PDA

View Full Version : Bloodlines and Geneology



kgauck
05-06-2002, 03:37 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 7:23 PM


> Therefore if you have magical parents and a Vorynn bloodline, you
> are pretty much destined to become a wizard. I suspect that this could
> lead to interbreeding by wizards, but I don`t know if one could say that
> most wizards are related. Not yet anyways.

I count 126 published Anuirean rulers. To calculate the possible
relatedness of these regents you need two other pieces of information:
average family size into the next generation and the total number of blooded
characters. As a confounding factor you`d want some idea of how often a
ruler invests someone else with a bloodline.

I`ve been building family trees for European nobles, and have played the
Pope in role playing games where inheritance was important (historical
game). What I`ve found remarkable is that with a much larger body of nobles
(I have 974 total nobles born between 1275 and 1340 taken from a good
on-line database) it gets really, really had to get beyond 5 or 6 degrees of
relationship. Even when I look at minor nobles in France and German marcher
lords in Silesia, or Hungarians, or Swedes. We`re really just playing a
genelogical version of the Kevin Bacon game.

Lets say (for argument`s sake) that for every ruler, there are three other
blooded heads of household in his same generation (within +/- 10 years of
birth). Lets also say (for argument`s sake) that there is an average of 4
children in every family who go on to have children of their own
(geneological dead ends are not relevant unless they invest someone with
their bloodline).

There are 16 characters in Anuire who rule domains with a Vorynn bloodline.
Let`s assume there are another 48 (3x16) heads of house who rule nothing,
and have a Vo bloodline. In the previous generation there must have been 16
sets of parents. In the generation before that, 4 sets of parents. In the
generation before that one set of parents.

That is unless, the same group of people intermarry with each other every
generation. We can roughly double the potential set of parents if we assume
that half of all marriages in which one party has a Vo bloodline produces Vo
children (the other half would see the other derivation being the higher).

What is hard to escape is that all blooded characters are somewhere between
being second cousins and 4th cousins to most other scions, and that they are
siblings or 1st cousins to some others and 5th or 6th cousins to some
others.

The confounding factor is just how much do you suppose bloodlines are
invested on totally unrelated commoners.

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.

kgauck
05-06-2002, 03:37 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2002 7:23 PM


> Therefore if you have magical parents and a Vorynn bloodline, you
> are pretty much destined to become a wizard. I suspect that this could
> lead to interbreeding by wizards, but I don`t know if one could say that
> most wizards are related. Not yet anyways.

I count 126 published Anuirean rulers. To calculate the possible
relatedness of these regents you need two other pieces of information:
average family size into the next generation and the total number of blooded
characters. As a confounding factor you`d want some idea of how often a
ruler invests someone else with a bloodline.

I`ve been building family trees for European nobles, and have played the
Pope in role playing games where inheritance was important (historical
game). What I`ve found remarkable is that with a much larger body of nobles
(I have 974 total nobles born between 1275 and 1340 taken from a good
on-line database) it gets really, really had to get beyond 5 or 6 degrees of
relationship. Even when I look at minor nobles in France and German marcher
lords in Silesia, or Hungarians, or Swedes. We`re really just playing a
genelogical version of the Kevin Bacon game.

Lets say (for argument`s sake) that for every ruler, there are three other
blooded heads of household in his same generation (within +/- 10 years of
birth). Lets also say (for argument`s sake) that there is an average of 4
children in every family who go on to have children of their own
(geneological dead ends are not relevant unless they invest someone with
their bloodline).

There are 16 characters in Anuire who rule domains with a Vorynn bloodline.
Let`s assume there are another 48 (3x16) heads of house who rule nothing,
and have a Vo bloodline. In the previous generation there must have been 16
sets of parents. In the generation before that, 4 sets of parents. In the
generation before that one set of parents.

That is unless, the same group of people intermarry with each other every
generation. We can roughly double the potential set of parents if we assume
that half of all marriages in which one party has a Vo bloodline produces Vo
children (the other half would see the other derivation being the higher).

What is hard to escape is that all blooded characters are somewhere between
being second cousins and 4th cousins to most other scions, and that they are
siblings or 1st cousins to some others and 5th or 6th cousins to some
others.

The confounding factor is just how much do you suppose bloodlines are
invested on totally unrelated commoners.

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.

Trithemius
05-06-2002, 03:59 PM
Kenneth sez:
> There are 16 characters in Anuire who rule domains with a
> Vorynn bloodline. Let`s assume there are another 48 (3x16)
> heads of house who rule nothing, and have a Vo bloodline. In
> the previous generation there must have been 16 sets of
> parents. In the generation before that, 4 sets of parents.
> In the generation before that one set of parents.

> That is unless, the same group of people intermarry with each
> other every generation. We can roughly double the potential
> set of parents if we assume that half of all marriages in
> which one party has a Vo bloodline produces Vo children (the
> other half would see the other derivation being the higher).

> What is hard to escape is that all blooded characters are
> somewhere between being second cousins and 4th cousins to
> most other scions, and that they are siblings or 1st cousins
> to some others and 5th or 6th cousins to some others.

> The confounding factor is just how much do you suppose
> bloodlines are invested on totally unrelated commoners.

This seems a bit strange to me. Perhaps it is just too late for me to be
thinking about this sort of thing.
If we assume the same rates of reproduction then we`d be swimming in
Vorynn (or any other derivation) scions by now. To me, that suggests
something is fishy. Perhaps scions of Vorynn don`t reproduce as much
(highly contrived, I know)? Or perhaps we should have more scions?

I think it largely depends upon how many scions of Vorynn there
(probably not as many as some of the derivations since proximity to the
god`s nature seems to be as important as physical proximity) and how
many of those lines have been frittered away by unblooded marriages or
have been usurped out of existence. Then consider how many generations
there have been since Deismaar, remove a certain % each generation and
then calculate offspring. Repeat for ages. That should give us an idea
of how many Vorynn scions we "should" have, according to this method.

One thing to consider I suppose, is that the larger lines in Anuire will
tend to be Anduiras ones. These will have also tended to be the higher
status lines (like the Imperial line). It is possible that most Vorynn
lines only survive because they are (a) big or (B) haven`t had any
marriages into the more powerful lines or &copy; were often invested in
commoners.

As an aside, how many of the Vorynn scions rule non-source domains?

I`m not much of an expert on this, but would a study of the lines of
Anuire since Deismaar be at all useful?
It seems like a good place to start if we are examining this issue, like
Mary Poppins says...

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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
05-06-2002, 11:38 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:57 AM


> If we assume the same rates of reproduction then we`d be swimming in
> Vorynn (or any other derivation) scions by now.

The only solution to this problem is to assume that blooded people marry
blooded people and there is no increase in the number of scions.

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
05-07-2002, 03:29 AM
Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
>Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 10:57 AM
>
>
>>If we assume the same rates of reproduction then we`d be swimming in
>>Vorynn (or any other derivation) scions by now.
>>
>
>The only solution to this problem is to assume that blooded people marry
>blooded people and there is no increase in the number of scions.
>
The number of original heirs will diminish slightly through attrition
over time. By original heirs I mean original bloodlines passed down
through time by investiture. This factor could account for a loss of as
much as 50% after 500 years.

Of bloodlines that are created procreation, these tend to become weaker
- more diluted. Thi is a good thing, especially from a regent`s point of
view. As ruler, you don`t want your children to have a higher bloodline
than you do - in fact your heir will get your exact bloodline so that`s
not going to be an issue. But you will want them to have some bloodline,
so the dilution is a benefit in this way. There`s absolutely no point
whatsoever to marrying someone with a stronger or stronger bloodline -
except for political gain of course, or love or whatever (no point from
a purely bloodline point of view).

I use a method of determining children`s bloodlines that tends to create
bloodline scores that are the average of the parents, and a derivation
that tends to be that of the dominant parent -- but not always. This
means that strong bloodlines are still (on average) diluted, but the
possibility exists for a strong bloodline to emerge from another line
(or lines). Such "favoured" children may have a stronger bloodline than
either parent, and or even (though highly unlikely) a different
derivation. If such a child were made heir, this new bloodline would be
extinguished -- if not made heir, then the domain may see a struggle for
ownership! In many places the child would have a strong claim for the
domain - and his bloodline is more powerful than the current holder
and/or the designated heir!

The two factor, i.e. (i) loss through attrition, and (ii) occasional new
bloodlines - create a fairly static situation in the number of
bloodlines above a certain value -- although almost everyone could end
up with a few points of bloodline, thi is essentially unblooded unless
they happen to get a blood ability (which would be minor at best). So
minor and better bloodlines are still as rare as they have ever been.

>
>
>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.

Birthright-L
05-07-2002, 08:26 AM
One interesting result of the normal bloodine rules is that later children
will tend to have a slightly higher bloodline, because regents will use
Regency Points to enhance their own bloodline over time. So the firstborn
child sometimes has the lowest bloodline among a group of siblings.

************************************************** **************************
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
05-07-2002, 11:13 PM
Carl Cramér wrote:

>One interesting result of the normal bloodine rules is that later children
>will tend to have a slightly higher bloodline, because regents will use
>Regency Points to enhance their own bloodline over time. So the firstborn
>child sometimes has the lowest bloodline among a group of siblings.
>
True, but if the firstborn is to be the heir this does not matter as
they get the full bloodline later.



IMO, the standard bloodline rules for progeny are a bit mechanical. They
lead to highly predictable results. This can be quite undesirable.

If I was Darien Avan, my first choice would be to adopt. Children would
be a threat. Children from a blooded mother far more so. The minimum
bloodline under standard rules would be An35. Kings are usually
"required" to provide as many possible heirs as they can - although in a
fantasy setting the survival of royal children is probably higher than
historically. (Ever notice that, in all history - there have been so
very very few sets of twins born to ruling houses ?) Anyway, Avan
wouldn`t want too many An35+ scions with any ambition wandering around
-- and he can only hand out one An70 bloodline - and that`s in the event
of death, something he`ll be trying to put off as long as possible. Even
a blooded wife with a score of 20 would produce children with a score of 45!

I prefer to randomise them just a little bit.
e.g. Khorien is An33 and Mierelen is Ba41. Strictly speaking their
progeny would be Ba37. Considering that it`s likely that the parent will
want to pass the bloodline on intact (complete with powers etc), one
child will inherit a Ba41, and another a An33. By the time you have
three children you have increased the overall amount of bloodline from
the previous generation.

I do two things, (1) I assume that any bloodline that is not true has
another derivation which is submissive, so that Khorien has (rolling
d100 against table 11)(79=Ma), and for strength (1d100-1)*stronger
derivation = (.83*33=26) so Ma26 is a secondary derivation. Similarly
for Mierelen Br34. This can be repeated for all derivations if one likes
with each derivation getting weaker and weaker. And (2), the combined
total for the parent for each derivation is the potential in that
derivation.

Khorien An33, Ma26, Re23, Vo10
Mierelen Ba41, Br34, Re27

Child Potential is Re23+27=50, Ba41+0, Br34+0, An33+0, Ma26+0, Vo10+0
This child`s potential is greatest in Reynir, even though this is not
dominant in either parent.

Child #1 rolls d100 for each, Re.12*50=6, Ba.01*41=1, Br.28*34=9,
Ma.35*26=9,
which is pretty poos rolling but hey Br9 rules - (drown this one)

Child #2 rolls .53*50=Re26, .67*41=Ba27, .40*34=? (don`t need to roll
further)
for a Ba 27 (this is not bad - strongest blood rules)

(still haven`t rolled a Reynir blooded child though)

Child #3 rolls (.54*50=Re27)(.17*41=?)(.78*34=Br26)(.32*33=?) Aha! Re27

Child #4 rolls (.36*50=Re18), .30*41=, .55*34=, .63*33=An20 that`ll do
pig ... An20

Child #5 rolls .27*50=, .80*41=Ba32, .26, .11 .... Ba 32

Child #6 rolls .70*50 = Re35, .38*..... (no point continuing) Re35

So 6 children all different from the same 2 parents
Br9, Ba27, Re27, An20, Ba32, Re35 -- this averages out as a score of 25
and 4 of the 6 have derivations the same as a parent.
Note that two of them can still inherit from their parents - An33 and
Ba41 -which changes the figures to an average of 31 (substituting the
first two) and 5 from 6 having the same derivation.

Of course Avan is still in trouble. It would be better to have no rules
for children to be born with bloodlines at all, or at least to have such
rules that are independent of the bloodlines of parents. i.e. Any child,
anywhere, might get a bloodline - the child of blooded parents has no
greater chance than any other.

************************************************** **************************
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
05-08-2002, 03:47 AM
Hieronymus Agricola wrote:

> Quoth Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>
>> If I was Darien Avan, my first choice would be to adopt. Children
>> would be
>> a threat. Children from a blooded mother far more so.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Anyway, Avan wouldn`t want too many An35+ scions with any ambition
>> wandering around
>
>
> This is the kind of paranoid style of play (along with the "when the
> cat`s
> away the mice will play" artificial problems that are used /because/ the
> regent goes off) that I reject for Birthright.
>
> Why would having a bloodline make anyone more likely be be a patricide
> than
> any other wealthy or potentially powerful heir? Does having a bloodline
> undermine the normal familial traits of characters?

No, it just makes them more likely to act on them. (assuming you mean
the well-documented and well-founded traits of patricide and regicide as
practised by royal families throughout history and fiction).

>
>
> People of all walks of life and situations have been known to kill family
> members. If the huge bulk of people don`t fear their children, regents
> shouldn`t either.
>
> I let players run their own heir. Not surprisingly, there have been no
> patricides. Parents and children have not always gotten along perfectly
> (some nice role play there -salute!) but it generally revolves around
> associates, risk-taking behavior, and unwillingness to be the kind of
> person
> the parent wants. The young characters are out there for experience and
> adventure. The parent characters often want them to be a dutiful
> lieutenant.

You aren`t a parent in real-life are you ? I`d gladly rent you a 14 year
old for a few years (say 10 or so).

A prince (what I mean is an immediate relative of a ruling regent), with
a strong bloodline should have a strong desire to fulfil that bloodline.
I`m assuming that scions feel this drive/need/whatever more keenly than
those without a bloodline. The longer this want/need goes unfulfilled
the more frustrated the scion will be. Now I am generalizing and of
course there will be the dutiful exceptions to the rule. In the case of
the "heir", their bloodline will eventually (yeah and who wants to wait
til they are 70 ?) be extinguished and replaced by their donor of
course, and hopefully they`ll gain the domain as well. But what of the
second in line, or the third, etc - what are their prospects ? They have
as strong a bloodline as many out there in the world including their
siblings - why shouldn`t they share ? It is naive to think that they
would instantly look further afield than their parents` domain. Even if
they did, you`d have the children of that domain`s regent looking at
yours - ad infinitum. Without wholesale slaughter of scions, the
competition for domains boils down to fracticde, regicide, and patricide
in copious quantities.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Birthright-L
05-08-2002, 03:47 AM
Quoth Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

>If I was Darien Avan, my first choice would be to adopt. Children would be
>a threat. Children from a blooded mother far more so.
<snip>
>Anyway, Avan wouldn`t want too many An35+ scions with any ambition
>wandering around

This is the kind of paranoid style of play (along with the "when the cat`s
away the mice will play" artificial problems that are used /because/ the
regent goes off) that I reject for Birthright.

Why would having a bloodline make anyone more likely be be a patricide than
any other wealthy or potentially powerful heir? Does having a bloodline
undermine the normal familial traits of characters?

People of all walks of life and situations have been known to kill family
members. If the huge bulk of people don`t fear their children, regents
shouldn`t either.

I let players run their own heir. Not surprisingly, there have been no
patricides. Parents and children have not always gotten along perfectly
(some nice role play there -salute!) but it generally revolves around
associates, risk-taking behavior, and unwillingness to be the kind of person
the parent wants. The young characters are out there for experience and
adventure. The parent characters often want them to be a dutiful
lieutenant.

Hieronymus Agricola
wizard, alchemist, bibliophile

__________________________________________________ _______________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Birthright-L
05-08-2002, 05:08 AM
Quoth Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

>>Why would having a bloodline make anyone more likely be be a patricide
>>than any other wealthy or potentially powerful heir? Does having a
>>bloodline undermine the normal familial traits of characters?
>
>No, it just makes them more likely to act on them. (assuming you mean the
>well-documented and well-founded traits of patricide and regicide as
>practised by royal families throughout history and
>fiction).

Why would a bloodline have this effect, in your campaign of course? In my
campaign bloodlines subtly draw the personality towards those of the
original gods, who seem like pretty decent dieties, actually.

Having evidence of patricide in history or literature is not the same thing
as evidence for a reasonable fear among blooded parents. First you would
need to consider the evidence of all the royal non-patricides and compare
that to the expected norm in a given population. Given that royals
(supposedly at each other`s throats) seemed to have normal family lives (in
terms of attachment), I am not inclined to favor such bloodiminedness.

>>Parents and children have not always gotten along perfectly but it
>>generally revolves around associates,
>>risk-taking behavior, and unwillingness to be the kind of person the
>>parent wants.
>
>You aren`t a parent in real-life are you ? I`d gladly rent you a 14 year
>old for a few years (say 10 or so).

Curiously I do have a 14 yr old (and another younger child). Even more
curiously, I am pretty sure they are not planing to kill me. Even still
more curiously our biggest concerns are about their associates, their risk
taking behavior, and their shirking or responsibilities. Hmmm, sounds like
those PC heirs.

>A prince (what I mean is an immediate relative of a ruling regent), with a
>strong bloodline should have a strong desire to fulfil that bloodline. I`m
>assuming that scions feel this drive/need/whatever more keenly than those
>without a bloodline. The longer this want/need goes unfulfilled
>the more frustrated the scion will be.

I`m glad you have some kind of psycological explanation of all of this, but
since I`m not playing BR to indulge my democratic animus towards monarchy, I
have no such psychology of bloodlines. Indeed, I suppose it has the
opposite effect, creating a bond between the blooded character and the good
of the land, as the spirit of the old god would have interpreted it. The
description you have offered I would warrent only for the derivation of
Azrai.

BTW, in Vosgaard, no one lives to be 70.

>But what of the second in line, or the third, etc - what are their
>prospects? They have as strong a bloodline as many out there in the world
>including their siblings - why shouldn`t they share?

Monarchs and nobles subordinate themselves to the good of the state, even to
the point of sacrifice of their lives. This is the blood tax which exempted
nobles from fiscal taxes. You don`t need a title to give your selve in
service to the land, nobless oblige. You can serve your realm in a variety
of ways, and these seconds and thirds, who want to serve, who feel the pull
of their bloodline will act as able helpers of the crown, laying down their
lives if required, just as the gods laid down their lives as Deismaar.

Hieronymus Agricola
wizard, alchemist, bibliophile

__________________________________________________ _______________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.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
05-08-2002, 09:13 AM
Hieronymus Agricola wrote:

> Quoth Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>
>>> Why would having a bloodline make anyone more likely be be a patricide
>>> than any other wealthy or potentially powerful heir? Does having a
>>> bloodline undermine the normal familial traits of characters?
>>
>>
>> No, it just makes them more likely to act on them. (assuming you mean
>> the
>> well-documented and well-founded traits of patricide and regicide as
>> practised by royal families throughout history and
>> fiction).
>
>
> Why would a bloodline have this effect, in your campaign of course?
> In my
> campaign bloodlines subtly draw the personality towards those of the
> original gods, who seem like pretty decent dieties, actually.

I never said it was the bloodline alone. Parents with a blooded child
and no legacy/domain at all would scarely be threatened would they ? I`m
not convinced that the personality of the elder gods comes through in
the bloodline. Yet the regency of the bloodline is what makes the scions
fit to rule, it`s also what drives the scions to rule. One can even put
a cas etha it`s a waste not to rule - to deny the talent, the ability,
the responsibility, and (dare I say it) the right. It`s not right to
hold such back, not even for a moment - I`m arguing from a scions PoV here.

>
> Having evidence of patricide in history or literature is not the same
> thing
> as evidence for a reasonable fear among blooded parents. First you would
> need to consider the evidence of all the royal non-patricides and compare
> that to the expected norm in a given population. Given that royals
> (supposedly at each other`s throats) seemed to have normal family
> lives (in
> terms of attachment), I am not inclined to favor such bloodiminedness.
>
>>> Parents and children have not always gotten along perfectly but it
>>> generally revolves around associates,
>>> risk-taking behavior, and unwillingness to be the kind of person the
>>> parent wants.
>>
>>
>> You aren`t a parent in real-life are you ? I`d gladly rent you a 14 year
>> old for a few years (say 10 or so).
>
>
> Curiously I do have a 14 yr old (and another younger child). Even more
> curiously, I am pretty sure they are not planing to kill me. Even still
> more curiously our biggest concerns are about their associates, their
> risk
> taking behavior, and their shirking or responsibilities. Hmmm, sounds
> like
> those PC heirs.

Well I hope mine isn`t too (trying to kill me that is) - but he`s far
from dutiful, in fact he`s making quite a concerted effort to be
anything but. But I`ll go along with the associates and risk taking --
except who is his associates associating with ? From another parents`
PoV it`s my son that is the associate and so on. Risk taking is striking
out on their own -- and this is more of a concern when the scions reach
an age where they should have jobs. What job is fit for a scion with a
bloodline of 40 ? A. Ruling a domain (not playing second fiddle to dad
and the elder brother)

>
>
>> A prince (what I mean is an immediate relative of a ruling regent),
>> with a
>> strong bloodline should have a strong desire to fulfil that
>> bloodline. I`m
>> assuming that scions feel this drive/need/whatever more keenly than
>> those
>> without a bloodline. The longer this want/need goes unfulfilled
>> the more frustrated the scion will be.
>
>
> I`m glad you have some kind of psycological explanation of all of
> this, but
> since I`m not playing BR to indulge my democratic animus towards
> monarchy, I
> have no such psychology of bloodlines. Indeed, I suppose it has the
> opposite effect, creating a bond between the blooded character and the
> good
> of the land, as the spirit of the old god would have interpreted it. The
> description you have offered I would warrent only for the derivation of
> Azrai.

I`m not saying that *every* scion that has no chance at any real chance
of using his bloodline will be like this - what I am saying is that
those that *do* feel like that - are in a very very good position to
make a lot of the big bad. I`m also saying that because of their
peculiar position, there is likely to be many more of them than in the
general population. Compared to their peers, they (those without realms
or reasonable chance of one) are treated as second class nobles/scions
etc. It would be irresponsible of a a domain regent to have two sons of
equal ability in all ways - in a situation where he can only favor one -
family ties are not so strong among the nobility.

>
>
> BTW, in Vosgaard, no one lives to be 70.

Well yeah - but isn`t patricide a tradition in that part of the world ?


My argument, or point of view, that I am expressing, is that the
standard "children get a bloodline from blooded parents" creates more
bloodlines than is necessary, or even desirable for the "safety" of the
land. If every generation of Avan has three children, after just three
generations there would be 6 more 40+ An bloodlines to share around, 8
more 20+ bloodlines. In 500 years, assuming that a generation is 40
years (and that`s an overestimate), that would be 12 generations, and
the figures are increased accordingly. If during any of those 12
generations, the regent of Avanil married a 40 strength blooded spouse,
their children (and the heirs in perpetuity) would have blood scores of
55 with a claim on part of Avanil.

If instead, the bloodline of Avan was a rare thing, to be protected and
nurtured through the years - passed to a worthy and capable recipient,
there would be few with both the power and the right to challenge for
the rule of Avanil. And of course, the total amount of blood of each of
the old gods doesn`t increase with population.

************************************************** **************************
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
05-08-2002, 04:42 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:43 AM


> My argument, or point of view, that I am expressing, is that the
> standard "children get a bloodline from blooded parents" creates more
> bloodlines than is necessary, or even desirable for the "safety" of the
> land. If every generation of Avan has three children, after just three
> generations there would be 6 more 40+ An bloodlines to share around, 8
> more 20+ bloodlines. In 500 years, assuming that a generation is 40
> years (and that`s an overestimate), that would be 12 generations, and
> the figures are increased accordingly.

If you take the time to make a geneology of serious length, you find out
that you can actually hold the number of bloodlines stable. This is the
point of my arguing that everybody marries other blooded characters. Both
the value of bloodlines remains (in aggregate) stable, and the number of
bloodlines remains stable (although shifting across surnames).

With a randomly selected number of children, living to random ages (random
within an expected norm) you get a nice spread of possibilities.

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
05-09-2002, 01:46 AM
Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:43 AM
>
>
>>My argument, or point of view, that I am expressing, is that the
>>standard "children get a bloodline from blooded parents" creates more
>>bloodlines than is necessary, or even desirable for the "safety" of the
>>land. If every generation of Avan has three children, after just three
>>generations there would be 6 more 40+ An bloodlines to share around, 8
>>more 20+ bloodlines. In 500 years, assuming that a generation is 40
>>years (and that`s an overestimate), that would be 12 generations, and
>>the figures are increased accordingly.
>>
>
>If you take the time to make a geneology of serious length, you find out
>that you can actually hold the number of bloodlines stable. This is the
>point of my arguing that everybody marries other blooded characters. Both
>the value of bloodlines remains (in aggregate) stable, and the number of
>bloodlines remains stable (although shifting across surnames).
>
Take just two bloodlines lets call them A20 and B30, their heirs will be
A20 and B30 (assuming they got to designate them - if not then I expect
most times the land will choose). This then is fixed, these bloodlines
could very rarely be lost, as long as one adult somewhere, someplace
exists in the extended family (doesn`t HAVE to be an adult of course)
for each bloodline it`s okay - and even if there isn`t the land could
choose to dispose it elsewhere. So given that there`s minimal loss from
the original - any gain of a new bloodline is an overall gain. Each and
every child born with a *new* bloodline - such as the standard rules
allow - in this case a B25 each time is new and can be designated heirs
to save it in perpetuity also. How is that stable ? You are constantly
gaining more bloodlines.

>
>
>With a randomly selected number of children, living to random ages (random
>within an expected norm) you get a nice spread of possibilities.
>
>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.

Birthright-L
05-09-2002, 04:11 AM
Quoth Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>

>I never said it was the bloodline alone. Parents with a blooded child and
>no legacy/domain at all would scarely be threatened would they ?

Since I don`t see why any parent should be fearful, how could I possibly
answer this question?

>I`m not convinced that the personality of the elder gods comes
>through in the bloodline.

Point #1 The different bloodlines manifest different blood powers. The
different bloodlines have a different character at least where these powers
are concerned.

Point #2 What does it mean to have the derivation of Vorynn, if there is no
Vorynn-ness to it? Why not just have a bunch of random powers assigned to
the blooded characters and do away with derivations, unless the derivations
are meaningful?

Point #3 I quote a small section of the Book of Regency, page 16: "Few
scions of Anduiras can resist the call to battle; those of Reynir’s blood
hearken to the trees and animals of the forest."

Point #4 I quote again from "Player Tips", page 24: "Good role-players whose
characters possess bloodlines probably already attempt to work with any
dichotomy in their natures. Warriors with Vorynn ’s bloodline could develop
an interest in the workings of magic, or in the strategic application of
spells on the battlefield. Rogues possessing the Anduiras bloodline
derivation might decide to become “honorable” thieves, stealing from only
the evil or “those who can afford the
loss.”

Point #5 Azrai. Meaning, why do his scions risk something called
corruption? Are they not being pulled towards an Azrai influence on their
personality?

>Yet the regency of the bloodline is what makes the scions
>fit to rule, it`s also what drives the scions to rule. One can even put a
>case that it`s a waste not to rule - to deny the talent, the ability, the
>responsibility, and (dare I say it) the right.

You are aware that the game is named Birthright, aren`t you? Of course
these things are true. They are implied by the very name of the game. Why
be shy about calling it a right? Its the reason the last five letters of
the name of the game are there. Just don`t forget the first five letters
either.

>Well I hope mine isn`t too (trying to kill me that is) - but he`s far from
>dutiful, in fact he`s making quite a concerted effort to be anything but.

I thought I was clear that the heirs are not dutiful. They adventure when
their father might prever they oversee a rule action as a lieutenant.

>What job is fit for a scion with a bloodline of 40 ? A. Ruling a domain
>(not playing second fiddle to dad and the elder brother)

That certainly is a fitting job. Besides, if the blood did work as you
suggest, Cerilia would just have partable inheritance.

>My argument, or point of view, that I am expressing, is that the standard
>"children get a bloodline from blooded parents" creates more bloodlines
>than is necessary, or even desirable for the "safety" of the land.

No, indeed. Your proposed model bears a striking resemblance to succession
under the Roman Empire. Not a system noted for its benefit to realm. I
think Henry VIII of England had it right when he insisted upon a clear and
direct succession to avoid trouble in his realm.

Hieronymus Agricola
wizard, alchemist, bibliophile


__________________________________________________ _______________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.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
05-09-2002, 07:50 AM
Hieronymus Agricola wrote:

> Quoth Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>
>> I never said it was the bloodline alone. Parents with a blooded child
>> and
>> no legacy/domain at all would scarely be threatened would they ?
>
>
> Since I don`t see why any parent should be fearful, how could I possibly
> answer this question?

It`s not parents that should be fearful - but rulers. Since some ruler
are also parents, ...

>> I`m not convinced that the personality of the elder gods comes
>> through in the bloodline.
>
>
> Point #3 I quote a small section of the Book of Regency, page 16: "Few
> scions of Anduiras can resist the call to battle; those of Reynir`s blood
> hearken to the trees and animals of the forest."

Ah, the gospel of straw. But still, it`s a good point - score for you.
On the other hand, this doesn`t refute the challenge of the younger
scions - the classic example is Raesene (who of course wasn`t blooded at
the time). He tried to be the dutiful son, but somehow ... And of
course, lest we forget -- bastards make good pretenders to the throne.

>
>
> Point #4 I quote again from "Player Tips", page 24: "Good role-players
> whose
> characters possess bloodlines probably already attempt to work with any
> dichotomy in their natures. Warriors with Vorynn `s bloodline could
> develop
> an interest in the workings of magic, or in the strategic application of
> spells on the battlefield. Rogues possessing the Anduiras bloodline
> derivation might decide to become "honorable" thieves, stealing from only
> the evil or "those who can afford the
> loss."
>
> Point #5 Azrai. Meaning, why do his scions risk something called
> corruption? Are they not being pulled towards an Azrai influence on their
> personality?

Well, this was always a point - why was Azrai singled out so ?

>
>
>> Yet the regency of the bloodline is what makes the scions
>> fit to rule, it`s also what drives the scions to rule. One can even
>> put a
>> case that it`s a waste not to rule - to deny the talent, the ability,
>> the
>> responsibility, and (dare I say it) the right.
>
>
> You are aware that the game is named Birthright, aren`t you? Of course
> these things are true. They are implied by the very name of the game. Why
> be shy about calling it a right? Its the reason the last five letters of
> the name of the game are there. Just don`t forget the first five letters
> either.

It`s a good point (the name), but a birthright is a legacy - not
something you necessarilly obtain at birth. Say that the firstborn was
to rule after the current ruler (it doesn`t matter what method of
determination is used), the right to rule doesn`t pass til the current
ruler rules no more. The bloodline (the birthright) passes at this time.

>
>
>> My argument, or point of view, that I am expressing, is that the
>> standard
>> "children get a bloodline from blooded parents" creates more bloodlines
>> than is necessary, or even desirable for the "safety" of the land.
>
>
> No, indeed. Your proposed model bears a striking resemblance to
> succession
> under the Roman Empire. Not a system noted for its benefit to realm. I
> think Henry VIII of England had it right when he insisted upon a clear
> and
> direct succession to avoid trouble in his realm.

Gee, that worked well didn`t it ? (sarcasm - Henry`s succession isn`t
really a good model for anything, lucky for him Elizabeth was a doting
daughter and sister - well to Edward at least, her accomplishments even
by the age of 12 were remarkable.)

But there`s a striking difference to the Roman model. The Investiture of
an heir with the exact bloodline of the donor. Without which, I`d surely
and completely agree with you. Either method of passing the bloodline is
acceptable by itself, but both together are too much.

************************************************** **************************
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
05-09-2002, 01:33 PM
Hello!
Therefore is Bloodline Investiture - the regent passes his own, enhanced
bloodline to his heir and replaces the weaker bloodline of e.g. his
first son or whoever he thinks should be heir.
bye
Michael
***********++

Carl Cramér wrote:

>One interesting result of the normal bloodine rules is that later children
>will tend to have a slightly higher bloodline, because regents will use
>Regency Points to enhance their own bloodline over time. So the firstborn
>child sometimes has the lowest bloodline among a group of siblings.
>
>************************************************** **************************
>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.

geeman
05-09-2002, 07:40 PM
At 05:34 PM 5/9/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>>I never said it was the bloodline alone. Parents with a blooded child
>>>and no legacy/domain at all would scarely be threatened would they ?
>>
>>Since I don`t see why any parent should be fearful, how could I possibly
>>answer this question?
>
>It`s not parents that should be fearful - but rulers. Since some ruler are
>also parents, ...

I`ve just reread Frank Herbert`s _Dune_ for the 73rd (or so) time and
there`s a quote regarding the nature of royal families:

"Family life of the Royal Creche is difficult for many people to
understand, but I shall try to give you a capsule view of it.... All of us
spied on my father as a matter of self-protection. One of the
slave-concubines permitted my father under the Bene Gesserit-Guild
agreement could not, of course, bear a royal successor, but the intrigues
were constant and oppressive in their similarity. We became adept, my
mother and sisters and I, at avoiding subtle instruments of death. It may
seem a dreadful thing to say, but I`m not at all sure my father was
innocent in all these attempts. A Royal Family is not like other families...."

That`s in one of the chapter intros on p261 of my worn paperpack copy. Of
course, it describes a sci-fi setting under vastly different scale and
circumstances than the BR level of events, but there are many similarities,
and the basic nature of the conflict between royal parents and their
children (or royal siblings to one another... just about anyone in the
succession and their adherents) is much the same. Intrigue and
backstabbing are not limited to royalty, of course, but as the stakes of
the game grow higher the more willing the participants are to become
ruthless. In fact, I think humans rather expect that of each other and our
leaders. We give an ethical free pass to many of those who lead, holding
them to a different standard of behavior because of the circumstances in
which they live. They lead but they are also scapegoats, and on a certain
level many people are content that they need not make the hard decisions
that a leader must make, nor suffer through the scrutiny and condemnation
of those decisions by the same people who forced those decisions upon them.

Don`t get my wrong, I`m not an apologist for monarchists. I`m a big
democracy proponent, even though democracy has its own little system of
adoration and spite that is in many ways both more profound and more
pervasive than that of monarchy. Nonetheless, royalty in the real world is
premised on repugnant and archaic thinking that I`d be happy to replace
with more modern thinking (which is merely repugnant.) In BR, of course,
nobles _really do_ have a divine right to rule, and their position is not
only justified as a mandate from the masses. In my view, it`s better to
lead than to follow (in either the real world or a fantasy setting) because
in the final analysis the meat grinder of politics/society chews up many
more followers than leaders, so one might as well sit at the head of the
table where the tasty bits are served--if you`ll excuse the mixed metaphor.

Anyway, that`s one of the interesting challenges of playing a BR campaign;
portraying the nature of nobility and conflict at a level of human
interaction that by its nature most of us are shielded from.

>>Point #3 I quote a small section of the Book of Regency, page 16: "Few
>>scions of Anduiras can resist the call to battle; those of Reynir`s blood
>>hearken to the trees and animals of the forest."
>
>Ah, the gospel of straw. But still, it`s a good point - score for you. On
>the other hand, this doesn`t refute the challenge of the younger scions -
>the classic example is Raesene (who of course wasn`t blooded at the time).

Raesene wasn`t blooded at the time? He was just illegit, but he still had
a bloodline. We don`t know much about G`s mommy--if she had a bloodline
herself she would have passed along a stronger bloodline to him--but at the
very least he probably would have had a BSS around 40.

>He tried to be the dutiful son, but somehow ... And of course, lest we
>forget -- bastards make good pretenders to the throne.

...and bastards make better rulers as well! Bastards have an organic drive
to succeed, not to mention circumstances of birth that dictate a greater
general sex appeal, lusty nature and raw good looks.... things very
valuable in a noble. ;-) I sometimes pity the conditions that
"legitimate" children must face.... To know one is the product of the
tepid relations of marriage? Sad. ;-)

>>Point #5 Azrai. Meaning, why do his scions risk something called
>>corruption? Are they not being pulled towards an Azrai influence on their
>>personality?
>
>Well, this was always a point - why was Azrai singled out so ?

Thematically, I think they singled Azrai`s bloodline out as corruptive,
because they wanted to have a subtle, Tolkienesque feel to it. It`s such a
mainstay of fantasy fiction that it`s unresistible, particularly when so
many other things about BR (elven attitudes, the realm level of events,
etc.) are also very Tolkienesque.

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
05-09-2002, 07:40 PM
I wrote:

>Raesene wasn`t blooded at the time? He was just illegit, but he still had
>a bloodline. We don`t know much about G`s mommy--if she had a bloodline
>herself she would have passed along a stronger bloodline to him--but at
>the very least he probably would have had a BSS around 40.

Wait, wait. Raesene predates Deismaar. No bloodline. My mistake.

G

************************************************** **************************
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
05-09-2002, 07:40 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:52 PM


> So given that there`s minimal loss from the original - any gain of a
> new bloodline is an overall gain. Each and every child born with a
> *new* bloodline - such as the standard rules allow - in this case a
> B25 each time is new and can be designated heirs to save it in
> perpetuity also. How is that stable ? You are constantly
> gaining more bloodlines.

Two parents, A20 and B30 have two children who go on to have children
themselves, call them Ba25 and Ba25. Total blood power is constant.

> So given that there`s minimal loss from the original - any gain of
> a new bloodline is an overall gain.

Why make this assumption? Because nobles never die? Historically, 40% of
all family lines died out every hundred years. That`s a lot. Probabaly too
high for a fantasy campaign with magical healing and curing. But, the fact
that lines will die out, or be greatly reduced is very real. Just consider
the Cariele line, reduced apparently to one person (or very few). There is
no army of Moergans confronting Raenech, only William. Where are the old
dukes of Ghieste and Elinie? Most clearly, where is the Imperial line?

I said:
>With a randomly selected number of children, living to random ages (random
>within an expected norm) you get a nice spread of possibilities.

The reason you want this variability to reflect things like the possibility
of no children, or one child in some families and large families elsewhere.
Overall the total population of Cerilia is growing very slowly. The
population of blooded characters should grow slowly too, but the cause of
much of its loss should not just be disease and accidents (though these
happen). But also adventuring deaths, military deaths, deaths at the hands
of abominations.

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.

kgauck
05-09-2002, 07:40 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:20 PM

> and the basic nature of the conflict between royal parents and their
> children (or royal siblings to one another... just about anyone in the
> succession and their adherents) is much the same. Intrigue and
> backstabbing are not limited to royalty, of course, but as the stakes of
> the game grow higher the more willing the participants are to become
> ruthless.

These suppositions are not universally applicable. They do not appear in
other genre of literature, and they seem much more Ottoman or Imperial Roman
than they do of many other times, places, or styles. Part of the problem in
using literature for examples about what is common is the fact that it
intentionally deals with the exceptional (unless you`re reading realism or
naturalism - not much monarchy in those though).

There is the problem of the comic book approach to family. The latest
Spiderman movie relied heavily on it. It postulates that family and friends
are burdens on you and that you must be the ultimate individualist to be
free to fight crime. Too often that convention is applied to D&D,
encouraging players to distrust everyone, and to avoid personal
relationships. If the DM`s assumption is that everyone is potentially out
to betray the PC`s then the players are pretty sensible to adopt a paranoid
mental state in their gaming.

Ultimately, the players should decide what basic genre of the family applies
to their game. If they want to have families and raise them, the DM would be
wrong to poison that experience. Just as a DM would be wrong to poison
henchmen relationships just to give players something to do.

Don`t get me wrong, I like family fights. Its one of the reasons that I
like the idea of everyone being related to one another. But, while we may
give our leaders a pass on a certain amount of ruthlessness, its not a total
free ride. We grant them much more latitude to deal with stranger-enemies
than we do with familial enemies. William the Conqueror may have put down
the old Anglo-Saxon nobility pretty hard, but he earns very little
condemnation compared to the storied impressions of Richard III. Clearly
its one thing to kill or displace strangers, and quite another to kill and
displace family. There is the old Afghan proverb that says that cousins are
good allies against strangers, brothers are good against cousins, and sons
are good against brothers. This is a nice example of a tribal worldview.

I have made king Varri Haraldsson and eorl Olfjor Ylvarrik first cousins
because I think its adds an interesting dynamic to the conflict between
them. One the one hand it legitimizes Olfjor. He can say that he is a
royal (his mother was a princess of Stjordvik) and this gives his claims a
certain weight in the noble mindset. On the other hand, his actions are
limited by his relationship. A relationship not shared by Guthrim Gauksson,
who combines a lack of any relationship with a bitter and vengeful
dispossition. Both may start out as opponanats of royal power, but Guthrim
can be expected to go further than Olfjor will in doing harm to Varri.

By the same token, the violence which might be acceptable against non-Rjuiks
might be higher still, and non-humans even greater yet. Ruthesless occupies
a series of concentric circles.

We might acknowledge that families are all in their own way disfunctional.
Under the pressures of great wealth, power, and responsibility they might be
distorted further. But there is also an inclination to latch on to A) the
most egregious examples, no matter how rare, and declare this the state of
the noble house, or B) to latch on to any stories, no matter how biased they
are, and declare this normative. Hostile propaganda surrounds Richard III,
because he is a usurper. His physical deformity is exagerated or invented.
His crimes may also be invented, and are certainly exagerated.

In a game, we might like the storied exagerations because they add drama.
But not every family has, in every generation, a Richard III. The whole of
the Plantagenets have only one, and the truth of his life is less titilating
than the rumor.

So, the "basic nature of of the conflict between royal parents and their
children or siblings" is not something that can be generalized easily from
one source, at least not as it applies to other campaigns.

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.

Birthright-L
05-09-2002, 07:40 PM
On Thu, 9 May 2002, Gary wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> >Raesene wasn`t blooded at the time? He was just illegit, but he still had
> >a bloodline. We don`t know much about G`s mommy--if she had a bloodline
> >herself she would have passed along a stronger bloodline to him--but at
> >the very least he probably would have had a BSS around 40.
>
> Wait, wait. Raesene predates Deismaar. No bloodline. My mistake.

Interesting, and amusing, little conversation you`re having with yourself,
here, Gary. Let us know how it turns out :)
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
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
05-09-2002, 08:13 PM
At 02:59 PM 5/9/2002 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:

> > >Raesene wasn`t blooded at the time? He was just illegit, but he still had
> > >a bloodline. We don`t know much about G`s mommy--if she had a bloodline
> > >herself she would have passed along a stronger bloodline to him--but at
> > >the very least he probably would have had a BSS around 40.
> >
> > Wait, wait. Raesene predates Deismaar. No bloodline. My mistake.
>
>Interesting, and amusing, little conversation you`re having with yourself,
>here, Gary. Let us know how it turns out :)

I will. (And so will I.)

Gary
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
05-09-2002, 08:58 PM
At 01:43 PM 5/9/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > and the basic nature of the conflict between royal parents and their
> > children (or royal siblings to one another... just about anyone in the
> > succession and their adherents) is much the same. Intrigue and
> > backstabbing are not limited to royalty, of course, but as the stakes of
> > the game grow higher the more willing the participants are to become
> > ruthless.
>
>These suppositions are not universally applicable. They do not appear in
>other genre of literature, and they seem much more Ottoman or Imperial Roman
>than they do of many other times, places, or styles.

It is definitely a broad generalization, so it`s possible to only apply it
truthfully in "tendencies" while acknowledging that individuals still make
their own choices, but I think it would be difficult to find any strata or
aspect of society (economic, religious/mythological, literary, political,
military) that would not be subject to that generalization no matter the
culture or period of history.

In what genre of literature don`t those things occur in, though?

>Part of the problem in using literature for examples about what is common
>is the fact that it intentionally deals with the exceptional (unless
>you`re reading realism or naturalism - not much monarchy in those though).

Personally, I prefer a "literary" style of play (I`m a little embarrassed
to apply the term to RPGs, hence the quotes) but even though I cited a
novel at the beginning of that post, I would attribute the statements
regarding "basic nature of the conflict between royal parents and their
children" and that "as the stakes of the game grow higher the more willing
the participants are to become ruthless" more to my sense of cynicism
rather than my style of play. They have more to do with the nature of
humanity, ambition, leadership, competition and rivalry than with
"literature" per se, and I`d apply the same statements to most any activity
once the number of participants hits 3 or more. (Well, the "royal
parent/children" one would have to apply metaphorically more often than
not, I guess.)

I try to eat the sour grapes with the sweet ones that come along--my point
being that I`m not necessarily judging that it`s a good or bad thing that
people become more ruthless when the stakes are higher. Becoming ruthless
might very well be a survival trait at that level, since the more you have
the more people there are lined up to take it away from you. That doesn`t
excuse immoral acts, of course, but everything should be placed in its
proper context.

Gary

"No matter how cynical you get... it`s impossible to keep up."
-- Lilly Tomlin

************************************************** **************************
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
05-09-2002, 09:58 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 3:16 PM


> It is definitely a broad generalization, so it`s possible to only apply it
> truthfully in "tendencies" while acknowledging that individuals still make
> their own choices, but I think it would be difficult to find any strata or
> aspect of society (economic, religious/mythological, literary, political,
> military) that would not be subject to that generalization no matter the
> culture or period of history.

Agreed, I only want to focus on how normative, as opposed to exception, or
sensational this kind of behavior is, especially at its most pronounced
degrees.

> In what genre of literature don`t those things occur in, though?

I would be willing to argue that many genre don`t make familial paranoia
normative, but relegate them to some kind of exceptionalism. I would argue
for Arthurian literature for example. Interesting, I think, because a
simple reading will jump at names like Morgan le fay, Morgause, and Mordred,
but a closer look at their narrative function reveals this not to be a case
of "watch out for your children and siblings" as much as it turns out to be
a case for "watch out for your enemies, who will go so far as to breed with
you to destroy you." Mordred should not be interpreted as the typical son.
Especially when in Arthurian tradition there are so many dutiful sons. Most
children, by far, continue their parent`s politics (and this includes
Mordred with regards to his mother) in that body of literature, then
struggle against their parents.

I like the idea of inter-family strife. I just think it should not be so
common that PC`s should fear their own children. It might happen to a
particular PC`s family once during a campaign, and just as often as it was
decided that greed was the cause, Azrai`s taint, might be invoked. Its not
out of line for a changling from the Shadow World to be the cause. It also
should be something that players can know about and do something about. A
DM who goes Menandez on their players has broken a trust.

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
05-10-2002, 12:54 AM
Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 7:52 PM
>
>
>> So given that there`s minimal loss from the original - any gain of a
>>new bloodline is an overall gain. Each and every child born with a
>>*new* bloodline - such as the standard rules allow - in this case a
>>B25 each time is new and can be designated heirs to save it in
>>perpetuity also. How is that stable ? You are constantly
>>gaining more bloodlines.
>>
>
>Two parents, A20 and B30 have two children who go on to have children
>themselves, call them Ba25 and Ba25. Total blood power is constant.
>
Nice try - faulty assumptions. A20 and B30 have three children, call
them Ba25, Ba25 and Ba25. Child #1 inherits A20 (although why I
wouldn`t know - perhaps the abilities) or could stay Ba25, child #2
inherits B30, child #3 stays Ba25. Total blood power is increased by as
much as 30 points.

>
>
>>So given that there`s minimal loss from the original - any gain of
>>a new bloodline is an overall gain.
>>
>
>Why make this assumption? Because nobles never die? Historically, 40% of
>all family lines died out every hundred years. That`s a lot. Probabaly too
>high for a fantasy campaign with magical healing and curing. But, the fact
>that lines will die out, or be greatly reduced is very real. Just consider
>the Cariele line, reduced apparently to one person (or very few). There is
>no army of Moergans confronting Raenech, only William. Where are the old
>dukes of Ghieste and Elinie? Most clearly, where is the Imperial line?
>
You still aren`t taking into account inheritance by investiture.

>
>
>I said:
>
>>With a randomly selected number of children, living to random ages (random
>>within an expected norm) you get a nice spread of possibilities.
>>
>
>The reason you want this variability to reflect things like the possibility
>of no children, or one child in some families and large families elsewhere.
>Overall the total population of Cerilia is growing very slowly. The
>population of blooded characters should grow slowly too, but the cause of
>much of its loss should not just be disease and accidents (though these
>happen). But also adventuring deaths, military deaths, deaths at the hands
>of abominations.
>
>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
05-10-2002, 12:54 AM
>
> Raesene wasn`t blooded at the time? He was just illegit, but he still
> had
> a bloodline. We don`t know much about G`s mommy--if she had a bloodline
> herself she would have passed along a stronger bloodline to him--but
> at the
> very least he probably would have had a BSS around 40.

Raesene born pre-Diesmaar.

************************************************** **************************
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
05-10-2002, 01:08 AM
Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 12:20 PM
>
>
>Ultimately, the players should decide what basic genre of the family applies
>to their game. If they want to have families and raise them, the DM would be
>wrong to poison that experience. Just as a DM would be wrong to poison
>henchmen relationships just to give players something to do.
>
A debate on what role literature and/or history should or should not
play in the formulation of a role-playing game depends perhaps more on
the game than the DM. Where a game has a setting such as Cerilia, then
any literature of Cerilia should be included. Parallels with know
history can add weight but are secondary evidence.

The role of players in determining game content is something different.
The DM is the "decider" not the players - of course he is influenced by
the players desires, but should not take them as the ultimate authority.
A DM must be many things including teacher, advocate and arbiter.

A DM should not poison a henchmen relationship for want of something to
do - but neither should he shirk from doing so where the players or the
plotline have created a situation where such moves from the "possible if
the henchmen is untrustworthy" to the "henchmen`s loyalty is put tothe
test".

>I have made king Varri Haraldsson and eorl Olfjor Ylvarrik first cousins
>because I think its adds an interesting dynamic to the conflict between
>them. One the one hand it legitimizes Olfjor. He can say that he is a
>royal (his mother was a princess of Stjordvik) and this gives his claims a
>certain weight in the noble mindset. On the other hand, his actions are
>limited by his relationship. A relationship not shared by Guthrim Gauksson,
>who combines a lack of any relationship with a bitter and vengeful
>dispossition. Both may start out as opponanats of royal power, but Guthrim
>can be expected to go further than Olfjor will in doing harm to Varri.
>
(off-topic but related to your example) I don`t see the "kingship" of
Rjurik "realms" as hereditory. But a selection from the available Jarls
- of course the Jarl of the strongest province would be more frequently
chosen. But, Olfjor (and Guthrim too) don`t need to be related to claim
(or stand for) kingship - selection by their peers (fellow Jarls of
Stjordvik) would be sufficient. There is considerable evidence to
support Rjurik "realms" being far different in structure and application
to Anuirean/Khinasi realms.

>
>
>By the same token, the violence which might be acceptable against non-Rjuiks
>might be higher still, and non-humans even greater yet. Ruthesless occupies
>a series of concentric circles.
>
>We might acknowledge that families are all in their own way disfunctional.
>Under the pressures of great wealth, power, and responsibility they might be
>distorted further. But there is also an inclination to latch on to A) the
>most egregious examples, no matter how rare, and declare this the state of
>the noble house, or B) to latch on to any stories, no matter how biased they
>are, and declare this normative. Hostile propaganda surrounds Richard III,
>because he is a usurper. His physical deformity is exagerated or invented.
>His crimes may also be invented, and are certainly exagerated.
>
>In a game, we might like the storied exagerations because they add drama.
>But not every family has, in every generation, a Richard III. The whole of
>the Plantagenets have only one, and the truth of his life is less titilating
>than the rumor.
>
>So, the "basic nature of of the conflict between royal parents and their
>children or siblings" is not something that can be generalized easily from
>one source, at least not as it applies to other campaigns.
>
>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
05-10-2002, 03:22 AM
daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Thu, 9 May 2002, Gary wrote:
>
>>I wrote:
>>
>>>Raesene wasn`t blooded at the time? He was just illegit, but he still had
>>>a bloodline. We don`t know much about G`s mommy--if she had a bloodline
>>>herself she would have passed along a stronger bloodline to him--but at
>>>the very least he probably would have had a BSS around 40.
>>>
>>Wait, wait. Raesene predates Deismaar. No bloodline. My mistake.
>>
>
>Interesting, and amusing, little conversation you`re having with yourself,
>here, Gary. Let us know how it turns out :)
>
Talking to yourself is the highest sign of intelligence. It shows the
capacity to see and even take contrary points of view at the same time.
-- of course with Gary, it`s probably him just going completely mad. :-}

************************************************** **************************
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
05-10-2002, 03:22 AM
Of the Plantagenets: (gee what shining examples they are)

Henry II - most powerful European monarch, rules from the Scottish
border to the Pyrenees, as well as Ireland

Richard I (the lionheart) - son of Henry II, spent 10 months in England
his entire life, ruled for 10 years - go figure - all Richards elder
brothers died of "accidents"

John - yeah - the "evil" prince john, regent for his brother Richard
most of the time - refused to bail Richard out of captivity

Henry II - son of John, started in a state of rebellion - eventually
captured by Montford, later escaped - but his son Edward was the real
power from then on

Edward I (longshanks) - well okay every now and then you get a good `un.
Of course he held all the power during the latter part of his fathers
rule too.

Edward II - dismal failure as king, inept soldier, lost Scotland to
Robert Bruce, Irish revolts, his wife (and her lover) invaded England
from France - deposed Edward, installed his son as (nominal) King, and
had him (Edward II) killed.

Edward III - had to instigate a palace revolt against his mopther and
her lover Roger Mortimer to gain control (although technically king all
the while). Exiled mother. 100 years war with France - he belived the
death of his son was the punishment for usurping his fathers crown.

Richard II - son of the famous "Black Prince", grandson of Edward III,
nasty sort always lording it up and having people killed - his heir was
nominated as Edmund Mortimer the Earl of March

Henry IV - usurped his cousin Richard II, but found ruling difficult
(lots of rebellions)- eventually had a nasty skin rash and epilepsy -
proof that he`d angered God (his killed an archbishop too)

Henry V - son of Henry IV - made strong claims to French throne, died
early and young - had to survive assassination attempts by supporters of
Richard II, war on france was a way of getting his cousins out of
England - if he`d lived two months longer, he would have been King of
England and France, when Charles VI died - but he died first and Charles
VI`s son inherited France.

Henry VI - son of Henry V - too young, Richard of York claimed throne
through Richard II who was deposed by Henry IV - Richard of York killed

Edward IV - son of Richard or York, capture and deposed Henry VI, Henry
was briefly acclaimed king again - Edward killed him, Edward also
murdered his brother George - died suddenly (tee hee)

Edward V - son of Edward IV - ruled two months before being deposed by
his uncle Richard (son of murdered George)

Richard III - imprisoned and kill his nephews Edward V and his brother

************************************************** **************************
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
05-10-2002, 03:22 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:23 PM


> Nice try - faulty assumptions.

Sorry, you were killed in a rock slide. Poor Child #3 was attempting to
save you and died too. Assumptions resptored by DM fiat.

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
05-10-2002, 05:09 AM
Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 7:23 PM
>
>
>>Nice try - faulty assumptions.
>>
>
>Sorry, you were killed in a rock slide. Poor Child #3 was attempting to
>save you and died too. Assumptions resptored by DM fiat.
>
Aha - resurrection spell restores lost scion and DM (mother takes pity
on child whose bloodline did not come back with resurrection as it was
passed on his death to a cousin, and bestows her heritage on child #3),
child #3 has three children all with 10 point bloodlines, then dies in
freak skiing accident - passing his bloodline to eldest child. His
section of family line now holds 40 points.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Trithemius
05-10-2002, 08:51 AM
> Aha - resurrection spell restores lost scion and DM (mother
> takes pity on child whose bloodline did not come back with
> resurrection as it was passed on his death to a cousin, and
> bestows her heritage on child #3), child #3 has three
> children all with 10 point bloodlines, then dies in freak
> skiing accident - passing his bloodline to eldest child. His
> section of family line now holds 40 points.

This is getting a bit facile.

The attrition rates for scions are likely to vary widely depending on
the level of militarism is the society.
Given that that the Anuireans are noted (BoR, pages 4-5) for their
violent problem-solving techniques I would assume a very high rate of
attrition.

There is also a phenomenon that interests me which might complicate
this: blood-duels. How often do these things happen? I assume that there
could be a problem with younger scions striving to increase their power
via dueling and that this could also contribute to scion-attrition.

I will neglect to note the very low frequency of priests capable of
casting resurrection.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Birthright-L
05-10-2002, 08:51 AM
Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-10 06.57:

> Aha - resurrection spell restores lost scion and DM (mother takes pity
> on child whose bloodline did not come back with resurrection as it was
> passed on his death to a cousin, and bestows her heritage on child #3),
> child #3 has three children all with 10 point bloodlines, then dies in
> freak skiing accident - passing his bloodline to eldest child. His
> section of family line now holds 40 points.

Well, they do. But most of them have low bloodlines - 10 points is not much,
so theseare now tainted bloodlines.

Whichever system you use, you will get few high bloodlines, and many very
low bloodlines. In fact, most of Cerilia would have a bloodline strength of
1 or 2 after 1000 years. Halving very small numbers (that is, low bloodline
children engendered on the unbloodied) can go on for a long time without
reaching zero. These low-bloodline scions can probably not afford to keep
their lines alive by bestowing them on hiers, but they can intermarry, and
have a much wider selection of spouses that the high-bloodline regents.

That`s why I have house ruled that bloodines under Strength 5 die out and
are considered unblooded.

************************************************** **************************
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
05-10-2002, 08:51 AM
John Machin wrote:

>>Aha - resurrection spell restores lost scion and DM (mother
>>takes pity on child whose bloodline did not come back with
>>resurrection as it was passed on his death to a cousin, and
>>bestows her heritage on child #3), child #3 has three
>>children all with 10 point bloodlines, then dies in freak
>>skiing accident - passing his bloodline to eldest child. His
>>section of family line now holds 40 points.
>>
>
>This is getting a bit facile.
>
>The attrition rates for scions are likely to vary widely depending on
>the level of militarism is the society.
>Given that that the Anuireans are noted (BoR, pages 4-5) for their
>violent problem-solving techniques I would assume a very high rate of
>attrition.
>
>There is also a phenomenon that interests me which might complicate
>this: blood-duels. How often do these things happen? I assume that there
>could be a problem with younger scions striving to increase their power
>via dueling and that this could also contribute to scion-attrition.
>
>I will neglect to note the very low frequency of priests capable of
>casting resurrection.
>
None actually, Zip nada zilch. (Several could do Raise Dead though) No
priest of any human deity of any level could have access to Resurrection
- it`s a 7th level spell available only to priests of Greater Gods with
major access to the sphere of Necromancy - of which there are none in
the Cerilian pantheon.

Scions though tends to have better survival chances than the rest of the
population. Therefore there is greater growth in the number of scions
than just 2, even if it is 2.1 it`s still an increase in blood overall.

Investiture inheritance by itself creates blood stability. Even should a
regent die with their heir unnamed the Land`s choice passes it on to a
worthy recipient. Any creation of a bloodline through birth creates a
new (read additional) bloodline. There is a possible and artificial
situation where the total blood could remain stable using both methods -
and that is if the regent always procreates with one only single blooded
character ever, that they have two children - no more and no less, and
that they either always pass their respective bloodlines to each child -
or if they both extinguish their bloodlines.


Or something equally contrived.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Birthright-L
05-10-2002, 08:51 AM
John Machin <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ> wrote at 02-05-10 09.12:

> I will neglect to note the very low frequency of priests capable of
> casting resurrection.

Since Resurection does not save your bloodline (book of priestcraft), it is
totally irreleveant to the discussion.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
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.

Birthright-L
05-10-2002, 10:08 AM
Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-10 09.48:

> Investiture inheritance by itself creates blood stability. Even should a
> regent die with their heir unnamed the Land`s choice passes it on to a
> worthy recipient. Any creation of a bloodline through birth creates a
> new (read additional) bloodline. There is a possible and artificial
> situation where the total blood could remain stable using both methods -
> and that is if the regent always procreates with one only single blooded
> character ever, that they have two children - no more and no less, and
> that they either always pass their respective bloodlines to each child -
> or if they both extinguish their bloodlines.


Lands Choice is exceptional - it des not happen nearly every time, and there
is nothing to indicate the new scion/regent would get the old one`s exact
Bloodline Strength or derivation. In effect, a new bloodline is created
every time the land chooses an unblooded character to be a regent. In
addition, it only applies to landed regents; those who have only holdings
but no provinces are hardly likely to get a `land`s choice`, as there is no
land involved (this is how I read it, anyway).

Even investiture is probably not all that common. A ruler would probably
delay investiture for as long as possible - it`s a sort of guarantee against
ambitious hiers, and not easily changed once it is done. In addition, it
does not benefit them personally - they will be dead by then either way.

Court intruige will probably be a delaying factor as well, as various
factions strive to delay the investiture of a possible hier belonging to
another faction.

Not to mention the church must agree to your choice. For rich regents,
different churches will vie for the privilige, creating even more intruige.
Poor regents might actually have a hard time finding a cleric regent willing
to spend an action doing the investiture ritual, even if you pay for it.

Many regents die unexpectedly - war, accidents, assassinations etc take
their toll. Such events, especially wars, will often claim both a regent and
his invested hier at the same time.

So my take is that less than 50% of all regents pass on their bloodline
through investiture.


/Carl

************************************************** **************************
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.

Lee
05-10-2002, 04:44 PM
In a message dated 5/9/02 10:43:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU writes:

<< Of the Plantagenets: (gee what shining examples they are)

Henry II - most powerful European monarch, rules from the Scottish
border to the Pyrenees, as well as Ireland

Richard I (the lionheart) - son of Henry II, spent 10 months in England
his entire life, ruled for 10 years - go figure - all Richards elder
brothers died of "accidents"

John - yeah - the "evil" prince john, regent for his brother Richard
most of the time - refused to bail Richard out of captivity
>>

Anyone else seen the movie (or play) "Lion in Winter"? The last movie
(ca.1970) had quite a cast, and it is being re-done, I hear. Patrick Stewart
(as Henry II, I presume) is the only name I`ve heard so far.

Not at all a functional family of well-adjusted people.

Going back to BR, I would think that the use of Designation (BoP) would
cut down on the attempted usurpations, barring the use of tighmaevril. If a
regent made sure everyone knew who his heir was, then it would be less likely
to see familial slayings.
Obviously, the heir would have a reason for killing the parent, but I
wonder if the possibility of Land`s Choice (obviously at DM whim) would stay
the hand of the overeager child. Offing both the heir and regent might be
more likely to invoke the Land`s Choice, maybe even more so in lands where
Haelyn has his eye on things.
Not having a Designated Heir could make one a ripe target for
assassination and bloodtheft, family or otherwise, or so the various temple
holders would point out.
I think I agree with the school that Rjurik regents probably do not
automatically declare children as heirs, but maybe in the realms closer to
Anuirean influence (the Taelshore), it might be almost normal now.

Lee.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Birthright-L
05-10-2002, 11:59 PM
Plenty of water has flowed under this bridge since last I crossed it, but I
think I could summerize my possition by saying that I think that given all
the hastles and difficulties which families pose to an individual, even one
in a possition as regent, families are able to give more support over all
than they are a burden. On balance they are worth more to have then it
would be to be without one.

Hieronymus Agricola
wizard, alchemist, bibliophile


__________________________________________________ _______________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

************************************************** **************************
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.

Trithemius
05-11-2002, 06:56 AM
Peter sez:
> None actually, Zip nada zilch. (Several could do Raise Dead
> though) No priest of any human deity of any level could have
> access to Resurrection
> - it`s a 7th level spell available only to priests of Greater
> Gods with major access to the sphere of Necromancy - of which
> there are none in the Cerilian pantheon.

There we go then.
I had thought that the limits on priestly spell-levels were FR-specific,
although I seem to recall that there was something about it in Tome of
Magic, but that is getting a bit far back into the primordial mists. I
personally thought that if a god had the sphere (and was an important
part of that god`s portfolio then its proiests should gain proper
access, but that is just me). Anyway...

> Scions though tends to have better survival chances than the
> rest of the population. Therefore there is greater growth in
> the number of scions than just 2, even if it is 2.1 it`s
> still an increase in blood overall.

I don`t buy that. I say that they are likely to be drawn towards
dangerous endeavour by their bloodlines. Add to that the fact that a
bloodline might make you think you do have better survival chances. War
depopulates.

<snip!>
> Or something equally contrived.

I don`t know enough about Cerilian birthrates to feel able to talk
about this, I just think that scion attrition is likely to be higher
than we might have first thought.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Trithemius
05-11-2002, 06:56 AM
Carl sez:
> Since Resurection does not save your bloodline (book of
> priestcraft), it is totally irreleveant to the discussion.

I think that Peter noted this in his post.
I felt no pressing need to repeat information.

Yes, I too have read the sourcebooks.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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
05-11-2002, 10:45 AM
Carl Cramér wrote:

>Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-10 09.48:
>
>>Investiture inheritance by itself creates blood stability. Even should a
>>regent die with their heir unnamed the Land`s choice passes it on to a
>>worthy recipient. Any creation of a bloodline through birth creates a
>>new (read additional) bloodline. There is a possible and artificial
>>situation where the total blood could remain stable using both methods -
>>and that is if the regent always procreates with one only single blooded
>>character ever, that they have two children - no more and no less, and
>>that they either always pass their respective bloodlines to each child -
>>or if they both extinguish their bloodlines.
>>
>
>
>Lands Choice is exceptional - it des not happen nearly every time, and there
>is nothing to indicate the new scion/regent would get the old one`s exact
>Bloodline Strength or derivation. In effect, a new bloodline is created
>every time the land chooses an unblooded character to be a regent. In
>addition, it only applies to landed regents; those who have only holdings
>but no provinces are hardly likely to get a `land`s choice`, as there is no
>land involved (this is how I read it, anyway).
>
An entire bloodline dying out is also exceptional. A new bloodline is
created - is that right ? -- It doesn`t say that. It doesn`t say not
either. Who knows whether it`s the old bloodline or a new one, or even
an old one from someone/somewhere else - there`s little supporting
evidence for any possibility here, nor any conflicting evidence against
any one being possible. Regent`s of non-realm domains may pass their
bloodline on via lands choice without necessarilly passing their domain
- take a faith domain for example - wouldn`t it be possible that the
land chooses a new priest to take over the faith (aka "the chosen one" -
reincarnation of Dalai Lama etc style). On the "new" bloodline is
"created", the only description of land`s choice is with respect to
realm regents -- and the wording does support the original bloodline
being passed on -- without be absolutely specific.

>
>
>Even investiture is probably not all that common. A ruler would probably
>delay investiture for as long as possible - it`s a sort of guarantee against
>ambitious hiers, and not easily changed once it is done. In addition, it
>does not benefit them personally - they will be dead by then either way.
>
A regents` loyalty is not first to his family but to his domain.
Mutinous heirs (whether designated or named) are a threat in any case
(under standard bloodline rules), the benefits of naming an heir (even
an unreliable one) far outweigh reasons for not doing so - there`s no
sense of safety gained here (perhaps the opposite really). Realm heir
investiture in most land should be as common as dirt - the first thing
done after assuming regent-ship.

>
>
>Court intruige will probably be a delaying factor as well, as various
>factions strive to delay the investiture of a possible hier belonging to
>another faction.
>
valid - but not for more than a year in most cases.

>
>
>Not to mention the church must agree to your choice. For rich regents,
>different churches will vie for the privilige, creating even more intruige.
>Poor regents might actually have a hard time finding a cleric regent willing
>to spend an action doing the investiture ritual, even if you pay for it.
>
Absolutely, but the priest regent doesn`t spend a domain action - it
doesn`t count against the priest regent`s three actions. So yes,
non-regent characters with bloodlines may not be able to afford the
Investiture service. But this doesn`t mean that the bloodline doesn`t
get passed - just not to their choice. Indeed elves rely on the land
choosing their `heir` for them.

>
>
>Many regents die unexpectedly - war, accidents, assassinations etc take
>their toll. Such events, especially wars, will often claim both a regent and
>his invested hier at the same time.
>
Ever seen the President and the Vice-President take the same plane ? But
yes, again it happens.

>
>
>So my take is that less than 50% of all regents pass on their bloodline
>through investiture.
>
I`d estimate upwards of 95% of dominant bloodlines. If a A20 and a B30
were to have children, the children would be Ba25 (e.g.), so passing the
A20 to one of them is not always going to be the best result. Which
would be 50% in such cases. But this is a contrived example. Consider
the situation with A50 and B10, the regent with A50 would be derelict
not to specify one heir to get the A50.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Birthright-L
05-21-2002, 10:33 AM
<< One interesting result of the normal bloodine rules is that later
children will tend to have a slightly higher bloodline, because regents will
use Regency Points to enhance their own bloodline over time. So the
firstborn child sometimes has the lowest bloodline among a group of
siblings.
>>

I think rulers should not be able to increase their bloodline with RPs. It
makes things much more interesting to have bloodtheft and investiture be the
only means of increasing your bloodline. Pumping RP into your bloodline is
so passive, and ultimately not very exciting. Also, I think it`s way too
abstract.

************************************************** **************************
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
05-21-2002, 10:33 AM
On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 19:50, the Falcon wrote:
> << One interesting result of the normal bloodine rules is that later
> children will tend to have a slightly higher bloodline, because regents will
> use Regency Points to enhance their own bloodline over time. So the
> firstborn child sometimes has the lowest bloodline among a group of
> siblings.
> >>
>
> I think rulers should not be able to increase their bloodline with RPs. It
> makes things much more interesting to have bloodtheft and investiture be the
> only means of increasing your bloodline. Pumping RP into your bloodline is
> so passive, and ultimately not very exciting. Also, I think it`s way too
> abstract.

I most absolutely and totally agree. It`s also VERY open to abuse and
forms part of the min/max bloodline limits RP collection paradigm.

>
> ************************************************** **************************
> 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.

geeman
05-21-2002, 11:52 AM
At 08:29 PM 5/21/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

> > makes things much more interesting to have bloodtheft and investiture
> be the
> > only means of increasing your bloodline. Pumping RP into your bloodline is
> > so passive, and ultimately not very exciting. Also, I think it`s way too
> > abstract.
>
>I most absolutely and totally agree. It`s also VERY open to abuse and
>forms part of the min/max bloodline limits RP collection paradigm.

Really? What abuse have you run into? I`ve usually found that increasing
one`s bloodline through spending RP to be not cost effective for regents
whose bloodline strength score was greater than 15-20 or so. Additional RP
earned from vassalage can increase that a bit, but I`ve never had a player
spend 73 RP to increase their bloodline from 35 to 37.

Of course, I tend to play at the lower end of the "power scale" of BR
regents, so RP are often pretty scarce after competing with other regents
and all, so my experience is likely different from a lot of folks, but what
kinds of things have happened that have been abusive to that particular
rule IYC?

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
05-21-2002, 04:48 PM
On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 21:51, Gary wrote:
> At 08:29 PM 5/21/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
> > > makes things much more interesting to have bloodtheft and investiture
> > be the
> > > only means of increasing your bloodline. Pumping RP into your bloodline is
> > > so passive, and ultimately not very exciting. Also, I think it`s way too
> > > abstract.
> >
> >I most absolutely and totally agree. It`s also VERY open to abuse and
> >forms part of the min/max bloodline limits RP collection paradigm.
>
> Really? What abuse have you run into? I`ve usually found that increasing
> one`s bloodline through spending RP to be not cost effective for regents
> whose bloodline strength score was greater than 15-20 or so. Additional RP
> earned from vassalage can increase that a bit, but I`ve never had a player
> spend 73 RP to increase their bloodline from 35 to 37.
>
> Of course, I tend to play at the lower end of the "power scale" of BR
> regents, so RP are often pretty scarce after competing with other regents
> and all, so my experience is likely different from a lot of folks, but what
> kinds of things have happened that have been abusive to that particular
> rule IYC?

Regents with VERY strong bloodlines and domain power such that their RP
is much higher than their immediate neighbors and threats (such as
Avan), need expend but a fraction of their RP to remain not just
competitive but dominant. e.g. Avan, assuming some small amount of
regency from his Vassals is at least 80 RP if not 100 RP per turn. (who
even attacks a guy with that much RP?) Anyway, this leads to
accumulation of RP at an astounding rate - effectively blowing away any
effectiveness the `minimum of bloodline and domain power` rule in the
process (stored RP 200, but only gets 70 RP per turn ... ha ! effective
RP is 270). At some point even having 200 RP in the bank is superfluous.
In Avans case the absolute minumum accumulation per turn is around 30 RP
and possibly as high as 50 RP without breaking a sweat.

Even though Avan is an NPC, trying to apply the same domain rules to him
just doesn`t gel with the RoE view of the status quo.

As for competing with other regents, if there are K regents and one is
dominant - it takes an alliance of more than one to even match the
dominant regent - that is, if one regent get 70 RP per turn and all
others gain 20 RP, then to match RP bidding you need three and one-half
regents against one. Now, I`m not saying that this won`t happen - but
the action of a strong (and intelligent) regent in this situation would
be to crush each one in turn, rather than spend time and effort spread
across all of them - so that such a strategy (by the alliance) would
result in them defending far more than attacking.

Now all this presupposes that there in fact IS a regent that has more
domain power than any two or three others. But if ( as you suggest )
competition would prevent such a situation then we can ignore it. But
the source, history and rule books all suggest that such can or has
occurred.

On the power scale issue, me too -- in fact my players insisted (when I
first started BR many many years ago) on starting their realms from
scratch - arguing that (from a player perspective) it would allow them
to learn the domain rules more slowly/easily i.e. they started with no
domain at all. Even though this campaign was in Rjurik (centered around
Stjordvik as it happens) even the weak regents of this area are capable
of stymieing fledging regents no matter what strength of bloodline they
have.

The situation is stable when the regents in the peer group are all plus
or minus 20% of each other in RP (regardless of how much that RP is).
Anyone that is 30% or more greater than the average is able to
accumulate RP without risk - in fact it`s to their advantage to do so.
It is thus easier for such a regent to increase his/her bloodline than a
character with a lower bloodline - as they must expend ALL their RP just
defending their current domain (and source of RP in the first place).

************************************************** **************************
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
05-21-2002, 09:07 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 11:04 AM


> e.g. Avan, [...] who even attacks a guy with that much RP?

Coalitions.

> this campaign was in Rjurik (centered around Stjordvik as it happens)
> even the weak regents of this area are capable of stymieing fledging
> regents no matter what strength of bloodline they have.

The same thing happens at both scales.

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
05-21-2002, 10:31 PM
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 06:57, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 11:04 AM
>
>
> > e.g. Avan, [...] who even attacks a guy with that much RP?
>
> Coalitions.
Yes ... perhaps, but it has to be large enough to destroy Avan quickly,
because a coalition can`t defend a member and attack at the same time.
No such coalition is realistically possible in Anuire. It`s like
attacking the Gorgon only harder. (the Gorgon doesn`t have the GB -
although he does have the armies - although how he pays them is anyone`s
guess **shudder**)


>
> > this campaign was in Rjurik (centered around Stjordvik as it happens)
> > even the weak regents of this area are capable of stymieing fledging
> > regents no matter what strength of bloodline they have.
>
> The same thing happens at both scales.
Yeah I know. Interestingly, I`ve recently come to the conclusion that
the `minimum` rule was miswritten, and/or is being misinterpreted and is
not merely a poor mechanic. Apart from the glaring evidence that the
rule fails to allow a blooded character to build a domain from scratch,
and that there`s no *effective* cap to RP collection by strong
bloodlines with strong domains, there`s the evidence of the source books
(esp RoE). In almost all cases where the RP generated is calculated -
the `min` rule is *NOT* followed. Unfortunately it`s difficult to see
what rule is being followed also - there`s a distinct
confusion/inconsistency among the BR authors in this respect. Check for
example, el-Hadid`s RP generation in RoE. Of the two southern coast
regents who RP is calculated for us, and whose bloodline score is less
than their domain power (Marlae Roesone Br24 and el-Hadid Br10) both
have generated RP equal to their domain power instead (30 and 25
respectively).

>
> 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.

kgauck
05-22-2002, 01:10 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 5:18 PM


> > > e.g. Avan, [...] who even attacks a guy with that much RP?
> >
> > Coalitions.
>
> Yes ... perhaps, but it has to be large enough to destroy Avan quickly,
> because a coalition can`t defend a member and attack at the same time.
> No such coalition is realistically possible in Anuire. It`s like
> attacking the Gorgon only harder.

The offensive coalition you propose will be destroyed and is probabaly
doomed to fail. Coalitions need a very strong unifying reason. Offensive
coalitions are troubled by the fact that every state has its own hopes and
goals in the coalition. Wars cannot be conducted to meet all of these goals
simultaneously, so coalitions tend to fail because on those members whose
goals are being met participate effectivly.

On the other hand, defensive coalitions have a long history of success.
Assume that Avanil has made some aggressive move somewhere, anywhere,
really. A round of diplomacy takes place, and then a large number of
regents make small attacks, contesting his holdings in a huge number of
places. The larger members of the coalition, raise armies to go on the
defensive. The purpose of the coalition is to confront Avanil with this
prospect - long war against regents with dozens of realm turns, or abandon
the recent aquisition, return to the status quo ante, and resume normal
relations.

These kinds of defensive, conservative (preserve the status quo) coalitions
work well. Every member fears the avaricious great power and cooperates to
see the status quo restored.

> (the Gorgon doesn`t have the GB - although he does have the armies -
> how he pays them is anyone`s guess **shudder**)

Maybe special rules apply to Gorgonian finances.

> Yeah I know. Interestingly, I`ve recently come to the conclusion that
> the `minimum` rule was miswritten, and/or is being misinterpreted and is
> not merely a poor mechanic.

The easiest way to deal with this is to assume that all holdings are unknown
to all other players except when they interact. When I oppose your Widget
Action with 4 guild holdings in Waldorf, then you know that at that time, I
had 4 guild holdings in Waldorf.

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
05-22-2002, 01:10 AM
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 09:33, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 5:18 PM
>
>
> > > > e.g. Avan, [...] who even attacks a guy with that much RP?
> > >
> > > Coalitions.
> >
> > Yes ... perhaps, but it has to be large enough to destroy Avan quickly,
> > because a coalition can`t defend a member and attack at the same time.
> > No such coalition is realistically possible in Anuire. It`s like
> > attacking the Gorgon only harder.
>
> The offensive coalition you propose will be destroyed and is probabaly
> doomed to fail. Coalitions need a very strong unifying reason. Offensive
> coalitions are troubled by the fact that every state has its own hopes and
> goals in the coalition. Wars cannot be conducted to meet all of these goals
> simultaneously, so coalitions tend to fail because on those members whose
> goals are being met participate effectivly.

I agree, but this only strengthens the argument as Avan (for example)
cannot be forced to spend RP, which results in him hoarding it or using
only a portion in order to force other regents to expend theirs.
Eventually he has amassed quite a large and virtually unstoppable RP
collection.

>
> On the other hand, defensive coalitions have a long history of success.
> Assume that Avanil has made some aggressive move somewhere, anywhere,
> really. A round of diplomacy takes place, and then a large number of
> regents make small attacks, contesting his holdings in a huge number of
> places. The larger members of the coalition, raise armies to go on the
> defensive. The purpose of the coalition is to confront Avanil with this
> prospect - long war against regents with dozens of realm turns, or abandon
> the recent aquisition, return to the status quo ante, and resume normal
> relations.
>
> These kinds of defensive, conservative (preserve the status quo) coalitions
> work well. Every member fears the avaricious great power and cooperates to
> see the status quo restored.
not in my experience. (nor historically either)

It is unrealistic to assume that all hands will be against a great
power. It is more likely that some will take the opportunity to curry
favor in the hope of advancing themselves. It is unlikely that unless a
formal coalition or alliance is created that is greater than the power
of the "avaricious great power" (and of course is not seen as an equally
great and avaricious coalition - even more unlikely) and acts in a
concerted and offensive effort, their actions will prove effective. (but
so could the mighty fall)

It is more likely that a single strong and powerful leader will draw
others to him crushing any alliance without a strong centralized figure.

>
> > (the Gorgon doesn`t have the GB - although he does have the armies -
> > how he pays them is anyone`s guess **shudder**)
>
> Maybe special rules apply to Gorgonian finances.
>
> > Yeah I know. Interestingly, I`ve recently come to the conclusion that
> > the `minimum` rule was miswritten, and/or is being misinterpreted and is
> > not merely a poor mechanic.
>
> The easiest way to deal with this is to assume that all holdings are unknown
> to all other players except when they interact. When I oppose your Widget
> Action with 4 guild holdings in Waldorf, then you know that at that time, I
> had 4 guild holdings in Waldorf.
>
> 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.

Trithemius
05-22-2002, 03:50 AM
Peter sez:
> It is unrealistic to assume that all hands will be against a
> great power. It is more likely that some will take the
> opportunity to curry favor in the hope of advancing
> themselves. It is unlikely that unless a formal coalition or
> alliance is created that is greater than the power of the
> "avaricious great power" (and of course is not seen as an
> equally great and avaricious coalition - even more unlikely)
> and acts in a concerted and offensive effort, their actions
> will prove effective. (but so could the mighty fall)

Someone should direct these greedy smaller rulers to Machiavelli.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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.

Trithemius
05-22-2002, 03:50 AM
Kenneth sez:
> Maybe special rules apply to Gorgonian finances.

Such as eating the disgruntled troops? Or perhaps feeding them to your
ogres?

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
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
05-22-2002, 05:28 AM
On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 13:26, John Machin wrote:
> Kenneth sez:
> > Maybe special rules apply to Gorgonian finances.
>
> Such as eating the disgruntled troops? Or perhaps feeding them to your
> ogres?

Works for me. :-)

************************************************** **************************
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.

Green Knight
05-22-2002, 10:21 AM
One way of preventing rulers from amassing too much RP is to place a cap on how many RPs can be accumulated. RPs that exceed this cap are:

A) simply lost
or
B) forces an automatic increase in BS

Option B is probably the most appealing. If there is an link between RPs and BS, why not make it even more solid?

Another interesting option along the same lines is to allow BS increase ONLY when a regent can keep a high RP level for a turn or two.

To be honest I have never had a problem with players accumulation too much RPs. There always seems to more than enough to get those RPs going in any game I've played in.

Regents with high RP income just seems to have even more to worry about. Avan for instance, regularily faces challenges from Diem, Boeruine and a host of other regents.

Also remember that the rules clearly state that inability to deal with some evnts will lead to losses of both BS and RPs. This rule should not be taken lightly. If RPs can be used to buy BS (indicating a stable and prosperous domain), they should go away when the regent rules poorly.

Cheers