Resources

[Rowan]

This is a continuance of another thread on “Seasonal Adjustments,” where we started talking about limitations on troop numbers and other demographic issues. I would like to present some additional variant rules, useful for more simulationist games that are scaled at a level that won’t be adversely impacted by the additional rules overlay.

I've mentioned that I like "Manor" holdings as an additional holding type. These slots represent major landholders (usually nobles) and raw productivity, usually primarily agricultural. The rise of Guilds reflects more organized industry that can compete for the same resources, but tends to be less agriculturally based. I also like Trade holdings instead of trade routes, as has also been recently discussed on this board.

With that as a preface, I've been fiddling with a Resource system. This would be of use if the players and DM want to scale down into a deeper simulationist approach that entails more strategy. It was inspired by a recognition of the differing availability of natural resources in different countries, and how that typically has impacted those countries, particularly during resource-intensive warfare. Default BR assumes all countries have equal access to all resources; Alamie's predominant plains leaves it with no fewer resources to outfit heavy (metal-intensive) armies or build castles than Avanil's hills and mountains, and Avanil's lack of major forests apparently have no impact on its naval power as compared to Boeruine's vast forests. Of course, trade can redistribute resources, but even trade does not equally distribute them, and in times of war, supply routes would be attacked to deny resource-poor realms access to that which they are importing.

Agricultural produce in excess of that required to sustain everyday life is necessary to keep unproductive troops fed. Ghoere and Alamie, for instance, have such vast plains that they should be able to feed larger armies than Avanil. In fact, one explanation for Avanil's vassals is that it relies on them, and on extensive trade, to gather the resources it lacks to maintain its power--but its natural advantages from access to extensive quarries and mines means that it can support more heavy troops and more castles, making it militarily mighty if it can just feed its legions.

Here is what I have drawn up (works better in Excel, but I've reformatted for here):
Resources affect the maximum build rates of those things that require that resources; they also limit the total number of assets that require steady maintenance. Resources are based on province terrain. Each level of Manor and Guild holding exploits one unit of resources, listed next to the holdings. Each level of Trade holding can transfer one unit of resources from one area to another (claiming resources but adding the designation of "I" or "E" for Import or Export). Resources are tracked in the aggregate for a realm--they are totaled up and included beneath Domain Power with notations for Maximum Available and Exploited (currently). This requires a fair bit of setup, then, but the maintenance bookkeeping becomes fairly easy.

Types and Uses of Resources
Stone (S)--1GB of any construction can be built each month per unit of Timber resources exploited.

Timber (T)--1GB of Ships or any construction other than Castles and Roads can be built each month per unit of Timber resources exploited. Naval units consume one unit of Timber resources for every 2GB in maintenance to cover repair and rehabilitation of ships (these units are unavailable for other purposes).

Ore (O)--Subtract 1GB from the Muster cost of each unit (this first GB reflects non-material muster costs). One unit of Ore resource exploited is required for each remaining Muster GB cost each month. Each heavy army unit (any heavily armored) consumes one unit of Ore resource for every 2 units to cover repair and replacement of equipment (these units are unavailable for other purposes).

Food (F)—(includes crops, livestock, hunting, and fishing) Each active army unit requires 1 unit of Food resource exploited to sustain it. Cavalry units consume 2 units of Food resources each.

Terrains and Resource Availability
Mixed terrains average the resources available from the terrain types within.
Plains—1 Timber, 9 Food
Hills—1 Timber, 2 Stone, 2 Ore, 5 Food
Mountains—1 Timber, 4 Stone, 5 Ore
Forests—6 Timber, 4 Food
Swamps—3 Timber, 7 Food
Deserts—3 Stone, 1 Ore, 3 Food
Tundra and similar—4 timber, 2 Stone, 1 Food
River Bonus—1 Timber, 2 Food
Coastal Bonus—3 Food


Some basic assumptions underlying the above. I fall in that school of demographics that assumes full settlement of human lands to basically their carrying capacity. Some areas would have modifiers reducing their population totals because they are sparsely settled or because climate is inhospitable, etc. Anuire has the fewest of these burdens, though obviously Dhoesone is meant to be less settled. I like nice round numbers to work with; I assume 1000 square mile provinces on average (a little over 30 miles across for a squarish province), and population density on average in plains provinces of 100 per square mile. That places around 100,000 people in each plains province. Max human province level is 8 in a plains province. Linear or near-linear relationships are easiest to work with in game systems; to derive populations for different terrains, figure 12,500 people for each max province level per terrain type. This places 87,500 people in Hills provinces, 75,000 people in Forests, 37,500 in Mountains, and 125,000 in Coastal Plains.

This has profound implications. Province levels are explained mostly as the apparatus of state—the ability to collect taxes from the large populace, efficiency of the administration, effectiveness of its influence, and ability to organize and leverage the productivity of the populace.

[Rowan]

Example Applications: (Exploited/Maximum Available) note that this is without any additional resources brought in through trade

Diemed (has 23 province levels by default, 46 guild and manor)
Stone: 4/5
Timber: 4/9
Ore: 6/6
Food: 32/59

Build Capacity: 8GB/month, or 4GB in castles, 4GB in ships
Muster Capacity: (example) 1 Cavalry, 2 Infantry, 1 Archer each month
Max Fielded Army (32F,3O): (25-unit example) 3 Knight, 4 Cavalry, 3 Elite Infantry, 5 Infantry, 2 Pike, 4 Archers, 2 Scouts, 2 Engineers
Max Active Navy (4T): (example) 3 Galleons, 8 Caravels, 2 Coasters

Roesone (has 21 province levels by default, 42 guild and manor)
Stone: 2/2
Timber: 2/17
Ore: 2/2
Food: 36/69

Build Capacity: 4GB/month, or 2GB in castles, 2GB in ships
Muster Capacity: (example) 1 Infantry, 1 Archer each month
Max Fielded Army (36F,1O): (30-unit example) 1 Knight, 5 Cavalry, 1 Elite Infantry, 8 Infantry, 5 Pike, 6 Archers, 4 Scouts
Max Active Navy (2T): (example) 1 Galleon, 5 Caravels, 1 Coaster

Ghoere (has 40 province levels by default, 80 guild and manor)
Stone: 5/8
Timber: 1/16
Ore: 8/8
Food: 66/83

Build Capacity: 6GB/month, or 5GB in castles, 1GB in ships
Muster Capacity: (example) 1 Cavalry, 1 Elite Infantry, 2 Infantry each month
Max Fielded Army (66F,4O): (51-unit example) 5 Knights, 10 Cavalry, 3 Elite Infantry, 15 Infantry, 5 Pike, 7 Archers, 3 Scouts, 3 Engineers
Max Active Navy (1T): (example) 4 Caravels

Avanil (has 37 province levels by default 74 guild and manor)
Stone: 4/12
Timber: 8/8
Ore: 14/14
Food: 48/63

Build Capacity: 12GB/month, or 4GB in castles, 8GB in ships
Muster Capacity: (example) 1 Knight, 1 Elite Infantry, 1 Cavalry, 2 Infantry, 1 Archer each month
Max Fielded Army (48F,8O): (32-unit example) 8 Knight, 4 Cavalry, 8 Elite Infantry, 4 Infantry, 4 Pike, 4 Archers, 2 Scouts, 2 Engineers
Max Active Navy (8T): (example) 7 Galleons, 14 Caravels, 3 Coasters

Assets (essentially holding fortification levels) can increase the amount of resources beyond the base levels for a province, to a maximum of double the province's resources (more efficient extraction and utilization, better techniques to exploit more difficult-to-use or access.

Of course, trade would influence the balance of available resources for all realms. Many would try to secure ore, and most ore resources would be expanded with mine assets. As provinces exceed level 5, assets are effectively necessary to allow the manors and guilds to keep exploiting more resources. I should also note that urban provinces should require dedicated Food resources from surrounding provinces, or brought in from farther away by trade. Thus Diemed, Endier, and Avanil support the Imperial city most directly, dedicating food resources to it, and more grain likely comes in by ship or down the Maesil from the rest of the Southern Coast and the Heartlands. I suggest 5 Food resources are needed for each urban province level (the Imperial City, then, requires 50 food resources to sustain it), and urban provinces don't exploit any new resources. Instead, they store and tend to further refine resources, providing a lot of raw GB income. Urban provinces besides the Imperial City would become possible, but the steep Food resource cost tends to discourage them from getting large. Ilien and Endier are always the most likely, with Bhalaene, Bevaldruor, and Seaharrow the next most likely, each with extensive supporting provinces around them. Of course, this limits the amount of units the realms can field; Avanil, Diemed, Alamie, Tuornen, and Ghoere would probably already be supporting the Imperial City, reducing their overall Food resources.

I have also considered allowing adjacent Sea provinces to be harvested for fish, providing up to 5 additional Food resources each, but anything farther than these would not be possible due to the lack of refrigeration. Any ship so dedicated could harvest 1 unit (making Coasters the most cost-efficient fishing vessels). This would create some interesting competition on the seas, since 21 coastal areas would be opened up along Anuire (not counting Mieres). The Imperial City could account for 1 of its levels through fishing, and Ilien might find valuable increase this way as well. Boeruine's forests leave it at a distinct agricultural disadvantage to Avanil; potential access to 5 adjacent sea areas would augment its supply.

[kgauck]

I have also considered allowing adjacent Sea provinces to be harvested for fish, providing up to 5 additional Food resources each, but anything farther than these would not be possible due to the lack of refrigeration.

The reason you can find a salt and pepper shaker on nearly every table in the west is because meat, especially fish, was salted as a preservative. The Breton fisherman very likely were fishing the Newfoundland fisheries in North America, across the Atlantic Ocean for a century before the discovery of America. Salt their fish, continue the catch, repeat until fully loaded, then return home.

The food was so salty, it was nearly inedible. Even rinsed, boiled, and so on, the salt taste was profound. So people who could afford it, purchased pepper from the spice trade to cover up the taste of the salt. One result is that western palates are so accustomed to this combination of flavors in their food, with the advent of refrigeration, we added salt and pepper for taste, since it was no longer a necessary food item. A pound to a pound and a half of salt per day was consumed by people in the early modern period.

A second consequence was the demand for pepper was so high it was deemed profitable to seek other ways to reach the spice islands rather than conducting trade through Muslim control of the spice trade. The Portugese found a southern route to Spice Islands and dominated the Indian Ocean, and the Spanish bumped into the America's looking for a western route.

All to find pepper more cheaply to cover the taste of salt which was used in abundance to preserve meat, including fish caught, ironically, on the American coast.

[Rowan]

I didn't know that--learn something new every day! Thanks, Kgauck. Do you think any sea area should be fishable? If so, perhaps 5 food resources are too much...maybe 3, and 2 ships are needed to recover each one. Thus, 2 coasters fishing for 3 months provide 1 Food resource to the ports they serve. Your info on salting helps, as well, deal with the possibility of trade holdings from those coastal provinces trading the food resources from the fishing with much more inland provinces.

[kgauck]

The Bretons were able to fish the North Bank because its shallow coastal water. So its not any sea zone, its coastal sea zones.

The next question is, how do you fish someone else's sea zone? Permission of the Guild regent? Permission of the Landed regent? Show up and see if they drive you off?

There are unoccupied islands. Who controls their sea zones?

There are questionable fishing cultures. Do goblins fish? Does Stjordvik Traders dominate the fishing around Thurazor? Is that was those Northern Imports and Exports guilds are doing in Thurazor?

And then what about fishing in a sea zone near another domain. The medieval law of the sea was really vague. Dating from the 17th century: national rights were limited to a specified belt of water extending from a nation's coastlines, usually three nautical miles, according to the 'cannon shot' rule developed by the Dutch jurist Cornelius Bynkershoek. All waters beyond national boundaries were considered international waters — free to all nations, but belonging to none of them (the mare liberum principle promulgated by Grotius, i.e. freedom of the seas).

Are sea zones a free for all? Managed by priests of Nesirie? Do they call in Haelyn's lawyers for consultation on law of the sea issues?

[Rowan]

Hmmm, interesting... I would tend to think that some conflict would be good. Some Haelynite temples might want to tighten up laws, but they likely would not be terribly clear since they'd most likely defer to Nesirie. Letting coastal realms compete would create some good game tension. Heck, Nesirie's temples might operate a fairly large fishing fleet.

When did deep sea fishing become more common? Long fishing lines don't seem out of tech, nor do deeper fishing nets on reels and simple cranes.

[kgauck]

The Vikings started fishing far off waters, which lead to their discovery of Iceland and Greenland, and probably provided the rumors which lead to exploration of Vinland as well.

The Portugese and Breton fisherman were crossing the Atlantic directly c.1400 to reach new fishing waters.

So the Rjurik can make middle level distance journeys (Norway to Iceland, to to Greenland, to Vinland) and the three renaissance cultures could in theory make long distance journeys.

There were Anuirean colonies across to the west, the Khinasi have trade contacts to the east, the Brecht are liable to go anywhere opportunity lays.

And what about Aduria?

My reference to the Haelyn lawyers was that the temples of Nesirie, would consult lawyers to draft laws of the sea, not that the lawpriests themselves would have an interest in the sea.

[Rowan]

So access to fishing resources can drive more exploration, competition, legal dispute, etc.


Concerning the temples, should temple holdings be considered to develop resources, particularly Food resources?

Temples have long held great wealth and lands, and in Christian Europe of the Middle Ages, monasteries were a great driver of the economy, though in later Renaissance times this diminished as a proportion of the whole as states continued to grow in power. I'm not sure that they would harvest much timber, quarry much stone, or mine much metal, but farmland might make sense for Temple holdings.

[AndrewTall]

Churches have capital - all that tithe income. So they might bot fish, but they might own the village fishing boat, they might not dig, but they own the mine, pumps and canal - while much talk is made about piety, religion is about power - political and economic, given medieval economics only the nobility and churches have the spare capital to buy major capital assets so they will generally own trade assets - or at least shares of those assets. Why did the noble close the port? Because he wanted to get divorced...

[kgauck]

I'd not be inclined to have temple holdings making too much money doing what guilds do. A temple domain can own guild holdings if its actually a business venture.

As a minor source of income, sure any holding can own any kind of activity, but if its gets to be significant, it should be a holding of the appropriate type.

[vota dc]

I am agree with many points,not with the swamps!
Swamps—3 Timber, 7 Food-this is simple too much.Swamps aren't famous for their resource and 2 timber,6 food is enough or regent could think that flood their own plain provinces is a good idea!

Also we must remember that some resource are problematic such the timber of Aerenwe and that a low populated province shouldn't give the same resource.

[Rowan]

Regarding those temples again, it's the monasteries and other lands held by them that I'm thinking about. Perhaps they can develop those assets/holding fortifications to access a food resource. Much of their income comes from the tithes and other donations, but they may cultivate land, or hold the wind and watermills to process grains, granaries, and vineyards/distilleries.

Vota, thanks for the input. I was originally trying to just set up each major inhabitable province type with 10 resources, so that manors and guilds could tap into those resources until they got high level, when they would have to build assets (holding fortifications like deeper mines, better irrigation and less arable land brought under cultivation, sawmills, quarries, etc) to expand the supply beyond the readily available resources. Note that the resources numbers are potential surplus resources (the amount produced beyond a population's everyday use), and that they are not accessible without a one-for-one match with Manor or Guild holding levels. Thus in a Hills province, a Manor 4 might harvest 3 Food, 1 Timber resource, while a Guild 4 in the same province might harvest 2 Stone and 2 Ore (listed as Manor 4:3F/1T, Guild 4:2S/2T or somesuch notation). So not all potential resources are yet tapped.

As for those swamps, you're probably right. That max 10 of resources doesn't quite fit there. Though when swamps are drained, they can be pretty fertile. Do keep in mind, though, that the Food resources are not just crops, but fishing and hunting (assumed to be at a sustainable level).

I have also been thinking about changing Mountain provinces to 5 Stone, 5 Ore, 1 Timber, 1 Food. The main reason here is that otherwise, certain mountainous realms just can't do much. They'd still need to import a lot of food to maintain large armies, or have the armies forage and pillage a lot. Dwarves, though, would have to either be able to use Stone resources as food (someone here had the idea that dwarves can eat stone), or they need those food resources. I haven't yet looked in detail at Brechtur, but those mountainous realms could also be limited otherwise. I figure they'd all tend to develop assets to expand the food supply (terraces), but I've limited maximum expansion to twice the base resources, so that still only gives 2 Food per mountain province. (I increased stone because hey, there's virtually unlimited stone in mountains; you just need traversable paths to bring it down; same thing with Timber, although the slopes make it more difficult).

[kgauck]

Regarding those temples again, it's the monasteries and other lands held by them that I'm thinking about.

Why do we assume they have lands? Do they collect tithes of some kind from followers? if they do, a big part (if not all) of their revenue would be these kinds of collections from followers. Lands and productive resources seem to lay elsewhere.

[Arentak]

In the old D&D stronghold system of domains, churches collected a 10% tithe from all production. This might emulate too much the modern experience. In medieval times, the Church was the largest landholder. Churches owned vinyards, manors, farms, mines, every type of productive enterprise they had their hands in. Maybe the argument is the Catholic Church was more of a Guild/Temple combo domain, and true temples are tithe type places only.

[AndrewTall]

Well, you can go too far down the commerce = guild route - farms are businesses too...

Monasteries should include something for the monks to do - tending flocks, vineyards, etc were popular (keeping sheep allows land clearance which is both very profitable and avoids distractions, early land clearances were by the church not the nobles!)

That said I agree that at some point the church should have guild holdings to represent its income, just as law holdings should represent rights to tithe, levy duties, hold courts, etc. A church that is effectively a bank / major investor should have guild holdings representing such activity.

I see guild holdings as the 'glue/grease' of the society - organised trade, fairs, guilds, etc - most economic activity is below their radar so as long as individual enterprises are small scale the churches should be fine with them.

Of course much church produce is internal - making paper, ink, candles, foodstuffs, etc, etc increase 'profit' by reducing costs but the end result is the same as external sales from a mechanic perspective.

[kgauck]

If I can account for all of the money a temple domain has on tithes alone. Then shouldn't I expect that additional productive activities would generate extra income? Perhaps the religious properties are notoriously unprofitable and are basically large break-even operations, which is certainly possible, but then I may well have regents who want to make them efficient and productive.

Further, while I can imagine large monasteries of Haelynites making beer, growing sheep, or making honey at a small loss, no profit, or small profit, would a temple of Sera organize such things to produce no such wealth? Many of these domains are said to be run like a business. That means they don't grow bees primarily to give something to do to monks to keep them busy, but intend to produce honey as a means to wealth and income.

Its quite possible to envision the world in a medieval situation, where the Church owned large landholdings and collected tithes. But the end-of-the-day results of the domain system does not lead to this conclusion. Temples don't make enough money or collect enough regency to give this impression. And a proper medieval environment would include few if any guilds, all of those holding being held by the nobles or the Church.

Instead, consider the ancient world, where temples were not great land-owners, but collected money through ritual. People wanted the gods to aid them, they went to a temple, and paid for rituals.

If temple domains are presumed to have extensive properties, like the medieval Church, then they almost certainly collect no income from a tithe, voluntary or otherwise. And ritual incomes can't be terribly large either, without putting pressure on the properties.

Ultimately,

contributions from followers + surplus from capital investment + ritual incomes must = two third's GB per holding level.

A medieval Church would own a quarter to a third of all province levels, maybe half of all law holdings, all (or nearly all) temple holdings, and a third or more of the guild holdings. This can't be a 1:1 model for a BR temple that controls much less of the domain pie.

[AndrewTall]

It is an interesting question why the DnD churches are so weak compared to the medieval churches, I see the following IC reasons (ignoring metagaming and player ignorance)

1. Pantheonistic worship. The temples effectively compete for followers, as such it is far harder for them to monopolise guilt, afterlife terror, marriage and succession rights, etc and accordingly their power is reduced.

2. Mages. Wizards undermine the priests claim to supernatural support with every spell - is Haelyn really so great a lord of war when his priest can but make ones blade a little lighter - and the sword mage hurls fiery doom left and right? Surely the sword mage has the far greater power? This sort of view leads to a Barbara Hambley view of the relationship between church and wizards and is always amusing...

3. Guidance of the power. In RL we have inquisitions, suicide cults, etc, etc - various wacko's hear a voice in their head saying 'do whatever you want, it's good and righteous!' and go ahead without any further constraint on their behaviour. In most DnD the deity takes an active role, and while they might want prominence, I think some of them would speak against naked political jostling and the more sanguine aspects of RL religion.

[Kitch]

Adding my own input on the temple issue.

From my understanding, the Temples only gather their generated income based on the tributes of the populance, plus anything that the resident Cleric or Priest might gather for renting his services out to the locals. Now, yes it is important to keep in mind that religion plays the important role in medieval soceity (not ignoring the presence of Arcane spellcasters which would undermine a considerable amount of this influence) but it is important to remember, as it was mentioned before, that on the whole, the Temple Holding is considered to only be what it suggests: the center for religious activity within the province.

This is easiest to explain by this: some churches did have vinyards, some did gain tithes, some did gain taxes from the surrounding land in the province in which they resided, but not all of them did. By that, you cannot generalise from one to the next, so it is best to simply leave the game rules rather in tact, and instead allow the residing Temple Regents the ability to purchase Law and Guild holdings instead to represent what their religious influence would also have.

My example would be a local Temple Regent in a province 3 (owning 2 Temple) either contests or purchases an unclaimed Guild slot in a province to suggest that his temple's monks and clerics are now tending a vinyard that supplies wine at a base price in the surrounding region.

[Rowan]

Really have something against religion, eh, AT? :)

I think temples are only weak when the DM does not consider their effect on the minds and hearts of the people. A common assumption in the games I have played, for instance, is that realm rulers routinely tax both guilds and temples 25% or more of their income (in addition to the normal income from provinces and law holdings). This is not suggested in the rules anywhere, so far as I can tell, and I think represents a further weakening of non-landed domains; I would not allow it as DM, myself. Guilds would undermine rulers in all sorts of ways under such a tax, and temples would agitate unfavorably and deny spells.

Realm rulers in these games may threaten retaliation through occupation and reduction of holdings, but again, this only works if the DM is extremely superficial, looking just to the rules. Still, I think it would be worthwhile to have some standard or at least suggested formula in the rules to guide DMs in such cases--occupation and reduction of holdings is such use of force that most provinces would go into rebellion, particularly if the temples are the ones under attack. Other temples and even guilds might well band together to prevent a landed ruler from getting away with such an abuse of force. Surely temples would try to Interdict the ruler.

So I don't think temples should functionally be very weak at all. The question is just what do they do with their time and money? If they are allowed some troops and can undertake useful (in game terms) construction projects or programs, those things would take care of things beyond the cost of domain actions.

[kgauck]

The past several messages have had widely divergent meanings for the term "power".

I know that I was limiting myself entirely to the collection and spending of GB and RP. Other kinds of power ought to be related to holdings as collections and action resolution are. Simply put, a temple with more holdings has more power.

This is why, when confronted with a more powerful medieval church, my answer is, they have more holdings.

So when I read Andrew's reply, with its reference to the impact of polytheism, arcane rivalry, and transcendent divine purposes, I think, "true, but how does this effect RP and GB collection?"

Whereas both Andrew and I related BR temples to the medieval Church, it seems as if Rowen is comparing poorly played temples realms with well played temple realms.

Since I would rather not see us all talking past each other, I thought it might be profitable to draw attention to this issue.

[Rowan]

Thanks, Kgauck. I have come around to your POV, I think, though I think the situation is best explained either by opening up Provinces to be just like any other holding (something you seem fond of), adding Manor holdings as I've worked out, or a combination of the two. That way, pure temple holdings do represent primarily organizations subsisting on tithes and minor production, not sufficient for producing a surplus (my Resource rules variant represented only significant surplus resources). The RP and GB comes from those sources. Pure temple holdings, allowed to exist on their own (not taxed routinely by landed regents or prevented from maintaining assets and military units), appear to have as much power as any other holding type, and as much to do with their incomes.

I agree that more holdings represent a more powerful Temple domain. If you want to represent the medieval Church, the whole of Anuire would either be a single Temple domain or a series of Temple domains envassaled to a Primate--the Imperial Temple. To represent the Church at the height of its power, it would hold numerous law holdings and manor holdings, representing its legal control of different areas and the land of its noble clergy. Some provinces (like the Papal States) would be entirely under the control of the Church. Imagine this arrangement across almost the whole of Cerilia (if it is considered to be the size of Europe) and you'd have a Temple as powerful as the Roman Catholic Church at the height of its temporal power.

If placed more within the late Renaissance times that Anuire typically is played in, an analogue to the RCC would have fewer provinces, manor, and law holdings, but would still hold the majority of temple holdings.

I agree with you, too, AT, that the pantheistic nature of BR lends itself more to fractioning of a Temple than it does to a united one. That and the political disunity would encourage a proliferation of the smaller, more localized temples to persist.

So I think, as far as the original discussion, that there really isn't a problem with the temples as written. They don't need to be included in a Resources rules variant, since they don't produce a significant surplus. And while I asked about what they would spend all their income on, the answer is in the other thread on visions of play. My takeaway from that was that temples should indeed be allowed to raise and maintain military units, and they should not be subject by default to any sort of income tax or limitation of their activities by landed regents. This is, of course, the default rules, and games that impose the restrictions I've mentioned throw off the game balance and create story implications at their own risk. It does appear, however, that it would be good for the rules to allow more of a benefit from public works and the maintenance of public assets; this would provide another area to spend money and effort and would introduce an interesting facet of game play.

[AndrewTall]

Nothing particularly against religion, but not much for churches - they tend to put the politics in and ignore the positive aspects.

Tithes and so on are fine, but holding income is 'profit' at the macro level - subsistence for members and pensions really don't cut it - so I'd expect that most temples have at least much of their internal resource needs taken care of via their own efforts. That said I agree that if there is a tithe system, or similar, then that could easily produce all the income necessary. Certainly a 'real' medieval style church would need masses of non-temple holdings to represent its true influence.

I like the idea of 'province' holdings - currently if I want a mixed population of elves and rjurik, or goblins and anuireans, what can I do? Same land space, very different realms...