Province level, taxation and population

[Sir Tiamat]

There seem to be at least 2 incompatible views of province populations. I hope that this concise formulation of both views is correct:

-The first view is that province level represents the population under taxation of and loyal to the province ruler in this view the actual number of people is greater.

-The second view is that the province level is the actual number of people, and the loyalty to the ruler is represented by the part of the law the regent controls.

Some problems I could think of, do you see others?

First view:
Why do source levels lower when the ruler increases control of the population?
Why does rule get harder with increased control?
What is the actual population in the province?

Second view:
Why do law holdings have little effect on taxation?
Why are the population levels so small in certain Provinces?

To me both are legitimate views, but either view has a major effect on tax collection and the rule province domain action. Currently, the use of both incompatible views interchangeably obfuscates the provincial rule, growth, tax collection and loyalty. This should be addressed by selecting one view and make all other things compatible with this view.

[Sir Tiamat]

I gathered some earlier views on this subject from the economics thread to illustrate some of the inconsistencies I perceive:


As I read the books BR populations are of taxpayers (or possibly hearths, thanks Ken) not of actual people - so you could easily have 3-5 times as many people as the numbers indicate without changing the setting otherwise.

Ideally I would want the system to reflect L1-2 provinces as mostly empty - possibly with only one part actually inhabited. L3-4 should be reasonably populated with a number of villages and a few towns, L5-6 should have quite chunky populations with a proper city, L7+should be a major urban centre...


I think the Sorelies case might be more common than not. If Cerilia is in more or less a constant state of war, then perhaps plenty of provinces have been pillaged and the controls of central authority both in terms of infrastructure (the courthouse burned along with all the tax rolls) but the personell too (and they killed the county assessor). So gradually and with effort, these must be rebuilt.

Medoere strikes me as oddly low in population (along with some of Roesone) and I think the reason is the recent wars of independence. The new powers are having to establish their governance, being unable to just take over for Diemed.


I had the same problems with the towns and cities in
small population provinces having so many people.


Success in this area is not to focus on details, but broad principles. Forays into details are like experiments to confirm that you've settled on the right broad principles. What most simulationists are looking for is elegance. What we really want is a beautiful system that takes us from pages 136-142 in the DMG through individuals using the Profession check to determine income to towns, manors, holdings, provinces, and up to BR realms and domains without many problems.


My perspective is related to demesne land, subinfeudiation and efficiency of exercise of feudal rights. That is, every town is paying taxes to somebody, but the share of that which actually makes it all the way up the chain to the province ruler, and the amount which he has to pay out again in order to maintain smooth functioning of the system, varies greatly. I have come to believe that province level is primarily a measure of that variation in administrative effectiveness, rather than a direct relation to population density.

I view it as being very high in population, as it must have been in order to have had sufficient resources to successfully break away from Diemed. In my model, the very low province ratings represent that the leaders of the rebellion had to promise all sorts of concessions to the local landowners below the BR scale, thus greatly weakening the powers of the central government to get anything else done now -- issuing Magna Carta, giving the power of the purse to the parliament, etc. In my view, the war reduced the province levels not by *depopulating* those lands, but rather by *decentralizing* them. IMO, the many Rule actions which Suris Enlien should now undertake do not represent attracting vast numbers of new settlers, but rather extending the degree of administrative control she has over the people who are already there


The law regent is not necessarily a mere law enforcement agent or a lackey. Likewise, law holdings do not necessarily constitute police forces or codes of conduct. Law holdings appear in diverse forms, and can be wielded in a variety of ways.
In many cases, the most powerful law regent in an area also rules the province. Law is often to be a tool by which the province regent enforces his will. However, political situations and the division of power don’t always work out that way. For whatever reason, sometimes the law of a realm becomes divided between the province ruler and the law regent. The question of who is more powerful in the area becomes an important, and not easily answered one.
The Power of Law
Think of the law regent as the head of the civil authority (or, in the case of many law regents, a civil authority). The law regent has local power. He polices the province in which his holdings lie, and makes law and policy for those people who respect his holding. He might be a local sheriff, a knight of the realm, even the lord of the land, but his power derives from local authority.
Because of this local authority, the law regent can make very specific laws and decrees that affect the internal workings of a realm. He can contest others’ holdings, declare activities legal or required, and file claims against other regents. He has the power of interference on a local and powerful level.
The Provincial Power
When a character rules a province, he assumes control over the entire province and treats it as one entity comprising many parts. He can tax the province and can even make his own laws and regulations within the province, but without the local power of law, he has nothing to directly back him up, except the threat of real force, since military units can be law holdings when a province is occupied.
In a way, that’s about as subtle as the province ruler can get. He can threaten to occupy his own provinces and close down any holdings within them or trade routes going out, but he can’t perform smaller, more direct operations on his own. His decrees should not have nearly the effect of a law regent’s, unless he is willing to risk a shift in loyalty by calling in troops.
However, the province ruler often can deal with the world on a macro scale more effectively than a regent who controls only law holdings. In a way, the local law regent fits the “big fish, small pond” analogy. Within his domain, he is very powerful; without, he cannot affect much on his own.
For this reason, law regents who lack an alternate power base generally at least try to work with their realm regents. They know that their authority is local and that, without the province ruler’s good will, they could be shut down in a few months. Likewise, the province ruler knows that, if he did shut down all the law holdings in his domain, he would just have to rebuild them again or do without any local authority

[kgauck]

First view:
Why do source levels lower when the ruler increases control of the population?
Why does rule get harder with increased control?
What is the actual population in the province?
About Source levels, I'll defer to magiophiles, but my own sense is that they don't. They are reduced by the actual population in the province.

The rule action gets harder because people resist increases in the control, taxation, and regulation of their lives. The commoners, burghers, and lessor nobility are getting the coin as it is now (probably with commoners weakest, but not neccesarily in aggregate). In Magical Medieval Society, pathetic kings get 6% of the total non-royal tax income. Weak kings get 18%, average kings get 30%, strong kings get 42%, and exceptional kings get 55%. In Birthright, we have a means to quantify how strong a king is by how many levels of province they possess in a province. So if I'm going from pathetic to weak, I'm tripling my share of the taxation, increasing my take by 12%. (All of the increments are 12%, except the 13% jump at exceptional). There are people who used to keep these taxes, or simply not pay them. They will resist the new controls, or evade them.

Further, consider new taxes. There are some areas where your taxes are heavy already. You must find areas where there is untapped suplus to levy new taxes, and those in possession of same will not volunteer their existance. If the wine trade has grown up significantly, but wine production was taxed as if it were a normal crop, rather than a cash crop, and other parts of the production chain, presses, barrels, distribution, inns or vendors, are totally untaxed or regulated. Increasing the province levels means adding new inspectors and collectors to asses and collect the wealth. Is this a functional new organization you have established? Or did you just devise a bureau which will consume as expences 110% of the taxes they collect? The rule action would not always be a success.

Finally, there should be a loss of loyalty when you rule a province up, as the traditional responce to increased regulation, taxation, and direction has been discontent and revolt. The Peasants' Revolt in 1381 is a classic example. John of Gaunt, as Richard II's regent, attempted to rule too many provinces up at once.

The actual population of a province should be determine geographically. People, like any other population, will expand to the holding capacity of their ecosystem very quickly. We figure out how much habitation a province will support, and that's its population.

[Sir Tiamat]

The rule action gets harder because people resist increases in the control, taxation, and regulation of their lives. The commoners, burghers, and lessor nobility are getting the coin as it is now (probably with commoners weakest, but not neccesarily in aggregate). In Magical Medieval Society, pathetic kings get 6% of the total non-royal tax income. Weak kings get 18%, average kings get 30%, strong kings get 42%, and exceptional kings get 55%. In Birthright, we have a means to quantify how strong a king is by how many levels of province they possess in a province. So if I'm going from pathetic to weak, I'm tripling my share of the taxation, increasing my take by 12%. (All of the increments are 12%, except the 13% jump at exceptional). There are people who used to keep these taxes, or simply not pay them. They will resist the new controls, or evade them.
.

If we assume that province level is not the population level, would not the level of law holdings help control taxation instead of the other way round?

Currently the Law, guild and temple holdings must be lower than the province level. If province level determines the power of the king and his taxation in stead of total population, is it not strange that guilds and temples (unaligned with the king) must be smaller? Furthermore, would one not first rule a law holding above the province level, in order to aid the king in ruling the province (taxation) level?

I would assume that holding sizes are based on total population whereas taxation would be based on king’s strength, the level of authoritarian control over the total population.

[Elton Robb]

About Source levels, I'll defer to magiophiles, but my own sense is that they don't. They are reduced by the actual population in the province.

Kenneth is correct. A province's sources are reduced by the actual population in the province. From the BIRTHRIGHT Rulebook:


The vital characteristic of a Province is it's level; this is an overall measure and prosperity of a province.

When a Regent allows settlement (i.e. uses the Rule action to increase the Province level), Sources can be disrupted by settlement. According to the Rulebook, if I were a Wizard Regent in control of a province that has the potential for a province level of (9). As Regent, I could establish an initial province level of (0), through the Create Holding action. So my province becomes a (0/9).

Then I'd send settlers to my new province. This is the Rule action, increasing my domain by 1 or 2. So my hypothetical province becomes a (1/8) or (2/7). Then I would establish a source holding in my new province (Source [0]). As I take control of more sources, I Rule up my source holdings to (7). As I control all the sources in this capable province, I can govern my Domain as a Warrior Regent may. Of course, I can establish a Law holding of 2.

But if my new province has it's population increased through the Rule action, my Source holdings can be reduced. If I increase the Province Level by 1, from (2/7) to (3/6), my source holdings are also reduced by 1. This makes it obvious that the Priests of Ruornil and the Druids of Erik are somewhat in alliance in protecting the wildlife of the world. Even if some druids don't understand Wizard regents in the first place.

[Sir Tiamat]

Kenneth is correct. A province's sources are reduced by the actual population in the province. From the BIRTHRIGHT Rulebook:



When a Regent allows settlement (i.e. uses the Rule action to increase the Province level), Sources can be disrupted by settlement. According to the Rulebook, if I were a Wizard Regent in control of a province that has the potential for a province level of (9). As Regent, I could establish an initial province level of (0), through the Create Holding action. So my province becomes a (0/9).

Then I'd send settlers to my new province. This is the Rule action, increasing my domain by 1 or 2. So my hypothetical province becomes a (1/8) or (2/7). Then I would establish a source holding in my new province (Source [0]). As I take control of more sources, I Rule up my source holdings to (7). As I control all the sources in this capable province, I can govern my Domain as a Warrior Regent may. Of course, I can establish a Law holding of 2.

But if my new province has it's population increased through the Rule action, my Source holdings can be reduced. If I increase the Province Level by 1, from (2/7) to (3/6), my source holdings are also reduced by 1. This makes it obvious that the Priests of Ruornil and the Druids of Erik are somewhat in alliance in protecting the wildlife of the world. Even if some druids don't understand Wizard regents in the first place.
I know what the book says, but still find the present rules contradictory. Am I the only one that feels that province level stands for different things on different occasions?

Edit: the view of Kenneth implies that provinces are more settled than the province level suggests. So we cannot solve the problem by looking at settlement alone; the people that do not pay taxes in the heartland are hardly roaming nomads I pressume.

[kgauck]

Limiting holdings sizes to the Province levels only makes sense when Province level = population. No such assumption should be made. In effect, you should imagine Population level to be the limiting factor of sources and other holdings, and consider Province level to be another kind of holding.

Bevaldruor http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/images/4/4b/Bevaldruor.png
could be recorded as 6/3 where 6 is the Population, 3 is the Source, and then there are the holdings Province (6), Law (4), Temples (3) and (3), and so on.

BR has placed taxation entirely within the province rating, so the levels of law holdings don't help taxation at all.


I would assume that holding sizes are based on total population whereas taxation would be based on king’s strength, the level of authoritarian control over the total population.
Certainly, and we measure the king's strength and control by his Province rating. At least as far as taxation is concerned.

This would raise interesting possibilities of divided province holdings just as we have other holdings divided. What if the little break-away realms of Medoere and Roesone still have province holdings in their realm controlled by Diemed? Is Caerwil Province (2) Suris Enlien, Province (3) Heirl Diem, Law (4) Guilder Kalien, Law (1) Heirl Diem, and Temple (5) Ruornil's Celestial Spell?
As the invested regent of Caerwil, Suris Enlien is the theoretical master of the province, but her secular power in the realm is weak.

[Sir Tiamat]

Limiting holdings sizes to the Province levels only makes sense when Province level = population. No such assumption should be made. In effect, you should imagine Population level to be the limiting factor of sources and other holdings, and consider Province level to be another kind of holding.

I agree we should get those entangled concepts dissentangled... We must seek an elegant solution to this, because in an attempt to correct this we run the risk of drifting further from the original setting than we would like.

first let us for now not speak of ''province level but divide it into to two seperate levels, one for taxation and control and one for population, one of which will later be called province level.

Is suggest two working-titels let us talk of '"control level" and "population level"

One problem I see is with the current levels in the AD&D setting, displayed on the map:

the levels pictured on the map of cerillia are in your view "control levels" rather than "population levels"; this has a huge effect on the levels of other holdings...

[Sir Tiamat]

BR has placed taxation entirely within the province rating, so the levels of law holdings don't help taxation at all.


Basing taxation/"control level" in part on law, might be an elegant way out, although basing it totally on law would make law holding too powerful...

[kgauck]

The game map must contain only the at-start numbers, because of all of them are subject to change as play progresses.


Basing taxation/"control level" in part on law, might be an elegant way out, although basing it totally on law would make law holding too powerful...
Historically, half the income of royals and nobles (although the nobles have a much more varied situation) comes from law holdings. Another possible name for the "control level" would be administration holdings.

[Sir Tiamat]

I am thinking out loud here…

Ruling the “population level” should affect sources and should definitely be harder than ruling the “control level”. Ruling the “control level” would likely be aided by law holding

[ryancaveney]

-The first view is that province level represents the population under taxation of and loyal to the province ruler in this view the actual number of people is greater.

-The second view is that the province level is the actual number of people, and the loyalty to the ruler is represented by the part of the law the regent controls.

The second view you list is that of the original rulebook, pages 33 and 34: level 0 provinces have less than 1,000 people, level 1 to level 3 provinces have 2,000 to 10,000 people, level 4 to level 6 provinces have 10,000 to 40,000 people, and provinces level 7 and up have 40,000 to 100,000 people. The most elegant formula derivable from this, as Kenneth once pointed out, is population in thousands equals province level squared. To give level 0 provinces a nonzero population under this system, I use one-half instead of zero, giving a total of 250 people in a level zero.

The first view you list is what a number of people, including me, have adopted as a replacement over the years because there are some serious believability problems with the rulebook's view. One is that the population of Cerilia is absurdly low -- only about 2 million instead of the 20 to 120 million it really ought to have, given its size, time since settlement, and medieval agricultural yields. Far worse than that, in my opinion, is its effect on the Rule action. When you rule a province 3 up to a province 4, where do the other 7,000 people come from? When you rule it up to level 5 three months later, another 9,000 people appear out of nowhere. This is ridiculously fast for real population growth: even at modern-world rates, each of those actions should be thirty years apart, not three months. Gary Foss suggested this was due to migration, but I just don't see the Cerilian population as anywhere near mobile enough for that. Also, as soon as you start a new campaign, provinces start getting ruled up all over the place -- migration is a zero-sum game, because all those people have to come from somewhere, which should become less populated as a result. When Rule Province is going on all over the place, migration would mean hundreds of thousands of new immigrants arriving from Aduria or Djapar or someplace, which seems almost as hard to believe. Since I would otherwise have to limit the Rule action to once per province per campaign, which is much less fun, I have to decouple province level from raw numerical population.


First view:
Why do source levels lower when the ruler increases control of the population?
Why does rule get harder with increased control?
What is the actual population in the province?

I'll answer these according to my own interpretation and implementation of the view, but others who agree with me that province level and population are not the same may have other answers -- which I would be particularly interested to hear!

Kenneth already answered the first for me: they're determined by actual population, not control of it. He also answered the second quite well, to which I will add one additional point. Consider that when you start increasing your control of a province, the minor nobles, burghers and other landholders will not all have the same attitudes: some will be easier to bring into your control than others. It seems perfectly sensible to start with the people most likely to agree with you, then those in the middle, and only at the end turn to the ones most resistant to your control. Similarly, you buy the cheapest land (relative to productivity) first and the most expensive land last. This accounts for increasing investment, bribery and influence costs in GB and RP quite nicely, I think.

My answer to the third question depends on the original province population table, together with the maximum province level by terrain type table on the last page (96) of the original rulebook:

3 Desert
1 Glacier
6 Heavy Forest
9 Hills
8 Light Forest
6 Marsh / Swamp
7 Low Mountains
5 Medium Mountains
3 High Mountains
6 Moor / Highland
10 Plains
6 Steppes
2 Tundra

Sadly for rules clarity, the maps do not make this table easy to use: for example, many provinces have two or three different types, and there is no visual distinction made between the three kinds of mountains. Perhaps worse, it is not quite the same list of terrain types as appears on page 81, in the table showing maximum source level by terrain type. However, both those problems need to be resolved in order to play the game in the first place, without making any changes to the meaning of province level. Some modifications also need to be made by species (e.g., maximum dwarf population level in mountain provinces ought to be substantially higher), but the idea should be clear.

As a simple example, consider Medoere. It consists of three plains provinces, one each of levels 2, 3 and 4. In my model, it has three plains provinces, so it has 300,000 inhabitants. In the other model, it has only 29,000. The larger number is far more consistent with historical population densities for the heart of the settled lands of the empire. The smaller number could be improved by multiplying by an overall scaling factor, but the big problem comes when Suris Enlien starts Ruling up the provinces. In my model, all she does is increase her control over the sub-BR-scale landowners; the population stays the same, which IMO is good -- the ruler should really not be able to affect that much at all. In the other model, she creates people out of thin air, which I find so unbelievable that I had to change the rule.


To me both are legitimate views, but either view has a major effect on tax collection and the rule province domain action. Currently, the use of both incompatible views interchangeably obfuscates the provincial rule, growth, tax collection and loyalty. This should be addressed by selecting one view and make all other things compatible with this view.

Within any one model, yes. However, I don't think there will ever be complete agreement over which model is best. I prefer my way, and modify all the things you mention to make a coherent system. However, I recognize that many people play a different way, and I still participate in their discussions, but I have to modify my assumptions to do so effectively.


Ryan

[Sir Tiamat]

If

"population level" = size of settled population

&

"control level" = amount of the settled population that pays tribute to the king.

then:

The way I see it both "population level" and "control level" determine tax income. The current scores on the map represent tax income.

"population level" determines holding level

"population level" determines source level

"population level" determines infrastructure

"population level" = maximum "control level"

Is this correct?

[Sir Tiamat]

Kenneth already answered the first for me: they're determined by actual population, not control of it. He also answered the second quite well, to which I will add one additional point. Consider that when you start increasing your control of a province, the minor nobles, burghers and other landholders will not all have the same attitudes: some will be easier to bring into your control than others. It seems perfectly sensible to start with the people most likely to agree with you, then those in the middle, and only at the end turn to the ones most resistant to your control. Similarly, you buy the cheapest land (relative to productivity) first and the most expensive land last. This accounts for increasing investment, bribery and influence costs in GB and RP quite nicely, I think.

The point remains that maximum guild, temple and law holding also depend on that figure, which makes no sense. Moreover, a regent would use loyalty and coercieve power (law holding) to increase his share of the pie. Rule province is does not allow any aid of holdings or regency because it is assumed to stand for population level.

Edit: And how would one determine the level of settlement, it could not alone depend on landscape cultivated plains can hold more people than plains with herding nomads

[ryancaveney]

If ... then ... Is this correct?

That's what I do, yes. The one distinction I would add is that while "population level" determines what infrastructure is present, "control level" determines how much of the existing infrastructure the province ruler can effectively access. That is, if population is high but control is low, then much of the industrial base will belong to someone else, so the ruler will have to pay through the nose to gain temporary access to it. To my mind, getting around these costs by getting the middleman to work for you is part of why net income goes up with control level: you're now getting a cut of their profits, instead of contributing to the share of their profits which they pass on to someone else.


Ryan

[ryancaveney]

The point remains that maximum guild, temple and law holding also depend on that figure, which makes no sense.

Right, so I've changed that, too. One rules tweak often implies another, and I am constantly tinkering with the result to improve the overall consistency and elegance of the model.


Moreover, a regent would use loyalty and coercieve power (law holding) to increase his share of the pie. Rule province is does not allow any aid of holdings or regency because it is assumed to stand for population level.

It doesn't allow RP expenditure? That's certainly not how I read the rule! In my games, spending lots of RP to decrease the target number of Rule Province is almost universal. I allow law holding level to affect the target number as well, but only those law holdings in the part of the land you don't already control. I don't keep separate track of where holdings are; I just assume that as many of yours as can fit in your controlled lands are there, so the bonus from law holdings is holding level minus province level: TN = 11 + 2P - L, where P is the current province level and L is your law holding level. Other law regents may add or subtract their holding levels normally; any uncontrolled law holdings automatically count against you, since clearly those people already don't like being ruled by your government.


And how would one determine the level of settlement, it could not alone depend on landscape cultivated plains can hold more people than plains with herding nomads

To me, that's precisely the difference between the "steppe" terrain type and the "plains" terrain type: they have the same movement cost, so the only practical difference is the factor of three difference in population density. As DM, I set all that up at the beginning of a campaign. Some places are treated specially from the start (like the Basilisk's three nearly-empty provinces), and others can happen during play (for example, the Death Plague realm spell reduces both control level and population level).


Ryan

[Jaleela]

The population levels as defined by the original boxed set are way too small to support the towns and cities envisioned in the domain supplements, in any agrarian society pre late 19th century in technology level. There is no way around this concept, unless suspension of disbelief involves Cerilian humans living on air alone. I think we have gone over this more than adequately on other threads. Also, armies cannot be raised or sustained at the levels envisioned without a more realistic population level. This would aslso make source reduction based on population a lot more reasonable proposition.

Untill this root problem is resolved, any 'elegant solution' cannot be reached.

[AndrewTall]

It doesn't allow RP expenditure? That's certainly not how I read the rule! In my games, spending lots of RP to decrease the target number of Rule Province is almost universal.
Ryan

Spending RP on rule province actions
In the BRCs they changed this - in my view probably to make it harder to rule provinces. I prefer to increase the cost (see below) or force a time delay (see the wiki houserule).

Importance of province level
I dislike the idea of a 'ruler' only getting a fraction of the RP income - I'm not so fussed about GB as I can accept the tiers of bureaucracy argument. Whether or not Joe the miller pays his taxes direct to the king for use of a toll road, etc or whether he pays it to the squire, who pays it to the lord who pays it to the count etc shouldn't change the fact that Joe knows that the king is the chap on a big white horse with a crown - in BR that should mean the RP is based on total population. If the opulation is detached from prvince level then currently Joe should consider the squire to be his regent and the rule action actually changes tribal loyalties - a very hard thing generally...

I am happy to have intersecting populations - Knukk the goblins tribe (pop level 1) and the dwarves of the hills (pop 3) may live in the same province but have no reason to be amalgamated into a single province population, similarly Harl Diem and Suris may both have distinct populations (east and west of a province for example) - but generally I'd draw the province borders to avoid that sort of problem - a bigger issue however is whether the province and source populations should overlap given that one wants to follow political boundaries and the other terrain types - the two often overlap but not always.

For simplicity I would say that the province level represents people (whether taxpayers, hearths, families, or actual bodies) that answer to the crown, the actual population level can be 1-2 levels higher. That preserves the possibility of wild realms, but grants justification both for slightly low populations in some areas and for rule actions more than once per generation in some areas.

Increasing population by a factor of 10 having no impact aside from the size of military units and impact of heroes on a battlefield as you just scale down the impact on source holdings to keep source+province level at the same maximum and scale movement to fit the new population parameters - if you double province size to make the continent a bit less dinky good for you...

Source level
It could be argued that sourse holdings reduce not simply due to the number of warm bodies present, but also disruptions to the land - roads, bridges, fields, forts, etc, etc. A series of small hamlets unconnected to civilisation has no impact, but if the local lord builds roads across the ancient ley lines disrupting the mebhaighl flow in order to get his taxes, etc then the source level reduces.

This is a gross simplification of course - particularly for higher level provinces, but to my mind it is the artifacts of civilisation that hit the source level - not just the presence of warm bodies. In my view, as an example, Elven populations don't reduce source levels not because elven regents know how to 'bend the rules' on magic, but because the population doesn't build roads, buildings, weirs, mills, etc like other races, or where they do so follow the natural mebhaighl flow to avoid disrupting it - I see the sidhe as far more like wood/forest elves in other settings than 'high' or 'grey' elves from those settings, even akin to the Cha'asi and Hulderfolk of Taladas, so most probably own no more than they can carry, have no need of shelter, etc - and as inherently magical beings need very little agriculture etc. (Much as BR dwarves can eat dirt the elves are sustained partly by mebhaighl - explaining why they are driven from tainted lands so easily).

Holdings over the province level
If the population can a 1-2 levels beyond the province level indicates, then a guild/temple holding could extend beyond the stated province level - but I'd say it should be difficult - at least double or triple cost - as it represents going beyond the normal bounds of civilisation, into the very private fiefdom of a noble, etc.

Rule actions
I'm not sure that slowing the rate a regent rule provinces is a big problem, you only really need to hit high level provinces (rule L0 to L1 and frankly you found a few farmsteads, even L2 to L3 isn't a killer to explain). So the easy fix is to say that to rule a province costs (in RP and GB) the province level squared - and builds at a maximum of 1d6 per round like anything else... Spending RP to boost the odds costs a minimum of 25% of the base cost per pip...

If regents in a game are simply using rule actions constantly to gain strength then they aren't striving for power with intrigue, trade, war, etc - a game where the players spend all their time rolling rules is impoverished compared to one where the players must interact with other domains to gains strength so restriction on rule actions should be fine. Of course if one regent wants to use diplomacy against another regent's population to convince the peasants to emigrate so that the first regent can rule their province, or allows bandits to lay waste to the other regent's realm to encourage the locals to flee to the 'safe' realm then fine - that's what DM's are for, to see circumstances outside the expectations of the game and judge their success fairly...

[kgauck]

And how would one determine the level of settlement, it could not alone depend on landscape cultivated plains can hold more people than plains with herding nomads
Certainly it is determined by landscape alone. The whole history of human existance is the displacement of nomands by settled people (nearly complete by 1500 AD) and the further displacement of hortoculturalists and pastoralists by intensive agriculturalists (nearly complete today).

This is one of those big engines of human history. The game gives us ideas about how technologically developed people are, so we can say, based on this level of technology, food yields are x, and population is y. By 1500, the only hunter-gatherers were in terribly inhospitable areas. Pastoralists and hortoculturalists could still control large expances where plow agriculture was impossible or impractical.

Steppes are short grass plains with no trees. Pairies have tall grass. Both are plains, and both can support very strong agriculture. However, both get far less rainfall than forested areas (or they would have trees, not grasses) so agriculture must rely on irrigation of one kind or another. So people with a medieval or renaissance level of technology would only grow crops close enough to rivers to irrigate.

One must keep in mind the natural landscape, not the man-adjusted landscape. This is the argument of the elves, is it not? Anuire was once all forest, so the rainfall is substantial and the soil is fertile. The easiest thing to do is read the books that describe the realms and work backwards. If the books say the land is empty, no rain.

Three things must exist for agriculture, flat land, rainfall, and a long enough growing season. Remove any one of them, and agriculture becomes impossible. So, if the books say no one lives in, say Hjorvaal, Stjordvik, then make the land too hilly for agriculture. If its plains, rule that the rainfall is too low. Or give the land a great slope, so that the fertility of the soil is low, because of erosion. Since these attributes rainfall, flatness, and tempreture are not really represented in the BR design, you can use them to plug any holes you want.

[Beruin]

Historically, half the income of royals and nobles (although the nobles have a much more varied situation) comes from law holdings. Another possible name for the "control level" would be administration holdings.

I maybe missing something here, but I always thought that "control level" is what law holdings are all about, while province level represents population. So far, I don't see the need for an additional kind of holding and I am at a complete loss with understanding the difference between the old law and your administration holding. So please explain: What constitutes a law holding and an administration holding?

[kgauck]

Law has no effect on taxation, other than allowing me to go to higher tax levels without suffering loyalty effects.

Province represents population in the rulebook, but as has already been noted, you simply can't rule provinces up if this is the case.

So, if you are to rule up your administration of a province, and get more taxing power, you have a choice, either make the law holding the key to taxation (in which case, does Guilder Kalien tax the people of Caerwil or does Suris Enlien?)
-OR-
You need to seperate administration from the province rating, so you can rule something up.

Now you can decide its easier just to abolish the rule action for provinces.

And you can ignore the fact that by ruling up provinces you are creating people faster than Genosian cloners.

Since I want to allow people to rule their realms up, and I want to seperate population from province levels, and I don't want to make Law holdings a super holding, I prefer Administrative holdings to represent the royal power to tax. It also reflects what gets taxed, because as the province grows, new kinds of wealth appear. An empty province has a few hundred men and herds of animals. The earliest taxation is some portion of the herd delivered to the big-man every quarter. Then farms appear, and crops are taxed. If the tax system did not adapt, then when towns grew, they would be untaxed, and as banking houses and great merchants grew up, they would be untaxed. Perhaps even mines would go untaxed. Ships entering harbors, trade goods crossing into the country, these things would have no tariff. But all the herds and crops would still be taxed. So increasing the Administrative level not only intensifies the taxing, but makes it more extensive too.

[ShadowMoon]

"Kaminoan cloners" ^^;

Anyway I agree with Kgauck...

By the way; Green Knight used nice model to represent province population/progress growth in Ruins of Empire PBeM.

[Beruin]

Okay, I guess I can see your reasoning, but I'm still not really convinced. If I interpret correctly, administration represents direct control by a regent and handles taxation instead of the province rating, in effect given you another kind of holding with a large income to rule up. Law holdings then represent, well what? The amount of control local authorites, minor nobles, whoever exert on the population? The sum of the fiefs controlled by minor nobles?

The latter might be feasible, but it still seems to me that this is a bit redundant insofar as both types of holdings exert essentially the same kind of control.


Law has no effect on taxation, other than allowing me to go to higher tax levels without suffering loyalty effects.

This is only partially true. Law does not have a direct effect on taxation, but not controlling law is a risky business for a regent taxing provinces, making him a target of law claims/seizures. This can be particularly devastating using the BRCS rules, as seizures here aren't tied to the amount of GB generated by a province or holding. Whether this makes sense, is of course debatable.
This also answers the question on Caerwil: Legally, the taxes belong to Suris Enlien, but Guilder Kalien can use his hold on the province to divert a sizeable amount into his own coffers.

As a result, law holdings seem to be there to protect province taxation and this makes sense, I believe. Perhaps it would also be advisable or at least valid for a DM to enforce seizures from uncontrolled law holdings, representing bandits or just the inability of a province regent to enforce taxation. Sort of a 'un-control' level...


I don't want to make Law holdings a super holding

I don't really see this problem, I must say. Granted, the BRCS strengthened law holdings somewhat by adding income, while lowering the income of temple and guild holdings, but overall I'd say the types of holdings are balanced.

[kgauck]

If Brecht guilders control the law and the guilds, or temples get control of the law, if there is no Administrative holding, and Province level only means population level, what exactly does the land lord do? Maybe he collects regency (I am inclined to say no), otherwise he sits and watches.

[Beruin]

The first view you list is what a number of people, including me, have adopted as a replacement over the years because there are some serious believability problems with the rulebook's view. One is that the population of Cerilia is absurdly low -- only about 2 million instead of the 20 to 120 million it really ought to have, given its size, time since settlement, and medieval agricultural yields.

I'd say 120 million is way too high. A few numbers:

Estimated population:

Europe 1340: 73.5 million
Europe 1450: 50 million
Europe 1500: 80-100 million (seems to be quite a leap in just 50 years, but these are estimates from different historians)

Sweden 1570: 750,000
Spain 1300: 6-7 million
Spain 1500: 11 million
England 1348: 3.8 million
England 1377: 2.2 million


The actual population of a province should be determined geographically. People, like any other population, will expand to the holding capacity of their ecosystem very quickly. We figure out how much habitation a province will support, and that's its population.

I belief this conclusion is debatable just from the numbers above. For a fantasy world it might be more appropriate to look at the distribution of people in thinly settled regions like Russia or Eastern Poland instead of the comparatively populous regions of West and South Europe, i.e. I picture the Cerilian population to cluster in the most advantageous spots of a province.
In between these pockets of civilization lie stretches of more or less uninhabited land or outright wilderness. The larger the province level the more the pockets expand, reducing the distances between cultured areas.

That said, I agree that the overall population of Cerilia is way too low, but I don't really buy the reasoning that the people are already there, but not yet controlled by the province ruler. This just doesn't fit my view of a medieval society and picturing large number of medieval peasants running around free and uncontrolled with no lord above them strains my suspension of disbelief nearly as much as creating people out of thin air.

I find it much more feasible to tamper with the population number in relation
to province level. My current take on this is as follows:

Province level..........Population...........Percentage of cultured land
0.....................up to 1,000.........................Nil
1.....................up to 10,000.......................10%
2......................up to 20,000......................20%
3.............................30,000.............. .........30%
....
10.........................100,000................ .......100%


This increases the population of Cerilia significantly, as most provinces are quite low-level and here the difference to the BR numbers is greater than at higher levels. Moreover, its also a linear increase and that fits nicely with the taxation rules which otherwise make no sense at all and last-not-least it's simple. So far, I think its also believable and I have not yet found a problem here, but I'm interested to hear any comments.



As a simple example, consider Medoere. It consists of three plains provinces, one each of levels 2, 3 and 4. In my model, it has three plains provinces, so it has 300,000 inhabitants. In the other model, it has only 29,000. The larger number is far more consistent with historical population densities for the heart of the settled lands of the empire. The smaller number could be improved by multiplying by an overall scaling factor, but the big problem comes when Suris Enlien starts Ruling up the provinces. In my model, all she does is increase her control over the sub-BR-scale landowners; the population stays the same, which IMO is good -- the ruler should really not be able to affect that much at all.

Well, I end up with 90,000 people, a number I still find believable, even though it is significantly lower than your take. As a sidenote, the PS of Medoere speaks of about 40,000 people living there.


Well, that leaves the rule action to be taken into account. I think the wiki house rule on province growth is quite okay, it makes ruling up a province to the next level more difficult, but the rule action remains useful. Players will now probably focus on one or two provinces to rule up, depending on growth points already accumulated at the start of the game and on strategic considerations, but that's fine with me. There are certainly still things missing, e.g. catastrophes are left to the whim of the DM, and the price is perhaps too high (at least it takes a while before ruling up a province pays off) and it might still not be that realistic, but for now I think it's the best system we have.

[Beruin]

About Source levels, I'll defer to magiophiles, but my own sense is that they don't. They are reduced by the actual population in the province.


Speaking of source levels, the following older posts might be of interest for this thread:



In the latter case, that is if the demographic breakdown should describe the total population of a region, not the subject population of a realm, a category "monster" should perhaps be included. In effect, we would need two categories to describe the population of a region.

Dhoesone might have a subject population of 95% human, 2% elven, 1% each of half-elven and halflings and 0.5 % each of dwarves and goblins. In this thinly settled realm the total population might be something like 75% human, 7% elven, 3% other demi-humans, 5% goblins and perhaps up to 10% monster (mostly other humanoids like orogs, gnolls and whatever else you use, but also a few clans of ogres, giants, etc)



I see the monster population of an area as a function of the source level of
that area. In areas where there is a lot of source levels, there are a lot
of monsters. In this way, wilderness regions actually have a higher monster
population than human population.

Of course, the monster population of a source-7 province is less than the
human population of a level 7 province. Monster neen noor very little
civilian population to form the basis of an economy. But IMC a source-7
province can muster 7 units of monster "militia" - in every way superior to
human militia, and sometimes as strong as an Undead Legion or such.

I include ogres, gnolls and lizard men in the "monster" population, as well
as primitve tribal groups of goblins and even humans or halflings. The
important thing here is that these people are not a part of a civlized
economy of land exploitation. Orogs and shadow world halflings are not
monsters in this sense - IMC they live in the Shadow World and raid from
there.

Note that this leaves elven provinces with a sizeable population of
monsters - just the way I like it.

Also note that these monsters are generally very unorganized - colonizing
such a province is unlikely to encounter any organized resistance, or
fighting more than one such nit of monsters at a time. Only if there is some
organizing force (usually an awishleighn) will these monsters muster for
battle. But just knowing they are there will give the players a pause.

Source holdings that are "wild" and unclaimed have more agressive monsters,
while those held by source regents tent to be calmer and live more
remotely - so land regents have a need for sourceholders to keep their
monster populations calm.

[kgauck]

Is Cerilia essentially static, with a small amount of growth during a campiagn, and regent in what is basically a zero sum game just exchanging peices of the pie? Or in Cerillia essentially somewhere that is developing?

[kgauck]

The actual population of a province should be determined geographically. People, like any other population, will expand to the holding capacity of their ecosystem very quickly. We figure out how much habitation a province will support, and that's its population.


I belief this conclusion is debatable just from the numbers above. For a fantasy world it might be more appropriate to look at the distribution of people in thinly settled regions like Russia or Eastern Poland instead of the comparatively populous regions of West and South Europe, i.e. I picture the Cerilian population to cluster in the most advantageous spots of a province.

Uh, so people cluster in warm, wet places instead of cold, dry places? Show me where this disagrees with what I argued. Eastern Europe had half the agricultural yield per unit labor, and when you factor out the seedgrain, that means less than half the carrying capacity. Of course Russia and Eastern Poland are thinly settled, they have poor ecosystems for dense human habitation, and comparatively low carrying capacities.

I ask you if you think Kansas would have people in it in a medieval world. I will reply that as late as the first decades of the 19th century the American pairie was called the Great American Desert, not the breadbasket. It was the mechanization of John Deere and International Harvester that made this inhospitable place into a farmland. Rather like Eastern Poland, Kansas would be mostly empty with some settlement along the rivers.

[ryancaveney]

I'd say 120 million is way too high.

The large range of variation I gave is a function of population density times total area, *both* of which are uncertain. Cerilia has 840 provinces, which are supposed to range in size from 900 to 1600 square miles each. 840 x 900 x 30 (minimum realistic population density) = 22.7 million people, and 840 x 1600 x 120 (maximum realistic population density, if almost the whole darn thing were arable) = 161.3 million people. The number I favor is 840 x 1000 x 50 (since, for example, many provinces are plains at 100, some are steppe at 36 and a few are tundra at 4) = 42 million people in total, which accords well with your historical figures.


picturing large number of medieval peasants running around free and uncontrolled with no lord above them strains my suspension of disbelief nearly as much as creating people out of thin air

Ah, but that's not at all what I think is happening. I think they have lots of lords above them -- many of whom are working at cross-purposes. The same amount of total tax is still being collected, and the same amount of total political influence is still being generated, but as the control level drops a steadily larger percentage of it is lost to friction as the whole apparatus becomes ever more unwieldy and inefficient to operate. All the same GBs and RPs are still being collected by the same bottom-tier manorial lords, but at low control levels they and the barons (IMO, one per population level) and the counts (IMO, one per province, just like several of the official materials say) spend so much of it doing their own thing (sometimes even agitating and contesting against each other) or just keeping it themselves and not bothering to pass much of it further up the chain, that the ultimate regent has to spend almost all of what he does receive just keeping his restless and overpowerful tenants in line, leaving little left to spend at the domain scale to affect other realm regents. To me, increasing control level represents getting your own house in better order, reducing the amount of the total tax and influence which need to go to simply making the domain function at all on a day-to-day, manor-to-manor scale. These dozens or hundreds of minor lords and their sub-holdings are too small to see individually at the BR scale, so I simply abstract away the average success of the regent's dealings with them, which is precisely what I measure by the control level. I see it not as increasing gross income, but as decreasing administrative (including political) expenditure.


Well, I end up with 90,000 people, a number I still find believable, even though it is significantly lower than your take. As a sidenote, the PS of Medoere speaks of about 40,000 people living there.

It would hardly be the first time a PS was totally out to lunch. =) I suspect they fiddled that number to make it close to the numbers from the province population table which caused the problem to begin with, so I hardly think it's independent or even terribly useful as a piece of evidence.


Ryan

[kgauck]

I think they have lots of lords above them -- many of whom are working at cross-purposes.

We do have most of the middle ages to support this interpretation. Strong kings were the exception.

[Sir Tiamat]

Law has no effect on taxation, other than allowing me to go to higher tax levels without suffering loyalty effects.

Province represents population in the rulebook, but as has already been noted, you simply can't rule provinces up if this is the case.

So, if you are to rule up your administration of a province, and get more taxing power, you have a choice, either make the law holding the key to taxation (in which case, does Guilder Kalien tax the people of Caerwil or does Suris Enlien?)
-OR-
You need to seperate administration from the province rating, so you can rule something up.

There is a third option to view law as a limiting factor on province taxation. The province ruler has legitimacy, the law ruler has the administration and coercive power. Ideally law and legitimacy are in the same hands, however if not the amount of tax a province regent can recieve is limited by the law holdings.

Thus Kalien would not be able to tax... but Enlien would recieve less tax without the support of Kalien's law

Would also create some opportunities for deals: I will support your taxation if you give me a slice of the pie.

[Beruin]

By the way; Green Knight used nice model to represent province population/progress growth in Ruins of Empire PBeM.

Thanks for the tip, the amount of stuff there is awesome. This model is not that different from the wiki house rule, but its even more expensive to rule up a province, probably really making this action useless.

[Beruin]

Sorry, completely off-topic, but I couldn't resist:

Har har, hum ho, I'm a senior member at last:D :) :cool:

Sorry again, I'm not acting very 'senior' here:o

[ryancaveney]

the amount of tax a province regent can recieve is limited by the law holdings. Thus Kalien would not be able to tax... but Enlien would recieve less tax without the support of Kalien's law. Would also create some opportunities for deals: I will support your taxation if you give me a slice of the pie.

Which is pretty much what happens under the normal taxation rules. =)

Historically, administering the court system was a major source of revenue for whoever operated it (lots of fines; some tolls and customary fees could also go here). Thus to the province ruler, increasing law holdings means not so much bringing law to the wild west, but increasing royal control over existing minor manorial courts or establishing a parallel system to steal the existing case load. Both this and province ruling (in my idea of increasing central administrative control) is the core of the life's work of great kings like England's Henry II.


Ryan

[ryancaveney]

Har har, hum ho, I'm a senior member at last:D :) :cool:

=) So when did you *really* join? My join date ought to be April, 1998, and I should have a few hundred more posts to my credit, since this thing is just a continuation of the old mailing list. Of course, much the same could be said of other old fogeys like Duane, Gary and Kenneth, who don't take breaks as long as mine...


Ryan

[kgauck]

There is a third option to view law as a limiting factor on province taxation. The province ruler has legitimacy, the law ruler has the administration and coercive power. Ideally law and legitimacy are in the same hands, however if not the amount of tax a province regent can recieve is limited by the law holdings.

See, I have to stop right here and disagree. I don't see law and legitimacy in the same hands. I see a top ruler. Different cultures see different guys in this spot as the top guy. In Brechtur, the guilder is the dynamic, interesting guy, and the landlord is there too. The guilds should control the law, not the landlord. Otherwise the landlord is the more powerful dynamic guy and the Brecht decriptions of their society are, as Ryan put it, out to lunch. In Rjurik, the jarls feequently control the law, not the king. They got this right in Rjurik. Any sensible templar seeks law holdings.

Historically, there is canon law, feudal law, and commercial law. Each kind of holding leader should attempt to aquire law holdings to solidify their power. Read my history of Cariele, and how Mheallie Bireon took real control of that place, she got the guilds easily enough, but that was not the same as control. Now that she has the guilds and the law, she rules. The rest, her alliance with Larra her relationship with Entier is just gravy, or perhaps more properly, naturally flows from her power in Cariele. I doubt very much that Mheallie invented a new idea - guilders own law holdings. She just put it into practice.

If you invest too much power in the law holdling, shifting too much of the provincial power there, then Entier is a kind of source holding guy, collecting some RP, barely enough GB to staff his court, and he's an observer. Rather, he should be a junior player, with a powerbase of one kind of power, while Mheallie has two kinds (or a one and two thirds kinds).


Thus Kalien would not be able to tax... but Enlien would recieve less tax without the support of Kalien's law. If this were so, who is not paying taxes to the ruler? Where is it going instead? At the very least Kalien's followers are happy with Kalien for stopping the tax man. But there is no game effect except for less money for Suris.

If provinces are no longer power bases, but just records of how many people there are in a place, that power should move to a new, independent place, like an Administrative holding. I would be happy to see some of the revenue move to the Law holding (since I have been arguing that point since second edition), but it can't all move to Law, since properly, the law should not always be assumed to be in the hands of the landlord.

[AndrewTall]

Thus to the province ruler, increasing law holdings means not so much bringing law to the wild west, but increasing royal control over existing minor manorial courts or establishing a parallel system to steal the existing case load. Both this and province ruling (in my idea of increasing central administrative control) is the core of the life's work of great kings like England's Henry II.
Ryan

Hmm. To keep the source level based on extent of civilisation / population I'd rather show the 'true' level and have 'wastage' law holdings blocking expansion than show a lower province level than is truly the case and explain the gap as inefficiency. That would mean tweaking province levels left right and centre I suppose to put in realistic populations but that doesn't bother me.

You could then say that each 'wastage' law level reduces the province level by one for province taxation purposes and if nasty other holdings as well. In order for Suris to then centralise power as you suggest she needs to contest the 'wastage' holdings (I'd make the DC fairly high) and then rule up law holdings.

Of course the other regents in the area such as a certain guilder would want her to eliminate the wastage levels as well so that they can expand. (I'd say that only the province ruler can contest wastage levels just like only they can rule the province).

That then means that you can 'grow' your province either by ruling it (attracting settlers, increasing general wealth, births or health & safety, etc) or by eliminating the 'wastage' levels.


Kenneth:
population and terrain
imho I agree that generally population should follow agriculture/fishing (people need to eat and if they can't they leave or die) but where you have major external factors (i.e. monsters or war) you will also have at least temporary population movements throwing the results - and i see the canon as a snapshot not as a baseline.

Non-ruler law regents
I also agree that if other regents hold the law the province ruler doesn't have much left to do - although if they still hold 'macro' power they can permit/ban trade routes, raise armies, charge import/export duties, do diplomacy... Will external regents deal with a mere guilder or will they demand to speak to the king (well, that probably depends on whether or not the king is a puppet but still).

I would agree that a number of Brecht realms should have a law level or two in each province held by merchants to indicate their influence, and temples should have some too. I would however give province rulers an edge in ruling/contesting law holdings to represent their 'natural authority' - and note that they are more likely to be a class with access to the skills needed to gain full benefit from them.

Perception of Cerilia
I see Cerilia as in flux following a period of stability. I need the chaos of war to create a really complex interesting setting where those of poor background (i.e. PC's) can rise to the top (I'm not as good at diplomacy as you are; give me chaos, give me war, let us live in interesting times...).

Mostly however I think that wars etc should affect mostly the nobility in Anuire rather than the entire population - whoever conquers a province needs peasants to till the fields, merchants to pay taxes, and to a reasonable degree the peasants will work for whoever lives in the castle and has an army without particularly caring overmuch, other realms being more or less similar. I'd only expect to see major population reductions from goblin or other non-human raids. (Possibly from Vos raids on Khinasi or Brecht).

[Beruin]

Historically, administering the court system was a major source of revenue for whoever operated it (lots of fines; some tolls and customary fees could also go here). Thus to the province ruler, increasing law holdings means not so much bringing law to the wild west, but increasing royal control over existing minor manorial courts or establishing a parallel system to steal the existing case load. Both this and province ruling (in my idea of increasing central administrative control) is the core of the life's work of great kings like England's Henry II.


Though I still disagree with regard to province ruling, this is a great take on law holdings and quite well explains the income these gain under the BRCS rules.


=) So when did you *really* join? My join date ought to be April, 1998, and I should have a few hundred more posts to my credit, since this thing is just a continuation of the old mailing list. Of course, much the same could be said of other old fogeys like Duane, Gary and Kenneth, who don't take breaks as long as mine...

Well, I don't really know, but I guess sometime in 2000, at least well before 3E came out. However, I did not post that much, so I guess I'm missing 20 posts at most.

[Sir Tiamat]

See, I have to stop right here and disagree. I don't see law and legitimacy in the same hands. I see a top ruler. Different cultures see different guys in this spot as the top guy. In Brechtur, the guilder is the dynamic, interesting guy, and the landlord is there too. The guilds should control the law, not the landlord. Otherwise the landlord is the more powerful dynamic guy and the Brecht decriptions of their society are, as Ryan put it, out to lunch. In Rjurik, the jarls feequently control the law, not the king. They got this right in Rjurik. Any sensible templar seeks law holdings.

Historically, there is canon law, feudal law, and commercial law. Each kind of holding leader should attempt to aquire law holdings to solidify their power. Read my history of Cariele, and how Mheallie Bireon took real control of that place, she got the guilds easily enough, but that was not the same as control. Now that she has the guilds and the law, she rules. The rest, her alliance with Larra her relationship with Entier is just gravy, or perhaps more properly, naturally flows from her power in Cariele. I doubt very much that Mheallie invented a new idea - guilders own law holdings. She just put it into practice.

If you invest too much power in the law holding, shifting too much of the provincial power there, then Entier is a kind of source holding guy, collecting some RP, barely enough GB to staff his court, and he's an observer. Rather, he should be a junior player, with a powerbase of one kind of power, while Mheallie has two kinds (or a one and two thirds kinds).

I do not really see a problem there; surely non-province rulers can legitimately control law holdings, which provide the control and the power over a province, but non-province rulers do not have the legitimacy to rule the province; one needs investiture to receive that kind of control. A law regent may also try to tax, but without the legitimacy of the province ruler, the law regent is forced to rely on his power alone: in birthright this is a seizure.

A king (province ruler) without law, is a sad figure indeed; he cannot raise troops, cannot impose his laws, and in my view has therefore no power to tax. Surely he has the right to tax, he is at the top of the pyramid and the taxes of the realm should go to him. However without any means to enforce it he will likely receive none; he may send his officials to the landlords, but without support of the law these officials will be returned empty handed, especially when the law regent decides to have them detained and sent back empty handed. Consequently, a king without any law is no more than a figurehead; he will collect some regency (legitimacy), but is essentially no more than a mere puppet to the real powers in the realm; his power will reach only as far as others allow it to reach.

Luckily for Cerillian Kings, being completely devoid of law holdings is rare. Though rulers may have a few difficult provinces within their kingdom, in which they do not hold the law, they are likely to have enough law in other provinces from which troops can be raised. Being the legitimate ruler of the land allows the king to freely move his troops within the kingdom, including in the uncontrolled province. If a conflict would erupt between the king and the law regent, the King could instate martial law as a last resort. Still, this would be rare seeing that the law ruler (actual control) and the King (legitimacy) have an incentive to come to an agreement; the King/domain regent sends out his tax collectors and the law regent provides the muscle in exchange for a slice of the pie.