed half the RP :) Anyway what do you others
> think
> about this deal if the vassal also is the Lt of the regent ? >>
>
> Lt? This would be fine, but the Lt action if called upon would count
> as one
> of the vassal's domain turns (yes, they do get those)
> ************************************************** ***
> *********************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
>
Obviously...I even let the Lts do three actions, as long as only one is
a domain action...They could create a holding and do two adventures f.
inst.
- --
Sindre

Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

www.uio.no/~sindrejb

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/3/99 4:13:20 PM Central Standard Time, sindre@vision-
computer.no writes:

[Sindre Berg]

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/3/99 4:47:08 PM Central Standard Time,
> sindre@vision-
> computer.no writes:
>
> Obviously...I even let the Lts do three actions, as long as only one
> is
> a domain action...They could create a holding and do two adventures
> f.
> inst.
> >>
>
> No no no
> Vassals get 3 actions since they are now regents.
> *************************************************
> *************************
> To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
> line
> Not to be too annoying but I meant the normal Lt's, that is Lt's that
isn't vassals. Vassals since they now are proper regents of course can
do 3 actions like any other regent...The only limiting factor is how
much GB and RP the Liege leaves them..

- --
Sindre

Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

www.uio.no/~sindrejb

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/3/99 4:47:08 PM Central Standard Time, sindre@vision-
computer.no writes:

>

No no no
Vassals get 3 actions since they are now regents.

[Gary V. Foss]

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:

> Obviously...I even let the Lts do three actions, as long as only one is
> a domain action...They could create a holding and do two adventures f.
> inst.
> >>
>
> No no no
> Vassals get 3 actions since they are now regents.

I think this depends on how the DM wants to handle things. Personally, I think
we should (and I do) differentiate between a vassal, a lieutenant-vassal, a
lieutenant, a henchman, a follower and a hireling.

Vassal: Traditional regent who pays regency in RP or GB to a liege lord. This
can be an NPC or a PC. He gets 3 actions per domain turn.

Lieutenant: Any blooded or unblooded henchman who has been elevated to the
level of a lieutenant by the Lieutenant action. He gets one free (LT) action
per domain turn.

Lieutenant-vassal: A lieutenant who has been invested with provinces/holdings
by a regent. A LT-vassal gets one (LT) action per domain turn.

Henchman: A leveled NPC companion of a PC who can accompany the PC on
adventures and assist him in all role-playing aspects of the game. They gain
experience points for their actions, and are "played" by the DM as intelligent
creatures.

Follower: Any creature that obeys the orders of a PC and is not paid a salary
for that service. The followers who accompany 10th or higher level rangers,
the followers who gravitate to a cleric, the thieves who gather around a high
level thief are all examples of followers. In BR terms they are very much like
henchmen except they are often not leveled characters and, under the direct
supervision of the PC. They will not act independently except to save their
own lives.

Hireling: Anyone whose services are paid for by the regent. They may accompany
a regent on adventures, but their actions are severely limited much like
followers.

The reason I think we should differentiate between these guys is because they
are often run by the DM and should have different levels of "independence" on
that basis.

In the case of vassals and LT-vassals, however, we have a strange situation in
the BR domain rules. Can a player suddenly double the amount of domain actions
he has available by investing a henchman or LT? I don't think that's the way
it should work. I think LTs should be different from henchmen and henchmen
different from followers. Followers might move up through the "ranks" but
unless some sort of process happens that makes for that transition it could
become a serious gaming problem.

My solution (feel free to modify or ignore) is the above set of definitions. A
henchman is not a LT, for instance. A LT must be created by the domain rules
action. Until that happens a henchman can have no effect upon domain actions
except for the Adventure action. If a PC regent wants to make a henchman a LT
he can do so, but must still spend the action "investing" his new LT with the
"powers" that he must have to effect domain actions. Maybe he is deputized,
appointed, promoted, knighted, ordained, or whatever. In any case, the
Lieutenant action is required to give someone the political powers to act on
the behalf of the regent.

Investing a lieutenant or henchman with holdings or provinces, however, is not
really a much more sophisticated process. The investiture takes a month
(unless one is a priest in which case it is free) and then whamo--new regent.
If that new regent suddenly gets three actions and he is still the henchman of
the PC then he effectively doubles the PC's amount of actions.

The only other option I see is that the LT/henchman is taken over by the DM,
becoming totally NPC. I don't like that, personally, as it seems like a rather
drastic solution. I think the middle ground is having a LT or henchman
invested with a regent's holdings or provinces remains or becomes an LT.

Gary

[Kenneth Gauck]

In my approach, I ask myself, why is someone looking to put a vassal in
place. As I see it there are three reasons:

1) give a fellow PC (or trusted NPC) some role in government. A player does
this because he wants the talented fellow around.

2) because there is too much for the regent to attend to himself. he needs
help.

3) to circumvent the rules on bloodlines limiting RP's taken in.

In case #1, tranfers of RP's should be based on the game situation.
In case #2, trasnsfers should tend to go both ways. A consistant drain from
the vassal to the overlord should produce the kind of resentment that often
acompanies a periphery. People like to keep the resources, be they GB's or
PR's, working for them at home.
To avoid case #3, DM's need to be clear about the motives of the players and
clear in his own expression of what is acceptable. After all these are
still a grant from vassal to overlord, and if things need attention back
home, but the vassal (or overlord) is not concerned about the locals, they
should face a divsetiture crisis.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[Kenneth Gauck]

Gary Foss wrote:
"If that new regent suddenly gets three actions and he is still the henchman
of
the PC then he effectively doubles the PC's amount of actions."


I would rule the lieutenant vassal still has three actions, but they are
limited to his own realm, he still can perform only one realm action for the
realm at large. Likewise, he can use his own store of GB's and RP's for his
own actions, but is limited as per the rules when he acts as a lieutenant.

Most lieutenant's don't have the resources to use all three turns.

For example, lets assume Eluvie Cariele has a problem with Sielwode. So she
appoints her landrunner (ranger) lieutenant as count of Deepshadow and
Warden of the North. As count of Deepshaow, the Lt gets 5 RP's (3 for the
land, 2 for the law), and d4 GB's for taxtion. He is charged with defending
Deepshadow against all enemies from these resources. As Warden of the North
he is given additional resources to maintain a unit of knights, and build a
fortress. Eluvie Cariele often assigns realm actions in the north to her
Lt, so she can concentarte on the Chimera and Osoerde. The Lt performs the
Lt action, and has two remaining realm actions based on his megre resources.

It is certainly possible that vassals may grow into allies. IMC, NPC Kurt
Warkinde gave PC Osmund Skullsplitter (blooded Rjurik Priest of Kirken) some
GB's and assigned him the mission of starting temples in Kiergard. It
didn't take long before Osmund's realm was nearly as powerful as Warkinde's.
The fact that Osmund was a close friend of the Overthane of Baruk-Azhik did
not hurt.

Kenneth Gauck

[JulesMrshn@aol.co]

Basically vassals are made to circumvent the bloodline limitations. A smaller
line needs their vassals to grow. Any player that takes all of the GB and the
RP a vassal generates is plainly stupid. Vassals management is the key to
growth. They will look after the proviences while the Regent looks after the
Nation. Its simple management. A good system is for the regent to take 1/2
the RP and little to no gold. Keep your vassals to a provience. Order them to
maintain a unit or two for a local garrison. Most vassals will be very loyal.
Not all vassals are power grubing madmen. They will serve with honor and with
loyalty, working to protect their local rulerships. Many will not want the
whole ball of wax. BUT!!!!!! there can always be the one lying in the weeds
waiting to strike out and make their claims. If every vassal was crooked then
this system would only be in use for oh about one minute, then disposed of. It
works so it stays. I try to keep a vassal betrayl to once per campaign.
Otherwise it gets old, fast... real fast.

[Binagran]

> In case #2, trasnsfers should tend to go both ways. A consistant drain from
> the vassal to the overlord should produce the kind of resentment that often
> acompanies a periphery. People like to keep the resources, be they GB's or
> PR's, working for them at home.
> To avoid case #3, DM's need to be clear about the motives of the players and
> clear in his own expression of what is acceptable. After all these are
> still a grant from vassal to overlord, and if things need attention back
> home, but the vassal (or overlord) is not concerned about the locals, they
> should face a divsetiture crisis.

> Kenneth Gauck
> c558382@earthlink.net

IMO, I don't think that problems should occur to much if the DM uses caution and
the players are smart. Remember that since the vassalage arrangement is
voluntary the vassal (or lord) can break it at anytime. This would most
probably occur when the vassals domain begins to approach the power of his lord
(or perhaps he's made an alliance with another regent). This makes vassalage
arrangements kind of dangerous since even the most loyal vassal may succumb to
power (you know the old saying of "power corrupts".) Why do you think the
Anuirean Empire fell apart after the death of Roele, all those petty lords
suddenly had complete control over their domains and no Emperor to tell them
otherwise.

Even a solution of having more vassals of smaller realms (holdings, temples,
whatever) has the problem of reducing the lord's power base. At some stage it
is easier to simply keep control of it in your own hands, and press on
regardless.

Just my 2 (insert currency here)

Binagran

[DKEvermore@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/3/99 1:53:48 PM Central Standard Time,
sergil@nycap.rr.com writes:

> Can a vassalage arrangement allow a regent to collect more RP than his
> bloodline strength. E.g., if a regent has a bloodline of 20, but his
> domain generates 40 RP every domain turn, can he farm out half of the
> domain to a vassal and then require the vassal to return 10 points each
> turn, thus allowing him to collect 30 RP?
>
This is a subject of some past debate and it really boils down to what you
want to do in your campaign.

For myself, I choose to allow Vassalage RP collection to occur AFTER normal
collection (with the usual Bloodline/Domain limitation), thus allowing a total
RP collection higher than the Bloodline points in my campaign. It works well
as a balance in pitting alliances of small domains against a powerful single
domain and keep the challenge interesting.

By the way, if any of you have been following my Fuzion implementation of the
Birthright setting, I'd like to now announce the completion of the testing
phase of my Fantasy Fuzion CW module. If you own Creation Workshop by
HeroGames and would like to create (or automatically generate!) characters
ready for Birthright download it by following the links off my main page at:

http://members.aol.com/DKEvermore/GiantDowns.html

later!
Dustin Evermore

[Solmyr]

>I think this depends on how the DM wants to handle things. Personally, I think
>we should (and I do) differentiate between a vassal, a lieutenant-vassal, a
>lieutenant, a henchman, a follower and a hireling.
>
Not to forget, of course, the vassalouie, an unique type of vassal created by James Ruhland aka Porphy (anyone still remember him? :) The vassalouie is technically a vassal regent who has holdings. However, he donates *all* his collected RPs and GBs to the liege, who in turn maintains the vassalouie's holdings together with his own. The vassalouie also gets three domain actions per turn like any regent, and he uses the liege's RP and GB for those. Very effective and deadly... I believe the Gorgon makes arrangements like this with his vassals :)

******************
Aleksei Andrievski
aka Solmyr, Archmage of the Azure Star
aka Azure Star Dragon
solmyr@kolumbus.fi
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/2198/index.html

[RocksHope@aol.co]

Two regents rule domains, both collect RPs. If one swears vassalage both
still collect their full RPs. If the one regent then gives some of his RPs to
his overlord, that's completely legal, and can even be done as part of the
vassalage agreement.

Why would swearing vassalage cause one person to NOT collect RP any more?

Then again, I've used a home optional rule that RPs cannot be traded/given
away etc, in which case I don't allow vassals to give RPs to their overlords
either, but you shouldn't allow two regents to trade RPs, and then NOT allow a
vassal to give RPs to his overlord.

[Gary V. Foss]

Solmyr of the Azure Star wrote:

> >I think this depends on how the DM wants to handle things. Personally, I think
> >we should (and I do) differentiate between a vassal, a lieutenant-vassal, a
> >lieutenant, a henchman, a follower and a hireling.
> >
> Not to forget, of course, the vassalouie, an unique type of vassal created by James Ruhland aka Porphy (anyone still remember him? :) The vassalouie is technically a vassal regent who has holdings. However, he donates *all* his collected RPs and GBs to the liege, who in turn maintains the vassalouie's holdings together with his own. The vassalouie also gets three domain actions per turn like any regent, and he uses the liege's RP and GB for those. Very effective and deadly... I believe the Gorgon makes arrangements like this with his vassals :)

Youch! That's the exact kind of thing I'd like to try and prevent.... It sounds like that could throw the game out of whack pretty quickly.

In my experience the "Collective Rule" type of BR campaign is usually the most powerful and effective for players. If you have four PCs they get up to sixteen actions per domain turn, and that can be pretty hard to combat. NPCs have to band together to combat them, which can be a little difficult to justify in some cases. Aside from that, it becomes a logistical nightmare to keep track of all the actions of the NPCs fighting the PCs.

If you can add Louie/vassal/regents into that mix you can effectively double, triple or quadruple the number of actions available to the PCs. That's a pretty frightening proposition....

Gary

[RocksHope@aol.co]

In a message dated 1/4/99, 2:50:50 PM, birthright@mpgn.com writes:

[Binagran]

JulesMrshn@aol.com wrote:

> Basically vassals are made to circumvent the bloodline limitations. A smaller
> line needs their vassals to grow. Any player that takes all of the GB and the
> RP a vassal generates is plainly stupid. Vassals management is the key to
> growth. They will look after the proviences while the Regent looks after the
> Nation. Its simple management. A good system is for the regent to take 1/2
> the RP and little to no gold. Keep your vassals to a provience. Order them to
> maintain a unit or two for a local garrison. Most vassals will be very loyal.
> Not all vassals are power grubing madmen. They will serve with honor and with
> loyalty, working to protect their local rulerships. Many will not want the
> whole ball of wax. BUT!!!!!! there can always be the one lying in the weeds
> waiting to strike out and make their claims. If every vassal was crooked then
> this system would only be in use for oh about one minute, then disposed of. It
> works so it stays. I try to keep a vassal betrayl to once per campaign.
> Otherwise it gets old, fast... real fast.

I agree with you whole-heartedly there. But don't you think once-per campaign is
a little much (you players will come to expect a betrayal and look to their men to
see who it might possibly be.)

In any case, IMO I would think that limiting them to little or no GB might create
some kind of division between the vassal and the regent. You have this poor
vassal trying to do his best to keep the border free of enemies, and all the
regent does is take his GB and RP, supply a unit or two free of charge (which I
imagine are probably more loyal to the regent than the vassal), and then forget
about the vassal until they're needed. This is going to annoy even the most loyal
vassal IMO.

A vassal needs to keep some of the income (RP and GB) of his holdings for him to
stay loyal. At least 50% of both would be my guess. This allows him to perform
actions using his own income, and even expand his rulership, while still keeping
true to his regent.

Binagran