Blooded animals

[dooley]

Another possible resource is Blooded Animals.

In the Highlands, mainly due to Blooded Shapeshifters turning feral, but also possible there and elsewhere because of degenerate practices by individual druids, wielders of True magic etc. there could be a small but continuous influx of new Bloodlines into the animal population.
In some cases there will actually be an ability in the offspring that will be pro survival (alertness, poison sense etc) so that it's more likely that it too will have offspring. This could mean that in time an entire area's population of that animal type will have a smattering of Blood.

How many of the blooded will pay to go hunt when there is a chance to increase ones Bloodstrength too?

[Invoker47]

Not to go off topic from this interesting discussion, but that's precisely how you get nightmares such as the Boar into existence.

[dooley]

Not to go off topic from this interesting discussion, but that's precisely how you get nightmares such as the Boar into existence.

Characters sewing the seeds of their own destruction through greed, it's enough to bring a smile to any DM.

[AndrewTall]

There are a few awnies that were once animals, the boar, the wolf, possibly the basilisk, the sphinx, etc - but not many and all the stated ones are awnshegh, or at least the blood of azrai which fits with the idea of azrai's bloodline as virtualy unquenchable and ready to 'infect' others.

Given the availability of the land's choice I'd expect it to be fairly rare for an animal to gain a bloodline, although it clearly isn't impossible. Any animal displaying bloodline traits would, as noted, be immediately the subject of intense hunting - and shortly after slain unless it rapidly grows too strong for a hunting party to slay.

I can see blooded animals surviving in the sidhe lands, or perhaps rjurik if the animals were deemed sacred and acted in an appropriate manner, the rjurik could however transfer the bloodline to someone worthy - sparing the animal (and others of its kind) from the attentions of hunters and effectively ennobling an ally at the same time.

In other lands the animal would have little chance to survive to the point that it could create an enduring line, the benefit of a bloodline ability or two being far less than the increased chance of being hunted. A blooded beast would make a great random event though - usurpation without any social consequence, woot woot! It would be like a gold rush but with more violence, frankly any adventurer reporting such a beast widely could well be arrested for inciting riots and the like.

I'm assuming incidentally that bloodlines couldn't be transferred to insects, tiny fish, etc that breed very quickly, at least not without mutating the creature into a non-breedable monstrosity or suchlike - I don't think that I could stand the thought of blooded mosquito's flying around using wither touch or death touch...

[dooley]

Lands Choice is to do with succession of Regents, not being born a scion because a parent is blooded.

Many abilities aren't obvious and positively to the animals advantage e.g. Alertness, Animal Affinity, Direction Sense, Enhanced Sense (no flaming eyes obviously), Heightened Ability, Iron Will, Poison Sense, Regeneration, Resistance.
Unless someone has some ability to detect blood, and uses it at the right time, why would such animals be hunted automatically?
Also in any general hunt their abilities will be enough to make them usually the survivors as the animals without abilities will on average be caught first.

About the insects and such, at what point does bloodline stop being passed to ones offspring?
It can already cross species between man and elf, and I can't find anything on polymorph written to stop the bllodline still being there.

[Birthright-L]

At 07:46 PM 8/22/2010, dooley wrote:

>Unless someone has some ability to detect blood, and uses it at the
>right time, why would such animals be hunted automatically?
>
>Also in any general hunt their abilities will be enough to make them
>usually the survivors as the animals without abilities will on
>average be caught first.
>
>About the insects and such, at what point does bloodline stop being
>passed to ones offspring?

There`s a little debate about that. Assuming that the scions (animal
or human...) aren`t inbreeding as well as crossbreeding, the most
generous interpretation is that a bloodline of 32 or less is going to
disappear in 6-7 generations. Because a bloodline score is halved at
each generation it`ll go:

32
16
8
4
2
1
0

Marrying cousins isn`t really that peculiar a thing in world history,
though, so at a certain point a bloodline might continue for a long
time at 4-8 if one uses this kind of interpretation of how bloodline works.

However, I think there is a more reasonable interpretation in which
the bloodlines go away quite a bit sooner than that. In this
interpretation bloodline strength is given primacy over just
score. That is, a scion with a tainted bloodline who mates with a
commoner will have commoner offspring. If that`s the case then a
major bloodline will disappear in 2-3 generations.

Major (parent)
Minor (offspring)
Tainted (grandchild)
Commoner (g-grandchild)

So if the parent has a major bloodline the offspring will have a
minor one and the grandchild a tainted one. After that any
crossbreeding will result in commoners. Again, cousins could mate,
but there`s only one step between that mating and the loss of the bloodline.

Of course, any parent with a minor bloodline is going to have
children with tainted bloodlines in this interpretation, so unless
one is going to propose marrying brothers to sisters then the
bloodline goes away in one generation.

>It can already cross species between man and elf, and I can`t find
>anything on polymorph written to stop the bllodline still being there.

I agree. I think blooded animals are entirely possible, and the idea
has all kinds of potential for adventures and characters.

However, since I think the second interpretation of how bloodline is
passed down (based on strength, not score) I think those bloodlines
would disappear pretty quickly in the absence of something continuing
them. There are ways of increasing or maintaining bloodline
(bloodtheft, RP expenditure, etc.) but those things seem pretty
unlikely for an animal, and probably not the kind of thing that would
continue a bloodline through generations.

Gary

[dooley]

Forgot the one Ability that would really skew the standard offspring model.

Long Life

An Alpha animal could be having children concurrent with their great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, etc.
Add to that the chance of another bloodline coming into the species from another scion, and the trickle may go on for a long time.

This is merely before people actively decide to breed such animals, in whatever way they choose.
After all, why hunt and kill an animal for a point of bloodstrength, when you can capture it, stud it, and kill it's offspring for LOTS of bloodstrength?
The more perverse and evil ways I leave to to others to work out for themselves (no animal husbandry jokes please!)

[Birthright-L]

At 09:10 AM 8/23/2010, dooley wrote:

>Forgot the one Ability that would really skew the standard offspring model.
>
>Long Life
>
>An Alpha animal could be having children concurrent with their
>great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great,
>great, great, great, great, etc.

Given the way bloodline decreases an alpha animal wouldn`t be able to
mate with that many descendents. The bloodline would disappear in
2-3 generations using the bloodline strength interpretation, so after
grandchildren they are commoners anyway.

>Add to that the chance of another bloodline coming into the species
>from another scion, and the trickle may go on for a long time.
>
>This is merely before people actively decide to breed such animals,
>in whatever way they choose.

I find that pretty doubtful. Blooded animals are pretty rare in the
first place. Sure, there`s a chance that the sequence of events that
led to a scion/animal could repeat within a generation, but given how
unusual an animal with a bloodline would be, two animals of the same
species with a bloodline would be proportionately more rare. That
is, in the absence of some sort of purposeful effort by some human
program to breed them, a bloodline in an animal would be very rare.

Even if one were to propose some sort of program to preserve a
bloodline in an animal, there`s a fundamental problem: bloodlines
don`t really work that way thematically. From a raw look at the
setting materials, yes, that is a theoretical possibility, but one
has to ignore that bloodlines are, by definition, something that
makes a scion different from all the commoners. Scions (be they
human, elven, dwarven, etc.) are creatures of destiny and
importance. They aren`t simply bred. Thus, a program to breed
scions (even if they are animals) is going to run headlong against
the fact that destiny isn`t a manageable resource. But more on that
in a minute....

>After all, why hunt and kill an animal for a point of bloodstrength,
>when you can capture it, stud it, and kill it`s offspring for LOTS
>of bloodstrength?
>
>The more perverse and evil ways I leave to to others to work out for
>themselves (no animal husbandry jokes please!)

This is an interesting twist on an issue that has been a long running
point of contention in the Birthright community. Lots of people have
proposed that any character with the Long Life blood ability (or just
a member of the immortal elven race) would do the same thing with
their own offspring; animals notwithstanding. That is, a breeding
program with the specific intention of creating victims for
bloodtheft. There have been several remedies proposed for this kind
of situation when it comes to a breeding program of humans (or elves)
and the one I find the most compelling is the one that most directly
involves the DM. That is, there`s one simple concept behind the
ideas of the setting itself that addresses the issue of a such a
breeding program: such creatures aren`t going to passively allow
themselves to be bred and then murdered for their bloodline.

Of course, that`s not as obvious an issue when it comes to animals,
but if you`re going to premise that animals can have a bloodline in
the same way that mortals (and the elves) can, then one must come to
the same basic conclusion: those animals are going to be special in
the same way that mortals (+elves) are. They aren`t going to be
penned, bred and slaughtered without putting up some sort of
resistance. They do, after all, have the blood of the gods in
them. By its very nature that gives these creatures a destiny beyond
that of ordinary creatures. They aren`t going to be any more easy to
kill off than the player who proposes such a thing would be himself,
and the DM`s reaction to a player wanting to create such a program
should be comparable to how the player might react if he set up an
adventure in which the PC was automatically and inescapably
killed. The offspring of such a program are NPCs under the control
of the DM, but they are comparable to PCs in terms of importance and
significance in the setting. ALL of those with a bloodline are
creatures of destiny, which means destiny (in the form of the DM)
would take a hand in such a situation.

As a DM, I might allow the creation of such a system by an
NPC/villain. It`s a good adventure hook. The role of the
players/PCs in that hook, however, is to be the liberators of the
victims. Should players want to set up some sort of equivalent then
that means they`d have to face the same sort of issue: bands of
adventurers seeking to free this prisoners.

Game mechanically, there`s another way to address this kind of thing,
and I think this makes as much sense as the DM addressing it based on
the nature of the setting itself: That is, a scion`s bloodlines
should not be noticeably increased by an act of bloodtheft upon a
creature with a bloodline score substantially lower than his/er
own. In the "New Scions" document I wrote up, for instance, I tried
to address this issue in a way that makes sense with the rest of the
setting. In that set of rules, an act of bloodtheft raises the
thief`s bloodline based on a comparison of his score to that of the
victim. If the victim`s score is higher than the thief then there`s
a chance the thief`s bloodline will increase. If not then there`s none.

In the case of a breeding program with animals the bloodline score is
immediately going to be halved in the first generation. So, there`d
have to be a scion at the beginning with a pretty substantial
bloodline in order for the blooded animals to have a score high
enough to have any effect. Other folks have suggested that
bloodlines can`t be increased by acts of bloodtheft within the same
family or familial line.

Any of these remedies involves the DM controlling the situation in a
way that some players might not appreciate, but honestly this is the
kind of situation that the DM is meant to control. Having a
bloodline breeding program of the type proposed really is something
that goes against the fundamental colour of the setting, and the kind
of thing that should be set up by the DM for the players to expose,
depose or destroy rather than something the players create on their own.

Gary

[Sorontar]

We are starting to get a little off the topic of this thread I think....

but one other thing to consider for humanoids and animals is that most bloodline abilities don't manifest themselves until the creature reaches maturity/puberty. One solution for the DM is to say that bloodlines can't be detected or stolen until they manifest themselves. While waiting 12-14 years may be nothing for a scion with Long Life, it still means that the target of possible bloodtheft will be more capable of independent action than a child and the moment of manifestation will be a big unknown. You would need procedures for monthly checks, someone who has the ability to do the checks, etc etc. While there are many physical signs of puberty, e.g. menstruation, voice breaking, the bloodline may still need a catalyst to make it manifest. That was how I ran my druid. He didn't get his blood abilities until events like a blizzard (Long Life, Resistance) and confronting a villain (Detect Lie) when he was 13 or 14 years old.

Sorontar

[AndrewTall]

Lands Choice is to do with succession of Regents, not being born a scion because a parent is blooded.

Land's choice means that a scion who is killed by an animal can pass their bloodline to their heir even without a spell/ceremony - the animal will only get the bloodline in rare cases (i.e. the boar) meaning that the presence of the Land's choice should reduce the likelihood of an animal who kills a scion gaining a bloodline. Also the Land's choice can work at both ends - when the animal dies the bloodline may pass back to a human rather than passing down to one of the animal's offspring.


Many abilities aren't obvious and positively to the animals advantage e.g. Alertness, Animal Affinity, Direction Sense, Enhanced Sense (no flaming eyes obviously), Heightened Ability, Iron Will, Poison Sense, Regeneration, Resistance.
Unless someone has some ability to detect blood, and uses it at the right time, why would such animals be hunted automatically?
Also in any general hunt their abilities will be enough to make them usually the survivors as the animals without abilities will on average be caught first.

I agree your points regarding evolutionary advantage, but think that it is countered by two key issues.

Firstly the animal must have gained a bloodline somehow - probably by killing a scion (boar, sphinx, hydra, maybe wolf). Animals that kill people tend to be hunted down and exterminated in short order - particularly when they killed someone important such as a scion. If the animal gained the bloodline through inheritance it is probably fairly old for its kind in the first place and thus unlikely to breed (one does not become a pet more dearly loved than the scion's children in a day, it requires years of tummy rubs and face licking).

Secondly, as noted by Geeman, the blooded animals in the books are noted as exemplars of their race, and generally are far larger / mutated / etc - as such they may be hunted as 'a magnificent beast' fit for 'royal sport' even without understanding of their true nature - and any animal which was visibly blooded would as noted be hunted relentlessly. A blooded deer with a snow-white fleece/magnificent rack of horns/etc may run a little more swiftly than its normal herd members, but it is the only one of its kind that the hunters gather from across the country to hunt, its lesser peers survive to breed because they are more likely to be ignored - to take the point to inanity, no-one ignores a 6 foot glowing mouse or spider but everyone ignores their normal kin, being special can be more trouble than its worth. There is also the issue that the animal may move into a different ecological niche due to its power / bodily changes - and few bloodline powers will help an enhanced wild animal much against a 'real' monster like a griffin, wyvern, etc if it starts competing with them as top predator/whatever.


That said, the hydra and sphinx who are both animals who killed and ate scions and became blooded as a result, are noted as having fathered new races - the hydra admittedly by a method not-conducive to inheritance. These offspring and new races are however noted as monstrous not as blooded. Perhaps the idea is that bloodlines simply work differently when inherited by beasts?

In general I'd support blooded animals as 'wonders' to be used as random events, etc, but discourage any form of 'breeding' or the like as too open to abuse - and use whatever excuse my gamers were happy with to justify it.


About the insects and such, at what point does bloodline stop being passed to ones offspring?
It can already cross species between man and elf, and I can't find anything on polymorph written to stop the bllodline still being there.

Nothing appears to stop a lonely wizard from polymorphing into a ram and starting a non-human family line if that's what you were thinking - but as noted bloodline thins rapidly without regency, inheritance or bloodtheft to sustain it, and at some point it should fizzle out, the shorter lived the species the sooner this will happen. That said, bloodline have existed in sub-domain humans for many generations, so perhaps great deeds can also strengthen the line? An animal can perform great deeds too!

[Mirviriam]

...what if they were killer piranha's? That's probably what let the evil forces take over the old lands!

OT: What really surprises me is why there's not crocodile Egyptian themed god...though I am short other continent's folk lore in my collection.

I always subscribe to the "... There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, ..." theory, meaning every entry in the books is the tip of the ice berg. Of course there's more than a few packs of blooded wolves running around northern Anuire. You bet there's 0 point blooded (think latent/tainted ability) animals around. True mages, more than you can shake a stick at - all waiting for a chance to get their hands on their own personal source of greater magic!

(I'm being cheeky after this point, if you have no sense of humor skip this part of post)

The farming blood lines thing ... absurd! Only the gorgon can do that, because he's the only one with a brain in the entire world! The greek's certainly never thought of it in their myth's either & look what happened to their stories!

[AndrewTall]

We don't have any egyptian cultures in Cerilia which is a pity - they are perfect for ehrshegh with their human bodies/non-human heads, I used them as the basis for Masetians in a lands of the utter west campaign sketch which I toyed with briefly.

I used some blooded bears in PS Danigau from recollection - although they could just have easily have been dire bears as I left it vague. Come to that I also had a NPC come from a family who had inherited their bloodline from a loyal wardog that fought at Deismaar - to the family's eternal shame (call him Fido and die...)

I'd probably go for bloodlines manifesting as enhancements to the animal (stronger, smarter, faster, etc) rather than as the normal bloodline powers to keep the idea of humans/etc as 'special' and not merely smart animals, and only allow larger animals or perhaps swarms to be affected. I'd make an exception for the bloodline of Azrai and make it notorious for corrupting animals into monsters and then ultimately into awnshegh.

[dooley]

We are starting to get a little off the topic of this thread I think....

but one other thing to consider for humanoids and animals is that most bloodline abilities don't manifest themselves until the creature reaches maturity/puberty. One solution for the DM is to say that bloodlines can't be detected or stolen until they manifest themselves. While waiting 12-14 years may be nothing for a scion with Long Life, it still means that the target of possible bloodtheft will be more capable of independent action than a child and the moment of manifestation will be a big unknown. You would need procedures for monthly checks, someone who has the ability to do the checks, etc etc. While there are many physical signs of puberty, e.g. menstruation, voice breaking, the bloodline may still need a catalyst to make it manifest. That was how I ran my druid. He didn't get his blood abilities until events like a blizzard (Long Life, Resistance) and confronting a villain (Detect Lie) when he was 13 or 14 years old.

Sorontar

A little to Xman for me, and in at least on case countered by fluff in the rules

[dooley]

At 09:10 AM 8/23/2010, dooley wrote:

>Forgot the one Ability that would really skew the standard offspring model.
>
>Long Life
>
>An Alpha animal could be having children concurrent with their
>great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great,
>great, great, great, great, etc.

Given the way bloodline decreases an alpha animal wouldn`t be able to
mate with that many descendents. The bloodline would disappear in
2-3 generations using the bloodline strength interpretation, so after
grandchildren they are commoners anyway.

What if we don't use your interpretation but that of the standard rules though? In that case there's a constant influx of half progenitor strength blood coming into the pool, and mixing with the lower values of other generations.



>Add to that the chance of another bloodline coming into the species
>from another scion, and the trickle may go on for a long time.
>
>This is merely before people actively decide to breed such animals,
>in whatever way they choose.

I find that pretty doubtful. Blooded animals are pretty rare in the
first place. Sure, there`s a chance that the sequence of events that
led to a scion/animal could repeat within a generation, but given how
unusual an animal with a bloodline would be, two animals of the same
species with a bloodline would be proportionately more rare. That
is, in the absence of some sort of purposeful effort by some human
program to breed them, a bloodline in an animal would be very rare.

Rare but not impossible. The Rjurik have units of shapeshifters, and going by the rules it's statistically likely that they will become feral. So it's mainly about how prevalent bloodlines are amongst them.
In the case of the perverts, do you think they're alone in their kink? Ennui amongst the decadent is just one of the reasons that others could be persuaded to give it a try.



Even if one were to propose some sort of program to preserve a
bloodline in an animal, there`s a fundamental problem: bloodlines
don`t really work that way thematically. From a raw look at the
setting materials, yes, that is a theoretical possibility, but one
has to ignore that bloodlines are, by definition, something that
makes a scion different from all the commoners. Scions (be they
human, elven, dwarven, etc.) are creatures of destiny and
importance. They aren`t simply bred. Thus, a program to breed
scions (even if they are animals) is going to run headlong against
the fact that destiny isn`t a manageable resource. But more on that
in a minute....

I'm sorry, but merely being the bastard byblow of a somebody doesn't mean that you'll arise to anything at all. The vast majority don't, we just here the tales of those who do.
There's no automatic destiny about being blooded, unless you've decided to change the rules to make it so (well within your rights as a DM in your game, but please don't assume I'll do the same in mine). There's merely increased scope.



>After all, why hunt and kill an animal for a point of bloodstrength,
>when you can capture it, stud it, and kill it`s offspring for LOTS
>of bloodstrength?
>
>The more perverse and evil ways I leave to to others to work out for
>themselves (no animal husbandry jokes please!)

This is an interesting twist on an issue that has been a long running
point of contention in the Birthright community. Lots of people have
proposed that any character with the Long Life blood ability (or just
a member of the immortal elven race) would do the same thing with
their own offspring; animals notwithstanding. That is, a breeding
program with the specific intention of creating victims for
bloodtheft. There have been several remedies proposed for this kind
of situation when it comes to a breeding program of humans (or elves)
and the one I find the most compelling is the one that most directly
involves the DM. That is, there`s one simple concept behind the
ideas of the setting itself that addresses the issue of a such a
breeding program: such creatures aren`t going to passively allow
themselves to be bred and then murdered for their bloodline.

Before this got spun off it was in a thread about slavery being a way to get income, lets just think about some of the things that were done to slaves and what choices they had about it shall we?
Merely being blooded, unless you have an ability that radically increases your chance to escape AND that hasn't already been countered, doesn't make a difference.


Of course, that`s not as obvious an issue when it comes to animals,
but if you`re going to premise that animals can have a bloodline in
the same way that mortals (and the elves) can, then one must come to
the same basic conclusion: those animals are going to be special in
the same way that mortals (+elves) are. They aren`t going to be
penned, bred and slaughtered without putting up some sort of
resistance. They do, after all, have the blood of the gods in
them. By its very nature that gives these creatures a destiny beyond
that of ordinary creatures. They aren`t going to be any more easy to
kill off than the player who proposes such a thing would be himself,
and the DM`s reaction to a player wanting to create such a program
should be comparable to how the player might react if he set up an
adventure in which the PC was automatically and inescapably
killed. The offspring of such a program are NPCs under the control
of the DM, but they are comparable to PCs in terms of importance and
significance in the setting. ALL of those with a bloodline are
creatures of destiny, which means destiny (in the form of the DM)
would take a hand in such a situation.


1. They're not that special, your conclusion is based on a premise that is only assumed by you. If the blood is that important then how come people can act against it's nature? Azrai Paladins being the most extreme example, but evil people with the blood of those who faced Azrai also abound.
2. Thousands of years of humans interfering with animals means that the species is quite capable of penning and breeding virtually anything, especially when you add in magic.



As a DM, I might allow the creation of such a system by an
NPC/villain. It`s a good adventure hook. The role of the
players/PCs in that hook, however, is to be the liberators of the
victims. Should players want to set up some sort of equivalent then
that means they`d have to face the same sort of issue: bands of
adventurers seeking to free this prisoners.

More likely to steal the notes and breeding stock for their patron. I get that you don't like the premise BTW



Game mechanically, there`s another way to address this kind of thing,
and I think this makes as much sense as the DM addressing it based on
the nature of the setting itself: That is, a scion`s bloodlines
should not be noticeably increased by an act of bloodtheft upon a
creature with a bloodline score substantially lower than his/er
own. In the "New Scions" document I wrote up, for instance, I tried
to address this issue in a way that makes sense with the rest of the
setting. In that set of rules, an act of bloodtheft raises the
thief`s bloodline based on a comparison of his score to that of the
victim. If the victim`s score is higher than the thief then there`s
a chance the thief`s bloodline will increase. If not then there`s none.


Please excuse me if I don't agree and continue to use the old rules.



In the case of a breeding program with animals the bloodline score is
immediately going to be halved in the first generation. So, there`d
have to be a scion at the beginning with a pretty substantial
bloodline in order for the blooded animals to have a score high
enough to have any effect. Other folks have suggested that
bloodlines can`t be increased by acts of bloodtheft within the same
family or familial line.

Since I've decided not to use your version of the rules any blood score is useful. The multiple theft from same bloodline can occur IMO if each theft is from a more strongly blooded being.


Any of these remedies involves the DM controlling the situation in a
way that some players might not appreciate, but honestly this is the
kind of situation that the DM is meant to control. Having a
bloodline breeding program of the type proposed really is something
that goes against the fundamental colour of the setting, and the kind
of thing that should be set up by the DM for the players to expose,
depose or destroy rather than something the players create on their own.

I disagree with you as to the fundamental colour thing, but to each their own, and refer you to my answer to the first person to comment on the idea,
"Characters sewing the seeds of their own destruction through greed, it's enough to bring a smile to any DM. "

[dooley]

Land's choice means that a scion who is killed by an animal can pass their bloodline to their heir even without a spell/ceremony - the animal will only get the bloodline in rare cases (i.e. the boar) meaning that the presence of the Land's choice should reduce the likelihood of an animal who kills a scion gaining a bloodline. Also the Land's choice can work at both ends - when the animal dies the bloodline may pass back to a human rather than passing down to one of the animal's offspring.

Since I'm talking about the natural offspring of a blooded character that just happens to be an animal, and not usurpation of a bloodline, I can't see why even your take on Land's Choice is valid. Of course YMMV



I agree your points regarding evolutionary advantage, but think that it is countered by two key issues.

Firstly the animal must have gained a bloodline somehow - probably by killing a scion (boar, sphinx, hydra, maybe wolf). Animals that kill people tend to be hunted down and exterminated in short order - particularly when they killed someone important such as a scion. If the animal gained the bloodline through inheritance it is probably fairly old for its kind in the first place and thus unlikely to breed (one does not become a pet more dearly loved than the scion's children in a day, it requires years of tummy rubs and face licking).
As noted elsewhere the animal gets it's blood by being the offspring of a blooded human, so is young and will probably be a long term breeder.


Secondly, as noted by Geeman, the blooded animals in the books are noted as exemplars of their race, and generally are far larger / mutated / etc - as such they may be hunted as 'a magnificent beast' fit for 'royal sport' even without understanding of their true nature - and any animal which was visibly blooded would as noted be hunted relentlessly. A blooded deer with a snow-white fleece/magnificent rack of horns/etc may run a little more swiftly than its normal herd members, but it is the only one of its kind that the hunters gather from across the country to hunt, its lesser peers survive to breed because they are more likely to be ignored - to take the point to inanity, no-one ignores a 6 foot glowing mouse or spider but everyone ignores their normal kin, being special can be more trouble than its worth. There is also the issue that the animal may move into a different ecological niche due to its power / bodily changes - and few bloodline powers will help an enhanced wild animal much against a 'real' monster like a griffin, wyvern, etc if it starts competing with them as top predator/whatever.

The abilities list I put forward are the ones least likely to have any outward signs on the animal as they don't really show much, if at all, on any human/demi-human/humanoids.
The point about moving out of the ecological niche is noted, but otoh it does also mean that if it doesn't shift then it will probably dominate, and therefore breed more etc.



That said, the hydra and sphinx who are both animals who killed and ate scions and became blooded as a result, are noted as having fathered new races - the hydra admittedly by a method not-conducive to inheritance. These offspring and new races are however noted as monstrous not as blooded. Perhaps the idea is that bloodlines simply work differently when inherited by beasts?

Bloodlines working differently with beasts is a good answer, but then the question is why?
I have thought about this myself and saying that it was the soul that made people different, but you get into the entire what does and doesn't have a soul problem. Especially with elves.
Abstract thought, and awareness of self have the problem of why aren't the babies all monsters?
Anybody got a good answer apart from the, "that's just the way it is", DM's fallback?


In general I'd support blooded animals as 'wonders' to be used as random events, etc, but discourage any form of 'breeding' or the like as too open to abuse - and use whatever excuse my gamers were happy with to justify it.

Again I self quote, "Characters sewing the seeds of their own destruction through greed, it's enough to bring a smile to any DM."


Nothing appears to stop a lonely wizard from polymorphing into a ram and starting a non-human family line if that's what you were thinking - but as noted bloodline thins rapidly without regency, inheritance or bloodtheft to sustain it, and at some point it should fizzle out, the shorter lived the species the sooner this will happen. That said, bloodline have existed in sub-domain humans for many generations, so perhaps great deeds can also strengthen the line? An animal can perform great deeds too!

If he does it once he'll do it again, and probably with the offspring, so eventually the animals may only have a single point less than he does.
In bird keeping putting together related birds to bring out a trait is called Line-breeding if successful, and Inbreeding if not.
I'm unsure if it's called the same with other animals, but that's pretty much what happened with all the domesticated animals, and even farmed 'wild' animals such as mink.

[Sorontar]

A little to Xman for me, and in at least on case countered by fluff in the rules

:^) X-men ... never thought of that. But have a look at the wiki for "bloodline" (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php?title=Bloodline). Also see the start of chapter 2 of the BRCS (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/BRCS:Chapter_two/Blood_and_regency). I can't remember how much is based on the original rules, but that is pretty much how I played it. Maturity plays a major factor in the availability and detection of bloodlines.

[AndrewTall]

Rare but not impossible. The Rjurik have units of shapeshifters, and going by the rules it's statistically likely that they will become feral. So it's mainly about how prevalent bloodlines are amongst them.
In the case of the perverts, do you think they're alone in their kink? Ennui amongst the decadent is just one of the reasons that others could be persuaded to give it a try.

Shapeshifters aren't usually blooded, but yes they, druids and high levels wizards could take on animal form and so its theoretically possible for them to mate with an animal - but when you are talking about a tiny minority of people being blooded, a tiny minority of those who are able to take on animal form, and a tiny minority of those who are interested, you get to a vanishing point of probability very quickly.


If he does it once he'll do it again, and probably with the offspring, so eventually the animals may only have a single point less than he does.
In bird keeping putting together related birds to bring out a trait is called Line-breeding if successful, and Inbreeding if not.
I'm unsure if it's called the same with other animals, but that's pretty much what happened with all the domesticated animals, and even farmed 'wild' animals such as mink.

Not quite, you can in-breed for desired characteristics for a while, but you have to cross-breed to maintain genetic strength as otherwise you get recessives popping up all over the place, stillbirths, deformities, and vulnerability to disease. Some species are also highly resistant to selective breeding or taming generally and so only some animal breeds are candidates in any event.

Given a base stock of 1 on the scion side the line will collapse long before a new breed can be established.

You are also assuming that polymorph, etc permit breeding - the extent of the change is not, for fairly obvious taste reasons, fully detailed in the rules and lycanthropy and other issues are equally likely outcomesas blood inheritance while sterility is probably more likely than both.

Overall I'd say that the breeding scion to animals point is a non-risk, it will almost never happen, won't work for more than a few generations due to in-breeding, and has obvious social counters to stop it if it somehow endures. That reduces the issue of animal bloodlines to inheritance by a favored pet, or usurpation by a wild animal - both of which I have commented on.


What if we don't use your interpretation but that of the standard rules though? In that case there's a constant influx of half progenitor strength blood coming into the pool, and mixing with the lower values of other generations.

The difference in fade-out is only 1-2 generations whether reducing bloodline strength each generation or halving the score - tainted bloodlines (score up to 25)were noted in 2e as potentially evaporating in a generation or two supporting the step reduction noted or a cut-off well before halving to 0.

In-breeding issues stop the parental influx you note, so the parental influx can only really be via investiture or the land's choice - as noted, a bloodline has no reason to stay in an animal when it can rise to a sentient being so depending on how you interpret the Land's choice (subconscious decision of the scion, collective will of the followers, manifest destiny, desire for greatness of the recipient, etc) the animal bloodlines are likely to fade out more or less rapidly - the animal will afterall not be able to gain regency to raise its bloodline or otherwise gain strength via great deeds - usurpation is its only method and that carries inevitable risks.


Bloodlines working differently with beasts is a good answer, but then the question is why?
I have thought about this myself and saying that it was the soul that made people different, but you get into the entire what does and doesn't have a soul problem. Especially with elves.

The question is surely 'why not' rather than 'why'? Sentience, souls, etc all perfectly valid theological/metaphysical excuses, sidhe being no exception, the whole 2e souls/spirits divide never hitting the Cerilia campaign setting.


I'm sorry, but merely being the bastard byblow of a somebody doesn't mean that you'll arise to anything at all. The vast majority don't, we just here the tales of those who do.
There's no automatic destiny about being blooded, unless you've decided to change the rules to make it so (well within your rights as a DM in your game, but please don't assume I'll do the same in mine). There's merely increased scope.

Blood destiny is actually a core premise of the entire setting - read the conspectus, legacy of kings in the introduction and various comments by the creators. Having the blood of the gods in your veins means that you are marked out for destiny - the bastard by-blow is far more likely to become a hero / the town mayor / etc than just anybody - that's the whole point of the bloodline and what distinguishes it from just a munchkin grab-bag such as 2e psionic wild-powers.


More likely to steal the notes and breeding stock for their patron. I get that you don't like the premise BTW

Enslaving people and breeding them for the sole purpose of slaughtering their children is Elisabeth Bathory/Dracula-style stuff that would get the person a) targeted as a monster, b) shunned by everyone not completely contemptuous of society, c) faced by continual slave uprisings/desertions and d) turning awnie in record time.

Breeding blooded animals avoids some of this social stain but still runs into the spiritual issue - this is the blood of the gods we are talking about - killing the animal would be close to sacrilege and breeding them with the intention of stealing the power of the gods is active blasphemy. Given that any society of scions will inevitably bring in social constraints to stop a descent into a highlander-style kill-fest breeding programs are going to hit major social problems.

[dooley]

:^) X-men ... never thought of that. But have a look at the wiki for "bloodline" (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php?title=Bloodline). Also see the start of chapter 2 of the BRCS (http://www.birthright.net/brwiki/index.php/BRCS:Chapter_two/Blood_and_regency). I can't remember how much is based on the original rules, but that is pretty much how I played it. Maturity plays a major factor in the availability and detection of bloodlines.

The teen manifestation isn't in the 2e rules, and merely makes infanticide the best way to deal with opposing bloodlines.
Murdering children because they're weaker and easier to get to than adults has often been used politically, and the fact you get access to their blood without having to face the concurrent abilities makes it such a more tempting option.

The cry of "Oh if he'd only reached (whatever) years of age his Poison Sense would have warned him not to eat those!", or similar with other abilities, is too important to overlook.
Especially as it's directly thwarting the "destiny" that such blood brings (according to some)

[dooley]

Shapeshifters aren't usually blooded, but yes they, druids and high levels wizards could take on animal form and so its theoretically possible for them to mate with an animal - but when you are talking about a tiny minority of people being blooded, a tiny minority of those who are able to take on animal form, and a tiny minority of those who are interested, you get to a vanishing point of probability very quickly.

All it takes is one in a generation, and there'll probably be more than that.
You're also playing dirty pool with the numbers as we have no firm information as to the overlaps between the factors. After all million to one chances happen nine times out of ten! :)


Not quite, you can in-breed for desired characteristics for a while, but you have to cross-breed to maintain genetic strength as otherwise you get recessives popping up all over the place, stillbirths, deformities, and vulnerability to disease. Some species are also highly resistant to selective breeding or taming generally and so only some animal breeds are candidates in any event.

Actually what usually happens is that the best animals of the wanted type are outbred back to multiple normal stock, and the best of those offspring are bred back to the preferred line. I have already mentioned about culling haven't I? We're mixing RL and Cerelia a bit in this discourse, magic will greatly increase ease of taming and breeding.


Given a base stock of 1 on the scion side the line will collapse long before a new breed can be established.

Some cock birds have been bred into the line 5 times in 8 generations to fix certain colourations. Whilst this is only birdkeeping it does contradict the assertion above.


You are also assuming that polymorph, etc permit breeding - the extent of the change is not, for fairly obvious taste reasons, fully detailed in the rules and lycanthropy and other issues are equally likely outcomesas blood inheritance while sterility is probably more likely than both.

Leda and the Swan etc. Plus unless there is a preexisting reason that the polymorphed person isn't a viable parent why wouldn't the spell work that way.


Overall I'd say that the breeding scion to animals point is a non-risk, it will almost never happen, won't work for more than a few generations due to in-breeding, and has obvious social counters to stop it if it somehow endures. That reduces the issue of animal bloodlines to inheritance by a favored pet, or usurpation by a wild animal - both of which I have commented on.

As I've mentioned elsewhere this thread started off as part of a thread on generating domain income from other resources. It was discussing slaves as a resource when I first put forward the idea.
Are you mistakenly under the idea that I'm implying that such lines have gone from just after Mt D. to now?

Resources run out, come back in another 50 years and the bloodline may have faded away again. Somewhere else though another bloodline is expanding.


The difference in fade-out is only 1-2 generations whether reducing bloodline strength each generation or halving the score - tainted bloodlines (score up to 25)were noted in 2e as potentially evaporating in a generation or two supporting the step reduction noted or a cut-off well before halving to 0.

This is merely disagreement about time taken to fade, purely a personal choice.


In-breeding issues stop the parental influx you note, so the parental influx can only really be via investiture or the land's choice - as noted, a bloodline has no reason to stay in an animal when it can rise to a sentient being so depending on how you interpret the Land's choice (subconscious decision of the scion, collective will of the followers, manifest destiny, desire for greatness of the recipient, etc) the animal bloodlines are likely to fade out more or less rapidly - the animal will afterall not be able to gain regency to raise its bloodline or otherwise gain strength via great deeds - usurpation is its only method and that carries inevitable risks.

I'm sorry but since bird keeping for many years has shown me that your opinion on Inbreeding doesn't match up with observable reality I have to reject your opinion. As to investiture and Land's Choice you brought them up not I, so they're an additional source of animals to the ways i suggested.


The question is surely 'why not' rather than 'why'? Sentience, souls, etc all perfectly valid theological/metaphysical excuses, sidhe being no exception, the whole 2e souls/spirits divide never hitting the Cerilia campaign setting.

The excuses are fine for the characters, but not for the players. "Where do elves go when they die?" and, "why can't you use raise dead on an elf?", are problematical right from the boxset.


Blood destiny is actually a core premise of the entire setting - read the conspectus, legacy of kings in the introduction and various comments by the creators. Having the blood of the gods in your veins means that you are marked out for destiny - the bastard by-blow is far more likely to become a hero / the town mayor / etc than just anybody - that's the whole point of the bloodline and what distinguishes it from just a munchkin grab-bag such as 2e psionic wild-powers.

If it's as all important as you're trying to make it why do bloodlines fail? Isn't this counter to their being what destiny is made of?


Enslaving people and breeding them for the sole purpose of slaughtering their children is Elisabeth Bathory/Dracula-style stuff that would get the person a) targeted as a monster, b) shunned by everyone not completely contemptuous of society, c) faced by continual slave uprisings/desertions and d) turning awnie in record time.

Just regular enslavement will do most of that too. The Awnie bit will take longer, but slavery is a despicable and evil act which will feed the Awnie in everyone.


Breeding blooded animals avoids some of this social stain but still runs into the spiritual issue - this is the blood of the gods we are talking about - killing the animal would be close to sacrilege and breeding them with the intention of stealing the power of the gods is active blasphemy. Given that any society of scions will inevitably bring in social constraints to stop a descent into a highlander-style kill-fest breeding programs are going to hit major social problems.

Pardon?
Killing a sentient being merely because he's on the other side, and doing it in such a manner that you get a benefit, is merely usurpation,
but doing it to an animal is sacrilege and blasphemy?
That's just silly

[AndrewTall]

All it takes is one in a generation, and there'll probably be more than that.
You're also playing dirty pool with the numbers as we have no firm information as to the overlaps between the factors. After all million to one chances happen nine times out of ten! :)

Particularly when the consequences are amusing :rolleyes:

I'd expect far fewer than 1 in a generation though - 1% of people blooded (or less), of those how many are going to be a high level druid/wizard or a shapeshifter? Druids skew the odds as they are fairly common in the rjurik lands, but then they have all sorts of social issues moving them towards avoiding the social stigma of bestiality. I can accept that shapeshifters may be attracted to their alter-species if they spend a lot of time in their alter-form, but that has its own problems for them of loss of persona. Druids/wizards probably less so as they can shift to a variety of forms.


Some cock birds have been bred into the line 5 times in 8 generations to fix certain colourations. Whilst this is only birdkeeping it does contradict the assertion above.

The effects are very variable, breeding in general has only recently with the benefit of DNA testing and so on, begun to move towards a real science. Much depends on the original quality of the stock, genetic variation present within the breed, the normal mating patterns and numbers, etc - when looking at notoriously sickly species such as humans the consequences tend to be tougher as nasty recessives pop up sooner.

Golden hamsters are a good example of what you've been suggesting. All captive G.Hammies come from 1 litter collected for research purposes in (from recollection) the 1930's. The continual inbreeding has left them notorious for dying young - from recollection only 1 of 3 that I and my brothers were given lasted to maturity. They survive as a species in captivity, but in competition with less in-bred cousins would be rapidly out-bred.

As a general rule it is safe to say that continued inbreeding will, sooner or later, cause loss of fertility, lower survival rates, etc and that limited genetic spread (inherent in inbreeding) makes a species more vulnerable to disease, parasites, etc - at some point any bloodline advantage is going to be outweighed by the benefits of fresh bloodstock reducing the immortal father syndrome.


Leda and the Swan etc. Plus unless there is a preexisting reason that the polymorphed person isn't a viable parent why wouldn't the spell work that way.

The question is extent of the transformation - what happens to the various microscopic lifeforms within the shapeshifter changes, does the change extend to a genetic level? Does it convert the pre-existing sperm/eggs or would the new form have to be retained long enough to create new seed? What is the comparative genetic make-up of the new form to the old?


Are you mistakenly under the idea that I'm implying that such lines have gone from just after Mt D. to now?

Not necessarily continuously, but you seem to be arguing that they should be fairly common, and reasonably strong which would indicate that they should have had a fairly continuous existence - I can't see any argument to support that approach or any way it would enhance the game to do so.


I'm sorry but since bird keeping for many years has shown me that your opinion on Inbreeding doesn't match up with observable reality I have to reject your opinion.

In-breeding risks are not mythical, and have been observed repeatedly in many species. By all means feel free to look-up some of the stats for large animals (which are the only cross-breeds we are discussing I presume) but any attempt to argue that having the same (male) parent for repeated generations will not reduce fertility, increase probability of disease, make out-breeding harder to prevent, etc - as you require to support your arguments that bloodlines averaging the parents can be retained over time via procreation from the rootstock - is doomed to failure.

If you want to have lines of blooded animals in your game then feel free to say that the bloodline 'purifies the stock' or some such for your game, but in any RL based genetic approach you will find that it is far more easily to breed a strong line from wide stock than from a narrow pool and that once defects start popping up it is very hard to eradicate them without breeding out.


As to investiture and Land's Choice you brought them up not I, so they're an additional source of animals to the ways i suggested.

As noted, they were brought up as they are required to maintain the bloodline barring repeated parental-progeny matings. Without investiture, bloodline won't be inherited so it will fade rapidly, with the land's choice it may do so more swiftly than would otherwise be the case although that is less of an issue.


The excuses are fine for the characters, but not for the players. "Where do elves go when they die?" and, "why can't you use raise dead on an elf?", are problematical right from the boxset.

Not really, the first question applies equally to any living being and is a wider argument for sidhe in any event, the latter was a 2e game mechanic to encourage humans as special (along with level limits, different multi-class rules) etc which was dispensed with in latter versions of the game and never really explained in the first place.

I can't see this being an issue in a game debate, 'generally only people can manifest bloodlines, animals/plants may be stronger/etc but don't seem to have bloodlines as such aside from awnsheghlien' seems a simple enough rule to be accepted by most players.


If it's as all important as you're trying to make it why do bloodlines fail? Isn't this counter to their being what destiny is made of?

Even heroes fail, even empires fall - fate as the saying goes rules all - so some people succeed in their destiny and some do not. Those failures do not mean that those who failed weren't marked out for a chance at greatness and possibly given a helping hand - their less fortunate unblooded peers likely never even had the opportunity, or had to work twice as hard to get it.

From a metagame perspective, if bloodline guaranteed success then only the blooded could succeed and the the more strongly blooded would absolutely dominate which would make for a poorer game, so failure must be a possibility for gameplay - it is also a convenient way to avoid excessive book-keeping.

That bloodline has a strong but not dominant impact on success can be seen in the lack of unblooded rulers and the strength of the bloodlines of more powerful rulers - if there was no correlation between bloodline strength and destiny then other factors would be more dominant and we would see more rulers with very weak / absent bloodlines. What we can see at domain level will presumably extend at sub-domain level - why should it not?

Another question is do they fail? They certainly 'fail' in the sense that some families cease to be blooded, but does the actual bloodline itself - as distinct from the family it is passing down through - fail? If it is absorbed into a stronger line, passed via the Land's choice to someone unknown to the family, etc then the line itself may still survive - and if the family had proven itself unworthy by failing to attain greatness/etc why would it not move to/wait for a more worthy host?


Just regular enslavement will do most of that too. The Awnie bit will take longer, but slavery is a despicable and evil act which will feed the Awnie in everyone.

I agree, although as noted in the predecessor thread serfdom and so on could approach similar issues.


Killing a sentient being merely because he's on the other side, and doing it in such a manner that you get a benefit, is merely usurpation, but doing it to an animal is sacrilege and blasphemy?
That's just silly

I took social/spiritual issues as a given in any attempt to farm and harvest people so didn't bother repeating... That said I can see some social arguments that fighting another scion in battle and 'winning' their bloodline would be more socially acceptable than farming blooded sheep, particularly for the Anuireans and Vos.

[Birthright-L]

At 11:54 PM 8/28/2010, dooley wrote:

>The teen manifestation isn`t in the 2e rules, and merely makes
>infanticide the best way to deal with opposing bloodlines.

It`s not in the 2e rules, but there are at least two (I think 3+)
blood abilities that indicate it really must work that way given the
rest of the setting`s dynamics. Surely someone would have mentioned
the devastating effects of a colicky baby with the Divine Wrath blood
ability, or the existence of a baby with the Long Life blood ability
who remained an infant for decades.

In addition to those two, I`d offer the following speculation: If
bloodline doesn`t take effect at some point later then it manifests
at birth, right? Well, isn`t that manifestation just as arbitrary as
any other? Why not in utero? Why not a scion with a gestation
period of several centuries? One of the interesting things that
Frank Herbert did in his book Dune was premise an fetus becoming
aware and sentient during gestation due to a technological ritual
with an alien chemical. The result is an "abomination" with all the
memories of her ancestors. Well... in BR we have the Blood History
ability that basically functions the same way.... If blood abilities
manifest before some period of maturation then that kind of thing is
the natural byproduct of that blood ability.

All of that is an interpretation, but it`s one based on the published
materials, and I`d suggest that that interpretation is much more
direct than the idea of blooded animals.

>Murdering children because they`re weaker and easier to get to than
>adults has often been used politically, and the fact you get access
>to their blood without having to face the concurrent abilities makes
>it such a more tempting option.
>
>The cry of "Oh if he`d only reached (whatever) years of age his
>Poison Sense would have warned him not to eat those!", or similar
>with other abilities, is too important to overlook.
>
>Especially as it`s directly thwarting the "destiny" that such blood
>brings (according to some)

If their blood abilities don`t manifest until a scion reaches some
sort of age of maturity, then why would their bloodline score? I
suppose one could go with that kind of interpretation, but it seems a
little odd. If you assume that blood abilities manifest later, but
bloodline score happens at birth then wouldn`t it be relatively
common for scions to become invested as regents when their parent
dies but be too immature to act as a regent? A regent (in the sense
of a guardian) wouldn`t work in the same way in BR that it has in
real history because it is the actual leader who is invested. That
character isn`t a figurehead in the same way that a royal could be in history.

Using the same logic as above: why wait for birth? Wouldn`t a
pregnant woman be the best choice for such a bloodtheft? Just kill
the baby in the womb (a sort of bloodtheft abortion) and get all the
benefits of bloodtheft without the hassle of changing diapers?

Gary

[dooley]

At 11:54 PM 8/28/2010, dooley wrote:

>The teen manifestation isn`t in the 2e rules, and merely makes
>infanticide the best way to deal with opposing bloodlines.

It`s not in the 2e rules, but there are at least two (I think 3+)
blood abilities that indicate it really must work that way given the
rest of the setting`s dynamics. Surely someone would have mentioned
the devastating effects of a colicky baby with the Divine Wrath blood
ability, or the existence of a baby with the Long Life blood ability
who remained an infant for decades.

Actually there are several more than that, what's really needed is thought into which abilities only manifest when 'mature' and those that are active from birth.


In addition to those two, I`d offer the following speculation: If
bloodline doesn`t take effect at some point later then it manifests
at birth, right? Well, isn`t that manifestation just as arbitrary as
any other? Why not in utero? Why not a scion with a gestation
period of several centuries? One of the interesting things that
Frank Herbert did in his book Dune was premise an fetus becoming
aware and sentient during gestation due to a technological ritual
with an alien chemical. The result is an "abomination" with all the
memories of her ancestors. Well... in BR we have the Blood History
ability that basically functions the same way.... If blood abilities
manifest before some period of maturation then that kind of thing is
the natural byproduct of that blood ability.

Some would be useful in utero, Heighted Con, Iron Will, Prot v Evil, and maybe even Healing. The rest not so much, but it could explain why Regents apparently have so few offspring usually. Unborn manifests an ability, and it and mummy die due to it's effects. A sordid little secret of the blooded that nobody talks about.
Even if nobody else gets anything from this I'll have what is, IMO at least, a better system for when Abilities occur than either of the official options.


All of that is an interpretation, but it`s one based on the published
materials, and I`d suggest that that interpretation is much more
direct than the idea of blooded animals.

Blooded animals were actually around post Mt D according to published materials, the bloodlines have all dies out by 551MR though.
I'll repeat, all I did originally was note them as a possible resource including a mechanic for how they could come about again. The rest of it is tweaking, and fellow DMs & players showing why it wouldn't fit into their version of Birthright.


If their blood abilities don`t manifest until a scion reaches some
sort of age of maturity, then why would their bloodline score? I
suppose one could go with that kind of interpretation, but it seems a
little odd. If you assume that blood abilities manifest later, but
bloodline score happens at birth then wouldn`t it be relatively
common for scions to become invested as regents when their parent
dies but be too immature to act as a regent? A regent (in the sense
of a guardian) wouldn`t work in the same way in BR that it has in
real history because it is the actual leader who is invested. That
character isn`t a figurehead in the same way that a royal could be in history.

I'll admit that I didn't think about the bloodline itself being suppressed along with the abilities, mind you it wasn't actually stated.
Maybe a lot of the disagreement in this discourse is due to assumptions about what is believed to be startlingly obvious to the writer, but is just not thought of by the other involved parties. D'oh!

The most famous bloodline, although currently 'lost', actually has several preteen Regents. Unfortunately the fluff on BoM p79 can be read either way.
Either the young Emperor has full measure of the True bloodline and his abilities are suppressed until he puts on the crown, or he gets new abilities because of the crown and can use them right away.
The fact that at other times there was a "regent" in the RL sense helps to muddy the waters quite nicely.


Using the same logic as above: why wait for birth? Wouldn`t a
pregnant woman be the best choice for such a bloodtheft? Just kill
the baby in the womb (a sort of bloodtheft abortion) and get all the
benefits of bloodtheft without the hassle of changing diapers?

Gary

The one I've gone with in this case is that the unborn don't have souls/spirits/etc. and it's this that means there's no blood there to be stolen. This will allow me to both use the MacDuff option in prophecy, and the stigma of being a soulless orphan bastard if via a Csection.

[dooley]

Particularly when the consequences are amusing :rolleyes:

I'd expect far fewer than 1 in a generation though - 1% of people blooded (or less), of those how many are going to be a high level druid/wizard or a shapeshifter? Druids skew the odds as they are fairly common in the rjurik lands, but then they have all sorts of social issues moving them towards avoiding the social stigma of bestiality. I can accept that shapeshifters may be attracted to their alter-species if they spend a lot of time in their alter-form, but that has its own problems for them of loss of persona. Druids/wizards probably less so as they can shift to a variety of forms.

Isn't it more along the lines of 0.1% blooded.
1% of Rjuvik are shape-shifters according to the rules, but if you apply the chances to lose personality and go feral rules honestly then nearly 100% of them will go that way. The failure chance is just that high.
Depending on which way you combine the two probabilities you could have a 1 in 100,000 chance of being both a Shape shifter AND blooded, or 1 in 10 chance of being a blooded shape shifter, or some other figure.
It's these poor souls who'll make up the naturally occurring pockets of blooded animals that will flourish for a while and then fall away again. Just multiply the Rjuvik population by the percentage you prefer to see how many a generation this will be.
Then we have the case of the druid/wizard, and maybe some of the wizards chums too, who do it as a kink. These rare pockets too die out over time unless there's a new injection, but once a kink always a kink? The number of people tried for bestiality and other deviant practices in RL olden times, (IIRC one knight was made a knave for incest, pernicious buggery, and bestiality) shows that social stigma isn't a sure fire way to stop it
Then we have the premeditated breeding program by usually a Wizard, as there is advantage to be gained by doing so.



The effects are very variable, breeding in general has only recently with the benefit of DNA testing and so on, begun to move towards a real science. Much depends on the original quality of the stock, genetic variation present within the breed, the normal mating patterns and numbers, etc - when looking at notoriously sickly species such as humans the consequences tend to be tougher as nasty recessives pop up sooner.

Golden hamsters are a good example of what you've been suggesting. All captive G.Hammies come from 1 litter collected for research purposes in (from recollection) the 1930's. The continual inbreeding has left them notorious for dying young - from recollection only 1 of 3 that I and my brothers were given lasted to maturity. They survive as a species in captivity, but in competition with less in-bred cousins would be rapidly out-bred.

This is because there hasn't been any systematic culling to weed out the defective. It's the profit motive that drives the hamster rearing in petstores, let me just put my conspiracy theory hat on and say that in their eyes the one that didn't die was defective as you didn't have to come back and buy a new one. ;)


As a general rule it is safe to say that continued inbreeding will, sooner or later, cause loss of fertility, lower survival rates, etc and that limited genetic spread (inherent in inbreeding) makes a species more vulnerable to disease, parasites, etc - at some point any bloodline advantage is going to be outweighed by the benefits of fresh bloodstock reducing the immortal father syndrome.

Accepted, but it's the sooner or later bit that we seem to differ on.
As for the progenitor issue; fresh blood could be coming in every generation for a while as he mates with any available female not just those he's sired. In the case of the blood farmer there will probably be several parallel breeding lines he can cross.




The question is extent of the transformation - what happens to the various microscopic lifeforms within the shapeshifter changes, does the change extend to a genetic level? Does it convert the pre-existing sperm/eggs or would the new form have to be retained long enough to create new seed? What is the comparative genetic make-up of the new form to the old?

If you want to play this card then why doesn't he show when Invisible as none of the parasites, internal flora etc, are invisible? When using any form of transportation magic, why are they taken along too? Why are they protected by defensive magics?




Not necessarily continuously, but you seem to be arguing that they should be fairly common, and reasonably strong which would indicate that they should have had a fairly continuous existence - I can't see any argument to support that approach or any way it would enhance the game to do so.

If you mean common as in there's always such a group on Cerelia at any time then yes I do, but it's not always the same group.
I'm not advocating that every wood and wild place has it's own group. You can't just let off a bow at random and hit a blooded animal


In-breeding risks are not mythical, and have been observed repeatedly in many species. By all means feel free to look-up some of the stats for large animals (which are the only cross-breeds we are discussing I presume) but any attempt to argue that having the same (male) parent for repeated generations will not reduce fertility, increase probability of disease, make out-breeding harder to prevent, etc - as you require to support your arguments that bloodlines averaging the parents can be retained over time via procreation from the rootstock - is doomed to failure.

Actually if this was a planned farming of blood why the hell would you choose a large animal? Something small and easily contained that you can carefully monitor is much better, you merely polymorph it into what is to be hunted on the day.
It's also easier to hide from those who may take offense at your actions, and want to stop you


If you want to have lines of blooded animals in your game then feel free to say that the bloodline 'purifies the stock' or some such for your game, but in any RL based genetic approach you will find that it is far more easily to breed a strong line from wide stock than from a narrow pool and that once defects start popping up it is very hard to eradicate them without breeding out.

thank you for your permission to do what I want in my game but have to use a mechanic coinrd by you to do so, but since I do know what I'm talking about I think I'll pass on your kind offer. Any sensible breeder has parallel lines of the traits they want, it'd be the same with a blood farmer, you'll cross out then cross back in culling as you go


As noted, they were brought up as they are required to maintain the bloodline barring repeated parental-progeny matings. Without investiture, bloodline won't be inherited so it will fade rapidly, with the land's choice it may do so more swiftly than would otherwise be the case although that is less of an issue.

No they're not, and repeated parent-progeny isn't directly required either.
Unless we take your OPINION of bloodline decline as being the only true way of doing things of course. I'm sorry that my heresy offends you! ;)




I can't see this being an issue in a game debate, 'generally only people can manifest bloodlines, animals/plants may be stronger/etc but don't seem to have bloodlines as such aside from awnsheghlien' seems a simple enough rule to be accepted by most players.

"Generally" implies exceptions, and it's always nice to have something better than a glib answer at hand. Especially when there are animal bloodlines in the rules.
If it's just going to be, "well, erm, that's just the way it is and I'm the DM. OK!" why the hell would anybody want to play? Chalk this up to differing styles between groups


Even heroes fail, even empires fall - fate as the saying goes rules all - so some people succeed in their destiny and some do not. Those failures do not mean that those who failed weren't marked out for a chance at greatness and possibly given a helping hand - their less fortunate unblooded peers likely never even had the opportunity, or had to work twice as hard to get it.

From a metagame perspective, if bloodline guaranteed success then only the blooded could succeed and the the more strongly blooded would absolutely dominate which would make for a poorer game, so failure must be a possibility for gameplay - it is also a convenient way to avoid excessive book-keeping.

That bloodline has a strong but not dominant impact on success can be seen in the lack of unblooded rulers and the strength of the bloodlines of more powerful rulers - if there was no correlation between bloodline strength and destiny then other factors would be more dominant and we would see more rulers with very weak / absent bloodlines. What we can see at domain level will presumably extend at sub-domain level - why should it not?

Another question is do they fail? They certainly 'fail' in the sense that some families cease to be blooded, but does the actual bloodline itself - as distinct from the family it is passing down through - fail? If it is absorbed into a stronger line, passed via the Land's choice to someone unknown to the family, etc then the line itself may still survive - and if the family had proven itself unworthy by failing to attain greatness/etc why would it not move to/wait for a more worthy host?

The above are merely differing DM styles. and emphasis on what's important in each of our campaigns, we both know who's is better anyway!

MINE! :D

[Birthright-L]

At 09:15 AM 8/30/2010, dooley wrote:

>Actually there are several more than that, what`s really needed is
>thought into which abilities only manifest when `mature` and those
>that are active from birth.

I don`t think any of them should be active from birth. It should be
an all or nothing proposition. There`s just too much weirdness
involved in bloodline taking effect at birth. Blood abilities are
just one of the problems. There`s also issue with

1. Vassalage agreements. Why not set up a creche of "baby
regents/vassals" who transfer ALL of their RP to their Liege? Thus
any regent with access to a scion-baby could bypass the RP collection limits.

2. Awnshegh (and maybe ershegh) transformation could begin at birth
if bloodline kicks in then. That`s just weird.

3. There should be a good reason nobody has bothered committing
bloodtheft on children in BR before. It`s not a particularly
original idea, and certainly not outside the intelligence or morally
dubious nature of any number of BR characters, or entire Cerilian
races, for that matter.

4. Normally, characters don`t gain class and level until they reach
some sort of (near) adulthood. It just doesn`t really make sense to
me that the blood of the gods would affect someone who didn`t
actually have class and level. It`s like putting plutonium in a
bottle rocket, or powering your Ipod with lightning. A connection to
vast, otherworldly powers of divinity should at least have to
manifest in a 1st level fighter. So, either bloodline hasn`t
manifested or there should be babies with broadswords....

5. Aside from any mechanistic/thematic reasons in the published
materials, the moment when bloodline manifests has interesting
character development and background potential, especially in the
case of awnshegh who transform as part of that manifestation. I`ve
written up a few new awnshegh over the years, and my favorites are
often ones that have a sort of "X-Men/mutant-teenage angst" background.

On the whole, it`s just simpler (and more sensible) to just make
bloodline take effect at some point during the transition from child
to young adult.

Gary

[Birthright-L]

One more thing about the "blooded animal" idea that really goes a bit
beyond the "animals" but I`ll bring it up in this context for reasons
that`ll become obvious toward the end:

For a long time I`ve been mulling over the idea that there might be
something below "tainted" as a bloodline strength. In my rewrite of
the bloodline system, New Scions, I propose a few new optional
bloodline strength scores. In addition to the originals (tainted,
minor, major, great and true) there are touched, petty, lesser,
eminent and grand each a tick before the existing, standard strength
descriptions. This really hasn`t got much to do with anything except
in two ways:

First, if one uses the interpretation of bloodline strength being the
determinant of bloodline score through the generations, and bloodline
strength is always rounded down, then even the greatest bloodline
would disappear in 2-3 generations if combined with commoners the
whole time. However, if one has additional strength descriptions,
that would last a bit longer. Not really much longer because mixing
a true bloodline with the blood of a commoner could reduce the
strength more than one step, but doubling the total number of
bloodline strengths would mean that it would take 3-4 generations.

Second, the inclusion of new bloodline strength values hints at an
interesting possibility. What if bloodline strength never really
goes away entirely. There might be a sort of latent or dormant
bloodline strength that manifests no bloodline score (or, rather, a
score of "0" where a commoner has no bloodline score value at
all.) A character with a bloodline strength of "dormant" would have
no bloodline score, no blood abilities, no more ability to become a
regent than a commoner, but he would have two things:

1. The ability to spend RP to increase his bloodline. Some folks
have suggested commoners as regents in BR--I`ve always opposed that
idea because I see it as antithetical to the setting`s game
mechanics, theme and background, but if one were to go with this kind
of interpretation, then it starts to make some sort of sense to me.

2. The ability to commit bloodtheft. I understand a lot of folks
have used systems in which bloodtheft can be performed by commoners,
but in the original materials this was not possible. Again, I oppose
the idea of commoners committing bloodtheft for reasons very similar
to the commoner/regent thing.

Now, it`s this second one that I think has the most relevance
here. The existence of various awnsheghlien based on animals might
be the result of an ancient bloodline lying dormant for many
generations. Then, given some strange circumstance that led to
bloodtheft (or its equivalent) that animal might have acquired a
bloodline score. The way those creatures later develop is then
strictly along the lines of normal bloodline strength, score and abilities.

One would have to think about how a "dormant" or "latent" or
"recessive" (or whatever moniker one wanted to put on it) bloodline
strength would work. Would it remain in the family for countless
generations? Would it manifest only atavistically? Would it simply
be the last generation of a near-dead bloodline? Does it depend on
derivation? Maybe Azrai`s bloodline never completely goes
away? That would seem to make sense given the published materials....

Gary

[dooley]

At 09:15 AM 8/30/2010, dooley wrote:

>Actually there are several more than that, what`s really needed is
>thought into which abilities only manifest when `mature` and those
>that are active from birth.

I don`t think any of them should be active from birth. It should be
an all or nothing proposition. There`s just too much weirdness
involved in bloodline taking effect at birth. Blood abilities are
just one of the problems.

Considering the place is populated with Dragons, Elves, Giants, Spellcasters etc. the fact you think that this is too weird is amusing.:D
It's your opinion though, and therefore valid to you, but please excuse me if I don't share it.


There`s also issue with

1. Vassalage agreements. Why not set up a creche of "baby
regents/vassals" who transfer ALL of their RP to their Liege? Thus
any regent with access to a scion-baby could bypass the RP collection limits.

Just how is that done when the Vassal has to pass over the agreed amount during the Investiture ceremony?
BoP p79 where it says both parties must be willing to enter the agreement causes problems too.
A few seasons later, when NO! and Shan't! are common responses by a child, who's going to risk having to constantly shell out for all those Vassalage Investitures?
Get to 9+ and there are Regents of that age, or there were historically, advising them on what to do were people with their own agendas so vassalage really begins about here.


2. Awnshegh (and maybe ershegh) transformation could begin at birth
if bloodline kicks in then. That`s just weird.

And just what's wrong with weird? As any parent knows, ALL kids are monsters! :D


3. There should be a good reason nobody has bothered committing
bloodtheft on children in BR before. It`s not a particularly
original idea, and certainly not outside the intelligence or morally
dubious nature of any number of BR characters, or entire Cerilian
races, for that matter.

Who says it hasn't been done?
It's not like TSR would have gone out of their way to mention that slaughtering babies was a route to power.
Think of the atrocious publicity when the first lawyer claims that their client wasn't to blame, it was that evil RPG that poisoned their mind.


4. Normally, characters don`t gain class and level until they reach
some sort of (near) adulthood. It just doesn`t really make sense to
me that the blood of the gods would affect someone who didn`t
actually have class and level. It`s like putting plutonium in a
bottle rocket, or powering your Ipod with lightning. A connection to
vast, otherworldly powers of divinity should at least have to
manifest in a 1st level fighter. So, either bloodline hasn`t
manifested or there should be babies with broadswords....

Erm... There ARE zero level Regents in the source, Giantdowns having one, so the class and level thing is wrong.


5. Aside from any mechanistic/thematic reasons in the published
materials, the moment when bloodline manifests has interesting
character development and background potential, especially in the
case of awnshegh who transform as part of that manifestation. I`ve
written up a few new awnshegh over the years, and my favorites are
often ones that have a sort of "X-Men/mutant-teenage angst" background.

So it's your fluff/DM style that is important? If I want something with that Marvel taste there are several SHRPG to choose from better suited to that emo crap.


On the whole, it`s just simpler (and more sensible) to just make
bloodline take effect at some point during the transition from child
to young adult.

Simpler?
Just when does the change from child to young adult occur?
Are we talking physiological, or mental changes?
Even rite of passage rituals at a fixed age have their problems.

There's quite a range of age.
12-14 for physical, but starting at 9 (or even younger) sometimes, or delayed until 18+.
As a side point if it's physiological, if you castrate a boy before puberty will his bloodline never activate?

Mental changes is wide open; from child prodigy, to someone who doesn't get their shit together until their 30's.

What happens if the rite is disrupted or doesn't take place? can it be redone/done at another time?


As to the snide, "and more sensible".
What's more sensible, especially in order to perpetuate the bloodline, is that the Abilities are there when needed.

[dooley]

One more thing about the "blooded animal" idea that really goes a bit
beyond the "animals" but I`ll bring it up in this context for reasons
that`ll become obvious toward the end:

For a long time I`ve been mulling over the idea that there might be
something below "tainted" as a bloodline strength. In my rewrite of
the bloodline system, New Scions, I propose a few new optional
bloodline strength scores. In addition to the originals (tainted,
minor, major, great and true) there are touched, petty, lesser,
eminent and grand each a tick before the existing, standard strength
descriptions. This really hasn`t got much to do with anything except
in two ways:

First, if one uses the interpretation of bloodline strength being the
determinant of bloodline score through the generations, and bloodline
strength is always rounded down, then even the greatest bloodline
would disappear in 2-3 generations if combined with commoners the
whole time. However, if one has additional strength descriptions,
that would last a bit longer. Not really much longer because mixing
a true bloodline with the blood of a commoner could reduce the
strength more than one step, but doubling the total number of
bloodline strengths would mean that it would take 3-4 generations.

I'm confused, but then again as those who've actually read my stuff know that's nothing new!:D
You're using an interpretation that speeds up bloodline disappearance, then modifying it to slow down.
So why go through the speed up in the first place?


Second, the inclusion of new bloodline strength values hints at an
interesting possibility. What if bloodline strength never really
goes away entirely. There might be a sort of latent or dormant
bloodline strength that manifests no bloodline score (or, rather, a
score of "0" where a commoner has no bloodline score value at
all.) A character with a bloodline strength of "dormant" would have
no bloodline score, no blood abilities, no more ability to become a
regent than a commoner, but he would have two things:

In the 2e rules even a score of 0 meant that you could have an Ability 10% of the time. I'm going to pinch your dormancy idea, reworking it to suit MC of course, for those who don't make the roll. TYVM:)


1. The ability to spend RP to increase his bloodline. Some folks
have suggested commoners as regents in BR--I`ve always opposed that
idea because I see it as antithetical to the setting`s game
mechanics, theme and background, but if one were to go with this kind
of interpretation, then it starts to make some sort of sense to me.

I actually agree with you, no commoner can be a regent and collect regency. Nothing to stop them having a holding and getting income from it, though that won't last long as a Scion will soon be contesting said holding.


2. The ability to commit bloodtheft. I understand a lot of folks
have used systems in which bloodtheft can be performed by commoners,
but in the original materials this was not possible. Again, I oppose
the idea of commoners committing bloodtheft for reasons very similar
to the commoner/regent thing.

It's ALL the Magian's fault! Just because an evil Archmagus did it, and became an Arnie, apparently now anyone can!:D

[Birthright-L]

At 05:35 AM 8/31/2010, dooley wrote:

>Considering the place is populated with Dragons, Elves, Giants,
>Spellcasters etc. the fact you think that this is too weird is amusing.:D
>
>It`s your opinion though, and therefore valid to you, but please
>excuse me if I don`t share it.

I used the word "weird" to be kind, really.... The "weirdness" is
game mechanical, thematic and in just plain silliness, not "strange
and exotic" in the sense your using. Honestly, it`s not just
"weird." Aside from being downright goofy, the issues I described
later in that post are game-breaking problems. Things like infant
awnsheghlien seems like a pretty strange idea to me--not to mention a
particularly weird (mechanically, thematically, and silly)
interpretation of how the setting works, but if you want to play
"Awnshegh Babies" as a sort of Birthright: Looney Tunes edition then
by all mean go for it.

> There`s also issue with
>
>1. Vassalage agreements. Why not set up a creche of "baby
>regents/vassals" who transfer ALL of their RP to their Liege? Thus
>any regent with access to a scion-baby could bypass the RP collection limits.
>
>Just how is that done when the Vassal has to pass over the agreed
>amount during the Investiture ceremony?
>BoP p79 where it says both parties must be willing to enter the
>agreement causes problems too.
>A few seasons later, when NO! and Shan`t! are common responses by a
>child, who`s going to risk having to constantly shell out for all
>those Vassalage Investitures?
>Get to 9+ and there are Regents of that age, or there were
>historically, advising them on what to do were people with their own
>agendas so vassalage really begins about here.

Both of them must be "present and willing" but that doesn`t really
mean much. A vassal (capital "V" meaning Vassals in the BR sense of
an agreement between regents) must be "willing" to engage in the
agreement, but that doesn`t mean they have to be happy about
it. Lots of people are willing to do things they don`t like; most of
us do such things every day. In fact, most Vassals probably aren`t
wild about handing off their RP to some dominating Liege (again,
capital "L") at all.

Historically, rulers of that age were puppets to a regent-prince (not
a regent in the BR sense) who actually did the ruling, so I`m having
trouble seeing how you objection really applies. Yes, a child can be
petulant, but a child is going to be more easily controlled than an
adult Vassal under the same circumstances. Sure, there could and
would still be problems, but does anyone really think a child would
be more difficult to control as a Vassal in the Birthright sense than
would an adult in the same position? Children would be more easily
manipulated (cajoled, threatened or bribed) than would an adult
unless one somehow has a wildly different understanding of adults and
children than my experience would lead me to believe.... The
Vassalage system of BR already creates a loophole in the limitation
of regency collection and bloodline score. Having bloodline kick in
at birth makes that already problematic system even more problematic.

>----------- QUOTE ----------
>3. There should be a good reason nobody has bothered committing
>bloodtheft on children in BR before. It`s not a particularly
>original idea, and certainly not outside the intelligence or morally
>dubious nature of any number of BR characters, or entire Cerilian
>races, for that matter.
>-----------------------------
>
>Who says it hasn`t been done?
>It`s not like TSR would have gone out of their way to mention that
>slaughtering babies was a route to power.
>Think of the atrocious publicity when the first lawyer claims that
>their client wasn`t to blame, it was that evil RPG that poisoned their mind.

Generally speaking, BR is a more adult setting than most. It`s not
abjectly adult, of course, but the authors generally don`t shy away
from the more violent concepts implied by their work. Sure, maybe
their just leary, but taking even that assumption as a given, making
bloodline kick in at birth makes for a dramatic shift in the dynamics
of the setting. There already is a vibe in the setting that makes
for a sort of Wild West attitude in which players want to commit
bloodtheft in order to increase their PCs stats. Having bloodline
take effect at birth would make that all the more likely. I can`t
see a lot of players and DMs wanting to run a campaign in which
scions (I assume NPCs) are hunting the offspring of other scions as a
major campaign feature. Again, knock yourself out if you want to
play Birthright: Infanticide edition, but I don`t expect a lot of
people will go for that one either.

>------------ QUOTE ----------
>4. Normally, characters don`t gain class and level until they reach
>some sort of (near) adulthood. It just doesn`t really make sense to
>me that the blood of the gods would affect someone who didn`t
>actually have class and level. It`s like putting plutonium in a
>bottle rocket, or powering your Ipod with lightning. A connection to
>vast, otherworldly powers of divinity should at least have to
>manifest in a 1st level fighter. So, either bloodline hasn`t
>manifested or there should be babies with broadswords....
>-----------------------------
>
>Erm... There ARE zero level Regents in the source, Giantdowns having
>one, so the class and level thing is wrong.

I assume you`re talking about Anneke Sturmdotter from the KotG
accessory. Well, OK, I accept the reference, but this is a case in
which I think you`re wildly misinterpreting the evidence. First off,
that is a 2nd edition character written up to describe a frail old
woman at the end of her life. She`s not REALLY 0-level. She`s near
death. Her 0-level status is meant to describe her
frailty. Secondly, he portrayal of a character having a bloodline at
0-level at the END of her life doesn`t really work to validate the
idea that people should get a bloodline BEFORE they reach
0-level. In AS`s case, she`s DECLINED to 0-level after a lifetime of
being a scion. Thirdly, the BR materials are rife with
counter-examples of things that violate even the most basic rules of
D&D let alone the setting itself. This is especially the case when
it comes to the adventures which did things like introduce monkey
gods and transubstantiated dwarves (actually, that one was a PSo
text.) It`s one thing to express unique examples and elaborate on
them as a fanwank or retcon, but I think you`ve got this one
backwards from the beginning.

>------------ QUOTE ----------
>5. Aside from any mechanistic/thematic reasons in the published
>materials, the moment when bloodline manifests has interesting
>character development and background potential, especially in the
>case of awnshegh who transform as part of that manifestation. I`ve
>written up a few new awnshegh over the years, and my favorites are
>often ones that have a sort of "X-Men/mutant-teenage angst" background.
>-----------------------------
>
>So it`s your fluff/DM style that is important? If I want something
>with that Marvel taste there are several SHRPG to choose from better
>suited to that emo crap.

Without subscribing in any way to your insulting and disparaging
characterization: absolutely yes. That`s what the R in RPG
means. Call that what you like, but if that`s not what you play RPGs
for then I can`t help but wonder why you bother at all. Go play
checkers or a computer game if you don`t want "emo crap" in your
gaming. There`s no need to play at all, and certainly no need to
disparage the setting`s materials (which are full of exactly the kind
of thing you disdain) or those who contribute to it around here.

>------------ QUOTE ----------
>On the whole, it`s just simpler (and more sensible) to just make
>bloodline take effect at some point during the transition from child
>to young adult.
>-----------------------------
>
>Simpler?
>
>Just when does the change from child to young adult occur?
>Are we talking physiological, or mental changes?
>Even rite of passage rituals at a fixed age have their problems.
>
>There`s quite a range of age.
>12-14 for physical, but starting at 9 (or even younger) sometimes,
>or delayed until 18+.
>As a side point if it`s physiological, if you castrate a boy before
>puberty will his bloodline never activate?
>
>Mental changes is wide open; from child prodigy, to someone who
>doesn`t get their shit together until their 30`s.
>What happens if the rite is disrupted or doesn`t take place? can it
>be redone/done at another time?
>
>As to the snide, "and more sensible".
>
>What`s more sensible, especially in order to perpetuate the
>bloodline, is that the Abilities are there when needed.

Well, first off, "more sensible" isn`t snide. It`s standard, neutral
English. Any emotive response you`ve had to that term is a product
of your own characterization, and I deny any such content in my original post.

So, to reiterate: yes, it is simpler and more sensible. Nobody to my
knowledge has ever in the history of gaming ever felt the need to
delve into the issues you raise as objections, and we needn`t now.

Nobody needs to know the intricacies of child development in order to
make this kind of ruling. Rather, having bloodline take effect when
the standard (D&D) rules say it occurs: at the age of young adulthood
(which varies by race.) That`s the same age at which characters gain
level and class. It`s much simpler (and still more sensible) since
that`s the same age at which characters gain the rest of their
abilities, it doesn`t create any of the problems described earlier in
this thread and supports the role-playing aspects of the game
regarding character background and development.

Gary

[Birthright-L]

At 08:48 AM 8/31/2010, dooley wrote:

>You`re using an interpretation that speeds up bloodline
>disappearance, then modifying it to slow down.
>So why go through the speed up in the first place?

The speed up is based on how I think bloodline really gets
transferred down through the generations, and using that system leads
to the extension of the idea into the "dormant" bloodline
strength. On the whole, the idea is to explain how some characters
(particularly the awnshegh based on animals) might somehow get a
bloodline and transform after a bloodtheft event even though
commoners aren`t supposed to be able to commit bloodtheft at all in
the original setting materials.

>In the 2e rules even a score of 0 meant that you could have an
>Ability 10% of the time. I`m going to pinch your dormancy idea,
>reworking it to suit MC of course, for those who don`t make the roll. TYVM:)

That`s true. The table does say "0-10" not "1-10." I don`t think
that`s what the game designers meant, though. Technically, if one is
reading it that way then commoners will have the same chance at a
blood ability as a scion with a bloodline score of 10.

Gary

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Gary <geeman1984@verizon.net> wrote:
> That`s true. *The table does say "0-10" not "1-10." *I don`t think that`s
> what the game designers meant, though. *Technically, if one is reading it
> that way then commoners will have the same chance at a blood ability as a
> scion with a bloodline score of 10.

There`s a difference between someone with a bloodline of 0, and
someone with no bloodline at all, apparently. Commoners wouldn`t have
a 0, they`d have NA.

--
Daniel McSorley

[Birthright-L]

At 03:02 PM 8/31/2010, you wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Gary <geeman1984@verizon.net> wrote:
> > That`s true. The table does say "0-10" not "1-10." I don`t think that`s
> > what the game designers meant, though. Technically, if one is reading it
> > that way then commoners will have the same chance at a blood ability as a
> > scion with a bloodline score of 10.
>
>There`s a difference between someone with a bloodline of 0, and
>someone with no bloodline at all, apparently. Commoners wouldn`t have
>a 0, they`d have NA.

I think the "0" is something that got overlooked by the editors. I`m
pretty sure the original idea was that 0 and N/A would be the same
thing. After all, it would have been easy enough to have 1d6 -1 as a
method for rolling up bloodline score, and they didn`t do that....

Gary

[dooley]

<snip>
Nobody to my
knowledge has ever in the history of gaming ever felt the need to
delve into the issues you raise as objections, and we needn`t now.

<snip>
Gary

Well that's me told.
Do I have to wear sackcloth and ashes and beat my breast in supplication over my heresy for daring to have an opinion too?

[Sorontar]

Well that's me told. Do I have to wear sackcloth and ashes and beat my breast in supplication over my heresy for daring to have an opinion too?

[shrugs] If you like doing that sort of thing, go ahead. You are welcome to play your game however you like. The point we are just making is that the issue with blood-based slavery/breeding is
(1) It (in our opinions) doesn't fit with the spirit of the campaign setting
(2) It would require a complex extension to the rules and further explanations of why it hasn't been mentioned in the existing publications
(3) It is not how the majority of us (and we suspect those who normally play RPGs) would like to play

So you are welcome to discuss it as an option for extraordinary NPC circumstances, but we wouldn't regard it as something that we would normally try to fit into the setting.

Sorontar

[Birthright-L]

At 09:18 AM 9/1/2010, dooley wrote:

>Do I have to wear sackcloth and ashes and beat my breast in
>supplication over my heresy for daring to have an opinion too?

Since you ask, that WOULD make about as much sense as the opinion
itself... but, no.

A lot of the time people have their own take on things, and they want
to post their ideas. Sometimes people want to make Birthright a
Judeo-Christian setting. Others want to put killer ninjas in
Cerilia. Some folks want to have the gods return to Aebrynis and
have a second Deismaar. That`s all well and good. Whatever keeps
respective boats afloat is fine. But one shouldn`t present ideas and
not expect other people to point out problems. If all anyone wants
is validation and approval then one shouldn`t really expect to be out
in public much. It may not seem like it, but in the both the long
and short run, criticism of the sort that has been presented here is
going to help you out because if the people around here have
questions or issues of the sort described then so will players. If
you can`t deal with us, how can you expect to deal with them face to face?

So, with that said, what are the merits of making bloodline take
effect at birth rather than upon reaching adulthood? How does it
make anything better? It`s perfectly fine to have an opinion, but
there should be some sort of basis for it, shouldn`t there? Why
bother having an opinion that doesn`t do anything other than
complicate things that already work? It`s fine to make things more
complicated, but one should have a purpose in doing so, right? Is it
worth the potential problems?

What are the merits of including a system of blooded animals? It`s
an interesting idea, and I think most folks (myself included) would
support it in some incarnation, but it needs to be thought through to
prevent it from taking a campaign in an entirely different--and
strange--direction. We already have systems for varsk ranches. The
idea of blooded varsk ranches, however, should give one pause. Does
anyone really want a sort of modernist system of blooded lab rats
born and bred for sacrifice/bloodtheft? That could be a serious
problem for any DM.

Gary

[Mirviriam]

...
Well, first off, "more sensible" isn`t snide. It`s standard, neutral
English. Any emotive response you`ve had to that term is a product
of your own characterization, and I deny any such content in my original post.
...
Gary

The language is mostly contained, applause for no cursing or obviously ignorant language. Point of fact...regardless of definition, judging your argument yourself is not neutral. Your argument's strength should have nothing to do with the other person's words. (Frequency & other quantifiable measuring are neutral)

Some great idea's in this thread though!

Sorontar: The use of majority is very deceptive on the internet...I thought it was said 2,000 visitors on average the past few months...with less than 200 active posters for a month, I don't think you can measure a majority. Even if 60% was bot's ... that's still only 200 of 600 people.

Dooley, great ideas & counter arguments ... don't retreat in to sarcasm. Always respond with positive arguments.

Whoever: The abilities breaking pregnancy are brilliant! I have to ignore the Dune thing though, I read the series last week and loved it - but BR campaign isn't economically/socially advanced enough.

As to the level of detail in human pregnancy ... if you've ever read any historical arguments about BR campaign, you've gone in to way more detail than dooley already did on other subjects. Pass if you want, but don't knock it because you're not comfortable with it.

[dooley]

[shrugs] If you like doing that sort of thing, go ahead. You are welcome to play your game however you like. The point we are just making is that the issue with blood-based slavery/breeding is
(1) It (in our opinions) doesn't fit with the spirit of the campaign setting
(2) It would require a complex extension to the rules and further explanations of why it hasn't been mentioned in the existing publications


I'll answer both of these together by noting that it already is in the campaign setting, or is Blood Spawn p13 -15 not a good enough reference?
You can choose if you wish to opine that it doesn't fit with your version of the settings spirit, but others may disagree since it's only an opinion.

What's the problem with extending the rules anyway? it seems that it's fine for many other things to be reworked.
If you've already worked out the ramifications of things it means that you won't get blindsided by your players, or have to retcon when a year later in the campaign a game breaking situation arises


(3) It is not how the majority of us (and we suspect those who normally play RPGs) would like to play

A. What majority?
B. Your hubris to speak for the multitude is telling.


So you are welcome to discuss it as an option for extraordinary NPC circumstances, but we wouldn't regard it as something that we would normally try to fit into the setting.

Sorontar

It's wonderfully ironic that limitations are being placed om my interpretation of the setting, merely because you've already decided on your interpretation as being the setting.

[dooley]

At 09:18 AM 9/1/2010, dooley wrote:

>Do I have to wear sackcloth and ashes and beat my breast in
>supplication over my heresy for daring to have an opinion too?

Since you ask, that WOULD make about as much sense as the opinion
itself... but, no.

A lot of the time people have their own take on things, and they want
to post their ideas. Sometimes people want to make Birthright a
Judeo-Christian setting. Others want to put killer ninjas in
Cerilia. Some folks want to have the gods return to Aebrynis and
have a second Deismaar. That`s all well and good. Whatever keeps
respective boats afloat is fine. But one shouldn`t present ideas and
not expect other people to point out problems. If all anyone wants
is validation and approval then one shouldn`t really expect to be out
in public much. It may not seem like it, but in the both the long
and short run, criticism of the sort that has been presented here is
going to help you out because if the people around here have
questions or issues of the sort described then so will players. If
you can`t deal with us, how can you expect to deal with them face to face?

It wasn't criticism.
You wandered off into cloud cuckoo land foisting your poor imaginings of how things worked, despite being repeatedly told that wasn't how it was. That's trolling.
You might not know but there is a difference.


So, with that said, what are the merits of making bloodline take
effect at birth rather than upon reaching adulthood? How does it
make anything better? It`s perfectly fine to have an opinion, but
there should be some sort of basis for it, shouldn`t there? Why
bother having an opinion that doesn`t do anything other than
complicate things that already work? It`s fine to make things more
complicated, but one should have a purpose in doing so, right? Is it
worth the potential problems?

Actually why don't you properly defend the position taken by yourself, this is just a side issue to me.




What are the merits of including a system of blooded animals? It`s
an interesting idea, and I think most folks (myself included) would
support it in some incarnation, but it needs to be thought through to
prevent it from taking a campaign in an entirely different--and
strange--direction. We already have systems for varsk ranches. The
idea of blooded varsk ranches, however, should give one pause. Does
anyone really want a sort of modernist system of blooded lab rats
born and bred for sacrifice/bloodtheft? That could be a serious
problem for any DM.

Gary

As mentioned elsewhere it's already there, and AGAIN I refer you back to my first response to Invoker47 in post 3.

[Sorontar]

Sorontar: The use of majority is very deceptive on the internet...I thought it was said 2,000 visitors on average the past few months...with less than 200 active posters for a month, I don't think you can measure a majority. Even if 60% was bot's ... that's still only 200 of 600 people.

Fair enough. I can't put numbers on it as it is just my interpretation of the discussion here in combination with the conversations we have had in this mailing list/forum over the last ten years or so. My opinion is that a large number of players wouldn't want to include it. You Dooley, obviously aren't one of them. I am just asking that you bear that in mind when you consider how people are responding to your posts. In turn, we would like to treat your suggestions as ideas of how the campaign setting can be adapted. We are having trouble seeing how it can be treated as an interpretation of the rules/scenario as they stand.

All criticism should be constructive. We all just have to deal it out and read it in that fashion.

Sorontar

[Mirviriam]

On tanget - I was asked to put links to some of my house rules to the main wiki. I never did because I wasn't sure it was finished & I didn't know if there was a process...Are we compiling a supplement book?

EDIT: Is that why you're looking for more uniformed view? I saw a while back someone had a mighty fortress post & one of the pdf's got permanently linked.

[Birthright-L]

At 09:01 AM 9/6/2010, dooley wrote:

>It wasn`t criticism.
>
>You wandered off into cloud cuckoo land foisting your poor imaginings of how things worked, despite being repeatedly told that wasn`t how it was. That`s trolling.
>
>You might not know but there is a difference.

It`s difficult to convey tone through text, so one should read a neutral or even friendly tone into prose on an email list. Of course, that`s not really possible when one starts using terms like "cloud cuckoo" and "poor imaginings" but still....

For the record, neither of those things ("cloud cuckoo" and "poor imaginings") qualify as trolling. Trolling is willfully attempting to disrupt a community or garner attention and controversy through provocative messages. That`s not the same as "cloud cuckoo" or "poor imaginings" neither of which actually apply to the situation either....

>>So, with that said, what are the merits of making bloodline take effect at birth rather than upon reaching adulthood? How does it
>>make anything better? It`s perfectly fine to have an opinion, but there should be some sort of basis for it, shouldn`t there? Why
>>bother having an opinion that doesn`t do anything other than complicate things that already work? It`s fine to make things more
>>complicated, but one should have a purpose in doing so, right? Is it worth the potential problems?
>
>Actually why don`t you properly defend the position taken by yourself, this is just a side issue to me.

I`ve already posted a numbered list of reasons in a previous post. I`m asking if you have a comparable set of reasons that would benefit the campaign or just a gaming session that would justify your interpretation. What are the benefits?

Since you mentioned it, if this is a side issue, what is the main issue?

>>What are the merits of including a system of blooded animals? It`s an interesting idea, and I think most folks (myself included) would
>>support it in some incarnation, but it needs to be thought through to prevent it from taking a campaign in an entirely different--and
>>strange--direction. We already have systems for varsk ranches. The idea of blooded varsk ranches, however, should give one pause. Does anyone really want a sort of modernist system of blooded lab rats born and bred for sacrifice/bloodtheft? That could be a serious problem for any DM.
>
>As mentioned elsewhere it`s already there, and AGAIN I refer you back to my first response to Invoker47 in post 3.

In that response you wrote that "Characters sewing the seeds of their own destruction through greed, it`s enough to bring a smile to any
DM." That is the one you mean, correct?

Assuming so, I guess that`s true for some folks, though I don`t think I find it as amusing as you do.... At the risk of provoking another defensive post in response, I don`t find that answer to be particularly forthcoming or informative. Please have another look at the questions quoted above. If you can be more specific than "characters (by which you mean players, I think) sewing the seeds of their own destruction..." what are the actual benefits to the campaign for such an interpretation? Sure, a DM might take it as the players sewing the seeds of their own destruction, but my reading of your posts has been more to indicate that you`re proposing such things from the DM`s point of view rather than as a player. Are you saying you DON`T think such a thing is a good idea in the setting and that as the DM you would oppose it?

Gary

[Mirviriam]

Fair enough. I can't put numbers on it as it is just my interpretation of the discussion here in combination with the conversations we have had in this mailing list/forum over the last ten years or so. My opinion is that a large number of players wouldn't want to include it. You Dooley, obviously aren't one of them. I am just asking that you bear that in mind when you consider how people are responding to your posts. In turn, we would like to treat your suggestions as ideas of how the campaign setting can be adapted. We are having trouble seeing how it can be treated as an interpretation of the rules/scenario as they stand.

All criticism should be constructive. We all just have to deal it out and read it in that fashion.

Sorontar

Sorontor: Why are you quoting me, but talking to dooley?

To save me double post:

There's two reasons I'm posting instead of lurking. A third one occurred to me as I was comparing this forum to the battletech ones where I programmed for their webplay.

1) I care that an old ideology of evil always loses in the end is blunting what could be a very constructive & interesting addition to the wiki, so I called out the participants to reform their methods & not use the morally/logically weak methods such as:

Ad hominem, isolation mind games (using "we", "the community feels"), apologizing for your opinion (as seen in all the movies representing good Christian house wives gossiping), dismissive arguments (unless you're the OP, as you direct the thread it's your right), fob off your idea's as some expert, group of experts or common consensus to lend it strength which it does not have on it's own.

2) It's why the forum is here...people, whom we don't know, posting things we wouldn't discuss with the intent of a better game. Some of the arguments were at the least creative & it should be recognized.

3) You guys need to thank dooley for caring enough about the game to even bother posting. I recently met a security guard - he thanks people even when they make mistakes! For the opportunity to speak with them etc, it's almost hilarious - except the fact that he's completely sincere!

[Sorontar]

Sorontor: Why are you quoting me, but talking to dooley?

Because it is a conversation and to keep it in context. I was responding to both of you as well as speaking to everyone.



I called out the participants to reform their methods & not use the morally/logically weak methods such as:


I have no problem with you doing that. However, what I have been trying to say is this discussion is fine for Br.net in my opinion, but all participants (and not just Dooley) have to realise that everyone has an opinion and sometimes they conflict. Therefore, rather than arguing about the conflict lets use constructive criticism and try to make it sound like constructive criticism and read other's posts as constructive criticism.

The only problem about this was that I too had an opinion on the matter, which I declared. Therefore, I was talking to myself as well.

Your comments Dooley are interesting. They just don't fit into my Birthright. Part of the problem is that the discussion so far has largely been about they fit into your view of Birthright and how they don't fit into the Birthright of others. We need to find a middle ground/understanding so that we can help you improve how they fit into your Birthright.



3) You guys need to thank dooley for caring enough about the game to even bother posting. I recently met a security guard - he thanks people even when they make mistakes! For the opportunity to speak with them etc, it's almost hilarious - except the fact that he's completely sincere!

Sounds like the New Zealand police according to some of the tv shows I have seen. They seem so overly polite even when they are arresting people.

Sorontar

[Mirviriam]

Because it is a conversation and to keep it in context. I was responding to both of you as well as speaking to everyone.



You said both of us twice now, I'm not understanding what makes you link dooley & I together. His opinions are not mine. I merely thought to help improve the community of birthright.

One step Gary, you or anyone who knows should explain where the power to claim king of copyright stems from & the process they use to vet materials?

Thank you for your message early this week too. It helped restore my faith in public forums. Birthright has a better quality of character than many D&D forums, or I would have never come back after 2001 & you reminded me of that in your message.

[Birthright-L]

At 07:32 AM 9/15/2010, Mirviriam wrote:

>One step Gary, you or anyone who knows should explain where the
>power to claim king of copyright stems from & the process they use
>to vet materials?

King of copyright? I`d imagine he comes from one of the goblin realms....

You mean who has the copyright for BR? Or do you mean what the
current standards for copyright itself are?

If the former, the copyright holder for Birthright would be
WotC. They bought out TSR and the copyright transfers. Depending on
what country your in (and how savvy/despicable the attorneys and
their corporate masters are in that country) copyright for creative
works normally goes for the life of the creator +70 years. So,
Birthright won`t be in the public domain for some time. It`s a
little shakier when copyright runs out for corporations, however,
since they don`t really ever die. Normally that means just the 70
years, but in the past 30 years corporations have gained more and
more rights, so I wouldn`t be surprised if they get the vote soon,
and as they never actually die.... A lot of things that people
normally think are copyrights are really trademarks, and trademarks
never go away. Mickey Mouse, for example, isn`t actually a
copyright. He`s a symbol--a trademark. So, even if it were 70 years
after Walt Disney died (he died in 1966--so 26-7 years more) it
doesn`t matter. Even if WotC lost the copyright for BR materials,
they could retain the logo.

There are a lot of loopholes in the whole copyright law,
however. For example, there is "fair use" which means you can
directly quote a small portion of any particular work at any
time. How small a portion depends a bit on what kind of work it is,
but generally it amounts to a page or three of a short novel. So, if
someone were to reproduce a page from one of the Birthright texts
they probably would not lose a copyright lawsuit. They still might
be sued, but they`d win. Winning the case, however, doesn`t mean
someone would really win since that`s an awful lot of time and effort
to deal with, so just being threatened with a lawsuit is usually
enough to get people to stop what they`re doing.

There`s also an issue with derivative works. Most of the
contributions to the Birthright.net download section are owned by the
people who wrote them. Copyright is assumed these days, even if the
person doesn`t make any particular effort to establish it. However,
because those things are based on the Birthright original materials,
they are considered derivative works. As such, the owners of that
original material could at any time require that such derivative
works not be sold or publicly distributed. Nobody can tell anyone
what to do with their own creations in the privacy of their own home,
or in a very limited distribution (family, friends, professional
relationships, etc.) but owners of original material could step in
and require any derivative not be put on something like a public
forum. WotC could NOT take those files and publish them for a profit
since the authors own the copyright, but they could prevent someone
from distributing those works because they own the original materials
upon which they are based.

Only rarely does that actually happen, though, and I`ve never heard
of it being done for fan-inspired creations distributed for
free--even the worst of them. Lots of people like to write Star Trek
inspired erotica, for instance. I`m sure that makes Gene Roddenberry
turn over in his grave, but it doesn`t seem to inspire Paramount to
halt it being published on the Internet. It really only happens if
someone tries to sell their derivative work, and even then only if
the money involved is worth the effort of the copyright holder
starting a lawsuit. (The last time I talked this over with a lawyer,
she told me that few lawfirms will touch a case unless the damages
will amount to $90,000 minimum. Lawyers get 1/3, so they need
$30,000 to break even. That was about 10 years ago, and it wasn`t
about something as detail oriented as copyright. I`m sure it`s more
than that now.)

WotC could step in at any time around here and put a halt to the
distribution of lot of the stuff folks have published, but it would
be expensive and time consuming to do so, and most importantly not in
their best interest. It`s just not a good idea to sue your
fans. Besides, we actually are supporting the company by creating
new material, and anyone whose taken a Marketing class in the last 40
years is going to realize that. Even those guys who have made whole
new seasons of Star Trek based on the OS don`t get in trouble, even
though they do have some sponsorship....

When Birthright.net was "official" and the BR updates were as well
there were a lot of license agreements and that sort of stuff flying
around. I wasn`t involved in any of that stuff directly, but I`m
sure the folks who were could provide some insights.

With all that said, however, there is an interesting argument to be
made for "abandoned" or an otherwise unenforced copyright being
lost. This one usually doesn`t get exploited too often, but when a
copyright holder doesn`t protect that copyright then it can go away,
particularly if the copyright isn`t serving the purpose of copyright
in the first place (to protect innovation and allow for creators to
recoup their expenses along with a profit meant to encourage such
people.) In recent years, some folks have been arguing that things
like computer software has accelerated the speed of copyright
abandonment, and where the technology goes, so goes the rest of the
world (usually.) The licence that D20 was issued under, for example,
was based on a lot of copyright licensing thinking that went into
software copyright release. The current incarnation of D&D appears
to have gone more old school when it comes to copyright, and it looks
to me like they`ve managed to put the genie back in the bottle pretty
well. Microsoft "owns" Windows 3.0--but unless they actively protect
that copyright, it might not exist anymore. What about some old
text-based game? If someone were to make a graphic version and the
original owner doesn`t do anything, then they probably can`t do
anything about someone who makes an updated, 3D version of that same
game. Of course, no corporation is going to acknowledge that kind of
reasoning, and they tend to be the side with the most
lawyers. (Lawyers are like artillery: the side with the most usually
wins--and they are both noisy, obnoxious, self-destructive errors of
human civilization....)

Right now, I seriously doubt there is anybody from WotC watching the
Birthright community, and it`s hard to imagine them suddenly growing
interested in us unless somehow lots of other people start getting
interested first. Even if that were to happen, the smart thing would
be for them to use a revitalized BR community as a portal to the
other product lines, so it`s really unlikely they`d do anything to
stifle contributors.

>Thank you for your message early this week too. It helped restore
>my faith in public forums. Birthright has a better quality of
>character than many D&D forums, or I would have never come back
>after 2001 & you reminded me of that in your message.

Usually we stay pretty civil around here. Every once is a while
people go D&D-l (which was notorious for personal attacks for a long
time) but even then its often based on some misunderstanding rather
than outright trollishness. In my opinion, BR does lend itself to a
more "politically minded" so there is a more debatey style to the
participants as a general rule. Some folks seem to take that kind of
argument personally, which can make it tough to participate sometimes.

Plus, there does seem to be a particular kind of Internet user who
posts not because they want to converse, but because they are looking
for validation. That`s all well and good. I like validation as much
as the next guy.... Not a lot of validating goes on around here,
though. We`re more likely to critique.

Gary

[Sorontar]

You said both of us twice now, I'm not understanding what makes you link dooley & I together. His opinions are not mine. I merely thought to help improve the community of birthright.

:^) Don't worry I wasn't putting you both in the same box with regards to opinions. I was merely talking to everyone, but in the same paragraph I was directly responding to what Dooley had said and what you had said about my previous response to Dooley. In separate ways you were both questioning the validility of my response, so I was trying to explain that I was basing it on personal experience not statistics. I felt that that was a suitable explanation that partly responded to both of you. If not, so be it.

I'm just glad we have stopped a flamewar (which was my original aim and why I tried to summarise the debate), but we need to get back on topic and discuss the topic at hand, hopefully all with a better idea of what angle each other is looking at this debate from. As Gary said, we like to critique here. If someone comes up with a new idea, we will review and try to find its flaws so as to make it a better idea. Unfortunately, that we take that approach isn't always obvious.



Thank you for your message early this week too. It helped restore my faith in public forums. Birthright has a better quality of character than many D&D forums, or I would have never come back after 2001 & you reminded me of that in your message.

Not sure who you are directly that to, but I am always glad to see new contributors (or old ones returning). Now if only we could get people adding to the wiki!

Sorontar

[dooley]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back (Ignoring the catcalls of "Why did you bother?" from the peanut gallery ;)) but RL got in the way.

Gary asked what I thought the main issue was, I'm still of the opinion that Blooded Animals is, as that's what the thread began as.

However there are several different but interconnected things being discussed.

1 Blooded Animals as a Resource.
My take on things:
One type already exists according to the source books, and they are valuable.
As a function of game mechanics there is a source of others.
There's money to be made so somebody will do it.

Somebody will always interfere eventually, but lots of money could be made in the interim:
In the case of an NPC it'll either be another NPC that the PCs get to hear about, or the PCs themselves.
In the case of a PC, who probably gained the idea by putting down such a scheme run by an "Evil" NPC, it'll be the other PCs or avenging Rangers and Druids, people stealing the stock or the secret breeding manuals etc. Plus the problems raised by others here could also raise their heads, inbreeding rather than linebreeding, parasites etc.
This seemed so obvious to me that I was just glib about it in post #3


2 How absolute is the change of shape?
My take is that it is such, and that progeny will be viable. Others disagree


3 How long will a bloodline in animals remain viable?
Who really knows, and to be honest who really cares? Profit can be made in the interim.


4 When do blood line and abilities manifest and why?
In 2e gain bloodline derivation, score, and strength at birth, no mention of when abilities manifest.
In 3e/d20/etc gain bloodline derivation, score, and strength at conception (nicely closing the strange quirk of father's blood changing being able to affect the baby's in those 9ish months, shame about losing any benefits from mum though) then being latent until 12-14 usually.

I still have 2 main problems with the latter.
Firstly, despite opinions here to the counter, I can find no rules reference of not being able to commit blood theft on a child. The terms used are Latent and Dormant, neither implying that it is unavailable to be taken. If there is such direct me to it please.

Secondly
Why do they manifest at 12-14?
I will admit that it's easier to say they do then because that's when gaining first level, but I fail to see the causal link.
Could someone please point me in the direction of the underlying mechanism, so when my players ask I have something better than, "that's just how it is!"

Somebody mentioned somewhere about one of their PCs having their abilities first manifest when needed. IMO many of them are needed well before in double digits, and I'd again like to thank Gary for the idea that some are needed before birth. As to why there's no reference to it, I think I'll rely on quoting from p112 of BoR, "Dungeon Masters should not limit themselves to recorded events. Over 1,500 years have elapsed since the Battle of Mount Deismaar—certainly not all of the world’s events can be detailed in BIRTHRIGHT sourcebooks and accessories. DMs should create their own legendary battles, magical events, and incredible happenings."

[dooley]

I think the "0" is something that got overlooked by the editors. I`m
pretty sure the original idea was that 0 and N/A would be the same
thing. After all, it would have been easy enough to have 1d6 -1 as a
method for rolling up bloodline score, and they didn`t do that....

Alternately it could be for those Regents who've lost Bloodline Score (though in the rules they say strength, sloppy editing on p48) due to failing to address Divestiture or a random event etc. Any child born at this time, could also have a Blood Score of 0. This is using the 2e rules obviously as that's where the table is from.


I assume you`re talking about Anneke Sturmdotter from the KotG
accessory. Well, OK, I accept the reference, but this is a case in
which I think you`re wildly misinterpreting the evidence. First off,
that is a 2nd edition character written up to describe a frail old
woman at the end of her life. She`s not REALLY 0-level. She`s near
death. Her 0-level status is meant to describe her
frailty. Secondly, he portrayal of a character having a bloodline at
0-level at the END of her life doesn`t really work to validate the
idea that people should get a bloodline BEFORE they reach
0-level. In AS`s case, she`s DECLINED to 0-level after a lifetime of
being a scion.

Without one reference to her having a former career (class), all we're doing is interpreting the material differently. Who's to say which of us is wildly misinterpreting things. Many other frail old people have been described in D&D, but if there was something about them being a former priest, rogue, warrior etc. it's usually mentioned. The fact that you're using your unsubstantiated claim that she USED to have a level to prove that you need a class before get a bloodline is just wrong on so many levels.