Domain actions query [Archive]

Birthright-L

04-30-2002, 07:30 PM

> Aleric wrote:

> 1) Is it true that any blooded character controlling even one level of
> one holding or Province is a regent and thus gets three domain actions
> per turn?

Yes.

> 2) If, for example, the Baron(ness) of Roesone invested a province
> lord (say Fairfield) with all law in that province (but the Baron
> retained the province). Would Fairfield get zero, one or three domain
> actions per turn?

Three. What he would be able to do with them is a different question,
given the very small amounts of RP and GB he would be gaining.

> 3) In a similar vein, is one schismatic branch of Haelyn (for example,
> the Impregnable Heart of Haelyn) equivalent to one Barony (like
> Roesone or Ghoere)? [By this I mean, the rules of it gets three
> domain actions per turn.]

Yes.

> What if he invested one priest with all
> holdings in one province - would that priest get zero, one or three
> domain actions/turn?

Three.

> Would that effectively be another branch of Haelyn?

In terms of game mechanics, yes, although probably not in the eyes of the
NPC parishoners.

Having vassals is an immense power-up in the Birthright system (so long as
they do what you want them to) -- the greatly increased number of actions
possible by a team of cooperating regents is the primary means by which
the designers have attempted to encourage pseudo-feudal power structures.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

04-30-2002, 10:38 PM

The rules on vassals are open to considerable abuse, and DM`s need to watch
out for potentially game busting use of vassals. There are several kinds of
resources in the realm portion of the game, and they include GB`s, RP`s,
ability to recruit military units, and magical potential (either temples or
sources) and time. Time is very probabaly the most limited factor in the
game. Certain conditions make a "shotgun" approach to realm conflict the
most effective, but this is a slow process. Contest actions, Agitate,
Create, and at low levels, even the rule action can be inexpensivly
performed many times.

Why invest resources to support a contest action, when a bunch of vassals,
with money to burn (sent from the master) can take shots at 50% for 1 RP?

Why not give a half dozen blooded cohorts a bunch of GB`s and tell them to
creating 0-level holdings where ever its an inconvienience to your enemies?

Ryan mentions the issue of loyalty, but that only goes so far. DM`s need to
match vassals with vassals. If a player creates a vassal to pay close
attention to the guilds of a rival guilder, that guilder may create a vassal
to begin to create law holdings in that player`s provicnes, and use them to
contest three times a turn. The guilder certain has the cash to put behind
this. Once players realize they can`t use vassals to get around the time
restrictions, and as Ryan mentions, there is always a risk of a vassal
turning disloyal, vassals will be employed for good role play reasons, not
as a way to conquer the world.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

04-30-2002, 11:51 PM

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>The rules on vassals are open to considerable abuse, and DM`s need to watch
>out for potentially game busting use of vassals.
>
There is no requirement for a vassal to perform any action(s) on behalf
of, or in aid of the liege. (excepting agreements for mutual support in
time of war perhaps) There was debate some time ago about the difference
between a small-v vassal and a large V Vassal and the distinction
between the form a Vassalage. BR vassalage agreements aren`t really
worth the parchment they`re scribed upon.

The only requirement is for the vassal to provide RP to the liege. This
is an interesting agreement at first sight because you might think it
would work better the other way around - allowing blooded lieges to
support unblooded vassals by granting RP and GB in return for their
actions in support - but this is exactly what is prohibited in order to
avoid abuse.

> There are several kinds of
>resources in the realm portion of the game, and they include GB`s, RP`s,
>ability to recruit military units, and magical potential (either temples or
>sources) and time. Time is very probabaly the most limited factor in the
>game. Certain conditions make a "shotgun" approach to realm conflict the
>most effective, but this is a slow process. Contest actions, Agitate,
>Create, and at low levels, even the rule action can be inexpensivly
>performed many times.
>
>Why invest resources to support a contest action, when a bunch of vassals,
>with money to burn (sent from the master) can take shots at 50% for 1 RP?
>
Yes, it`s possible but not terribly likely. A vassal is an independent
regent - they are not likely to follow any but their own interests.
Acting essentially for their liege is against their own interest! (at
least without a significant quid pro quo)

>
>
>Why not give a half dozen blooded cohorts a bunch of GB`s and tell them to
>creating 0-level holdings where ever its an inconvienience to your enemies?
>
Perhaps this is the reason that Create Holding is a domain action rather
than a character action ? (regents cannot create themselves .... it`s a
silly argument of course - any character should be able to become a
regent - blooded characters should just have an advantage in that
department) Of course, nowhere does it say in the rules that you have to
be a regent to participate in the domain turns - nor does it say you
have to be blooded.

In the case of cohorts, lieutenants, henchmen etc - it is easily argued
that they are acting under direction/supervision and are therefore not
independent and cannot act as regents -- if made lieutenants this then
limits them to 1 such action else none at all.

>
>
>Ryan mentions the issue of loyalty, but that only goes so far. DM`s need to
>match vassals with vassals. If a player creates a vassal to pay close
>attention to the guilds of a rival guilder, that guilder may create a vassal
>to begin to create law holdings in that player`s provicnes, and use them to
>contest three times a turn. The guilder certain has the cash to put behind
>this. Once players realize they can`t use vassals to get around the time
>restrictions, and as Ryan mentions, there is always a risk of a vassal
>turning disloyal, vassals will be employed for good role play reasons, not
>as a way to conquer the world.
>
>Kenneth Gauck
>kgauck@mchsi.com
>
>************************************************** **************************
>The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
>To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

05-01-2002, 01:07 AM

brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG wrote:

>Aleric wrote:
> I may just have misunderstood something basic about the mechanics of Birthright, but it seems to me its possible to create a lot of people with a lot of domain actions very quickly and advantageously.
>
>1) Is it true that any blooded character controlling even one level of one holding or Province is a regent and thus gets three domain actions per turn?
>
yes.

>
>2) If, for example, the Baron(ness) of Roesone invested a province lord (say Fairfield) with all law in that province (but the Baron retained the province). Would Fairfield get zero, one or three domain actions per turn?
>
The Count (?) of Fairfield would have three actions - and about 1 RP and
1 GB - effectively limiting him to one domain action (although many free
actions - well as many as he can afford). Of course he`ll still have to
deal with events too. One assumes that he`d spend his actions trying to
rule his law holding to 3 a.s.a.p. This is going to cost a minimum of 6
GB - which he`s going to have to beg or borrow from his liege or someone
else. Creating such an ineffective vassal is asking for trouble - a
liege is almost certain to lose the vassal through some means or
another. The Vassal`s best course of action after ruling law to 3 is to
fortify the holding (at least 4 GB), the use espionage and/or agitate to
reduce the holding loyalty, followed by a contest province - so Roesone
may as well give the province away in the first place creating a more
effective vassal (marginally). Ghoere would probably start wringing his
hands with glee too - what easy access to law within Roesone -
contesting that law holding would be child`s play.

>
>3) In a similar vein, is one schismatic branch of Haelyn (for example, the Impregnable Heart of Haelyn) equivalent to one Barony (like Roesone or Ghoere)? [By this I mean, the rules of it gets three domain actions per turn.] What if he invested one priest with all holdings in one province - would that priest get zero, one or three domain actions/turn? Would that effectively be another branch of Haelyn?
>
yes and yes

One of the reasons that BR does not scale up or down very well (that is
you can`t deal with empires or single shops) is that the rules are
optimized for a certain level of play. The assumption seems to be that
most regents will have between 20 and 40 RP to play with. Regents with
fewer RP cannot compete effectively and are easily driven out of the
game. (this is not true if all regents have fewer RP - having 30% less
RP than the average is a better statement) A regent with 60+ RP is well
advised to create a Vassal with about 20 RP, or a regent with a high
domain power (DP) and less RP -- i.e. they control assets for which they
cannot collect RP due to their character class. With fewer RP creating a
vassal will simply weaken the liege and create a weak vassal - not good
survival tactics.

An alternative system of calculating RP will avoid some but not all of
the limitations. If RP is calculated as the better of bloodline points
(BP) and domain power (DP), then a vassal can be created with an
effective RP total - yet a small DP. (and this allows regents to build
domains from the ground up, and as well as allowing non-blooded regents)
Even so, they would still need a bloodline score of 20 or so to be
effective. [note: RP does not accumulate under such a system - what you
get a turn is what you can spend - unused RP is lost -- this effectively
limits regents with high RP collection, a major flaw with the standard
system]

Still creating a vassal in that manner has its risks too. They`ll need
space to expand -- make sure it`s not into your territory. I tie vassal
loyalty (NPC vassalas that is) to the original value of the grant - the
more DP(domain) granted the more loyal and grateful the vassal will be -
"One point a law holding ? _ thanks, I guess."

>
>
>Thanks for any comments:)
>
>************************************************** **************************
>The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
>To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Lord Grave

05-01-2002, 01:07 AM

>1) Is it true that any blooded character controlling even one level of
one >holding or Province is a regent and thus gets three domain actions
per >turn?

Actually, every person has three actions per turn. It is just that you
can`t do Domain and Realm actions without a domain.

>2) If, for example, the Baron(ness) of Roesone invested a province lord
>(say Fairfield) with all law in that province (but the Baron retained
the >province). Would Fairfield get zero, one or three domain actions
per turn?

Three.

>3) In a similar vein, is one schismatic branch of Haelyn (for example,
the >Impregnable Heart of Haelyn) equivalent to one Barony (like Roesone
or >Ghoere)? [By this I mean, the rules of it gets three domain actions
per >turn.] What if he invested one priest with all holdings in one
province - >would that priest get zero, one or three domain
actions/turn? Would that >effectively be another branch of Haelyn?

The same. Every person has the same amount of time.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

05-01-2002, 03:39 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 6:41 PM

> There is no requirement for a vassal to perform any action(s) on behalf
> of, or in aid of the liege.

No requirement in the rules. The word deviant exists to describe people who
act outside of prescribed cultural norms. I presume such cultural norms
actually govern far more behavior than rules do. If these rules exist as
you describe them, I have a hard time creating the worlds of king Arthur, of
king Richard the lionhearted (just watched Ivanhoe with James Mason), or of
the Illiad. Odysseus wasn`t even a vassal of Menelaus and had to go to
Troy, despite pretending to be crazy. Rules, what rules? I`m not playing
Monopoly, I`m building a world full of living, breating people.

> [...] allowing blooded lieges to support unblooded vassals by
> granting RP and GB in return for their actions in support - but
> this is exactly what is prohibited in order to avoid abuse.

Cite this prohibition. I`ll counter-cite the Grant action as a free
unlimited action.

> Yes, it`s possible but not terribly likely. A vassal is an independent
> regent - they are not likely to follow any but their own interests.
> Acting essentially for their liege is against their own interest! (at
> least without a significant quid pro quo)

Not likely? This is totally a product of the society constructed. In
societies where honor and glory are valued, or loyalty and family, or duty
and service - I could keep going - they will be highly likely.

Its also possible that in some worlds, cooperation is a better strategy for
pursuing one`s interest than turning a blind eye to one`s benefactors.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

05-01-2002, 07:05 AM

Several folks have already answered these questions, but I`m going to go
ahead and chime in too. I`ll try to point to the nuances and hazy areas
not covered by other posters.

>Aleric wrote:
>
>I may just have misunderstood something basic about the mechanics of
>Birthright, but it seems to me its possible to create a lot of people with
>a lot of domain actions very quickly and advantageously.
>
>1) Is it true that any blooded character controlling even one level of one
>holding or Province is a regent and thus gets three domain actions per turn?

Yes. In fact, he needn`t even control one level. A 0-level holding will
suffice for entry into the "regency club" if you will--despite the fact
that the "regent" in question has collected no regency points or gold bars,
and his domain has not yet grown to the size that it will generate
any. Depending on what type of actions he wants to engage in, it`s
unlikely that he`ll have the RP (though he might have the GB) to actually
perform that many actions, but he still has access to three actions.

Also, as was noted by others in this thread, whether a character controls a
holding or province he still gets 3 "actions" per domain turn. They are
just character actions rather than domain actions.

>2) If, for example, the Baron(ness) of Roesone invested a province lord
>(say Fairfield) with all law in that province (but the Baron retained the
>province). Would Fairfield get zero, one or three domain actions per turn?

He could even get four if he had a lieutenant. What a lieutenant is wasn`t
very well articulated in the original rules, and what a LT might be in 3e
is anybody`s guess. Can another PC act as a LT? Is a cohort a PC? Is a
LT a "super cohort" or are they actually less than a cohort? What
differentiates a LT from any of those things?

Your regent might even get what would be equivalent to 5 or 6 actions for
other regents if he had both a LT and the regent in question is a priest
and/or rogue. Those classes get a free Agitate or Espionage action (or
maybe both in the case of a multi-class cleric/rogue) which would take an
action round to perform for other regents. (It doesn`t specify that
regents of either of those classes must actually control temples or guilds
in order to have access to these free actions.)

Then, of course, the vassal could have vassals of his own opening up a
whole new can of worms regarding how many actions he can perform himself
and dictate to others. There is no stated limit to this kind of thing in
the published materials, though there is probably an effective limit.

>3) In a similar vein, is one schismatic branch of Haelyn (for example, the
>Impregnable Heart of Haelyn) equivalent to one Barony (like Roesone or
>Ghoere)? [By this I mean, the rules of it gets three domain actions per
>turn.] What if he invested one priest with all holdings in one province -
>would that priest get zero, one or three domain actions/turn? Would that
>effectively be another branch of Haelyn?

A regent is a regent, and a regent is anyone who controls holdings and/or
provinces, so they get 3 domain actions. Sometimes regents are also
described as "lieutenants" of other regents, but it`s debatable exactly
what that means. Are they LTs in the sense of the Lieutenant action,
capable of being directed by another regent just as if they were non-regent
LT characters, presumably taking up one of their standard domain actions,
but financed by their liege, or does it mean a more generalized
"lieutenant" in the sense that they generally listen to and are interested
in furthering the goals of their leader the way Dick Chaney supports
President Bush, but essentially operating according to his own agenda when
he`s not having some sort of cardiac episode? (Is it troublesome to anyone
else that the Pres of the U.S. is just a pretzel away from choking to death
while the veep has had more heart attacks then EVERYONE I`VE EVER MET? OK,
that was sort of off topic, but since we`re talking rulers here I think
it`s appropriate to point out that the U.S. is just a few cholesterol
points away from being ruled by the Assistant Undersecretary of Indian
Affairs....)

Anyway, I assume he`d invest the guy with some sort of vassalage
agreement.... As others have pointed out, there`s nothing requiring a
vassal to obey the terms of a vassalage agreement. Aside from the
possibility of being squashed like an impudent bug, that is. Any regent
who creates vassals powerful enough to threaten his authority in short term
(in the long run anyone can threaten a regent`s authority) probably
deserves to fight a civil war, but the point is that, yes, he gets the
standard number of domain actions (three) in addition to his free Agitate
action (assuming the temple ruler in your example is a priest, that is) and
an unlimited number of "free" actions.

Some free actions, BTW, are really realm level effects. Grant and Decree,
for instance, are realm level effects. For example: "I hereby decree that
from this point forward all cats will be considered wards of the state and
protected from all violence, abuse, derision and disrespect." That means
zilch coming from me, but a regent (especially one with the Animal Affinity
ability of Brenna`s bloodline) might not only want to make such a decree
but enforce it. In addition, he might very well be in a position to
enforce it AND in a position to know if it were being enforced due to his
blood ability.

Temple holdings would _probably_ be considered another branch of the
worship of Haelyn. _Probably_ because there is no requirement, nor even
any guideline that a vassal once invested need maintain the emphasis or
purpose of his holdings. It`s even easier to change the description of a
holding than it is to break a vassalage agreement. Law holdings, for
example, can represent a professional police presence, or they might
represent control over "mobsters" who demand "protection" money, and the
holding could start out as the former and switch to the latter under
another regent. There`s no reason to assume that a holding, once
transferred, need keep its previous role-playing description under the
regent who gave up direct control over it. Guilds that represented
Varsk-breeding ranches in Vosgaard could trade in pink daffodils once
transferred to another regent. In fact, that switch could take place
before the transfer of the holdings actually occurred. The DM or player
controlling a regent character could simply decide to switch loyalties,
products, "policing" methods, etc. as easily as saying so.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

05-01-2002, 07:05 AM

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 6:41 PM
>
>
>>There is no requirement for a vassal to perform any action(s) on behalf
>>of, or in aid of the liege.
>>
>
>No requirement in the rules. The word deviant exists to describe people who
>act outside of prescribed cultural norms. I presume such cultural norms
>actually govern far more behavior than rules do. If these rules exist as
>you describe them, I have a hard time creating the worlds of king Arthur, of
>king Richard the lionhearted (just watched Ivanhoe with James Mason), or of
>the Illiad. Odysseus wasn`t even a vassal of Menelaus and had to go to
>Troy, despite pretending to be crazy. Rules, what rules? I`m not playing
>Monopoly, I`m building a world full of living, breating people.
>
What I meant was that, a liege in order to "persuade" a Vassal to
perform an action which would favour the liege would still need to use
an action to ask (diplomacy) - and this without an iron-clad gaurantee
of the willingness of the Vassal.

BTW Richard was perhaps the worst king in Englands history on record.
That Scott and others produced such romantic tales was a master stroke
of propaganda. A historical appraisal of Arthur shows it to be largely
French propaganda to support the Norman "conquest" of England, and
Odysseus` reasons for visiting Troy were as self-serving as any other.

>
>
>>[...] allowing blooded lieges to support unblooded vassals by
>>granting RP and GB in return for their actions in support - but
>>this is exactly what is prohibited in order to avoid abuse.
>>
>
>Cite this prohibition. I`ll counter-cite the Grant action as a free
>unlimited action.
>
You are correct, there is none - I was stating intention not fact. The
vassalage section is clear that RP are meant to pass from the vassal to
the liege - but you can "get around" this by the backdoor of Grant
against the spirit of the rules writers. [I`m not arguing that this is
bad/evil/unwanted - just incongruous.]

>
>
>>Yes, it`s possible but not terribly likely. A vassal is an independent
>>regent - they are not likely to follow any but their own interests.
>>Acting essentially for their liege is against their own interest! (at
>>least without a significant quid pro quo)
>>
>
>Not likely? This is totally a product of the society constructed. In
>societies where honor and glory are valued, or loyalty and family, or duty
>and service - I could keep going - they will be highly likely.
>
maybe in Aebrynnis, but not planet Earth. Actually not even in Aebrynnis
according to its history - as much so now as ever.

>
>
>Its also possible that in some worlds, cooperation is a better strategy for
>pursuing one`s interest than turning a blind eye to one`s benefactors.
>
in a utopian society yes, and this is a desirable goal for all beings to
pursue - in reality as well as fantasy - but we are still a long way
from achieving this in even the most socialized country in this reality
- although I find it as difficult to believe a liege is a "benefactor"
with pure motives.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

05-01-2002, 07:05 AM

Gary wrote:

> Yes. In fact, he needn`t even control one level. A 0-level holding will
> suffice for entry into the "regency club" if you will--despite the fact
> that the "regent" in question has collected no regency points or gold
> bars,
> and his domain has not yet grown to the size that it will generate
> any. Depending on what type of actions he wants to engage in, it`s
> unlikely that he`ll have the RP (though he might have the GB) to actually
> perform that many actions, but he still has access to three actions.
>
> Also, as was noted by others in this thread, whether a character
> controls a
> holding or province he still gets 3 "actions" per domain turn. They are
> just character actions rather than domain actions.

Begs the question for ruling "Create Holding" a character action of
course. Having a 0-level holding would allow "Rule Holding" if nothing
else. The costs in RP for most actions seem quite arbitrary really.

> A regent is a regent, and a regent is anyone who controls holdings and/or
> provinces, so they get 3 domain actions. Sometimes regents are also
> described as "lieutenants" of other regents, but it`s debatable exactly
> what that means. Are they LTs in the sense of the Lieutenant action,
> capable of being directed by another regent just as if they were
> non-regent
> LT characters, presumably taking up one of their standard domain actions,
> but financed by their liege, or does it mean a more generalized
> "lieutenant"

I`d go so far as to say that a liege with LTs that are regents in their
own right could direct one of his LTs to act on his behalf without that
LT/regent having to use one of his own actions. I would not expect the
LT to use his own resources or operate them on behalf of phasing regent
though. i.e. A LT wizard would not cast a realm spell (unless he was
using the phasing regents sources).

> in the sense that they generally listen to and are interested
> in furthering the goals of their leader the way Dick Chaney supports
> President Bush, but essentially operating according to his own agenda
> when
> he`s not having some sort of cardiac episode? (Is it troublesome to
> anyone
> else that the Pres of the U.S. is just a pretzel away from choking to
> death
> while the veep has had more heart attacks then EVERYONE I`VE EVER
> MET? OK,
> that was sort of off topic, but since we`re talking rulers here I think
> it`s appropriate to point out that the U.S. is just a few cholesterol
> points away from being ruled by the Assistant Undersecretary of Indian
> Affairs....)

Which could be a big step forward for mankind (if only we didn`t get
Costello if Howard coughs up a peach pit - sigh!).

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

ConjurerDragon

05-01-2002, 08:13 AM

Hello!

Gary wrote:
...

> Your regent might even get what would be equivalent to 5 or 6 actions for
> other regents if he had both a LT and the regent in question is a priest
> and/or rogue. Those classes get a free Agitate or Espionage action (or
> maybe both in the case of a multi-class cleric/rogue) which would take an
> action round to perform for other regents. (It doesn`t specify that
> regents of either of those classes must actually control temples or
> guilds
> in order to have access to these free actions.)

Actually it does: Book of Priestcraft, p. 64 "Temple holdings: The
temple holding is the defining element of a priest´s domain. If a priest
character rules provinces and commands armies but doesn´t maintain
temple holdings, he is not ruling a priestly domain. Without temple
holdings, a priest can´t cast realm magic or make use of his free
agitate action."
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

05-01-2002, 09:00 AM

At 09:39 AM 5/1/2002 +0200, Michael Romes wrote:

>>(It doesn`t specify that regents of either of those classes must actually
>>control temples or guilds in order to have access to these free actions.)
>
>Actually it does: Book of Priestcraft, p. 64 "Without temple holdings, a
>priest can´t cast realm magic or make use of his free agitate action."

I stand corrected. <kowtow, kowtow> It`s logical to assume this same
restriction would have been in the Book of Guildcraft as well.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

05-01-2002, 09:27 AM

At 04:34 PM 5/1/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>Also, as was noted by others in this thread, whether a character controls
>>a holding or province he still gets 3 "actions" per domain turn. They
>>are just character actions rather than domain actions.
>
>Begs the question for ruling "Create Holding" a character action of
>course. Having a 0-level holding would allow "Rule Holding" if nothing
>else. The costs in RP for most actions seem quite arbitrary really.

I`ve been thinking about this one, and it occurs to me that non-regents
probably can perform certain domain actions. That is, they could perform
the ones that don`t require spending RP, so in addition to Create Holding
(and Create Province) they could Build (by personally designing and
supervising the construction, Declare War, perform Espionage, Lieutenant,
Move Troops or Muster Armies since those actions don`t necessarily require
spending RP. They`d have to have a lot of GB available, of course, but
there`s no reason why a regent who controls nothing but a 0-level holding
or, for that matter, doesn`t control a holding at all, can`t perform those
action.

>>A regent is a regent, and a regent is anyone who controls holdings and/or
>>provinces, so they get 3 domain actions. Sometimes regents are also
>>described as "lieutenants" of other regents, but it`s debatable exactly
>>what that means. Are they LTs in the sense of the Lieutenant action,
>>capable of being directed by another regent just as if they were
>>non-regent LT characters, presumably taking up one of their standard
>>domain actions, but financed by their liege, or does it mean a more
>>generalized "lieutenant"
>
>I`d go so far as to say that a liege with LTs that are regents in their
>own right could direct one of his LTs to act on his behalf without that
>LT/regent having to use one of his own actions.

Doesn`t that create an extra domain action for the LT/regent? That is, he
can perform his own standard allotment of actions, and in addition can act
as a LT to his liege performing what would require a full action round
under normal circumstances. Why should LT/regents get this extra action
outside of their standard activities as regents?

>I would not expect the LT to use his own resources or operate them on
>behalf of phasing regent though. i.e. A LT wizard would not cast a realm
>spell (unless he was using the phasing regents sources).

I think LT actions are performed using the Liege`s RP/GB and holdings
whether he`s a LT/regent or just an LT.

It`s not really possible to lend a holding to other characters, though the
Trade Service action in the BoR kind of hints that one can shift aspects of
the control of a holding to other regents at least temporarily for GB
earning purposes. I`d extend the logic a bit to allow a character other
than the source holder to spend RP by casting a realm spell through the
lent holding. Presumably that could be extended to non-regent LTs during a
domain turn for various purposes, which is kind of the interpretation I`d
use to justify how LT actions work. It`s easier to see the Trade Service
action being extended to LT/regents and used to justify the LT/regent`s
access. Of course, this means with the willing participation of any regent
in charge of source holdings just about anyone with the ability to cast
arcane magic can cast realm spells. There are a couple of other situations
that would support this interpretation (Tuarhieval`s spellcasters, the
masters at the College of Sorcery) and I don`t think it`ll wind up creating
too many difficulties if such activities are assumed to be part of a LT
action. Since a regent can only assign one per domain turn anyway, wizards
can pop out of the woodwork to cast realm spells all over the place.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

05-01-2002, 12:27 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:18 AM

> What I meant was that, a liege in order to "persuade" a Vassal to
> perform an action which would favour the liege would still need to use
> an action to ask (diplomacy) - and this without an iron-clad gaurantee
> of the willingness of the Vassal.

The Diplomacy action specifically states that routine messeges can pass back
and forth without recourse to a Diplomacy action. It goes further to state
that this action represents a full-court affair. It is not necessary, then,
to assume that a liege must use diplomacy to ask a vassal to do anything.
The vassal may in fact spend a great deal of time at the court of his liege.

** A vassal is an independent regent - they are not likely to follow
** any but their own interests.
> >
> > This is totally a product of the society constructed. In societies
> > where honor and glory are valued, or loyalty and family, or duty
> > and service - I could keep going - they will be highly likely.
>
> maybe in Aebrynnis, but not planet Earth. Actually not even in Aebrynnis
> according to its history - as much so now as ever.

This is totally opposed to my sociological reading of both worlds mentioned.
We`ll have to just disagree on this one. I must wonder, however, how much
this would turn out to be a superficial semantic difference in practice,
which would be a pity.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Aleric

05-01-2002, 03:50 PM

Thanks for all the useful answers. It seems the generally agreed interpretation of the game is that all characters get three actions per domain turn (regardless of ruling holdings or not). Not only does this possibly mean a lot more book-keeping to track it all, but it seems it would be very advantageous to create such mini-vassals.

The important distinctions between vassals and lieutenants seem to be:
Lieutenant – one domain action/turn undertaken using the resources of the Lord
Vassal – three domain actions/turn undertaken using his own resources

Either could have holdings – but only the vassal must. Both could be disloyal – so no difference there. The problem of the lack of resources could be circumvented by ‘Grant’-ing RPs and GPs as desired by the Lord. Admittedly creating a vassal means the Lord surrendering some RPs (i.e. from the holding), but not a significant loss. Especially when coupled with the more valuable gain of these extra domain turns.

Given this, why create a lieutenant, when a vassal can do so much more?

Some of the answers given in this thread suggest:
Disloyalty: ‘A vassal is an independent regent - they are not likely to follow any but their own interests. Acting essentially for their liege is against their own interest!’
I don’t agree. Using my initial example above (of Roesone giving control of law holdings in Fairfield to the local lord). As well as honour, feudal custom etc. There is the simple matter of real-politik. The vassal is weak and dependent on the Baron to protect Fairfield – who still incidentally rules the Province. Moreover, the Baron could retake the law holdings easily - especially given the Roesonian troops still answer to him. Only a foolish regent would not appreciate that keeping on the Baron’s goodside was his number one priority.

Weakness: ‘Ghoere would probably start wringing his hands with glee too - what easy access to law within Roesone - contesting that law holding would be child`s play.’
Again, I’m not convinced. If Ghoere was to start contesting law in Fairfield as suggested (because he was so relatively weak – 3 RP/turn), the Baron of Roesone could surely still take this as an act of war and attack (or invoke a NATO-style mutual defence from foreign interference treaty with other Ghoere-bordering realms). Fairfield is still part of his sovereign realm – regardless of whether the law holding is under the control of Fairfield. Moreover, couldn’t he grant RPs and/or support Fairfield against Ghoere?

Now, let’s just push things to their absurd conclusion. Why shouldn’t Roesone become a Federal State (i.e. Baron ruling the province and each of the blooded province lords ruling some or all of the law holdings). Collectively, they would have the same number of RPs and GBs, but would have 24 realm actions. Given my rebuttals to the ‘disloyalty’ and ‘weakness’ points above, there would seems to be more advantage to this model than the centralised monarchy.

OK, I may be getting silly here. Its probably best just to say that in the world of Birthright such sophisticated governmental structures haven’t been developed (yet…);)

Birthright-L

05-01-2002, 05:08 PM

> Aleric wrote:

> Not only does this possibly mean a lot more book-keeping to track it
> all, but it seems it would be very advantageous to create such mini-vassals.

Yes and yes. Hence the advice somewhere in the rulebook that you only
actually resolve actions for those few NPC realms which are actively
involved with the PC ones at any given moment, and just assume all the
others either cancel each other out or determine a global change by DM
fiat. As regards the advantage, be sure to heed Kenneth`s advice that it
is crucial that no one group of (N)PCs be the only regents to come
up with this idea.

> Lieutenant – one domain action/turn undertaken using the resources of
> the Lord
> Vassal – three domain actions/turn undertaken using his own resources

Yup. Vassals also get to expend extra RP to modify success numbers, as
all regents do; lieutenants can`t use RP that way.

> Either could have holdings – but only the vassal must.

I would say that once you`ve got holdings, you`re a regent. There was
some discussion a while back about whether one could be both a regent and
a lieutenant at the same time; I for one was opposed to the idea. I say
if you give them holdings, they cease to be your lieutenant, so you`d
better make them your vassal.

> Both could be disloyal – so no difference there.

Roleplayingwise, yes. In terms of game mechanics, I don`t really think
so. I`d let players control LTs pretty much completely, unless I had
specific ideas to the contrary, but a full vassal I`d want developed into
a separate NPC. I see LTs as extensions of the regent`s self and vassals
as more independent agents, in part because I don`t mind every player
getting 4 actions per turn instead of 3, but I do mind every player
getting arbitrarily many actions per turn.

> Admittedly creating a vassal means the Lord surrendering
> some RPs (i.e. from the holding), but not a significant loss.

One major reason to create vassals is that you can do it without losing
any RP income, and in fact *gaining* it, if your bloodline score is below
your domain power. The consensus of the list seems to be that RP
contributed by vassals don`t count against the maximum a regent can
collect per turn. Someone will no doubt roast me if I`m wrong. =)

> Given this, why create a lieutenant, when a vassal can do so much
> more?

Well, everyone needs at least *one* lieutenant, just for the extra
self-action that no vassal can directly provide (you can use LTs but not
vassals to rule up your own personal holdings, for example).

My answer is this: if a liege lord has as much control over his vassals`
actions as he does over his lieutenants`, then you`re right; but since I
don`t want every regent to invest everyone he can think of as a full
vassal because it would be a bookkeeping nightmare, I need a way around
that; less certain loyalty is one tool that looks good to me for use in
that purpose.

> Disloyalty: ‘A vassal is an independent regent - they are not likely
> to follow any but their own interests. Acting essentially for their
> liege is against their own interest!’

That`s not quite what I mean. What I mean is that a vassal is likely to
prioritize the same interests rather differently. For example, things
like, "Yes, my lord, I`d be happy to help you wage war against our enemies
if only I were able, but at the moment I need every man-at-arms I have to
hunt the bandits who have been reducing my ability to collect the taxes
you deserve, and you really do need this money to wage the war... perhaps
next year." Keep the number of random events high enough that vassals are
pulled in different directions from their lords. Also, once you have a
large number of vassals, they begin to compete among each other, and
interfere in each other`s pet projects. This should be an unending source
of headaches for any regent who decides to create his own Parliament to
run his realm for him (which is what large-scale vassal proliferation is).
Then there`s the "magna carta" problem: if at any point all your vassals
put together could overpower you, they may decide to unionize. Also, if
you`re busy putting one vassal back in his place, the others will take the
opportunity to slightly loosen their bonds while you`re not looking.

IMO, lieutenants say, "yes lord, whatever you command."
Vassals say, "well, I`ll see what I can do about your request."

> their absurd conclusion. Why shouldn’t Roesone become a Federal State
> (i.e. Baron ruling the province and each of the blooded province lords
> ruling some or all of the law holdings).

Because they`d all need to agree to get anything done, including collect
any income at all. This can be worked around, but for sheer playability
purposes I prefer to say that every realm really does work this way (Mark
Vandermuelen posted long ago about seeing each level of law holding as a
single local nobleman with a few manors), but it is extremely inefficient
to model it that way for game play purposes. Similiarly, one in principle
could resolve all battles by having 3,000 individual first-level Warriors
on each side in one gigantic D&D melee "because that`s how it really
happens on the ground", but it would take forever to resolve anything.

I think excessive vassalage ought to be regarded not as the way to "win"
the game system, but as the way to break the system by tweaking its level
of abstraction in the wrong way.

> OK, I may be getting silly here. Its probably best just to say that
> in the world of Birthright such sophisticated governmental structures
> haven’t been developed (yet…);)

I`d say they`ve been abstracted into the existing operation of the model.

Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

geeman

05-01-2002, 08:33 PM

At 05:50 PM 5/1/2002 +0200, you wrote:

>The important distinctions between vassals and lieutenants seem to be:
>Lieutenant * one domain action/turn undertaken using the resources of the Lord
>Vassal * three domain actions/turn undertaken using his own resources
>
>Either could have holdings * but only the vassal must.

Why must a Vassal have holdings? He could just rule a province or two....

>Both could be disloyal * so no difference there. The problem of the lack
>of resources could be circumvented by ‘Grant’-ing RPs and GPs as desired
>by the Lord. Admittedly creating a vassal means the Lord surrendering
>some RPs (i.e. from the holding), but not a significant loss. Especially
>when coupled with the more valuable gain of these extra domain turns.

Some folks have disagreed with me on this one, but I don`t think you can
use the Grant action to transfer RP to a Vassal. Aside from issues having
to do with the nature of regency (to begin with, the transfer of RP is
generally reserved for the Investiture action in which the transfer of RP
is from Vassal to Liege rather than the other way around) there are very
serious game mechanical problems with allowing a Liege/regent to transfer
RP to a LT/regent. Not the least of which is that, as you note, it
effectively gives that Liege another 3, possibly 4 action rounds per domain
turn by dictating not only the actions to be performed to his Vassal, but
also providing the RP necessary. A Vassal who is not Granted RP may not
have the regency to perform that many domain actions, and he certainly
wouldn`t have the RP to assure the success of such actions, so from a game
mechanic POV, it makes sense to not allow the casual and simple transfer of
RP from Liege to Vassal using the Grant action.

People who interpret regency points as being only political power rather
than the mystical energy garnered from political rule through the bloodline
granted by the gods tend to like the idea that they can transfer RP using
the Grant action. Personally, I find no more justification that one can
transfer political authority by Granting it than mystical power, and my
reading of the Grant action would also indicate that it isn`t powerful
enough to transfer RP to another regent (or LT, or Vassal.)

>Given this, why create a lieutenant, when a vassal can do so much more?
>
>Some of the answers given in this thread suggest:
>Disloyalty: ‘A vassal is an independent regent - they are not likely to
>follow any but their own interests. Acting essentially for their liege is
>against their own interest!’
>I don’t agree. Using my initial example above (of Roesone giving control
>of law holdings in Fairfield to the local lord). As well as honour,
>feudal custom etc. There is the simple matter of real-politik. The
>vassal is weak and dependent on the Baron to protect Fairfield * who still
>incidentally rules the Province. Moreover, the Baron could retake the law
>holdings easily - especially given the Roesonian troops still answer to
>him. Only a foolish regent would not appreciate that keeping on the
>Baron’s goodside was his number one priority.
>
>Weakness: ‘Ghoere would probably start wringing his hands with glee too -
>what easy access to law within Roesone - contesting that law holding would
>be child`s play.’
>Again, I’m not convinced. If Ghoere was to start contesting law in
>Fairfield as suggested (because he was so relatively weak * 3 RP/turn),
>the Baron of Roesone could surely still take this as an act of war and
>attack (or invoke a NATO-style mutual defence from foreign interference
>treaty with other Ghoere-bordering realms). Fairfield is still part of
>his sovereign realm * regardless of whether the law holding is under the
>control of Fairfield. Moreover, couldn’t he grant RPs and/or support
>Fairfield against Ghoere?
>
>Now, let’s just push things to their absurd conclusion. Why shouldn’t
>Roesone become a Federal State (i.e. Baron ruling the province and each of
>the blooded province lords ruling some or all of the law
>holdings). Collectively, they would have the same number of RPs and GBs,
>but would have 24 realm actions. Given my rebuttals to the ‘disloyalty’
>and ‘weakness’ points above, there would seems to be more advantage to
>this model than the centralised monarchy.
>
>OK, I may be getting silly here. Its probably best just to say that in
>the world of Birthright such sophisticated governmental structures haven’t
>been developed (yet…);)

Technically, I don`t think there`s any reason why a regent couldn`t do
exactly what you`re suggesting. The only "remedy" really amounts to the DM
role-playing counters to the effort on the part of the player taking on the
Baroness of Roesone.

Should Roesone go for this level of Vassalage, however, it should be noted
that the Baroness loses quite a bit of power and may not, in fact, be able
to perform her own domain actions without the consent of her Vassals. A
federalized Roesone with seven regents controlling a law(1) or law(2) could
combine their efforts to stymie the Baron fairly easily, and there really
is very little reason why they wouldn`t do exactly that; the more
"democracy" in a state, the more dissension in that state. The leadership
of Roesone would and, in fact, probably must become a committee process in
such a state. Even the Baroness` actions would be subject to discussion
and approval of such a committee.

There is, I think, an effective limit to how much of a regent`s domain he
can transfer over to Vassals (or how many Vassals a regent could have in
the first place) and still expect relative compliance with his wishes. In
general, I think that vassals in control of holdings more than 1/3 of the
size of the regent`s own domain will start to behave more
independently. That doesn`t mean they will rebel, but their own actions
will start to conflict with that of the Liege, and the Vassals as a group
have risen to the point where they can assert much of their own authority
in the domain with or without the Liege`s approval.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

05-02-2002, 01:08 AM

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:18 AM
>
>
>>What I meant was that, a liege in order to "persuade" a Vassal to
>>perform an action which would favour the liege would still need to use
>>an action to ask (diplomacy) - and this without an iron-clad gaurantee
>>of the willingness of the Vassal.
>>
>
>The Diplomacy action specifically states that routine messeges can pass back
>and forth without recourse to a Diplomacy action. It goes further to state
>that this action represents a full-court affair. It is not necessary, then,
>to assume that a liege must use diplomacy to ask a vassal to do anything.
>The vassal may in fact spend a great deal of time at the court of his liege.
>
I`d hardly call a request use of anothers domain assets to be in any way
routine regardless of the friendship, vassalage or other relationship
involved. A regent has a responsibility to his people too, and to his
domain.

Quite apart from that argument (which I find compelling enough in
itself), to do otherwise would effectively allow a liege to have more
than three domain actions creating a puppet who therefore should cease
to exist (or should never have been) as a regent with all holdings and
assets controlled by the liege. You can`t get around the three action
limit like this. (or any way)

Where a vassals interest coincide with the liege`s, it is still up to
the individual regent to decide whether to take action and what to do.
To persuade/coerce/whatever a vassal to a specific course of action
would require some diplomacy (whoever said it had to be friendly).

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

05-02-2002, 01:08 AM

Gary wrote:

> At 04:34 PM 5/1/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>>> Also, as was noted by others in this thread, whether a character
>>> controls
>>> a holding or province he still gets 3 "actions" per domain turn. They
>>> are just character actions rather than domain actions.
>>
>>
>> Begs the question for ruling "Create Holding" a character action of
>> course. Having a 0-level holding would allow "Rule Holding" if nothing
>> else. The costs in RP for most actions seem quite arbitrary really.
>
>
> I`ve been thinking about this one, and it occurs to me that non-regents
> probably can perform certain domain actions. That is, they could perform
> the ones that don`t require spending RP, so in addition to Create Holding
> (and Create Province) they could Build (by personally designing and
> supervising the construction, Declare War, perform Espionage, Lieutenant,
> Move Troops or Muster Armies since those actions don`t necessarily
> require
> spending RP. They`d have to have a lot of GB available, of course, but
> there`s no reason why a regent who controls nothing but a 0-level holding
> or, for that matter, doesn`t control a holding at all, can`t perform
> those
> action.

I`m largely with you on this one. Create Holding can be both (or is it
either?) a Character action or a Domain action - depending on whether it
was performed personally or by proxy. In the case of wizard regents,
it`s always personal (Australian TV advertising slogan by comedian).
"With cars, it`s personal."

Espionage performed personally would be Adventure instead I think.
Lieutenant is right out until you really are a regent - you can`t
personally do something and have a lietenant do it too - i.e. if the LT
is doing it - it`s no longer a personally performed action.

I allow a character with an army to be a regent (classifying them as a
warlord controlling one (1) law per army). But Muster armies is like
Create Holding - either Character or Domain. So, yes to Declare War,
Move Troops as well.

>
>
>>> A regent is a regent, and a regent is anyone who controls holdings
>>> and/or
>>> provinces, so they get 3 domain actions. Sometimes regents are also
>>> described as "lieutenants" of other regents, but it`s debatable exactly
>>> what that means. Are they LTs in the sense of the Lieutenant action,
>>> capable of being directed by another regent just as if they were
>>> non-regent LT characters, presumably taking up one of their standard
>>> domain actions, but financed by their liege, or does it mean a more
>>> generalized "lieutenant"
>>
>>
>> I`d go so far as to say that a liege with LTs that are regents in their
>> own right could direct one of his LTs to act on his behalf without that
>> LT/regent having to use one of his own actions.
>
>
> Doesn`t that create an extra domain action for the LT/regent? That
> is, he
> can perform his own standard allotment of actions, and in addition can
> act
> as a LT to his liege performing what would require a full action round
> under normal circumstances. Why should LT/regents get this extra action
> outside of their standard activities as regents?

Well it`s not an extra action for them. It`s an action for their liege -
i.e. their liege`s LT action as part of his domain. e.g. a wizard regent
that is a LT (not necessarilly a vassal) could perform some action for
his boss as a lieutenant as long as he did not use his (the wizards)
domain assets to do so. For his boss to ask a favour/action of the
domain (rather than a personal favour/action) he would have to use
diplomacy - and while you would expect the diplomacy be more often be
successful than not, this still uses an action for the liege rather than
being a LT action. (put diplomacy on our list of Character/Domain actions)

In game turns the LT action is performed in the liege`s turn not the LTs
and forms part of that domain`s actions. So logically it`s not an action
to count against the LTs number of actions (which is kinda strange but hey).

>
>
>> I would not expect the LT to use his own resources or operate them on
>> behalf of phasing regent though. i.e. A LT wizard would not cast a realm
>> spell (unless he was using the phasing regents sources).
>
>
> I think LT actions are performed using the Liege`s RP/GB and holdings
> whether he`s a LT/regent or just an LT.

yep

>
>
> It`s not really possible to lend a holding to other characters, though
> the
> Trade Service action in the BoR kind of hints that one can shift
> aspects of
> the control of a holding to other regents at least temporarily for GB
> earning purposes. I`d extend the logic a bit to allow a character other
> than the source holder to spend RP by casting a realm spell through the
> lent holding.

Sources seem to be an exception everywhere we turn. They are a much more
personal asset than any other. BoM allows sources to be lent.

> Presumably that could be extended to non-regent LTs during a
> domain turn for various purposes, which is kind of the interpretation I`d
> use to justify how LT actions work. It`s easier to see the Trade Service
> action being extended to LT/regents and used to justify the LT/regent`s
> access. Of course, this means with the willing participation of any
> regent
> in charge of source holdings just about anyone with the ability to cast
> arcane magic can cast realm spells. There are a couple of other
> situations
> that would support this interpretation (Tuarhieval`s spellcasters, the
> masters at the College of Sorcery) and I don`t think it`ll wind up
> creating
> too many difficulties if such activities are assumed to be part of a LT
> action. Since a regent can only assign one per domain turn anyway,
> wizards
> can pop out of the woodwork to cast realm spells all over the place.

An interesting justification. (I think I like it)
What would you say to a non-priest regent of a faith domain (one of
temples), with a blooded priest LT being able to use the temples to cast
priestly realm spells(one only per domain turn as a LT action) ?
Or a non-wizard regent of sources (e.g. the Gorgon) using a LT action to
have a tame wizard cast realm spell ?

The lent/shared domain is always contentious. How do domains such as the
Red Kings, the Three Brother Mages, College of Sorcery etc work? Who can
use domain assets ? What limits are there if any on the use ?

I like to think of such domains as "collective domains" where all
members are equal. (well... tee hee... there`s equal and then there`s
equal if you know what I mean) Anyway, members are considered
non-regents with access to domain assets, i.e. they get one action per
domain turn and can use a domain action if there`s one available. Each
Red King for example, gets an action, but only three of them can perform
a domain action so it`s first in first served (Initiative decides). A
member can only use as many RP as he has bloodline score but apart from
that there`s no limit on usage of resources, beyond pissing off your
fellow members. Investiture is performed where needed on the group.

From a DM perspective, this makes no difference at all - who cares if
three different actions are directed by three different people from the
one domain, but PCs in such a group would be different.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

05-02-2002, 02:22 AM

brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG wrote:

>Aleric wrote:
> Thanks for all the useful answers. It seems the generally agreed interpretation of the game is that all characters get three actions per domain turn (regardless of ruling holdings or not). Not only does this possibly mean a lot more book-keeping to track it all, but it seems it would be very advantageous to create such mini-vassals
>
>
>
>The important distinctions between vassals and lieutenants seem to be:
>Lieutenant - one domain action/turn undertaken using the resources of the Lord
>Vassal - three domain actions/turn undertaken using his own resources
>
>Either could have holdings - but only the vassal must. Both could be disloyal - so no difference there. The problem of the lack of resources could be circumvented by `Grant`-ing RPs and GPs as desired by the Lord. Admittedly creating a vassal means the Lord surrendering some RPs (i.e. from the holding), but not a significant loss. Especially when coupled with the more valuable gain of these extra domain turns.
>
>Given this, why create a lieutenant, when a vassal can do so much more?
>
>Some of the answers given in this thread suggest:
>Disloyalty: `A vassal is an independent regent - they are not likely to follow any but their own interests. Acting essentially for their liege is against their own interest!`
>I don`t agree. Using my initial example above (of Roesone giving control of law holdings in Fairfield to the local lord). As well as honour, feudal custom etc. There is the simple matter of real-politik. The vassal is weak and dependent on the Baron to protect Fairfield - who still incidentally rules the Province. Moreover, the Baron could retake the law holdings easily - especially given the Roesonian troops still answer to him. Only a foolish regent would not appreciate that keeping on the Baron`s goodside was his number one priority.
>
of course Fairfield will look favourably on any "reasonable" request
from Roesone - but would he commit suicide? However the vassalage rules
aren`t there to all Roesone to get more than three actions, Roesone
still has to use an action (diplomacy) to get Fairfield to act - as
Roesone directs! Fairfield would act in his own best interests without
prompting from Roesone to defend Fairfield itself. Just handing out a
law holding doesn`t help Roesone in your example.

There`s a very similar example given in the BoP page 79, (in strangely
the Vassalage section ... hmmm).
"/Example: Marlae Roesone decides to grant the Count of Fairfield
autonomy in running his province and the neighboring provinces of Bellam
and Ghoried, since she knows that she`ll be personally overseeing a
strong expansionistic push into Ilien and Medoere. The Count will be an
excellent shield against Ghoeran aggression, since his primary puprose
in life will be to use his domain actions to counter Ghoere.
Marlae wisely decides to maintain her hold on the law holding in
these northern lands (a simple precaution), so she must recognize the
Count as regent over Ghoried(2), Fairfield(3), and Bellam(3). ...."/
There`s more on the terms (which I find to be harsh, perhaps crippling
to Fairfield). Note the assumption that there already was a Count of
Fairfield, and the granting of autonomy and fiefdom over other provinces
(and by imputation, other Counts). Fairfield was already a vassal in the
sense of owing allegience to Roesone - but the game term Vassal is
different - this list once considered them small "v" vassals and large
"V" Vassals in order to differentiate. Once created an independent
Vassal, Fairfields greatest threat (apart from Roesone herself) is
Ghoere, yet Fairfield (unlike Ghoere) is little threat to Roesone - so
Marlae has removed a threat at her back door while striking south and
west. [Fat chance with Ilien, and meddling in Medoere will just allow
Diemed to recover what`s left of Roesone and Medoere when the dust settles.]

>
>
>Weakness: `Ghoere would probably start wringing his hands with glee too - what easy access to law within Roesone - contesting that law holding would be child`s play.`
>Again, I`m not convinced. If Ghoere was to start contesting law in Fairfield as suggested (because he was so relatively weak - 3 RP/turn), the Baron of Roesone could surely still take this as an act of war and attack
>
certainly not an act of war - no effect on Roesone`s domain - of course
Fairfield could call for help

> (or invoke a NATO-style mutual defence from foreign interference treaty with other Ghoere-bordering realms). Fairfield is still part of his sovereign realm -
>
the law holding isn`t (part of his sovereign realm)

>regardless of whether the law holding is under the control of Fairfield. Moreover, couldn`t he grant RPs and/or support Fairfield against Ghoere?
>
yes absolutely

>
>
>
>Now, let`s just push things to their absurd conclusion. Why shouldn`t Roesone become a Federal State (i.e. Baron ruling the province and each of the blooded province lords ruling some or all of the law holdings). Collectively, they would have the same number of RPs and GBs, but would have 24 realm actions. Given my rebuttals to the `disloyalty` and `weakness` points above, there would seems to be more advantage to this model than the centralised monarchy.
>
>OK, I may be getting silly here. Its probably best just to say that in the world of Birthright such sophisticated governmental structures haven`t been developed (yet...);)
>
No, not really.
I consider this model similar to what happens in most Rjurik "kingdoms".
Rjurik Jarls are fiercely independent, and almost all control just one
or two provinces. Centralized leadership and pooling of resources just
isn`t their way without great need (times of war). But this makes the
"kings" weak in comparison to most other cultures.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

05-02-2002, 02:22 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:47 PM

> I`d hardly call a request use of anothers domain assets to be in any way
> routine regardless of the friendship, vassalage or other relationship
> involved. A regent has a responsibility to his people too, and to his
> domain.

The realm of the one is included in the larger realm of the other. Both
have the same obligations in the smaller realm. This is an essential part
of the vassalage agreement, at least as it has been applied in practice
(historically).

> Quite apart from that argument (which I find compelling enough in
> itself), to do otherwise would effectively allow a liege to have more
> than three domain actions creating a puppet who therefore should cease
> to exist (or should never have been) as a regent with all holdings and
> assets controlled by the liege. You can`t get around the three action
> limit like this. (or any way)

You are contorting the rules to maintain a game effect which can be balanced
with less blunt means. The rules should model a society, not the society a
set of rules intended to be general and ambiguous. If BR can`t model an
Arthurian, Norman, or other feudal society, I have to scratch my head,
because it certainly seems like those kinds of things were in the minds of
the designers.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

05-02-2002, 02:22 AM

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>>Aleric wrote:
>>
>
>>Not only does this possibly mean a lot more book-keeping to track it
>>all, but it seems it would be very advantageous to create such mini-vassals.
>>
>
>Yes and yes. Hence the advice somewhere in the rulebook that you only
>actually resolve actions for those few NPC realms which are actively
>involved with the PC ones at any given moment, and just assume all the
>others either cancel each other out or determine a global change by DM
>fiat. As regards the advantage, be sure to heed Kenneth`s advice that it
>is crucial that no one group of (N)PCs be the only regents to come
>up with this idea.
>
>>Lieutenant - one domain action/turn undertaken using the resources of
>> the Lord
>>Vassal - three domain actions/turn undertaken using his own resources
>>
>
>Yup. Vassals also get to expend extra RP to modify success numbers, as
>all regents do; lieutenants can`t use RP that way.
>
>>Either could have holdings - but only the vassal must.
>>
>
>I would say that once you`ve got holdings, you`re a regent. There was
>some discussion a while back about whether one could be both a regent and
>a lieutenant at the same time; I for one was opposed to the idea. I say
>if you give them holdings, they cease to be your lieutenant, so you`d
>better make them your vassal.
>
You do have a point and it`s not unreasonable, but I`ll still allow the
LT to act (within the regents domain) as a personal favour to the regent
even if they are a regent in their own right. It`s all very well and
good to say "create a vassal - lose a LT", but what if the vassal
creates himself a regent (by Create Holding) ? or is created by another
action ? People do drift apart - enter service elsewhere - etc, so it`s
a difficult call. If the regent had more than one LT, it would be more
reasonable to say he loses one.

>>Both could be disloyal - so no difference there.
>>
>
>Roleplayingwise, yes. In terms of game mechanics, I don`t really think
>so. I`d let players control LTs pretty much completely, unless I had
>specific ideas to the contrary, but a full vassal I`d want developed into
>a separate NPC. I see LTs as extensions of the regent`s self and vassals
>as more independent agents, in part because I don`t mind every player
>getting 4 actions per turn instead of 3, but I do mind every player
>getting arbitrarily many actions per turn.
>
agreed

>
>
>>Admittedly creating a vassal means the Lord surrendering
>>some RPs (i.e. from the holding), but not a significant loss.
>>
>
>One major reason to create vassals is that you can do it without losing
>any RP income, and in fact *gaining* it, if your bloodline score is below
>your domain power. The consensus of the list seems to be that RP
>contributed by vassals don`t count against the maximum a regent can
>collect per turn. Someone will no doubt roast me if I`m wrong. =)
>
Yes and no. Yes mostly. Also if a warrior regent control guilds, he
can`t collect RP from them, creating a guilder vassal would allow the
vassal to collect RP, and pass some of it back to the liege (of course
at the cost of some GB loss).

The issue of bloodline score being below domain power is murky at best.
Not only does that mechanism not work, and make poor sense, it is rarely
followed in practice ( of the 22 regents whose RP generated is
calculated in RoE only 5 of them follow the rule - and one of these the
values happen to be equal so perhaps only 4 ? ). DAs income is specified
as excluding tribute from vassals - and while his RP generated is 23 RP
higher than his bloodline of 70, EM - one of his supposed vassals - is
one of the few to have her RP calculated "properly" -- and it`s all
still there! I have long regarded this as the single major flaw in the
BR mechanics.

But regardless of whether the mechanism for calculating the RP uses the
lesser of the two values or the greater of the two values - the
effective amount of RP collected by two regents can in fact be greater
than that collected by a single regent - so yes.

>
>
>>Given this, why create a lieutenant, when a vassal can do so much
>>more?
>>
>
>Well, everyone needs at least *one* lieutenant, just for the extra
>self-action that no vassal can directly provide (you can use LTs but not
>vassals to rule up your own personal holdings, for example).
>
>My answer is this: if a liege lord has as much control over his vassals`
>actions as he does over his lieutenants`, then you`re right; but since I
>don`t want every regent to invest everyone he can think of as a full
>vassal because it would be a bookkeeping nightmare, I need a way around
>that; less certain loyalty is one tool that looks good to me for use in
>that purpose.
>
Yes, a LT acts within the liege`s domain and is under the regents
control. A vassal on the other hand is independent and acts within his
own domain at his own direction (and in his own turn). A vassal can do
more - but not more for the liege.

>
>
>>Disloyalty: `A vassal is an independent regent - they are not likely
>>to follow any but their own interests. Acting essentially for their
>>liege is against their own interest!`
>>
>
>That`s not quite what I mean. What I mean is that a vassal is likely to
>prioritize the same interests rather differently. For example, things
>like, "Yes, my lord, I`d be happy to help you wage war against our enemies
>if only I were able, but at the moment I need every man-at-arms I have to
>hunt the bandits who have been reducing my ability to collect the taxes
>you deserve, and you really do need this money to wage the war... perhaps
>next year."
>
exactly. Although I`d say that a vassal is more likely to respond
favourably to a diplomatic request for aid.

> Keep the number of random events high enough that vassals are
>pulled in different directions from their lords. Also, once you have a
>large number of vassals, they begin to compete among each other, and
>interfere in each other`s pet projects. This should be an unending source
>of headaches for any regent who decides to create his own Parliament to
>run his realm for him (which is what large-scale vassal proliferation is).
>Then there`s the "magna carta" problem: if at any point all your vassals
>put together could overpower you, they may decide to unionize. Also, if
>you`re busy putting one vassal back in his place, the others will take the
>opportunity to slightly loosen their bonds while you`re not looking.
>
>IMO, lieutenants say, "yes lord, whatever you command."
>Vassals say, "well, I`ll see what I can do about your request."
>
yes

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Peter Lubke

05-02-2002, 06:15 AM

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:47 PM
>
>
>>I`d hardly call a request use of anothers domain assets to be in any way
>>routine regardless of the friendship, vassalage or other relationship
>>involved. A regent has a responsibility to his people too, and to his
>>domain.
>>
>
>The realm of the one is included in the larger realm of the other. Both
>have the same obligations in the smaller realm. This is an essential part
>of the vassalage agreement, at least as it has been applied in practice
>(historically).
>
Firstly, what history ? not England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France or
Spain ! (until unification) ? the U.S.A. ? Can Bush tell California that
its` tax rate is twice what the other states pay ?

Secondly, BR isn`t about realms/domains of that size in any case.

Thirdly, BR big "V" Vassalage rules are on the lines of France being a
Vassal to England (after Henry V beat them to a standstill). Still can`t
see England affecting the rate of taxation or directing French armies to
march on Spain in such a case - can you ? Small "v" vassals form such an
integral part of a domain that they take no independent action - they
have no domain actions of their own.

>
>
>>Quite apart from that argument (which I find compelling enough in
>>itself), to do otherwise would effectively allow a liege to have more
>>than three domain actions creating a puppet who therefore should cease
>>to exist (or should never have been) as a regent with all holdings and
>>assets controlled by the liege. You can`t get around the three action
>>limit like this. (or any way)
>>
>
>You are contorting the rules to maintain a game effect which can be balanced
>with less blunt means. The rules should model a society, not the society a
>set of rules intended to be general and ambiguous. If BR can`t model an
>Arthurian, Norman, or other feudal society, I have to scratch my head,
>because it certainly seems like those kinds of things were in the minds of
>the designers.
>
Contorting nothing!
The rules do model a society. However they do not attempt to model all
scales shapes and possibilities of society. Any rule system is closed to
its target area. To say that BR should model modern society and modern
nations is an absurdity, it was not designed to do so - and nor need it
be so.
The look of BR is close to Arthurian in that there are many Kings,
however with the exception of (historically) the Emperor of Anuire,
there are no High Kings. Cerilia for all it being called a continent, is
on the same scale as the British Isles - with a hundred small kingdoms
within it. There were many small Welsh Princes, each ruling their own
domain, but there was only ever two Welsh-born Princes of Wales which
would be on the scale of el-Arrasi for example. (except that Welsh
unification led to Welsh integration in England)

And yes, games do need to be balanced.

Historically - an example. King Henry V of England ruled England
absolutely (limited to 3 domain actions), all his vassals were
small-"v", the French king did not have such absolute power, his
vassals, the French Princes acted autonomously (each with their own 3
domain actions). When the eventually met in battle, each French Prince
was defeated in turn because there was no central command (they attacked
each in their own domain action - each weaker than the combined
England). The French King went on to swear fealty to England, and thus
his Princes were all still subject to him, etc. Still, as France
couldn`t impose her will on the Princes - England`s chances of getting
France to actually do anything were slim at the best of times. In three
generations time, the English Barons had revolted at the absolute rule
of their monarch forcing John left at home to LT his realm (with one
action) to give themmore autonomy, while Richard (who couldn`t even
speak English!), was off using up his domain actions (and GB) in a war
for glory (and that much vaunted honor - such a personal thing, don`t
you think?) trying to compete with the big boys of mainland Europe
(compete not cooperate - if they cooperated the Saracens would`ve been
much easier). Poor John, hamstrung by lack of GB (of course he was the
bad guy - he had to run a realm and finance a foreign war - he had no
realm of his own - his moniker was "John Lackland" - small wonder when
Richard stupidly got himself captured and held to ransom, he refused to
throw even more good GB after bad).

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

kgauck

05-02-2002, 06:15 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 9:29 PM

> Firstly, what history ? not England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France or
> Spain ! (until unification) ?

If you want to get into a contest of who can cite more feudal contracts, I`m
game, but I don`t think its suitable for the list. If you don`t think the
feudal system includes overlapping jurisdictions and powers then more power
to you, but I do see it that way. Plenty of game materials have described
it this way. Where feudal society existed, vassals mostly cooperated with
their lords, so in the game it shoudl always be possible to rebel, but the
common experience should be cooperation.

> Thirdly, BR big "V" Vassalage rules are on the lines of France being a
> Vassal to England (after Henry V beat them to a standstill). Still can`t
> see England affecting the rate of taxation or directing French armies to
> march on Spain in such a case - can you ?

France was never a vassal of England. Not in law, not in practice, not by
anyone`s claims. Your example is meaningless if it is intended to reflect
some historical situation.

> Small "v" vassals form such an integral part of a domain that they take
> no independent action - they have no domain actions of their own.

This is a silly and artificial distinction. NPC`s are not aware of their
vassalage having a capital or miniscule initial letter.

> The rules do model a society. However they do not attempt to model all
> scales shapes and possibilities of society.

You`re the one talking about the United States and California, not I, sir.
All my examples have been those which bear a likeness to BR. My claims were
that Arthurian, Norman, and other feudal societies should be governable by
BR rules. Vassalage has no meaning outside of feudal ideology. If I cannot
represent, at least generally, the history and literature of the mediaval
world - not all scales of shapes and possible societies, just the ones upon
which BR claims some heritage - then something is seriously amiss.

Since I can certainly re-write Arthur to sound like BR, and I can re-write
the histories of medieval England, Spain, Italy, Germany, and France to
sound like BR, why can`t I play BR to take some inspiration from Arthur and
these histories? Certainly that was the intention of the designers.

> Any rule system is closed to its target area. To say that BR
> should model modern society and modern nations is an
> absurdity, it was not designed to do so - and nor need it be so.

No one said it should, you are (again) attacking a straw man erected so that
you could knock it down. Again, who made an analogy to California and the
US? You did. You do not serve your argument by wandering away to attack
things no one has claimed, changing the subject, or stating the obvious. It
is not relevant to attack Ivanhoe as propaganda. If I want to make an
Ivanhoe based story in BR, who is to call that wrong? Its a good story.
Isn`t that the most important thing? So what if Odyssus benifited from the
sack of Troy, since that does not address the question that he was made to
go, though he was nobodies vassal. You confuse no one with off topic
arguments.

> And yes, games do need to be balanced.

Please cite some claim to the contrary.

> Historically - an example. King Henry V of England ruled England
> absolutely (limited to 3 domain actions), all his vassals were
> small-"v",

You need to go back and re-read your Shakespear and your history. These
vassals had independent power. The were the law for all but capital
offenses in their counties. They waged war on one another from time to
time. Skip ahead to the War of the Roses. The distinction between Vassals
and vassals is artificial and barely useful (if at all) as a metagame
concept. No such thing exists.

Your descriptions of French politics are inaccurate and not worth
correcting, since no BR purpose will be served.

I will play the game according to my vision of medieval literature and
society (with other elements thrown in for fun), I will describe the game
according to that vision (as everyone should share their own vision), and I
will not cease to cleave to my vision no matter your posting, Peter.

Good day to you.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

Lord Eldred

05-06-2002, 07:45 PM

dooley

08-09-2010, 10:38 PM

[quote]Orginally posted by geeman

>Aleric wrote:
>
>I may just have misunderstood something basic about the mechanics of
>Birthright, but it seems to me its possible to create a lot of people with
>a lot of domain actions very quickly and advantageously.
>
>1) Is it true that any blooded character controlling even one level of one
>holding or Province is a regent and thus gets three domain actions per turn?

Yes. In fact, he needn`t even control one level. A 0-level holding will
suffice for entry into the "regency club" if you will--despite the fact
that the "regent" in question has collected no regency points or gold bars,
and his domain has not yet grown to the size that it will generate
any. Depending on what type of actions he wants to engage in, it`s
unlikely that he`ll have the RP (though he might have the GB) to actually
perform that many actions, but he still has access to three actions.

[quote]

Your answer brings up an interesting question. If you are not already a regent how does a blooded character ever become one. Since you have to have regency points to do anything, how do you get them to start?

OK this is 8 years late, but it is an answer.
According to the original 2E rules p52 it costs 1GB and no RP to Create Holding.
It also explicitly states on p59 that Ruling a Holding or Province to level 1 only costs 1GB and no RP (just above where it explains how multiple holdings can be ruled as a realm action).
Once succeeded at both, and if gain RP from holding type, begin to gain RP.

That's just game mechanics though, I'm sure every DM has their own take on how it happens in their campaign. Actually if it hadn't been for these rules my campaign would have had an entirely different beginning.

Sorontar

08-10-2010, 04:03 PM

OK this is 8 years late, but it is an answer.
According to the original 2E rules p52 it costs 1GB and no RP to Create Holding.
It also explicitly states on p59 that Ruling a Holding or Province to level 1 only costs 1GB and no RP (just above where it explains how multiple holdings can be ruled as a realm action).
Once succeeded at both, and if gain RP from holding type, begin to gain RP.

Yes, it is a little late. So late that the original emails predate the D20 BRCS I believe.

My query though is whether Create Holding is enough. What about needing Ceremony so that you are actually Coronated as regent of the new holding? That may be contested by other regents. Or would such a coronation be merely symbolic (ie. you would get regency from the holding with or without the ceremony)?

Sorontar

Thelandrin

08-10-2010, 04:25 PM

Oh good God! Please do not revive threads that have been dead for years!

Sorontar

08-10-2010, 04:50 PM

Oh good God! Please do not revive threads that have been dead for years!

Why? Would you like people to ask the same questions in ten different threads, rather than just "continue" an existing conversation topic (even if most of the people in the original conversation have "left the room")?

Anyway, my questions about ceremony and new holdings still stands, whether they are in this thread or another.

Sorontar

Retillin

08-10-2010, 07:47 PM

Sorontar

08-10-2010, 08:42 PM

Isn't the ceremony you are talking about Investiture? That is only needed for the passing of power between two people. When creating a new holding all you need to do is spend the GB to do it. You are not fully connected to the land yet, so the power of Investiture is not needed. And as you are creating something totally new, there would be no one to investiture with.

Yes and no. I forsee that a ceremony is required to Coronate you at Level 0 so that you can Rule Holding to level 1.

In the BRCS at least, that is the Ceremony domain action. Investiture spells require a priest regent. Ceremony does not by default. However, the two can be combined. The spell normally used for investitures is Bloodline Investiture, but for a Level 0 Holding, there may be no bloodline to transfer and the regent may already be blooded. Therefore, is the spell required?

However, I don't know how people handled this for the AD&D BRCS. Did regents have to be invested at level 0 in order Rule Holding to level 1? If so, did this investiture require a temple regent?

Sorontar

Retillin

08-11-2010, 03:56 AM

In my second ed games I never had a Ceremony or Investiture required to create a holding or rule it up to level 1. I was always under the assumption that if it did not require regency you did not need to be blooded for the action to work. So any priest or rogue could build a level 1 holding, they just did not gain regency from it and they could never raise it higher. But then I always tried to have the PC adventure to set up the level 0 holding.

Mirviriam

08-11-2010, 11:29 PM

> It`s not really possible to lend a holding to other characters, though the Trade Service action in the BoR kind of hints that one can shift aspects of the control of a holding to other regents at least temporarily for GB earning purposes. I`d extend the logic a bit to allow a character other than the source holder to spend RP by casting a realm spell through the lent holding.

Sources seem to be an exception everywhere we turn. They are a much more personal asset than any other. BoM allows sources to be lent.

> Presumably that could be extended to non-regent LTs during a domain turn for various purposes, which is kind of the interpretation I`d use to justify how LT actions work. It`s easier to see the Trade Service action being extended to LT/regents and used to justify the LT/regent`s access. Of course, this means with the willing participation of any regent in charge of source holdings just about anyone with the ability to cast arcane magic can cast realm spells. There are a couple of other situations that would support this interpretation (Tuarhieval`s spellcasters, the masters at the College of Sorcery) and I don`t think it`ll wind up creating too many difficulties if such activities are assumed to be part of a LT action. Since a regent can only assign one per domain turn anyway, wizards can pop out of the woodwork to cast realm spells all over the place.

An interesting justification. (I think I like it). What would you say to a non-priest regent of a faith domain (one of temples), with a blooded priest LT being able to use the temples to cast priestly realm spells(one only per domain turn as a LT action) ? Or a non-wizard regent of sources (e.g. the Gorgon) using a LT action to have a tame wizard cast realm spell ?

The lent/shared domain is always contentious. How do domains such as the Red Kings, the Three Brother Mages, College of Sorcery etc work? Who can use domain assets ? What limits are there if any on the use ?

I like to think of such domains as "collective domains" where all members are equal. (well... tee hee... there`s equal and then there`s
equal if you know what I mean) Anyway, members are considered non-regents with access to domain assets, i.e. they get one action per
domain turn and can use a domain action if there`s one available. Each Red King for example, gets an action, but only three of them can perform a domain action so it`s first in first served (Initiative decides). A member can only use as many RP as he has bloodline score but apart from that there`s no limit on usage of resources, beyond pissing off your fellow members. Investiture is performed where needed on the group.

This is why when I detailed out Level 2 rules (tournament) in my wiki page - I stated source, temple, law (army mustry), guild was constrained by their level in how much they could spend.

Also in regards to the vassals created to contest, this idea is also addressed in rule balances by costing the level of province right off the bat, not to mention modifier is based only on your holding level.

http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/User:Mirviriam/BirthRight_Rules

Mirviriam

08-11-2010, 11:33 PM

dooley

08-12-2010, 07:40 AM

Oh good God! Please do not revive threads that have been dead for years!

An attitude like that above sorely tempts me to go revive all the dead threads. The sane responses of others mean I won't.

dooley

08-12-2010, 08:29 AM

BTW: Off topic but with all the die hard history buffs here, does anyone allow grants without a ceremony?

I only ask because, it seems everyone details every other aspect of the game I have to expect that no DM has ever allowed a grant without the physically present parties in a ceremony. That would logically limit how many vassals that could be empowered with RP to do crap? :)

Personally I'm against being able to give RP to vassals.
I also allow a single Diplomacy action from an overlord to be usable on all vassals at once. Separate success rolls obviously

Thelandrin

08-13-2010, 12:47 AM

An attitude like that above sorely tempts me to go revive all the dead threads. The sane responses of others mean I won't.
Don't be deliberately provoking.

AndrewTall

08-13-2010, 01:01 AM

BTW: Off topic but with all the die hard history buffs here, does anyone allow grants without a ceremony?

I only ask because, it seems everyone details every other aspect of the game I have to expect that no DM has ever allowed a grant without the physically present parties in a ceremony. That would logically limit how many vassals that could be empowered with RP to do crap? :)

A ceremony will be held for about everything, though often at sub-domain level. One way around the physical presence issue (a big problem when horse or sail is the fastest rtransport) is to allow proxies to stand in for the participants. That said, some ceremonies will always require physical presence socially, any regent who sends a looey to their coronation ceremony deserves everything that hits them. :rolleyes:

AndrewTall

08-13-2010, 01:07 AM

Personally I'm against being able to give RP to vassals.
I also allow a single Diplomacy action from an overlord to be usable on all vassals at once. Separate success rolls obviously

I would allow regency to be used to support the act of a vassal, but then I'd allow it to support/oppose any action where there is overlapping influence. I'd restrict it socialy with the following issues.

1. Support for the basics implies weakness. If a vassal is begging RP routinely then they are effectively telling their rivals, peers, sub-vassals, etc that they can't rule the domain in their own right - they are purely their leige's man - in game terms over time I would expect them to vanish below the domain radar in turn and their holdings to be subsumed into the liege's.

2. Shared failure. If the liege lends support to the vassal, and the vassal fails, then the judgment of the liege becomes questionable, their court may complain about the wasted time, effort, taxes, etc, etc. A vassal may even deliberately fail in an action to weaken their liege if they can do it without weakening themselves.

3. Shared success. A vassal who succeeds but only with the help of their liege must share the credit, their effort then strengthening their liege. If the liege gave significant support then the vassal may wind up with little or no credit from their efforts. Similarly a liege who supports their vassal in success may risk strengthening that vassal beyond a point that the vassal is tame, or creating an expectation that they will support other vassals in need, etc.