I recant (sort of) [Archive]

Tim Nutting

01-14-1999, 08:20 AM

Well, in my excitement of finding the rules it appears I have misread them.
As it would appear, the Occupation of one's own provinces would result in
the holding destruction of your choice. That would be the hard and fast
interpretation.

However, as to looking at not just what is written, but "how" it is written,
I respond thusly:

This rule is a sidebar, and thus, not exactly the most detailed. If left to
the ultimate determination, I could say that this allows me to smash
unfriendly fortified holdings AND source holdings all at the same time.

To quote: "...The result is his option to destroy other regents' holding in
his territory". Now that leaves a LOT of leeway. In a manner of speaking,
to reduce El-Hadid's level 7 guild holding in Illien to a level 0 holding
would be destroying it, but that is weak, and the more logically written
English is that the holding is utterly eradicated.

If that is the case, then I feel quite fine in entering the next PbEM and
ousting every spell caster in my territory because this quote says I can
destroy their holdings at my option as well as any unfriendly fortified
holdings... (note that this is at DIRECT odds with how I would do it in
enemy territory) I will continue running my games as I have posted to the
list and use the same rules for all.

However, as Memnoch pointed out, the landed regent supposedly has more
knowledge of the realm and can therefore root out all holds of hostility.
Sorry? Come again? No, I don't think so. Machiavelli would be the first
to come out and say that you garner the loyalty of your new Prince by
showing him where all his "bad guys" are at, so that he can root them out
during the occupation. Never fail to account for the loyalty of your ever
friendly citizens...

I refuse to recant, however, my just posted statement about ignorance of
loyalty loss. In reading, I figure each unit to be equal to one level of
law holding. At most, the occupying regent can ignore only two levels of
loss (pg.. 47) with his units, and the bigger the province, the bigger the
force required. That means that if I want to occupy Imperial City I will
need at least 10 units of soldiers to "keep the peace" and ignore my two
levels of loss. In my mind, the loss occurs regardless of how many units
you have there, the populace is just too cowed, however, to do anything
about it. However, as the city is a Level 10 CITY and not a province, that
will find debate somehow (I can feel it!) :)

Further, in my mind the -1 loyalty grade adjustment for occupation is not
enough. I recommend to all you that in your games you do as I do, and
assign a further arbitrary loss of loyalty based on the reputation of the
occupying regent. After all, his actions will already alter the local
loyalty, but gaining loyalty should be twice as difficult. I value my
personal freedoms. If my rulers elected to declare martial law they would
have one Nine Hells of a time trying to win my loyalty back. I can say
nothing for the sheep of the crowded masses... but...

In addition to looking at how rules are written, we must also analyze their
spirit. The designers cannot create law to cover everything, and we will
eventually have problems such as this that need to be in the same spirit as
the law in the book. To say that occupation is different whether Bill
Clinton does it to the United States or whether Boris Yeltsin or Tony Blare
do it is ludicrous. A tyrant is a tyrant.

End of line.

Tim Nutting
zero@wiredweb.com

Jim Cooper

01-14-1999, 11:20 PM

Tim Nutting wrote:
> To quote: "...The result is his option to destroy other regents' holding in his territory". Now that leaves a LOT of leeway. In a manner of speaking, to reduce El-Hadid's level 7 guild holding in Illien to a level 0 holding> would be destroying it, but that is weak, and the more logically written English is that the holding is utterly eradicated.<

IMC, I rule that (when a regent occupies a province) (s)he is allowed to
destroy 1 level per holding per unit occupying the province. For
contest actions, I never allow more than 1 level of holding destroyed
per action; I never give heavy handed tactics like occupying such a
quick and easy victory - if your going to take the quick and easy path,
you must understand that its a long and dirty process to the top. (OR,
if your going to play hardball with the big boys, you are going to have
to go the full 9 innings!) :D I prefer to view holdings as organic
entities, such that a holding represents the sum of its parts. Thus,
say, a level 10 guild represents 10 major shops and all of the minor
stalls and buildings necessary to run that particular major shop.

> Further, in my mind the -1 loyalty grade adjustment for occupation is not enough. <

I concur. I rule that occupying a province instantly creates rebellion,
even if you own all the law in the province(s), in addition to the
regular losses of loyalty. Thus, occupying a province creates a further
- -3 loss of loyalty, in addition to other modifiers that apply.
(Incidently, I have also expanded the loyalty grades to include two new
ones: Worship (above high) and Death Wish (below rebellious) :P).

More over, it takes DOUBLE the number of units to act as law holdings
(just like it implies in the penalty for actions under provinces in
rebellion).

> In addition to looking at how rules are written, we must also analyze their spirit. The designers cannot create law to cover everything, and we will eventually have problems such as this that need to be in the same spirit as the law in the book. To say that occupation is different whether Bill Clinton does it to the United States or whether Boris Yeltsin or Tony Blare do it is ludicrous. A tyrant is a tyrant.<

Hmmm ... this sounds suspiciously like the arguements used by the
Fathers of the NIT when they justified breaking away from the OIT ...
Cool! I've now got some fodder for the cannon in my campaign! :D (You
see, the religion of Haelyn forms a center point upon which my campaign
evolves ...)

Cheers,
Darren

Memnoch

01-15-1999, 04:10 AM

Well, considering this rant, I can't help but to respond....

:-)

- -----Original Message-----
From: Tim Nutting
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 2:30 AM
Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - I recant (sort of)

|Well, in my excitement of finding the rules it appears I have misread them.
|As it would appear, the Occupation of one's own provinces would result in
|the holding destruction of your choice. That would be the hard and fast
|interpretation.
|
|However, as to looking at not just what is written, but "how" it is
written,
|I respond thusly:
|
|This rule is a sidebar, and thus, not exactly the most detailed. If left
to
|the ultimate determination, I could say that this allows me to smash
|unfriendly fortified holdings AND source holdings all at the same time.

I would have to disagree with you here, Tim, precedent belies your
statement. The pattern of "reducing or destroying holdings" is established
in the Occupation rules for an invading foreign regent. Now, most of the
time, an exclusive "or" is implied when used, thus, The Province Ruler in
question would have to pick a holding *type* and then destroy it. He cannot
destroy multiple *types* of holdings at once. Quote: "...he can reduce
(destroy) any *or* all (thus can choose to destroy multiple holdings or just
one) law, guild, *or* temple holdings... (the first or coupled with the
second or says that the occupying regent picks a holding type to attack, and
can only attack that type of holding, this time) Now, when considering
Landed regents and Source holdings: #1 The Landed regent would not even be
able to recognize a source's manifestation, let alone find it. Only
wizard-type landed regents would be able to do this, so that kind of makes
military units when it comes to attacking source moot.
As for fortified holdings, they have to be done in by seige.
All the other rules are not negated merely because the province ruler
decides to attack those holdings within the lands that he rules.

|To quote: "...The result is his option to destroy other regents' holding
in
|his territory". Now that leaves a LOT of leeway. In a manner of speaking,
|to reduce El-Hadid's level 7 guild holding in Illien to a level 0 holding
|would be destroying it, but that is weak, and the more logically written
|English is that the holding is utterly eradicated.

Yes, eradication is a much better word in this case.

|If that is the case, then I feel quite fine in entering the next PbEM and
|ousting every spell caster in my territory because this quote says I can
|destroy their holdings at my option as well as any unfriendly fortified
|holdings... (note that this is at DIRECT odds with how I would do it in
|enemy territory) I will continue running my games as I have posted to the
|list and use the same rules for all.

See my comments above regarding source holdings. Again, fortified holdings
would have to be besieged.

|However, as Memnoch pointed out, the landed regent supposedly has more
|knowledge of the realm and can therefore root out all holds of hostility.
|Sorry? Come again? No, I don't think so. Machiavelli would be the first
|to come out and say that you garner the loyalty of your new Prince by
|showing him where all his "bad guys" are at, so that he can root them out
|during the occupation. Never fail to account for the loyalty of your ever
|friendly citizens...

What you are describing is Espionage. Destroying the holding, in the case
of a province ruler doing this is akin to burning all the buildings down and
destroying all influence the rival regent has in his lands. However, with a
foreign regent doing this, they can't quite succeed. Once they invest the
province and become the ruler, they can do it, but until then, total
destruction is impossible.

|I refuse to recant, however, my just posted statement about ignorance of
|loyalty loss. In reading, I figure each unit to be equal to one level of
|law holding. At most, the occupying regent can ignore only two levels of
|loss (pg.. 47) with his units, and the bigger the province, the bigger the
|force required. That means that if I want to occupy Imperial City I will
|need at least 10 units of soldiers to "keep the peace" and ignore my two
|levels of loss. In my mind, the loss occurs regardless of how many units
|you have there, the populace is just too cowed, however, to do anything
|about it. However, as the city is a Level 10 CITY and not a province, that
|will find debate somehow (I can feel it!) :)

Yes, I would have to agree with you there. Ignoring an action merely means
that no repercussions result of the loyalty loss. It does not mean that the
loyalty loss does not happen.

|Further, in my mind the -1 loyalty grade adjustment for occupation is not
|enough. I recommend to all you that in your games you do as I do, and
|assign a further arbitrary loss of loyalty based on the reputation of the
|occupying regent. After all, his actions will already alter the local
|loyalty, but gaining loyalty should be twice as difficult. I value my
|personal freedoms. If my rulers elected to declare martial law they would
|have one Nine Hells of a time trying to win my loyalty back. I can say
|nothing for the sheep of the crowded masses... but...

This is arbitrary DM fiat, and while I disagree with something like this in
principle, I can understand where you have come up with this. Personally,
playing a holdings regent in PBEM's with Tyrants is where this comes from.

|In addition to looking at how rules are written, we must also analyze their
|spirit. The designers cannot create law to cover everything, and we will
|eventually have problems such as this that need to be in the same spirit as
|the law in the book. To say that occupation is different whether Bill
|Clinton does it to the United States or whether Boris Yeltsin or Tony
Blare
|do it is ludicrous. A tyrant is a tyrant.
|
|End of line.
|
|Tim Nutting
|zero@wiredweb.com
|
|
|
|************************************************* **************************
||'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
|

Tim Nutting

01-16-1999, 02:39 AM

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01BE40B6.5C7130A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Allright, precedent or no (BTW - I do not concur there) what the rules =
say (BR Rulebook, pg. 66, under the subheading of Occupation, under =
section Conquest and Occupation) is this:

"When a regent occupies a province, he can reduce any or all law, guild =
or temple hodlings to 0, even if they belong to neutral regents, or he =
can choose to recude the value of each of the province's sources by 1."

As you (Memnoch) stated, the invader may only assault one type of law, =
temple or guild. But regard the last "...or he can choose to reduce the =
value of each of the province's sources by 1." It is not necessary for =
the invader to find the manifestation as described by Book of Magecraft, =
only for him to feel out the land and find the flow of the mebhail, =
where it is strong and where it is not. Despoiling those places, even =
just their locales, is enough to disrupt the flow. The rules also =
account for the difficulty of harming a source, as they may only be =
reduced by one level per 4 war moves (an action round).

Regarding Source holdings and regents, any being of the blood may sense =
the power of the mebhail, even the Book of Magecraft allows this. =
Otherwise it would be impossible for Savane in the Player's Secrets of =
Tuarhievel to hold Prince Fhilaraene's Source holdings as regent. They =
would instantly become uncontrolled. It is the regent's blood that the =
magic responds to, that, and the extra capacity their blood affords is =
the only thing that allows wizards to work the sources.

>

Hehehe. I have never played in a PbEM, in point of fact I am preparing =
to run one for my friends as we debate. My statement was less a lash =
against the tyrants than any might think. In my mind I saw a chain of =
events similar to Roesoen liberating itself from Diemed. The armies of =
Daen Roesone had to occupy the land to keep it from the Baron Diem, but =
the common folk identified more with Daen than with the Baron, and thus =
were not as opposed to his occupation as they might have been to, say, =
Ghoere coming in and hammering Fairfield.

If any of you play in Osoerde with the Willhem Moergan plot thread, you =
might one day have to occupy your rightful provinces to keep tem from =
Jasen Rainech and Tarence Gryphon (now there's a Robin Hood story!) and =
take them. But I hazard a guess and say that the commoners would more =
love Moergan's occupation that Rainechs.

Tyrants exist within the real world and within BR, and they are not =
necessarily merely brutish PCs who are "unfair". Still, I get ticked at =
the folks who insist on being bullies and getting away with it.

Later

Tim Nutting
zero@wiredweb.com

- ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01BE40B6.5C7130A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<<I would have to disagree with you here, Tim, =
precedent=20
belies your statement.  The pattern of "reducing or destroying =

holdings" is established in the Occupation rules for an invading =
foreign=20
regent.  Now, most of the time, an exclusive "or" is =
implied when=20
used, thus, The Province Ruler in question would have to pick a holding =
*type*=20
and then destroy it.>>
 
Allright, precedent or no (BTW - I do not concur =
there) what=20
the rules say (BR Rulebook, pg. 66, under the subheading of Occupation, =
under=20
section Conquest and Occupation) is this:
 
 "When a regent occupies a province, he =
can reduce=20
any or all law, guild or temple hodlings to 0, even if they belong to =
neutral=20
regents, or he can choose to recude the value of each =
of the=20
province's sources by 1."
 
As you (Memnoch) stated, the invader may only =
assault one type=20
of law, temple or guild.  But regard the last "...or he can =
choose to=20
reduce the value of each of the province's sources by=20
1."  It is not necessary for the invader to find the =
manifestation as=20
described by Book of Magecraft, only for him to feel out the land and =
find the=20
flow of the mebhail, where it is strong and where it is not.  =
Despoiling=20
those places, even just their locales, is enough to disrupt the =
flow.  The=20
rules also account for the difficulty of harming a source, as they may =
only be=20
reduced by one level per 4 war moves (an action round).
 
Regarding Source holdings and regents, any being of =
the blood=20
may sense the power of the mebhail, even the Book of Magecraft allows=20
this.  Otherwise it would be impossible for Savane in the Player's =
Secrets=20
of Tuarhievel to hold Prince Fhilaraene's Source holdings as =
regent.  They=20
would instantly become uncontrolled.  It is the regent's blood that =
the=20
magic responds to, that, and the extra capacity their blood affords is =
the only=20
thing that allows wizards to work the sources.
 
<<Now, when considering Landed regents and =
Source=20
holdings:  #1  The Landed regent would not even be able to =
recognize a=20
source's manifestation, let alone find it.  Only wizard-type landed =
regents=20
would be able to do this, so that kind of makes military units when it =
comes to=20
attacking source moot.>>
 
Control of a holding is not tied to class, gaining =
regency=20
from a holding is.  A priest may hold a guild, but may not gain =
regency=20
from it, just as a ranger may hold a Source, and gain no regency from =
it. =20
If class dictated holding control, the Rogr Aglondier could not hold any =
law in=20
Illien becuase he's not a fighter.  If the point were moot, why =
would the=20
Book of Magecraft speak of the way that manifestations will defend =
themselves=20
against others seeking to do it harm?  An ancient oak might have a =
twisted=20
bramble of thorns about it, it suddenly might become too hard for sword =
or axe=20
to harm, etc.
<<As for fortified holdings, they have to =
be done in=20
by seige.  All the other rules are not negated merely because the =
province=20
ruler decides to attack those holdings within the lands that he=20
rules.>>
 
Then why is there the perception that the ruler of a =
domain=20
may completely eradicate a holding merely because he wishes it?  By =
the=20
statement in the sidebar and the logic you propose, the landed regent, =
wizard or=20
no (no stipulation against is made) may utterly eradicate any and all =
Source=20
holdings as well.
 
<<What you are describing is Espionage.  =
Destroying=20
the holding, in the case of a province ruler doing this is akin to =
burning all=20
the buildings down and destroying all influence the rival regent has in =
his=20
lands.  However, with a foreign regent doing this, they can't quite =

succeed.  Once they invest the province and become the ruler, they =
can do=20
it, but until then, total destruction is =
impossible.>>
 
But by investing they do not gain any further =
knowledge of the=20
land.  No mystical *boom* hits, save in power.  If Gavin Tael, =
Baron=20
of Ghoere were to conquer Caercas (capital Roesone) and invest it, he =
knows=20
nothing more now than he did when he started.  Your argument does =
not hold=20
water, to me at least.  Please clarify.
 
What I have received from your statements, Memnoch, =
is that=20
the landed regent may eradicate holdings in his invested territories =
because he=20
has a more intimate knowledge of his realm than a foreign invader =
would. =20
At the least, this is what you have stated at the reason behind the =
rule. =20
Above you outline the traiterous nature of the local peasantry and =
nobility as=20
Espionage, which is quite true, but by the above argument, all I would =
have to=20
do is succeed in an Espionage action against a holding type in the realm =
and I=20
would be able to treat it as the landed regent when I occupy,=20
right?
 
This whole line of reasoning is illogical.  =
Unless a=20
clear and logical reason why the invested ruler is allowed to occupy and =

erradicate holdings, where an invader cannot, is provided, I will =
continue to=20
believe, and rule, that both invested and invader are the same and =
treated by=20
the same rules regarding this action.  I still submit that a tyrant =
is a=20
tyrant whether he is your "rightful" ruler or =
not.
 
<<This is arbitrary DM fiat, <<regarding =

reputation of invader/tyrant>> and while I disagree with something =
like=20
this in principle, I can understand where you have come up with =
this. =20
Personally, playing a holdings regent in PBEM's with Tyrants is where =
this comes=20
from.>>
 
Hehehe.  I have never played in a PbEM, in =
point of fact=20
I am preparing to run one for my friends as we debate.  My =
statement was=20
less a lash against the tyrants than any might think.  In my mind I =
saw a=20
chain of events similar to Roesoen liberating itself from Diemed.  =
The=20
armies of Daen Roesone had to occupy the land to keep it from the Baron =
Diem,=20
but the common folk identified more with Daen than with the Baron, and =
thus were=20
not as opposed to his occupation as they might have been to, say, Ghoere =
coming=20
in and hammering Fairfield.
 
If any of you play in Osoerde with the Willhem =
Moergan plot=20
thread, you might one day have to occupy your rightful provinces to keep =
tem=20
from Jasen Rainech and Tarence Gryphon (now there's a Robin =
Hood=20
story!) and take them.  But I hazard a guess and say that the =
commoners=20
would more love Moergan's occupation that Rainechs.
 
Tyrants exist within the real world and within BR, =
and they=20
are not necessarily merely brutish PCs who are "unfair".  =
Still,=20
I get ticked at the folks who insist on being bullies and getting away =
with=20
it.
 
Later
 
Tim Nutting
zero@wiredweb.com

- ------=_NextPart_000_0058_01BE40B6.5C7130A0--

Memnoch

01-16-1999, 04:15 AM

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE40D4.8DC07F80
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Nutting
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Friday, January 15, 1999 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - I recant (sort of)
=20
=20

=20
Allright, precedent or no (BTW - I do not concur there) what the =
rules say (BR Rulebook, pg. 66, under the subheading of Occupation, =
under section Conquest and Occupation) is this:
=20
"When a regent occupies a province, he can reduce any or all law, =
guild or temple hodlings to 0, even if they belong to neutral regents, =
or he can choose to recude the value of each of the province's sources =
by 1."
=20
As you (Memnoch) stated, the invader may only assault one type of =
law, temple or guild. But regard the last "...or he can choose to =
reduce the value of each of the province's sources by 1." It is not =
necessary for the invader to find the manifestation as described by Book =
of Magecraft, only for him to feel out the land and find the flow of the =
mebhail, where it is strong and where it is not. Despoiling those =
places, even just their locales, is enough to disrupt the flow. The =
rules also account for the difficulty of harming a source, as they may =
only be reduced by one level per 4 war moves (an action round).
Yes, I would have to agree that if you take only the BR rulebook =
into account, then your statement is correct. However, it implies =
heavily, if not stated outright, that in order to "disrupt" the source =
holding, you have to attack and damage it's manifestation. Now, if you =
were to wage a campaign against the natural features of an area, then =
you would reduce the source *potential* of a province, not the sources =
directly. Now, if the sources were at their maximum level, then the =
regent would be able to choose which holdings loose their levels (see =
pillage)... But since only wizard types can even recognize the =
manifestation, the attacking regent would have to make this sort of =
general destruction of wilderness attack to garner the type of effect =
that you are describing...
=20
Regarding Source holdings and regents, any being of the blood may =
sense the power of the mebhail, even the Book of Magecraft allows this. =
Otherwise it would be impossible for Savane in the Player's Secrets of =
Tuarhievel to hold Prince Fhilaraene's Source holdings as regent. They =
would instantly become uncontrolled. It is the regent's blood that the =
magic responds to, that, and the extra capacity their blood affords is =
the only thing that allows wizards to work the sources.
=20
I do not agree with you there. Only wizards can sense this. For =
the other classes do not have the magical training to allow for it. =20
Only through the investiture ceremony can a non-wizard hold source =
holdings. Or through the assitance of a wizard Lt. Otherwise, no one =
can even establish a level 0 source.
=20
>
=20
Hehehe. I have never played in a PbEM, in point of fact I am =
preparing to run one for my friends as we debate. My statement was less =
a lash against the tyrants than any might think. In my mind I saw a =
chain of events similar to Roesoen liberating itself from Diemed. The =
armies of Daen Roesone had to occupy the land to keep it from the Baron =
Diem, but the common folk identified more with Daen than with the Baron, =
and thus were not as opposed to his occupation as they might have been =
to, say, Ghoere coming in and hammering Fairfield.
=20
Actually, I would invite you to join When Night Falls. I would like =
to see how you react when it comes to the interaction between players. =
I think it would be at least educational.
=20
=20
If any of you play in Osoerde with the Willhem Moergan plot thread, =
you might one day have to occupy your rightful provinces to keep tem =
from Jasen Rainech and Tarence Gryphon (now there's a Robin Hood story!) =
and take them. But I hazard a guess and say that the commoners would =
more love Moergan's occupation that Rainechs.
This depends on where in the plotline you pick up the story. If it =
is after Raenech's betrayal and investiture of Osoerde, then if Moergen =
decides to occupy provinces with troops, then the peasantry would rise =
against him due to the fact that Evil or No, Raenech is currently the =
Ruler of Osoerde. They have no other choice. Remember, the peasantry =
in the middle ages did not have the freedom of self-determination. The =
lived, did as they were told, and died, for the most part, unless =
influenced by another (See Great Captain)...=20
=20
Tyrants exist within the real world and within BR, and they are not =
necessarily merely brutish PCs who are "unfair". Still, I get ticked at =
the folks who insist on being bullies and getting away with it.
=20
=20
Remember the addage "All's fair in Love and War" ... added to this =
is "War is just an extension of Politics"... Now, if all is fair in love =
and war, and war is the same as politics, the all's fair in politcs as =
well :-)
=20
=20
=20
Later
=20
Tim Nutting
zero@wiredweb.com

- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE40D4.8DC07F80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

-----Original =
Message-----From:=20
Tim Nutting <zero@wiredweb.com>To: =
birthright@MPGN.COM <birthright@MPGN.COM>Dat=
e:=20
Friday, January 15, 1999 8:58 PMSubject: Re: =
[BIRTHRIGHT] - I=20
recant (sort of)
<<I would have to disagree with you here, =
Tim,=20
precedent belies your statement.  The pattern of "reducing =
or=20
destroying holdings" is established in the Occupation rules for =
an=20
invading foreign regent.  Now, most of the time, an exclusive=20
"or" is implied when used, thus, The Province Ruler in =
question=20
would have to pick a holding *type* and then destroy=20
it.>>
 
Allright, precedent or no (BTW - I do not concur =
there)=20
what the rules say (BR Rulebook, pg. 66, under the subheading of =
Occupation,=20
under section Conquest and Occupation) is this:
 
 "When a regent occupies a province, =
he can=20
reduce any or all law, guild or temple hodlings to 0, even if they =
belong to=20
neutral regents, or he can choose to recude the =
value of=20
each of the province's sources by 1."
 
As you (Memnoch) stated, the invader may only =
assault one=20
type of law, temple or guild.  But regard the last "...or =
he can=20
choose to reduce the value of each of the =
province's=20
sources by 1."  It is not necessary for the invader to =
find the=20
manifestation as described by Book of Magecraft, only for him to =
feel out=20
the land and find the flow of the mebhail, where it is strong and =
where it=20
is not.  Despoiling those places, even just their locales, is =
enough to=20
disrupt the flow.  The rules also account for the difficulty of =
harming=20
a source, as they may only be reduced by one level per 4 war moves =
(an=20
action round).
 Yes, =
I would have=20
to agree that if you take only the BR rulebook into account, then =
your=20
statement is correct.  However, it implies heavily, if not =
stated=20
outright, that in order to "disrupt" the source holding, =
you have=20
to attack and damage it's manifestation.  Now, if you were to =
wage a=20
campaign against the natural features of an area, then you would =
reduce the=20
source *potential* of a province, not the sources directly.  =
Now, if=20
the sources were at their maximum level, then the regent would be =
able to=20
choose which holdings loose their levels (see pillage)... But since =
only=20
wizard types can even recognize the manifestation, the attacking =
regent=20
would have to make this sort of general destruction of wilderness =
attack to=20
garner the type of effect that you are describing...
 
Regarding Source holdings and regents, any being =
of the=20
blood may sense the power of the mebhail, even the Book of Magecraft =
allows=20
this.  Otherwise it would be impossible for Savane in the =
Player's=20
Secrets of Tuarhievel to hold Prince Fhilaraene's Source holdings as =

regent.  They would instantly become uncontrolled.  It is =
the=20
regent's blood that the magic responds to, that, and the extra =
capacity=20
their blood affords is the only thing that allows wizards to work =
the=20
sources.
 
I do not agree with you =
there.  Only=20
wizards can sense this.  For the other classes do not have the =
magical=20
training to allow for it. 
Only through the investiture =
ceremony can a=20
non-wizard hold source holdings.  Or through the assitance of a =
wizard=20
Lt.  Otherwise, no one can even establish a level 0=20
source.
 
<<Now, when considering Landed regents and =
Source=20
holdings:  #1  The Landed regent would not even be able to =

recognize a source's manifestation, let alone find it.  Only=20
wizard-type landed regents would be able to do this, so that kind of =
makes=20
military units when it comes to attacking source =
moot.>>
 
Control of a holding is not tied to class, =
gaining regency=20
from a holding is.  A priest may hold a guild, but may not gain =
regency=20
from it, just as a ranger may hold a Source, and gain no regency =
from=20
it.  If class dictated holding control, the Rogr Aglondier =
could not=20
hold any law in Illien becuase he's not a fighter.  If the =
point were=20
moot, why would the Book of Magecraft speak of the way that =
manifestations=20
will defend themselves against others seeking to do it harm?  =
An=20
ancient oak might have a twisted bramble of thorns about it, it =
suddenly=20
might become too hard for sword or axe to harm, etc.
 
Yes, you =
are correct,=20
control of a holding is not tied to class, however, =
in the=20
case of source holdings, the establishment of sources is.  See =
my=20
statement above.  I can quote this rule directly if you=20
wish.
<<As for fortified holdings, they have =
to be=20
done in by seige.  All the other rules are not negated merely =
because=20
the province ruler decides to attack those holdings within the lands =
that he=20
rules.>>
 
Then why is there the perception that the ruler =
of a=20
domain may completely eradicate a holding merely because he wishes =
it? =20
By the statement in the sidebar and the logic you propose, the =
landed=20
regent, wizard or no (no stipulation against is made) may utterly =
eradicate=20
any and all Source holdings as well.
 
When dealing with=20
unfortified or normal holdings, he can.  When =
the=20
ruler is dealing with fortified holdings, they have =
to be=20
brought down by seige or assault. 
 
<<What you are describing is =
Espionage. =20
Destroying the holding, in the case of a province ruler doing this =
is akin=20
to burning all the buildings down and destroying all influence the =
rival=20
regent has in his lands.  However, with a foreign regent doing =
this,=20
they can't quite succeed.  Once they invest the province and =
become the=20
ruler, they can do it, but until then, total destruction is=20
impossible.>>
 
But by investing they do not gain any further =
knowledge of=20
the land.  No mystical *boom* hits, save in power.  If =
Gavin Tael,=20
Baron of Ghoere were to conquer Caercas (capital Roesone) and invest =
it, he=20
knows nothing more now than he did when he started.  Your =
argument does=20
not hold water, to me at least.  Please clarify.
 
I disagree.  The magical =
manner is=20
which the bond is established between Ruler and Land necessitates=20
this.  He knows how many people hold his =
loyalty, he=20
knows who has holdings greater than level 0 in his=20
lands.  This knowledge is transmitted through this mystical=20
link. 
 
What I have received from your statements, =
Memnoch, is=20
that the landed regent may eradicate holdings in his invested =
territories=20
because he has a more intimate knowledge of his realm than a foreign =
invader=20
would.  At the least, this is what you have stated at the =
reason behind=20
the rule.  Above you outline the traiterous nature of the local =

peasantry and nobility as Espionage, which is quite true, but by the =
above=20
argument, all I would have to do is succeed in an Espionage action =
against a=20
holding type in the realm and I would be able to treat it as the =
landed=20
regent when I occupy, right?
 
I believe that would be a =
legitimate use of=20
espionage.  There are much more helpful uses of espionage,=20
however.
 
This whole line of reasoning is illogical.  =
Unless a=20
clear and logical reason why the invested ruler is allowed to occupy =
and=20
erradicate holdings, where an invader cannot, is provided, I will =
continue=20
to believe, and rule, that both invested and invader are the same =
and=20
treated by the same rules regarding this action.  I still =
submit that a=20
tyrant is a tyrant whether he is your "rightful" ruler or=20
not.
 
Yes, a tyrant is a tyrant, =
regardless. =20
However, when dealing with the Regency Factor and the =
magical/mystical link=20
between Ruler and Ruled that is the major factor that is swaying my =
opinion=20
here.  I agree, in principle, that the landed regent should not =
have=20
the ability to totally eradicate unfortified holdings within his =
land,=20
however, this is contradictory to the rules as stated.
 
 
 
<<This is arbitrary DM fiat, =
<<regarding=20
reputation of invader/tyrant>> and while I disagree with =
something=20
like this in principle, I can understand where you have come up with =

this.  Personally, playing a holdings regent in PBEM's with =
Tyrants is=20
where this comes from.>>
 
Hehehe.  I have never played in a PbEM, in =
point of=20
fact I am preparing to run one for my friends as we debate.  My =

statement was less a lash against the tyrants than any might =
think.  In=20
my mind I saw a chain of events similar to Roesoen liberating itself =
from=20
Diemed.  The armies of Daen Roesone had to occupy the land to =
keep it=20
from the Baron Diem, but the common folk identified more with Daen =
than with=20
the Baron, and thus were not as opposed to his occupation as they =
might have=20
been to, say, Ghoere coming in and hammering Fairfield.
 
Actually, I would invite you to =
join When=20
Night Falls.  I would like to see how you react when it comes =
to the=20
interaction between players.  I think it would be at least=20
educational.
 
 
If any of you play in Osoerde with the Willhem =
Moergan=20
plot thread, you might one day have to occupy your rightful =
provinces to=20
keep tem from Jasen Rainech and Tarence Gryphon (now =
there's a=20
Robin Hood story!) and take them.  But I hazard a guess and say =
that=20
the commoners would more love Moergan's occupation that=20
Rainechs.
 This =
depends on=20
where in the plotline you pick up the story.  If it is after =
Raenech's=20
betrayal and investiture of Osoerde, then if Moergen decides to =
occupy=20
provinces with troops, then the peasantry would rise against him due =
to the=20
fact that Evil or No, Raenech is currently the Ruler of =
Osoerde.  They=20
have no other choice.  Remember, the peasantry in the middle =
ages did=20
not have the freedom of self-determination.  The lived, did as =
they=20
were told, and died, for the most part, unless influenced by another =
(See=20
Great Captain)...
 
Tyrants exist within the real world and within =
BR, and=20
they are not necessarily merely brutish PCs who are=20
"unfair".  Still, I get ticked at the folks who =
insist on=20
being bullies and getting away with it.
 
Remember the addage "All's =
fair in Love=20
and War" ... added to this is "War is just an extension of =

Politics"... Now, if all is fair in love and war, and war is =
the same=20
as politics, the all's fair in politcs as well :-)
 
 
 
Later
 
Tim Nutting
zero@wiredweb.com

- ------=_NextPart_000_000F_01BE40D4.8DC07F80--