Lah Holdings vs Loyalty

[L.Willett]

>I have a bit of trouble with the 'Law holdings and Loyalty' rule (RB, p.
>47). A ruler who controls all L.H. ignores two grades of change in loyalty.
>Does it mean it takes a three-grade chage ON THE SAME TURN to affect the
>loyalty rating, or that loyalty drops once there have been three changes ON
>SUBSEQUENT TURNS?
>
>I'd go for the second option, since it seems to me the first one allows far
>too much abuse to be tolerated by the folk, but perhaps I didn't get this
>right at all. How do you deal with that in your campaings?

Personally, I find severe taxes, not severe enough. What with owning all
the law holdings, leadership checks and agitation; a regent can ignore 4 !
levels of loyalty change; which is nothing compared to the 2 levels for
severe taxes.
Severe taxation, should be just that SEVERE !

-

[rcantin@oricom.ca (Robin]

I have a bit of trouble with the 'Law holdings and Loyalty' rule (RB, p.
47). A ruler who controls all L.H. ignores two grades of change in loyalty.
Does it mean it takes a three-grade chage ON THE SAME TURN to affect the
loyalty rating, or that loyalty drops once there have been three changes ON
SUBSEQUENT TURNS?

I'd go for the second option, since it seems to me the first one allows far
too much abuse to be tolerated by the folk, but perhaps I didn't get this
right at all. How do you deal with that in your campaings?

Robin


Webmaster of the Direct Democracy Pages
http://www.oricom.ca/~rcantin/AIntro.html
Les Pages Democratie Directe
http://www.oricom.ca/~rcantin/Introduction.html

[Eric Beauchesne]

- ----------
> From: Robin Cantin
> To: birthright@MPGN.COM
> Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Lah Holdings vs Loyalty
> Date: 28 avril, 1997 10:02
>
> I have a bit of trouble with the 'Law holdings and Loyalty' rule (RB, p.
> 47). A ruler who controls all L.H. ignores two grades of change in
loyalty.
> Does it mean it takes a three-grade chage ON THE SAME TURN to affect the
> loyalty rating, or that loyalty drops once there have been three changes
ON
> SUBSEQUENT TURNS?
>
> I'd go for the second option, since it seems to me the first one allows
far
> too much abuse to be tolerated by the folk, but perhaps I didn't get this
> right at all. How do you deal with that in your campaings?
>
> Robin

In my campains, I use the first option because to get all the law holdings
is theorically (sorry for the spelling, it's a direct translation from
French) very difficult... only the 2 greatest rulers (in the sens of most
powerfuls) are in this case. If you have all the law holdings, it means
that nobody gets the power to say a word on the matter of law in your
domain; not the temple, not the guilds that love to control at least some
bit of the law nor yours "ennemi" neighbours that whant to dictate
everything you do!
When one of my player is becoming to powerful in law holding, some
powerful people is interested in contesting the holdings( maybe a big
traders guild or someone who wants something of the land for himself...
And don't forget that severe taxation was the standart in Middle-Age, the
law, supported by the army or maybe the army supported by the law, was
able to keep the land almost quiet, even in time of war and it took many
centuries of oppressing taxes and law before it conclude in a revolution...
Hope it helps and you understand what I tried to write...

Éric

[Jonathan Picklesimer]

On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, Eric Beauchesne wrote:

> Hope it helps and you understand what I tried to write...
>=20
> =C9ric

Eric,

Very nice. Your English is better than most people I know whose native=20
language is English. Good points. The oppressed find it terribly=20
difficult to rise above their oppressors. Otherwise Mur-Kilad and=20
Markazor and Keirgaard would have thrown off the Gorgon centuries ago.

jsp