PDA

View Full Version : Blood Level & Blood Points



Birthright-L
05-21-2002, 11:40 AM
Hi there,

I have an idea for a new way of handling bloodline accumulation and
increase, hopefully better than the original one. To do this, I introduce
two new concept: Blood Level & Blood Points.

Each time you commit bloodtheft, are invested with someones bloodline, or
are born a scion to blooded parents, you get a number of Blood Points
(BP) equal to the Blood Level (BL) of the donor. Gather enough BP and you
raise a BL. In order to go from one BL to the next, you need BP equal
to the next BL. This results in the following table:

BLOOD LEVEL BLOOD POINTS
0 0
1 1
2 3
3 6
4 10
5 15
6 21
7 28
8 36
9 45
10 55
11 66
12 78
13 91
14 105
15 120
16 136
17 153
18 171
19 190
20 210

This table shows the total number of BP required to reach a BL, or in other
words, the number of BP a unblooded (BL 0) person needs to get there. This
number is 1/2 * n * (n + 1), where n is the BL you want to reach. It works a
bit like XP and CL, really.

Some short examples:

Unblooded person commits bloodtheft of BL 20 scion. He gains 20 BP. He has
0, because he`s BL 0. 0 + 20 = 20, so now he has 20 BP, which means he`s now
BL 5. The same would be true if he had been invested with the blood, instead
of stealing it.

BL 19 kills a BL 1. He had 190 BP and gains 1, so now he has 191 BP, which
doesn`t gain him anything, really. But if he were to kill another 19 BL 1s,
he would achieve BL 20. If if he had just killed a BL 20 in the first place,
he would`ve achieved it instantly. The same would be true if had gained the
blood through investiture, instead of theft.

Scion is born of two blooded parents. One is BL 10, the other BL 11. The
newborn gets 10 + 11 = 21 BP, which gives her BL 6. Later, both parents
invest her with their bloodlines, which gives her another 21 BP, which gives
her BL 8, at 41 BP, just 4 BP away from BL 9. If her parents would`ve been
BL 5 & 6, she would`ve been born BL 4, with 11 BP instead, and later
would`ve achieved BL 6, with 22 BP, through investiture. Or if one parent is
BL 1 and the other BL 0, the child is born BL 1, with 1 BP, and is later
invested to 2 BP, but still BL 1. With both parents BL 1, the child is born
BL 1, with 2 BP, and later invested to BL 2, with 4 BP.

Some obvious points here:

BL increase can go extremely fast at the lower levels, as you can see, but
as you progress in BL it slows down quite a bit. I would recommend to
usually keep bloodtheft and investiture at a maximum of 4 BLs difference
between donor and recipient, to both prevent too massive increases in BL at
the lower level, and also to keep things like bloodtheft and investiture a
bit more meaningful at the higher levels, though it`s of course by no means
required.

The higher your BL, the lower your children`s BLs will be in comparison.
Basically, this means that strong bloodlines are harder to keep at the same
level in the family than weak bloodlines are, which would seem to make
sense. However, a child is never born with a BL higher than either of its
parents, and can only be invested by its parents to a BL one higher than the
parent with the highest BL, and then only if the BL of the other parent is
of a comparable level.

Anyhow, remember that bloodtheft only succeeds if the target is killed with
a critical hit, and then only if the weapon dealing the lethal blow
physically connects the victim to a recipient. It doesn`t matter though
exactly how the critical hit is achieved.

Finally, if you commit bloodtheft with a tighmaevril weapon, you gain a 20%
bonus on the number of BP you gain.


Comments please,

- the Falcon


------------------------------------------
"I`ve got the Dungeon Master`s Guide
I`ve got a 12-sided die
I`ve got Kitty Pryde and Nightcrawler too
Waiting there for me, yes I do
I do"
- from "In The Garage", by Weezer
------------------------------------------

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

Birthright-L
05-23-2002, 05:28 PM
On Tue, 21 May 2002, the Falcon wrote:

> Each time you commit bloodtheft, are invested with someones bloodline, or
> are born a scion to blooded parents, you get a number of Blood Points
> (BP) equal to the Blood Level (BL) of the donor. Gather enough BP and you
> raise a BL. In order to go from one BL to the next, you need BP equal
> to the next BL.

I think this is a great idea. I had already started doing bloodtheft this
way, but I had not incorporated birth or investiture.

> This number is 1/2 * n * (n + 1), where n is the BL you want to reach.
> It works a bit like XP and CL, really.

BL as a function of BP is identical to CL - 1 as a function of XP/1000. =)
It is also identical to the number of RP needed to raise the bloodline up
from zero (a concept I like, though some here have complained about),
which is what first gave me the idea.

> The higher your BL, the lower your children`s BLs will be in comparison.

This is the one thing that worries me about your model. Two 5s have 4s;
two 35s have 11s; and a marriage of an Avan to a Boeruine (70 and 60)
produces children whose bloodline is only 15!

> Basically, this means that strong bloodlines are harder to keep at the
> same level in the family than weak bloodlines are, which would seem to
> make sense.

So what you`re saying is that marriage of a high noble to a low noble
produces children who are low nobles, rather than high ones. Some
inheritance systems have worked this way, and some the other. What
bothers me is that in your model, two high nobles still have only low
nobles for children! This might reflect a culture in which deeds are far
more important than birth, but I don`t think it fits Cerilia very well.
What I would be inclined to do instead is say that the child`s starting
blood points are the average of the parents` blood points. This produces
the same result as the "average the levels" approach of the standard rules
when the bloodlines are identical (whereas yours is roughly twice the
square root of the average), and when they are far apart tilts the result
in favor of the higher bloodline (a system of inheritance that treats
mixed marriages as closer to the higher class). For 70+0 (Prince Avan and
the milkmaid?) the standard method gives 35, whereas yours gives 11 and
mine gives 49; I can see all of these as reasonable answers. For 60+70,
my suggestion gives the children 65, same as the standard; your method`s
answer of just 15 strikes me as much too low, especially the way I
perceive Anuire as working. There also seems to be almost no way that, in
your model, there could be noble families with bloodlines of 60 or 70
after over 1,500 years (about 60 generations!) of mating.

> Anyhow, remember that bloodtheft only succeeds if the target is killed
> with a critical hit, and then only if the weapon dealing the lethal
> blow physically connects the victim to a recipient.

Then remember the utility of paralytic spells and poisons, so you can
auto-crit them later! Personally, I feel like encouraging the
"Highlander" aspect of the setting, so IMC the "must stab them through the
heart" thing is a myth (that the blooded prefer the commoners to believe,
to keep casual bloodline-seeking murder rarer), and any kill in melee
(including with a touch spell) is good enough. I`ve also envisioned (but
not run) a plot in which a commoner happens to be touching (dressing,
selling fruit to, being healed by, etc.) a blooded scion who is killed by
an assassin using a missile weapon, which inadvertently provides the
commoner with the slain noble`s bloodline through accidental "bloodtheft".

> Finally, if you commit bloodtheft with a tighmaevril weapon, you gain
> a 20% bonus on the number of BP you gain.

I`d make tighmaevril much more efficient -- give the slayer a fraction
(half, perhaps) of the victim`s BP to add to his/her own. This makes them
much more important when dealing with really powerful bloodlines, as seems
mythically appropriate to me.


Ryan Caveney

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

Peter Lubke
05-24-2002, 07:38 AM
> This is the one thing that worries me about your model. Two 5s have 4s;
> two 35s have 11s; and a marriage of an Avan to a Boeruine (70 and 60)
> produces children whose bloodline is only 15!
>
> > Basically, this means that strong bloodlines are harder to keep at the
> > same level in the family than weak bloodlines are, which would seem to
> > make sense.
>
> So what you`re saying is that marriage of a high noble to a low noble
> produces children who are low nobles, rather than high ones. Some
> inheritance systems have worked this way, and some the other. What
> bothers me is that in your model, two high nobles still have only low
> nobles for children! This might reflect a culture in which deeds are far
> more important than birth, but I don`t think it fits Cerilia very well.

Well, not Anuire it doesn`t fit so well. I wouldn`t go so far as to
claim that for all Cerilia. But even in Anuire both of your arguments
have some serious holes.

Anuirean realms (if not domains) are passed on to a single heir intact
along with the original bloodline in most cases. Invested Inheritance.
This preserves the original bloodline and the domain intact. The
original bloodline of the heir (if any) is not relevant in determining
their fitness to the succession.

The concept that bloodline equals nobility is pretty damn worrying. Not
all blooded characters are nobles, nor are all nobles necessarily
blooded, nor need all nobles be regents. Certainly, landed regents who
are nobles must have bloodlines - but this does not imply that more
blood equals greater nobility either. (And most landed regents either
are given or take a title)

"These days a regent`s noble title does little more than reflect the
heritage of his kingdom." - RoE, p7.

It would be Anuirean culture (the "Book of Laws") that determines the
rules of succession - who inherits what title etc. e.g. In Ilien the
Count of the source book as adopted by the previous Count and as such
bears his name (he is a de-facto member of the Aglondier family). His
daughter, the Lady Alliene was born before the adoption and is thus a
member of her fathers old family (her father would have to adopt her to
make her an Aglondier too!). That Anuire is patrilineal is denoted by
the use of sire-names as the family name.


> What I would be inclined to do instead is say that the child`s starting
> blood points are the average of the parents` blood points. This produces
> the same result as the "average the levels" approach of the standard rules
> when the bloodlines are identical (whereas yours is roughly twice the
> square root of the average), and when they are far apart tilts the result
> in favor of the higher bloodline (a system of inheritance that treats
> mixed marriages as closer to the higher class). For 70+0 (Prince Avan and
> the milkmaid?) the standard method gives 35, whereas yours gives 11 and
> mine gives 49; I can see all of these as reasonable answers. For 60+70,
> my suggestion gives the children 65, same as the standard; your method`s
> answer of just 15 strikes me as much too low, especially the way I
> perceive Anuire as working.

> There also seems to be almost no way that, in
> your model, there could be noble families with bloodlines of 60 or 70
> after over 1,500 years (about 60 generations!) of mating.

Of course there is ! Direct investiture inheritance preserves the
bloodline totally - there is no loss in an unbroken line of lateral
descent even to the point of adopting an heir where no natural heir is
present. In the event of failure to designate an heir the land will
normally choose one, - given that the land`s choice reflects the will of
the people and the will of the gods (and the almighty DM too), such a
choice will normally follow the culturally established lines of
succession -- even to finding a distant and unknown seven-generations
removed natural heir.

>
> > Anyhow, remember that bloodtheft only succeeds if the target is killed
> > with a critical hit, and then only if the weapon dealing the lethal
> > blow physically connects the victim to a recipient.

Critical hit ! pshaw ! stuff and nonsense ! (don`t tell me that the 3e
authors are having their own attempt at a critical hit system - I`ll bet
it`s just as flawed as the last hundred or so attempts)

The rules as written for 2e only required that the killing blow be
through the heart. No official system at all allows for such a blow in
normal combat. So how was one to administer the killing blow ?

The answer my friend is simple. If you are using the 0 hit points equals
death rule you are out of luck - it can`t be done deliberately. (the DM
is then free to interpret whether or not the killing stroke may have
been a blow through the heart but no called shot or critical hit can do
it for you)

If you are using the optional rules, from either 2e or 1e (the 1e ones
are much better but 2e seems to be an abridged copy) - then as long as
you haven`t killed the victim outright and can safely administer a
killing blow, you can choose to stab them through the heart at will. (no
roll, no critical hit, nada, instant death!)

Any conversion to 3e should have created a parallel form, neither easier
nor more difficult.

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

kgauck
05-24-2002, 12:02 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:37 AM


> The concept that bloodline equals nobility is pretty damn worrying.

I think its one of the central concepts of the setting.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

Peter Lubke
05-24-2002, 02:37 PM
On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 21:35, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:37 AM
>
>
> > The concept that bloodline equals nobility is pretty damn worrying.
>
> I think its one of the central concepts of the setting.

One of the popular misconceptions you mean.
(if that was a troll then I apologize)

You can`t be seriously suggesting to this forum that ALL blooded
characters are inherently titled nobles. Quite apart from the
overwhelming evidence to the contrary in every single source book, and
the logical absurdity of such a statement from both the historical and
genealogical point of view, there is the direct statements to the
contrary in the rulebook.

Let`s start at p20 (Bloodlines, the first time it`s mentioned after the
intro) and I quote "great numbers of high-born nobles, courtiers,
advisers, and government officials come from mundane heritages." and
again "...hundreds of blooded characters also exist ... who aren`t in
line for the crown."

How do you work backwards from "All rulers of realms are blooded" and
(implied but not even necessarily true "Rulers of realms are nobles") to
"All blooded characters are nobles." ?

My dog is brindled. Dogs are animals. Therefore all brindled animals are
dogs.

Seriously, education these days isn`t what it used to be. There seems as
almost complete lack of set theory, logic, grammar, reading
comprehension and other disciplines in place of "equality of learning".
(that is, learning at the pace of the weakest member of the group)

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

Birthright-L
05-24-2002, 03:06 PM
On Fri, 24 May 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:

> Invested Inheritance. This preserves the original bloodline and the
> domain intact. The original bloodline of the heir (if any) is not
> relevant in determining their fitness to the succession.

This is what the standard rules say, but it is not what Falcon`s model
says. He does bloodline investiture the same way he does birth and
bloodtheft: bloodline score ("blood level") of donor is added to "blood
points" of recipient, whose new bloodline score is determined by reference
to the table (or formula). In Falcon`s model, if Prince Avan (BL 70) has
a child by an unblooded woman, that child has 70 blood points and thus a
blood level of 11. If Avan then invests that child with the entirety of
his bloodline, the child adds another 70 blood points, bringing the total
to 140 for a resultant blood level of 16 -- exactly what the child would
have had at birth if both its parents had blood levels of 70. If both
parents did in fact have blood levels of 70, and both invested their child
with their bloodlines, the child would have 280 blood points and therefore
a total blood level of just 23. In Falcon`s model, it is impossible to
keep bloodlines as high as are found in the source books without imagining
constant bloodtheft on a vast scale, or the expenditure of immense numbers
of RP (which ISTR he personally opposes).

> Not all blooded characters are nobles, nor are all nobles necessarily
> blooded, nor need all nobles be regents.

IMO, blooded characters are the very definition of having "noble blood",
whether or not they have a title. A blooded character is favored by the
gods, favored by them with the power to rule in a way that an unblooded
person simply has no ability to emulate. Birthright makes the doctrine of
"divine right of kings" into an undeniable truth (and, for that matter, a
game mechanic) -- certain people in Cerilia make inherently superior
regents simply by virtue of the blood they have inherited from their
parents. That doesn`t mean they all are regents, but they all are
descended from "noble stock".


Ryan Caveney

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

ConjurerDragon
05-24-2002, 03:17 PM
Hello!

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>...
>
>>Not all blooded characters are nobles, nor are all nobles necessarily
>>blooded, nor need all nobles be regents.
>>
>
>IMO, blooded characters are the very definition of having "noble blood",
>whether or not they have a title. A blooded character is favored by the
>gods, favored by them with the power to rule in a way that an unblooded
>person simply has no ability to emulate. Birthright makes the doctrine of
>"divine right of kings" into an undeniable truth (and, for that matter, a
>game mechanic) -- certain people in Cerilia make inherently superior
>regents simply by virtue of the blood they have inherited from their
>parents. That doesn`t mean they all are regents, but they all are
>descended from "noble stock".
>
Maybe "noble" does confuse some people, who imagine a lord and his
family, or a knight when thinking of nobles.
However even a filthy thief might be blooded with Brenna´s bloodline
and a brutal barbarian mercenary with Azrais blood.
A blooded character is considered more than a normal human, even if he
is no regent, even if he holds no title at all
(Iron Throne had the half-elf son of the chamberlain who encountered a
great deal of respect AFTER the humans discovered he was blooded, before
he was a scorned half-breed).

Think maybe of HERCULES when it comes to blooded characters - they are
not sons of gods but have godly powers and the blood of gods in their
veins. Or at least the unblooded people should treat them similar.
bye
Michael Romes

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

Peter Lubke
05-24-2002, 03:44 PM
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 01:00, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
> > Invested Inheritance. This preserves the original bloodline and the
> > domain intact. The original bloodline of the heir (if any) is not
> > relevant in determining their fitness to the succession.
>
> This is what the standard rules say, but it is not what Falcon`s model
> says.
Aaah ... okay

> He does bloodline investiture the same way he does birth and
> bloodtheft: bloodline score ("blood level") of donor is added to "blood
> points" of recipient, whose new bloodline score is determined by reference
> to the table (or formula). In Falcon`s model, if Prince Avan (BL 70) has
> a child by an unblooded woman, that child has 70 blood points and thus a
> blood level of 11. If Avan then invests that child with the entirety of
> his bloodline, the child adds another 70 blood points, bringing the total
> to 140 for a resultant blood level of 16 -- exactly what the child would
> have had at birth if both its parents had blood levels of 70. If both
> parents did in fact have blood levels of 70, and both invested their child
> with their bloodlines, the child would have 280 blood points and therefore
> a total blood level of just 23. In Falcon`s model, it is impossible to
> keep bloodlines as high as are found in the source books without imagining
> constant bloodtheft on a vast scale, or the expenditure of immense numbers
> of RP (which ISTR he personally opposes).

Only Anuire and (sometimes Brechtur) are very high. The highest Vos from
memory is An44, and after that we are talking low 30`s max. But yeah, a
system must be able to explain even the high Awnsheghlien bloodlines to
get a vote from me.

>
> > Not all blooded characters are nobles, nor are all nobles necessarily
> > blooded, nor need all nobles be regents.
>
> IMO, blooded characters are the very definition of having "noble blood",
> whether or not they have a title.
Well that`s different. That may be, although the evidence would suggest
otherwise, it`s a harder case to prove against.

> A blooded character is favored by the
> gods, favored by them with the power to rule in a way that an unblooded
> person simply has no ability to emulate.
(that`s almost if not a tautology)

> Birthright makes the doctrine of
> "divine right of kings" into an undeniable truth (and, for that matter, a
> game mechanic) -- certain people in Cerilia make inherently superior
> regents simply by virtue of the blood they have inherited from their
> parents. That doesn`t mean they all are regents, but they all are
> descended from "noble stock".

Just as long as you distinguish between "ability" and "right". They may
be Noble-capable by blood, but this gives them no rights or titles -
just a god-given ability to forge a domain. In other words, they have
the innate potential to become Kings etc. the divine right of kings is
post the fact - and a trifle misplaced in renaissance or late medieval
kings (as James was soon to find out when he pressed the point).

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

Peter Lubke
05-24-2002, 03:44 PM
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 01:09, Michael Romes wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>
> >...
> >
> >>Not all blooded characters are nobles, nor are all nobles necessarily
> >>blooded, nor need all nobles be regents.
> >>
> >
> >IMO, blooded characters are the very definition of having "noble blood",
> >whether or not they have a title. A blooded character is favored by the
> >gods, favored by them with the power to rule in a way that an unblooded
> >person simply has no ability to emulate. Birthright makes the doctrine of
> >"divine right of kings" into an undeniable truth (and, for that matter, a
> >game mechanic) -- certain people in Cerilia make inherently superior
> >regents simply by virtue of the blood they have inherited from their
> >parents. That doesn`t mean they all are regents, but they all are
> >descended from "noble stock".
> >
> Maybe "noble" does confuse some people, who imagine a lord and his
> family, or a knight when thinking of nobles.
> However even a filthy thief might be blooded with Brenna´s bloodline
> and a brutal barbarian mercenary with Azrais blood.
> A blooded character is considered more than a normal human, even if he
> is no regent, even if he holds no title at all
> (Iron Throne had the half-elf son of the chamberlain who encountered a
> great deal of respect AFTER the humans discovered he was blooded, before
> he was a scorned half-breed).
>
> Think maybe of HERCULES when it comes to blooded characters - they are
> not sons of gods but have godly powers and the blood of gods in their
> veins. Or at least the unblooded people should treat them similar.
> bye
> Michael Romes

exactly

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

geeman
05-24-2002, 05:11 PM
At 12:14 AM 5/25/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

> > > The concept that bloodline equals nobility is pretty damn worrying.
> >
> > I think its one of the central concepts of the setting.
>
>One of the popular misconceptions you mean.
>(if that was a troll then I apologize)
>
>You can`t be seriously suggesting to this forum that ALL blooded
>characters are inherently titled nobles. Quite apart from the overwhelming
>evidence to the contrary in every single source book, and
>the logical absurdity of such a statement from both the historical and
>genealogical point of view, there is the direct statements to the contrary
>in the rulebook.

There are several steps between the "one of the central concepts of the
setting" statement and the "All blooded characters are inherently titled
nobles" conclusion, so I don`t think that`s what was being
suggested. Bloodlines are one of the central concepts of the BR setting,
however, and I`m not sure what is so troubling about that concept, so maybe
you could extrapolate on what the problem is with that as you see it?

>Let`s start at p20 (Bloodlines, the first time it`s mentioned after the
>intro) and I quote "great numbers of high-born nobles, courtiers,
>advisers, and government officials come from mundane heritages." and again
>"...hundreds of blooded characters also exist ... who aren`t in line for
>the crown."
>
>How do you work backwards from "All rulers of realms are blooded" and
>(implied but not even necessarily true "Rulers of realms are nobles") to
>"All blooded characters are nobles." ?

None of the characters from the p20 quote need necessarily have a
bloodline. All nobles are not blooded--depending on what point in the
social hierarchy you`re defining as the nobility. It`s easy to imagine
non-blooded minor nobles and functionaries, all of whom participate at the
realm level in a kind of ancillary way, working for and below to the realm
level of nobility. The mayor of a town, selectman of a council, priest in
charge of a cathedral are all titled positions, all of which need not
necessarily require a bloodline. It`s also easy to picture the "second
son" syndrome in which people with bloodlines wind up "finding their level"
below the realm level nobility due to the weird interaction with BR
bloodlines with the use of RL titular inheritance. Scions could wind up
outside the titular nobility just because their families run out of titles....

If one were to design a society that had BR bloodlines, however, it`d
probably be more likely that blooded characters would get noble status,
even minor noble status, if they have bloodlines. Where RL nobility is
often posited on divine providence, in BR it really is, and that connection
to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably wouldn`t rely on patents,
genealogies and commission when it can be more accurately and functionally
described by a BR bloodline. Given that there are only so many realm level
nobles, wouldn`t it be more logical to place minor nobles in positions of
minor nobility so that they can not only participate in the realm, but will
be in some sort of line of succession in the noble hierarchy?

The BR setting jumps through several hoops in order to replicate certain
real world paradigms and ignores more than a few factors that would have a
drastic affect on the social systems of the various cultures. For
instance, it`s hard to imagine the existence of magic in the D&D sense not
having a much more significant influence on the social hierarchy of a
feudal society than it does in BR (or most D&D campaign settings, for that
matter) and many other aspects of society would be very different from real
world history given some of the differences between BR and RL.

Gary

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

kgauck
05-24-2002, 09:49 PM
> > > I think its one of the central concepts of the setting.
> >
> >One of the popular misconceptions you mean.

What I do mean has much to do with what Michael Romes said in his somewhat
longer post. Being blooded IMO makes you noble. Its not the only thing
that makes you noble, but being blooded always makes you noble. That
doesn`t mean a titled nobility like count, duke, or baron. It means social
nobility, like "Hey, you have the blood of the gods in you, and are fitted
by that divine presence as my better, my leader, or one deserving of
respect."

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

Peter Lubke
05-25-2002, 01:54 PM
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 02:37, Gary wrote:
> At 12:14 AM 5/25/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
> ulers of realms are nobles") to
> >"All blooded characters are nobles." ?
>
> None of the characters from the p20 quote need necessarily have a
> bloodline. All nobles are not blooded--depending on what point in the
> social hierarchy you`re defining as the nobility. It`s easy to imagine
> non-blooded minor nobles and functionaries,
The persons referred to aren`t "minor" nobles - they`re defined as
high-born nobles.

> Scions could wind up
> outside the titular nobility just because their families run out of titles....
Absolutely, and while they may still be noble-born, or even defined as
BR noble-blooded, this doesn`t make them a noble. (just a scion of a
noble family) However it`s been pointed out by someone else that the use
of the word "noble" is misleading and confusing to the issue. Gaining a
bloodline at Deismaar didn`t en-title anyone, although it gave them the
power to gain domains not all domains were realms with titles.

>
> If one were to design a society that had BR bloodlines, however, it`d
> probably be more likely that blooded characters would get noble status,
> even minor noble status, if they have bloodlines. Where RL nobility is
> often posited on divine providence, in BR it really is, and that connection
> to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably wouldn`t rely on patents,
> genealogies and commission when it can be more accurately and functionally
> described by a BR bloodline. Given that there are only so many realm level
> nobles, wouldn`t it be more logical to place minor nobles in positions of
> minor nobility so that they can not only participate in the realm, but will
> be in some sort of line of succession in the noble hierarchy?
Just dealing with Anuire for the moment as an example which in my
opinion is the most difficult to answer for (All the other human
sub-races will make my argument MUCH easier), this doesn`t seem to be
the case at all. I`m going to answer in two parts. The first part is an
examination of Anuirean society which sets the scene or context for an
examination of actual bloodlines, titles and nobility. So, how was
Anuire designed ?


Q. Is Anuirean society in HC 1524 feudal ?
A. No, not as a system that we understand feudalism as being generally.

Q. What is feudalism ?
A. Originally indeed it began as a military system. It was in imitation
of the later Roman Empire, which met the Germanic inroads by grants of
lands to individuals on condition of military service.

What evidence is there for this statement ?
(i) The rule book states that it is semi-feudal based on a society of
free farmers and craftsmen.
(ii) I think we`ve established that the guiding model of the Anuireans
is that of the Holy Roman Empire/Gondor. The question is when of the
Romans - the connection with Gondor and it`s history puts it at the time
of decay (in HC 1524) - Late Roman. So we are talking an advanced
culture, beyond medieval - the parallels are numerous.
(iii) We have the history of the Empire to consider as it is written.
Through 975 to 1100 we have civil wars throughout Anuire and a general
shrinking of the Empire boundaries. Local (non-Anuirean) rulers are left
in charge of Anuirean conquests outside the homelands. (Roman Empire
100-400 AD an exact parallel) There is no return to the state of Empire.
There are other parallels through history for this too. The rise of the
tyrants during the decline of the greeks, for example. All leading to a
change in form of government - in no single case ever has the change
been reversed.
(iv) The rise in power of faiths other than that of Haelyn, as well as
the schisms of faith in the church of Haelyn. Religious unity embodied
in the head of state is a common expression of totalitarianism -
centralized power. The rise of other faiths parallels that of other
claimants for a share of power - leading to a system of checks and
balances below the leader (regent).

Q. Doesn`t this mean that it is partly feudal ?
A. Yes, absolutely - of course by the same measure we (of the western
world) live in a feudal society today, and this point is frequently made
by eminent scholars.

Q. What is feudalism again ?
A. It`s a graduated system based on land tenure in which every lord
judged, taxed, and commanded the class next below him.

Huh? that wasn`t what I said last time ! No, but I needed it as a
connective for:
(iv) The great tie of feudalism (well late-medieval feudalism which is
what is what most frequently comes to mind for most people just as
slavery brings images of African slaves in the Americas) is to the land
which eventually results in the formation of a class of serfs. (not free
farmers)

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

kgauck
05-25-2002, 02:40 PM
Peter, your focus on titles as some kind of marker of nobility misses the
point. For one thing, there are four kinds folks running around out there
with noble blood. Templars, Guilders, and Wizards may have offices, may
declare some kind of title for themselves, but these don`t seem to be the
guys you`re talking about.

Blooded templars, guilders, and wizards are noble. They have an extra
measure of respect due to their divine spark, they have followers, they may
even govern holdings.

Some of those titled unblooded - and Gary called them minor nobles because
they never rise to the level of regent - may have rights as nobles, people
may curry favor with them because of their wealth and influence, but they
cannot command the respect of the blooded, nor excercise the influence of
the blooded.

So they have titles. They may have legal rights depending on where they
live. Some of these derive from their titles, others may come (esp in
Anuire) just for being members of the social class.

I fall back on Tristan, just because its fresh in my mind. Tristan does not
know his true identity, is thought to be a merchant`s son, but is recognized
by Mark, king of Cornwall and England as noble because of his abilities, his
conduct, and his bearing. His true nature was seen, without knowing
anything about titles or landed wealth. Being blooded always makes you a
member of the nobility.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

Peter Lubke
05-25-2002, 02:51 PM
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 02:37, Gary wrote:
> At 12:14 AM 5/25/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>
> If one were to design a society that had BR bloodlines, however, it`d
> probably be more likely that blooded characters would get noble status,
> even minor noble status, if they have bloodlines. Where RL nobility is
> often posited on divine providence, in BR it really is, and that connection
> to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably wouldn`t rely on patents,
> genealogies and commission when it can be more accurately and functionally
> described by a BR bloodline. Given that there are only so many realm level
> nobles, wouldn`t it be more logical to place minor nobles in positions of
> minor nobility so that they can not only participate in the realm, but will
> be in some sort of line of succession in the noble hierarchy?
Hell no ! (place an enemy in a position of trust or power simply because
he has a good bloodline?)


Okay, having established that Anuire is not a feudal society - if
nothing else the presence of free farmers precludes it absolutely -
let`s find out why the above mentioned system isn`t in place either.
(if such a system alone were sufficient then the successor to Roele
would have been easy)

This system has to be examined over time. A snapshot at a particular
point in time is insufficient to gain an accurate picture of what has
transpired to bring about certain persons in positions of power.

(i) The structure of the Empire just before its` height. An imperial
family. Twelve duchies. All depending on inheritance of some sort. These
duchies may or may not follow the geographical form of the earlier
tribes of the Andu. If they were formed post-Deismaar as would seem
logical they would be power take-overs by the powerful blooded
individuals from within the earlier tribe structure. The names of the
winners could well have changed to reflect their newfound status. From
this point until at least the fall of the empire, the leadership of the
duchies falls to blood.

(ii) Avan is the only claimant to be a Prince of the imperial family,
yet neither his claim or that of his ancestors at the time of Roele`s
death (973 HC) is or was sufficient to allow them to ascend the Iron
Throne. While a single claimant might be denied the claim because he is
unsuitable of unacceptable beyond the claim of blood - could each
individual fail the test over 500+ years ? - unlikely. Therefore, blood
alone is insufficient to claim the Iron Throne. (but we hear more direct
evidence of this later)

(iii) Boeruine has a claim as well. There was even a major civil war
fought between Boeruine and Avan. Seeing as it was a civil war and not a
war between realms, the unity of the empire was still considered intact
at this time (1063 HC). Avan claims both the duchy and the throne by
blood - but he`s not a Roele.

(iv) Gavin Tael is not considered by anyone as a real possibilty for the
Iron Throne. He has no claim because of his blood or family connections.
Since Tael has a bloodline of Re,

(v) The chamberlain has more than a little discretion in allowing a
claim against the Iron Throne. His authority is seen as sufficient to
deny the Avan claim for at least 500 years !

All this is good strong evidence that blood alone is insufficient. But
what is ? The usual answer for real life is custom and approval.

Let`s consider that:
(a) The ruler of the duchy of Avan was a Prince of the Imperial blood at
the time of Roele`s death. It is inconceivable that such a claim could
have been successfully advanced after the event and not resulted in
raising him to the Iron Throne as well.
(B) Boeruine`s claim was evident at that time also but is no stronger
than Avan, in fact it`s weaker as Boeruine has never been acknowledged
as a prince of the imperial blood. Yet there`s a weakness to Avan`s
claim.
&copy; Support for a claim is not validated by divine right or permission
(temple regent as representative) either. (It`s been 500+ years, can`t
someone bully, bribe, threaten, coerce a priest in all that time cf "Why
can`t some one rid me of this accursed priest ?")
(d) There`s strong evidence for patrilineal lines of succession.
Sire-names as family names, mentions of inheriting from the father etc,
along with a system of enforced or customary cousin marriage (again
favoring the male side). That is a daughter can inherit from her father
- but must marry a cousin on her fathers side to keep the family name
and produce heirs that are in the same line of descent.

Now why are the claims good, and why do they fail ?
Conclusions:
(1) Avan`s claim is real - he is, or his ancestor was, a legit Roele.
Since Avan is and probably always was a powerful duchy, I speculate that
his ancestor renounced his claim to the empire when he married into the
Avan dynasty (and took the Avan name), but retained his rank. This would
be a common undertaking in such a situation to avoid the duchy of Avan
falling under direct Avan control. The Avan argument is that this was
not meant to deprive the Roele line of an heir but to ensure the
stability of the Empire.
(2) Boeruine`s claim is real but tenuous. His claim is through an
unrenounced female line. His ancestor married a Roele female, one with a
close tie to the final Roele (a sister or agnatic aunt to the emperor
most likely). His argument is that without a direct male descendant the
title falls to the closest female relative.
(3) The chamberlain must have some secret knowledge. In the interests of
stability and common sense, it would have been far better to allow one
claim many years ago. The way is preserved however (at great cost I
might add) for the return of the imperial family in some form or
another. Therefore the chamberlain probably has direct knowledge of a
possible better claim. The issue of the chamberlains immortality and his
apparent lack of ability to pass his own bloodline on, as well not
having grabbed power himself over 500 years is a strong indication of
continuing stewardship.

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

Peter Lubke
05-25-2002, 03:08 PM
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 07:33, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> > > > I think its one of the central concepts of the setting.
> > >
> > >One of the popular misconceptions you mean.
>
> What I do mean has much to do with what Michael Romes said in his somewhat
> longer post. Being blooded IMO makes you noble. Its not the only thing
> that makes you noble, but being blooded always makes you noble. That
> doesn`t mean a titled nobility like count, duke, or baron. It means social
> nobility, like "Hey, you have the blood of the gods in you, and are fitted
> by that divine presence as my better, my leader, or one deserving of
> respect."
OK, (as Michael also says - it`s a confusing use of the word)

but noble is as noble does - they were called "noble" because of what
they did - not who they were.

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

Peter Lubke
05-25-2002, 03:22 PM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 00:40, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> Peter, your focus on titles as some kind of marker of nobility misses the
> point. For one thing, there are four kinds folks running around out there
> with noble blood. Templars, Guilders, and Wizards may have offices, may
> declare some kind of title for themselves, but these don`t seem to be the
> guys you`re talking about.
First this wasn`t my focus. My argument was against the use of blood
points as an indication of rank. i.e. A prince will have a higher blood
score than a Count e.g. (citing titular nobles as an example - it`s more
difficult to sort wizards by rank for example)

Second I understand, I agree, perhaps it the use of the word "noble"
that is objectionable, at least where it`s ambiguous as to whether the
noble person is a candidate for a titular position.

Perhaps the argument is "divine right". This term is used in the rule
book. It`s a fictive term, as "divine right" never existed except in the
mind of James of England - and he was quickly reminded of just what the
people thought of that idea - "Off with his head!". But "divine ability"
doesn`t have quite the same ring to it.

>
> Blooded templars, guilders, and wizards are noble. They have an extra
> measure of respect due to their divine spark, they have followers, they may
> even govern holdings.
Regents are "xxxxx/noble". That is they are respected due to their
position which they have created or inherited. The aura of regency that
surrounds them, or aura of power, air of command, is for a blooded
character - there even if they have no domain !

The word noble embodies those aspects that we hope that such a character
would ideally subscribe to. The bloodline of the god it has been argued
(not by me but I accept the possibility) would predispose the blooded
character to aspire to such behavior.

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

geeman
05-25-2002, 04:24 PM
At 12:56 AM 5/26/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

> > If one were to design a society that had BR bloodlines, however, it`d
> > probably be more likely that blooded characters would get noble status,
> > even minor noble status, if they have bloodlines. Where RL nobility is
> > often posited on divine providence, in BR it really is, and that connection
> > to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably wouldn`t rely on patents,
> > genealogies and commission when it can be more accurately and functionally
> > described by a BR bloodline. Given that there are only so many realm level
> > nobles, wouldn`t it be more logical to place minor nobles in positions of
> > minor nobility so that they can not only participate in the realm, but will
> > be in some sort of line of succession in the noble hierarchy?
>
>Hell no ! (place an enemy in a position of trust or power simply because
>he has a good bloodline?)

I didn`t exactly say that.... There are plenty of blooded characters
running around who could be placed in the hierarchy of a domain without
resorting to a regent`s enemies. Of course, a regent might not want to do
that in order to avoid having scions so close to his own seat of power, but
it could work either way. Blooded characters might be better minor nobles
just as they are better "major" (realm level) nobles.

>Okay, having established that Anuire is not a feudal society - if nothing
>else the presence of free farmers precludes it absolutely - let`s find out
>why the above mentioned system isn`t in place either.

Actually, you can still have free farmers in a feudal society. In fact,
"feudal" in the modern sense is often used to refer to a hierarchical
system of military obligation rather than a social system as a
whole. "Feudal" can also describe social factors, but I generally try to
reserve it for the system of military obligation since other terms seem
more apt to describe social issues.

>[snip analysis of Anurian society and empirial succession]

Well, what I was getting at with my comments regarding how bloodline would
interact with the social system in which it existed was more of a
speculation on how a bloodline would be more significant any individual
merit, ability or even network of relationships of the kind that most real
world social and political systems are predicated. A character with a
higher bloodline is demonstrably more able to rule than one with a lower
one and, in fact, a bloodline forms the basis of the ability to rule in
BR. Of course, many other factors can influence individual regent`s
rulership, but bloodline is an obvious, demonstrable and required
ingredient. That would surely alter the nature of the socio-political
system. How? Well, that`s pretty speculative. I`d guess it would lead to
a caste-like system, with bloodline derivation and bloodline strength
determining various rankings at the top of the social hierarchy. Blooded
characters would use their bloodline as proof of their right to higher
positions in society.

Gary

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

kgauck
05-25-2002, 04:24 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 11:37 AM


> Where RL nobility is often posited on divine providence, in BR it really
> is, and that connection to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably
> wouldn`t rely on patents, genealogies and commission when it can be
> more accurately and functionally described by a BR bloodline.

I still think there would be an interest in genealogies as a mundane way to
trace bloodlines, estimate the blood power of nobles, and distinguish
between those who got their birthrigtht through acceptable means - birth,
investiture, land`s choice - and those who stole it.

Depending on how powers are apportioned on decendants, geneologies might
allow heralds to make educated guesses about what blood powers a partiular
person might have. " Both his maternal and paternal lines show a strong
affinity for the Iron Will blood trait, young Gareth may well evidence this
trait as well."

But I do agree, one does not need to display one`s pedigree to demonstrate
nobility. Allowing a cleric to cast Know Bloodline would work better.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

kgauck
05-25-2002, 04:24 PM
> On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 00:40, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> > Peter, your focus on titles as some kind of marker of nobility misses
the
> > point.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 10:22 AM

> First this wasn`t my focus. My argument was against the use of blood
> points as an indication of rank. i.e. A prince will have a higher blood
> score than a Count e.g. (citing titular nobles as an example - it`s more
> difficult to sort wizards by rank for example)

You and Ryan were discussing inheritance of bloodlines, I made a eleven word
statement supporting a link between bloodlines and nobility. Where did a
rank order analysis come from?

> Second I understand, I agree, perhaps it the use of the word "noble"
> that is objectionable, at least where it`s ambiguous as to whether the
> noble person is a candidate for a titular position.

Its not confusing or objectionable, it just has many meanings. Just add to
the fun, I`ll point out it can also mean behavior of elevated conduct.
"Those noble firemen."

> Perhaps the argument is "divine right". This term is used in the rule
> book. It`s a fictive term, as "divine right" never existed except in the
> mind of James of England

Actually its a continental import, having had a long and happy run in
France. The doctrine of divine right is a formalization of the sacred
nature of the monarchy which both France and England subscribed to since
way, way back. The fact that both kings were said to able to cure scruffola
by touch is an example of this. This idea of a divine right has roots both
in the fact that the Roman Emperors formed a divine cult around the Emperor
and the Church`s medieval reading of the stories of Saul, David, and the
rest. Ultimatly, everything is part of God`s plan, so the fact that we have
a king, and this guy is he, implies some divine sanction. You under rate
the idea of sacred kingship and divine right.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

geeman
05-25-2002, 04:24 PM
At 10:35 AM 5/25/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > Where RL nobility is often posited on divine providence, in BR it really
> > is, and that connection to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably
> > wouldn`t rely on patents, genealogies and commission when it can be
> > more accurately and functionally described by a BR bloodline.
>
>I still think there would be an interest in genealogies as a mundane way
>to trace bloodlines, estimate the blood power of nobles, and distinguish
>between those who got their birthrigtht through acceptable means - birth,
>investiture, land`s choice - and those who stole it.

The pedigree and methods used to describe a "bloodline genealogy" would
probably differ from what most of us think of as a genealogy in a couple of
significant ways. There would still, of course, be an interest in family
trees and all that good stuff, but a "bloodline genealogy" system would be
likely in which a family history might be ancillary. That is, who and when
was a bloodline passed down? Bloodtheft might take the place of marriage
links, investitures would take the place of new births, the various factors
that increase bloodline strength could be noted with great care. Things
like that.

Gary

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

kgauck
05-25-2002, 04:44 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 11:16 AM


> That is, who and when was a bloodline passed down? Bloodtheft
> might take the place of marriage links, investitures would take the
> place of new births, the various factors that increase bloodline
> strength could be noted with great care. Things like that.

Exactly, and so bards with the proper skills - Knowledge (Nobility) - would
be nearly as useful as priests in determining the power of another fellow.
Of course the hearlds speak from some uncertainly, but they can speak at a
remove of hundred of miles. Priests can speak with greater accuracy, but
must come withing spell range to settle such matters.

Off to the Imperial College of Heraldry to uncover the likely identity of
the Sword Mage!

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

Peter Lubke
05-25-2002, 05:17 PM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 01:35, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 11:37 AM
>
>
> > Where RL nobility is often posited on divine providence, in BR it really
> > is, and that connection to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably
> > wouldn`t rely on patents, genealogies and commission when it can be
> > more accurately and functionally described by a BR bloodline.
>
> I still think there would be an interest in genealogies as a mundane way to
> trace bloodlines, estimate the blood power of nobles, and distinguish
> between those who got their birthrigtht through acceptable means - birth,
> investiture, land`s choice - and those who stole it.

Absolutely, I`ve had a bit of a look at it. However the source books are
unreliable in that they don`t follow the rules in many cases. Still
there`s some data to be found. Know bloodline really isn`t enough. I
postulate that the bloodline rules in the rule book are a simple form.
Even the bloodline of Avan is distinguishable from that of Boeruine in
some way.

Bloodlines are strongest in Anuire, especially those of the "An"
derivation. This is probably the influence of the very strong Roele
bloodline.

Avan:
The current Avan bloodline is (postulated) from a minor line of Roele
joined to the original house of Avan with the "An" dominant. This is a
spurious postulation of mine (i.e. it is fictitious but supported by
some chain of reasoning).

Boeruine:
The current Boeruine bloodline is (postulated) also from a line of Roele
(but derived through a female), the argument is related to and
consistant with the argument for Avan. The "An" is again dominant, this
is likely from the An side, other branches of the Boeruine family could
be derived from the original Boeruine bloodline derivation (although
that could as easily be "An" as anything else.)

Aerenwe:
We are told outright that this "An" bloodline is indirectly from Roele.
LS does not have a claim on the Iron Throne though, so again I postulate
that it is through a female branch. This is not the original Aerenwe
house line though. There was no popular uprising against the
Swordwraiths however, so the original line is either dead or the claim
is insufficient.

Osoerde:
William Moergan is "An35". There`s a province called Moergan too, but
it`s not the capital province. Moergan is not the realm name either, so
even though he`s allegedly the rightful claimant, his heritage is cloudy
in bloodline terms.

Dhoesone:
This is the only other "An" line that we hear of in RoE that is
connected to realms. Daeric Dhoesone, an obvious member of the Dhoesone
family is "An20" - although how far away from the succession we do not
have any clear indication - far enough that a male claim could not
displace Fhiele. The "An" could have come down the Dhoesone line. The
current regent has a "Re" line, but this is explained due to her mother
being of the strong "Re" line from Tuarhievel. "Vo" is another candidate
for the original Dhoesone line. This is one case where invested
inheritance of blood is unlikely as the influx of power from Tuarhievel
would have left Fhiele with a stronger bloodline than her father.

Dosiere:
The chamberlain has "An64", yet his relation Helaene has no bloodline
mentioned at all. There are several possible explanations, all call for
some condition or event outside the normal rules.

Cariele/Coeranys:
This is a most interesting situation. Forget the realm switch, it`s a
red herring. Her great-great-grandmother founded Cariele ? Five
generations ago only ? Carrying the same surname ? At least two of these
generations must have had patrilineal cousin marriages, or we are
postulating matrilineal descent in two realms - (unlikely) - so maybe
it`s mandatory! (for female inheritors at least). It`s a "Ma" bloodline
of course and quite ordinary in power, so is this the actual Cariele
bloodline or did the inheritance breakdown and now it`s only about half
what it once was ?

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

Peter Lubke
05-25-2002, 06:22 PM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 02:01, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 00:40, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>
> > Perhaps the argument is "divine right". This term is used in the rule
> > book. It`s a fictive term, as "divine right" never existed except in the
> > mind of James of England
>
> Actually its a continental import, having had a long and happy run in
> France. The doctrine of divine right is a formalization of the sacred
> nature of the monarchy which both France and England subscribed to since
> way, way back. The fact that both kings were said to able to cure scruffola
> by touch is an example of this. This idea of a divine right has roots both
> in the fact that the Roman Emperors formed a divine cult around the Emperor
> and the Church`s medieval reading of the stories of Saul, David, and the
> rest. Ultimatly, everything is part of God`s plan, so the fact that we have
> a king, and this guy is he, implies some divine sanction. You under rate
> the idea of sacred kingship and divine right.

Not at all. I think that it`s misplaced in this context. Early
(rudimentary) kings embodied the functions of high priest, judge, and
war leader. Saul and David are archetypal of this. There is no culture
in Cerilia that is this rudimentary.

The reading of the medieval church was really just a suck-up to gain
power themselves i.e. if they "authorized/endorsed" the king that
implies that they have power themselves. It`s a mistake to think that
they ceded this to the king at all. This subtle (or not so subtle)
sharing of temporal power shows that early medieval kings were not
despotic in their application of power. In fact their use of priests
(Christian priests especially) was to try and break free of the
constraints already on them, but all they succeeded in doing was
exchanging one for the other (and even that wouldn`t go away entirely).
This "divine right" was thus fictive, both in practice and doctrine - of
course a few miracles and the odd saint for king never hurt the
propaganda any.

James` attempt to claim "divine right" was an attempt to go back in
time. To a time where he didn`t need the approval of the church, i.e. he
wanted to refuse the authority of the protestant church, and choose one
that would support him. Here, he makes a claim to the RC faith, but it`s
the same ploy that the earlier kings used to try and displace their
councils in favor of their priests.

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

Peter Lubke
05-25-2002, 06:22 PM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 02:11, Gary wrote:
> At 12:56 AM 5/26/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>

> >Okay, having established that Anuire is not a feudal society - if nothing
> >else the presence of free farmers precludes it absolutely - let`s find out
> >why the above mentioned system isn`t in place either.
>
> Actually, you can still have free farmers in a feudal society. In fact,
> "feudal" in the modern sense is often used to refer to a hierarchical
> system of military obligation rather than a social system as a
> whole. "Feudal" can also describe social factors, but I generally try to
> reserve it for the system of military obligation since other terms seem
> more apt to describe social issues.

That is one of the definitions of feudal certainly. It`s the definition
that applies to the beginnings of feudalism in late Roman times. I also
think it`s what is meant by semi-feudal as it applies to the
(Roman-inspired) Anuireans. As an ideal it seems a fine idea, but it
ignores the fact that changes to the society inevitably occur as a
result of such a system. However the progressive introduction of
feudalism at this time by the Romans tied the slaves of the time to a
patch of ground and most importantly changed the status of free farmers
to slaves. It didn`t start like that but that`s how it ended up as a
natural consequence of the introduction of feudalism - no feudal system
has ever had free farmers.

>
> >[snip analysis of Anurian society and empirial succession]
>
> Well, what I was getting at with my comments regarding how bloodline would
> interact with the social system in which it existed was more of a
> speculation on how a bloodline would be more significant any individual
> merit, ability or even network of relationships of the kind that most real
> world social and political systems are predicated. A character with a
> higher bloodline is demonstrably more able to rule than one with a lower
> one
Under standard rules ? How would you "demonstrate" this ? A blooded
character with a bloodline of 100 and a domain of 1 law holding does not
manifest in domain terms any greater ability to rule than a scion with a
bloodline of 10 and a domain of 20 pts. [ however, I`ll agree in
principle - it should be so - that it is not so is a flaw in the
mechanics ]

> and, in fact, a bloodline forms the basis of the ability to rule in
> BR. Of course, many other factors can influence individual regent`s
> rulership, but bloodline is an obvious, demonstrable and required
> ingredient. That would surely alter the nature of the socio-political
> system.
Not necessarily, at least -- from the point of view that *someone* will
rule in a society, the game postulates a *reason* why this is so. It
doesn`t postulate that it changes the nature of how society works, just
that there are reasons for why it does so. In other words, the bloodline
system doesn`t force a specific form of rulership, but any form of
rulership can be explained, organized, and simulated with the bloodline
system as its motive engine.

> How? Well, that`s pretty speculative. I`d guess it would lead to
> a caste-like system, with bloodline derivation and bloodline strength
> determining various rankings at the top of the social hierarchy. Blooded
> characters would use their bloodline as proof of their right to higher
> positions in society.
It`s your use of "their right" that I`m objecting to. They have the
"power" and "ability" through their bloodline to rule more effectively,
and this "power" and "ability" is relative to their bloodline strength.
They don`t need to "prove" anything except by doing it.

Socially however, even this "ability" and "power" won`t create a society
based on rank through bloodline alone.

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

kgauck
05-25-2002, 06:22 PM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 12:33 PM


> Not at all. I think that it`s misplaced in this context. Early
> (rudimentary) kings embodied the functions of high priest, judge, and
> war leader. Saul and David are archetypal of this. There is no culture
> in Cerilia that is this rudimentary.

And no one said that their were, or that this ideology directly impinges on
anything Cerilian. I was explaining the backround to divine right. Sorry
to have been so difficult to decode.

> The reading of the medieval church [long off topic rant, possibly an
attempt to change subject]

Yeah, if you like. The absence of any controlling thesis leaves me unable
to comment further [perhaps the point]. I disagree with most of it, but
have other writing to do. Please clarify if you actually were disagreeing
with something specific.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

Birthright-L
05-25-2002, 07:47 PM
Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-25 20.00:

> no feudal system has ever had free farmers.

You said this before, and I denied it before.

/Carl

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

Trithemius
05-26-2002, 12:46 AM
Peter sez:
> Not at all. I think that it`s misplaced in this context. Early
> (rudimentary) kings embodied the functions of high priest,
> judge, and war leader. Saul and David are archetypal of this.
> There is no culture in Cerilia that is this rudimentary.

Er, what about the Lord Paladin of Ariya. He/she heads the Great Temple
of Avani and the realm of Ariya at the same time. He/she is also the
leader of the armies of Ariya. I think Thuriene Donnalls might fit the
bill as well, and probably Suris Enlien, although I think she is
unproven as a war-leader yet.

I wouldn`t class these cultures as "rudimentary" at all, especially not
Ariya, the jewel of Khinasi.

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

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

Peter Lubke
05-26-2002, 02:36 AM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 02:31, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 11:16 AM
>
>
> > That is, who and when was a bloodline passed down? Bloodtheft
> > might take the place of marriage links, investitures would take the
> > place of new births, the various factors that increase bloodline
> > strength could be noted with great care. Things like that.
>
> Exactly, and so bards with the proper skills - Knowledge (Nobility) - would
> be nearly as useful as priests in determining the power of another fellow.
> Of course the hearlds speak from some uncertainly, but they can speak at a
> remove of hundred of miles. Priests can speak with greater accuracy, but
> must come withing spell range to settle such matters.

IMO, the study of genealogy must include bloodlines not the other way
around. Just as genealogists use certain physical characteristics to
track members of a particular family they would also use certain blood
abilities and/or derivations.

Cultural laws or customs of succession, inheritance and family trees
would determine a characters "legal" rights to claims. Neither the gods
nor the people would accept anything else (unless of course forced). A
bloodline of the right sort may support such a claim. A strong character
with a bloodline might be able to usurp - and thus make a different sort
of claim creating their own line. Authority versus Power. Right versus
Might. Either could win out, but neither is mandated to do so.

In Vosgaard for example (and this is from TotHW) a bloodline is not
necessary to support your claim to be war chief. This is done by force
of arms alone. The strongest most able warrior is then supported by the
priesthood, which shows a strong division of power and the reliance of
Vos realm rulers on the temple tier. Of course, BR rules say you can`t
be regent without a bloodline - so how does that work ? - Well, the
priests find a bloodline for him. (That`s also there in TotHW)

So in Vos society, for the position of war leader - bloodlines are
completely irrelevant ! Yet there`s evidence for a hereditary priesthood
- this is no contradiction, it merely shows that the situation can be
quite complex even in so-called primitive societies.

[ There is numerous other evidence that the authors of the Vos were
drawing on a rulership model that did not endorse despotic power in the
torva Vos system. Nona Vos is even more so. ]

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

Peter Lubke
05-26-2002, 02:36 AM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 04:20, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>
> Yeah, if you like. The absence of any controlling thesis leaves me unable
> to comment further [perhaps the point]. I disagree with most of it, but
> have other writing to do. Please clarify if you actually were disagreeing
> with something specific.

"divine right" wasn`t real. Did not exist when it was historically
claimed - such claiming resulted in downfall of royal houses involved -
proof after the fact if you like that they didn`t have "divine right".

It`s really the right of the state faith to endorse a ruler, i.e. it`s a
temple power not a realm ruler.

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

Peter Lubke
05-26-2002, 03:46 AM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 10:03, John Machin wrote:
> Peter sez:
> > Not at all. I think that it`s misplaced in this context. Early
> > (rudimentary) kings embodied the functions of high priest,
> > judge, and war leader. Saul and David are archetypal of this.
> > There is no culture in Cerilia that is this rudimentary.
>
> Er, what about the Lord Paladin of Ariya. He/she heads the Great Temple
> of Avani and the realm of Ariya at the same time. He/she is also the
> leader of the armies of Ariya. I think Thuriene Donnalls might fit the
> bill as well, and probably Suris Enlien, although I think she is
> unproven as a war-leader yet.
>
> I wouldn`t class these cultures as "rudimentary" at all, especially not
> Ariya, the jewel of Khinasi.

Not the same thing. In these states kings have ceased to rule, the
church has taken primary control of government.

Ariya:
1299-1404 MA Golden Age of Ariya
1495 MA Ascension of Fatima bint el-Arrassi to the Ariyan throne. Ariya
becomes a theocracy.

The rulers of Ariya became high priests after they had ruled Ariya for
many years rather than being rulers because they ruled Ariya. This a
change to a more advanced state of government: (seen in more recent
times in modern day Iran)
Despotic priest-king (rules partly because he`s a god/descended from
etyc), (kingdoms cannot grow large and stable without distribution of
power)
=> kings governing with checks and balances, responsibilities and
obligations (this is often the high point or golden age for a culture)
=> more oligarchical forms such as theocracy, republics etc (while more
advanced these are less efficient in many ways)

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

Peter Lubke
05-26-2002, 03:46 AM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 04:41, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:
> Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-25 20.00:
>
> > no feudal system has ever had free farmers.
>
> You said this before, and I denied it before.

So give an example.
Roman - no
European - no
Japanese - no

Ideally communism benefits everyone equally with all property communal,
but in practice there were flaws.

Ideally democracy would be great too, but no country has been able to
create a democratic state. It`s flawed as implemented anywhere today.

Ideally feudalism wouldn`t have enslaved the farmers (it wasn`t deigned
to do that), but it`s a natural consequence that occurred everywhere.

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

kgauck
05-26-2002, 05:45 AM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 9:38 PM


> "divine right" wasn`t real. Did not exist when it was historically
> claimed - such claiming resulted in downfall of royal houses involved -
> proof after the fact if you like that they didn`t have "divine right".
>
> It`s really the right of the state faith to endorse a ruler, i.e. it`s a
> temple power not a realm ruler.

You`ll have to explain what you mean by "did not exist".

By analogy is this more like saying
A) Marxism did not exist in Charlemagne`s empire, or
B) Marxism failed to achive its stated telology, and therefore "did not
exist."

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

kgauck
05-26-2002, 05:45 AM
Gary Wrote:
> Actually, you can still have free farmers in a feudal society. In fact,
> "feudal" in the modern sense is often used to refer to a hierarchical
> system of military obligation rather than a social system as a
> whole

Peter wrote:
> That is one of the definitions of feudal certainly. It`s the definition
> that applies to the beginnings of feudalism in late Roman times.

1) There is no Romano-feudalism.
2) The late Roman economy remained slave driven.
3) Feudalism is a formalization of Germanic law
4) Charlemagne established the system which was feudalism in its earliest
forms.

> However the progressive introduction of feudalism at this time by the
> Romans tied the slaves of the time to a patch of ground and most
> importantly changed the status of free farmers to slaves. It didn`t start
> like that but that`s how it ended up as a natural consequence of the
> introduction of feudalism - no feudal system has ever had free farmers.

Explain what you mean by free.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

Birthright-L
05-26-2002, 09:36 AM
What you seem to forget is that feudal society was one of obligations, both
up and down the social ladder. So, nobles had a lot of power, but they also
had obligations, bot to superiors and inferiors. And so did the king, or,
for that matter, the peasant. In certain countries, these obligations to
your inferiors weakened over time (like in France, or Japan), while other
countries maintained them (like Sweden, western Germany, and [I think]
England).

The example I gave last time was my own country - Sweden. We had a medieval
feudal society (if only for three hundred years), but we also had a very
strong and free peasant class. Sure, the peasants who lived on noble land
had no representation (they were supposed to be represented by their lords),
but they ad definite privileges and were certainly not serfs. And while the
noble owned the right to tax the land, the peasant sill had a legal claim to
it and could not be sent packing - both the noble and the peasant inherited
the same land and their respective rights to it.

The typical Swedish farmer is what the English would call a Yeoman; a free
landowner under feudal obligation to either the crown OR to some noble. He
had legal title to his land, but owed tax and obligations in return.

Such a farmer was also the lord of his own household, with the right to mete
out limited justice and give corporal punishment for misbehaving underlings.
This included his own family, but also a class of worker whose name I think
translates best as peon. A typical farm has the farmer and his immediate
family, but also a group of farm workers, a rural proletariat that was
landless and without representation. These were the true rural poor. They
were thralls (a limited form of slaves) up until the 13 century, and later
they were bound but laws saying that they could be arrested as drifters if
they were not in employ. This was so from ancient times up to the 19th
century. So there was more than one rung to the feudal ladder.

[As a footnote, the word "slave" probably derives from the word "Slav", as
in "Slavic peoples". The Vikings did a lot of slave trading and raiding in
Slavic countries, and the origin of the poor status of the peon class in
Sweden may well be that the class was originally composed of such Slavic
slaves. And the stigma of having been slaves can stick to a group of people
long after they are formally liberated, as modern society shows.]


A feudal society was theoretically strictly tiered, with each class owing
responsibility to the one above. Commoners had obligations to nobles, nobles
had obligations to the king. So it might have been in the time of
Charlemange, in the 9th century. But it became much more complex over time,
with layers upon layers of nobles, freemen, serfs and peons, all with their
own rights and obligations. All wanted to expand their rights and lessen
their duties. The king was also a traditional noble landholder, and many
nobles were vassals to several different kings. Occasionally, the king would
bypass his nobles and seek support directly from the lower classes. At a
certain point, Frenchmen saw themselves as having obligations to the king of
France, rather than to the local nobleman. Nobles demanded rights "on
behalf of the people living on their land". One of the great weaknesses of
the feudal system, that finally made people accept the nation-state with all
it`s flaws, was that feudal society was becoming paralyzed. One of the last
truly feudal states, Poland, had a parliament where every nobleman had the
veto. Decision-making was next to impossible. The tradition of
defenstration, where you threw the minority out the windows (sometimes
several floors up), was the one way to get unanimous decisions. [Note,
however, that this was in the 17th century, long after the medieval era, and
that this government was in part instituted by foreign powers that wanted to
paralyze the Poles.] Feudalism became a travesty of government.


The areas in Sweden and Germany where the nobles gained the strongest
position was on land that was colonized relatively late (12th to 15th
centuries). Only the nobles had the resources that enabled expansion onto
new, less fertile lands, like those of the the forests of Sweden and Finland
or the Baltic and Slavic areas that came under German colonization in the
middle ages. Here, peasants started out in debt and under heavy obligation
to their lords, presumably because they were indebted to these nobles from
the very beginning; these new farms probably took years to become
productive. Racism and religious persecution also played a part. For Eastern
Germany, this ultimately led to a system of serfdom and much degradation.
But that was not the norm. The peasant of the rich plains in Western Germany
and the best parts of Sweden, areas that were put under cultivation at an
early point before the noble class gained ascension, never lost control of
their land.


As for the Romans, they were indeed semi-feudal at the end. "Foderati", the
root of the word "Feudal" is a Latin word, with a meaning similar to
"vassal". But the roman peasant was not a serf, or even a peon, he was an
outright slave. The small, independent citizen-farmer formed the bulk of the
roman population (and army) in the days of the republic, but was brought low
by the needs of military service and imported grain. By the third century
AD, roman farming was done on Villas; huge farming complexes where slaves
worked without vested interest in their own produce. See the movie "The
House of the Spirits" [http://us.imdb.com/Title?0107151] for an example of
how these traditions were continued into the modern era. The farmers in such
a society are completely dependent on their lord and have little incentive
to work well.

One of the great social revolutions of early medieval times was the
abolishment of this system, at least north of the Alps. As downtrodden as
the peasant or serf was, he still had a vested interest in his own harvest,
and in most cases set obligations and rights versus his noble landlord.
These rights might have been weak, but they did exist. Landlord might have
had the right to rent their land to whoever they choose (this is debatable,
and probably varied with time and location), but tradition dictated that he
do so for a very long time; one or more generations. In general there was a
labor shortage, so the risk of being thrown off your land was minimal. Serfs
were bound to their land, and sold along with it, they could not generally
be sold off as individuals. This RISE in common people¹s rights was a great
boon to farm productivity, as farmers started investing in `their` land.


In the Middle East, a different system existed, that was not feudal, as we
know it. Here the farmers were workers closer to the roman model; they did
not rent their land over generations, and had little vested interest in
improving it. One of the reasons why the crusader states survived as long as
they did among hostile neighbors was because they introduced this system. It
was much more efficient than the oriental system, even when the farmer was a
Muslim and the lord a Christian. It is sad that Muslim society closed their
ideas to such western ideas as there was at the time, at exactly the same
time that Christians started to import Muslim ideas on a large scale.


What I wanted to show was that the feudal system was not one where all the
rights were concentrated in the hands of the nobility. The relationship
between the king, his lords, the lesser nobility, the farmers, and the
peons, was complex and inter-related. When you throw cities and their
unique rights into the mix, it becomes volatile. Feudalism was not a step
down in human rights; it was a step forward from previous systems that were
even more oppressive, a legacy of the free `barbaric` culture of the north,
as compared to the rigid class society of the late Roman Empire. Ultimately,
it collapsed and was abused, lading to oppression, but it worked far longer
than our current form of democracy has.

There is a great may schools of historical though. What I say here is
colored by history as it is studied here in Sweden, both in popular works
and at universities. Coming from a part of the world where feudalism is a
part of everyone¹s history, and still affects many of our laws and
institutions even today, means that this is something I have quite definite
views about.

/Carl


Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-26 05.14:

> On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 04:41, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:
>> Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-25 20.00:
>>
>>> no feudal system has ever had free farmers.
>>
>> You said this before, and I denied it before.
>
> So give an example.
> Roman - no
> European - no
> Japanese - no
>
> Ideally communism benefits everyone equally with all property communal,
> but in practice there were flaws.
>
> Ideally democracy would be great too, but no country has been able to
> create a democratic state. It`s flawed as implemented anywhere today.
>
> Ideally feudalism wouldn`t have enslaved the farmers (it wasn`t deigned
> to do that), but it`s a natural consequence that occurred everywhere.
>
>

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

geeman
05-26-2002, 10:42 AM
At 01:14 PM 5/26/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

> > > no feudal system has ever had free farmers.
> >
> > You said this before, and I denied it before.
>
>So give an example.
>Roman - no
>European - no
>Japanese - no

Actually, all three of those cultures had free farmers. Unless, that is,
you`re defining "free farmers" in a way I`ve never heard used
before.... In fact, I`m having trouble coming up with a society that
didn`t have free farmers (feudal or otherwise) at least in a macro
sense. I suppose one could argue that feudal systems maintain a de facto
system of enslavement, though I still find plenty of evidence to argue that
point. What do you mean when you say that no feudal system has ever had
free farmers?

Gary

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

Trithemius
05-26-2002, 12:00 PM
> You`ll have to explain what you mean by "did not exist".
>
> By analogy is this more like saying
> A) Marxism did not exist in Charlemagne`s empire, or
> B) Marxism failed to achive its stated telology, and
> therefore "did not exist."

To go a bit philosophical here, I hardly think that failing to have a RW
instantiation is any reason why a motif or idea should by removed from
or ignored in an RPG.

I am pretty sure that there are lots of things that fail to occur in the
RW and that do occur in BR. Why make such a big fuss over whether or not
concepts of divine right are allowed to belong in it? It works within
the setting, even if it did (and I am not saying that it did or did not)
fail in the RW.

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

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

Trithemius
05-26-2002, 12:00 PM
Peter sez:
> Not the same thing. In these states kings have ceased to
> rule, the church has taken primary control of government.

I think it is an example of people believing that their ruler needs
"divine credentials". I believe that the Ariyan example is the example
of a secular monarchic line becoming deeply linked with the religious
life of the realm. How is this different from the attempts by historical
monarchs to do the same?

> Ariya:
> 1299-1404 MA Golden Age of Ariya
> 1495 MA Ascension of Fatima bint el-Arrassi to the Ariyan
> throne. Ariya becomes a theocracy.
> The rulers of Ariya became high priests after they had ruled
> Ariya for many years rather than being rulers because they
> ruled Ariya. This a change to a more advanced state of
> government: (seen in more recent times in modern day Iran)
> Despotic priest-king (rules partly because he`s a
> god/descended from etyc), (kingdoms cannot grow large and
> stable without distribution of power)
> => kings governing with checks and balances, responsibilities
> and obligations (this is often the high point or golden age
> for a culture) => more oligarchical forms such as theocracy,
> republics etc (while more advanced these are less efficient
> in many ways)

I`m actually highly sceptical about the sophistication of the Iranian
system, although I do understand that reform has occurred. I am unware
of specifics though, as Israel is currently occupying most of my
attention.

I`m also not convinced that the process of political evolution that you
describe is accurate. Elegant perhaps, and appealing, but not
neccessarily accurate.

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

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

ConjurerDragon
05-26-2002, 05:02 PM
Hello!

Peter Lubke wrote:

>On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 04:41, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:
>
>>Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-25 20.00:
>>
>>>no feudal system has ever had free farmers.
>>>
>>You said this before, and I denied it before.
>>
>
>So give an example.
>Roman - no
>European - no
>Japanese - no
>
Lubke sounds german, but when you place Rome outside Europe - you´re not
from the US, are you? ;-)
bye
Michael

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

Peter Lubke
05-27-2002, 12:29 AM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 14:57, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 9:38 PM
>
>
> > "divine right" wasn`t real. Did not exist when it was historically
> > claimed - such claiming resulted in downfall of royal houses involved -
> > proof after the fact if you like that they didn`t have "divine right".
> >
> > It`s really the right of the state faith to endorse a ruler, i.e. it`s a
> > temple power not a realm ruler.
>
> You`ll have to explain what you mean by "did not exist".

The church made an argument that gave them the power to appoint or at
least to validate a king. e.g. This man is king and rules by divine
right. What they meant was, "this man rules because we say so" and "you
can`t appoint a king without our approval." The implication is that the
catholic church (being infallible) would choose "god`s candidate" for
rulership. The actual effect is that power moved into church hands more
and more, and that kings were no longer able to claim kingship as they
had in the past (by force of arms or common consent mostly).

Those rulers that thought that this meant that they ruled in their own
right without need to consult others (most especially the church) were
solely mistaken and frequently paid even the ultimate price for their
mistake.

i.e. it wasn`t a kings divine "right to rule", it was a divine
(church/temple)s "right to choose who would rule" (and for how long).

Even in Saul and David`s day, the priesthood was the power. They chose
and appointed the King. Withdrawal of support by the priesthood is very
damaging to a ruler appointed in this way. Henry VIII of England solved
this problem by appointing himself head of the protestant Church of
England, which gave him the right to appoint the Archbishop (kind of
reversing the situation), but he did not claim a divine right to rule.

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

Peter Lubke
05-27-2002, 01:29 AM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 20:21, Gary wrote:
> At 01:14 PM 5/26/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>
> Actually, all three of those cultures had free farmers. Unless, that is,
> you`re defining "free farmers" in a way I`ve never heard used
> before.... In fact, I`m having trouble coming up with a society that
> didn`t have free farmers (feudal or otherwise) at least in a macro
> sense. I suppose one could argue that feudal systems maintain a de facto
> system of enslavement, though I still find plenty of evidence to argue that
> point. What do you mean when you say that no feudal system has ever had
> free farmers?
While the term feudalism is obviously quite contentious (particularly as
there are so many definitions - and I`m not claiming any particular
model here - for the purpose of this discussion we`ll be using your
model of "land grants in exchange for military service")

So, yes all three cultures had free farmers - but in those cases the
farmers were not part of the feudal agreements !

If a culture is "based on a system of free farmers", it is not based on
"feudalism" (at least as defined for the time being).

Of course modern historians are in grave doubt that feudal agreements
were as widespread as was believed in the 16th century, so perhaps we
are drawing parallels that have no meaning and talking at cross
purposes.

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

Peter Lubke
05-27-2002, 01:34 AM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 15:03, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> Gary Wrote:
> > Actually, you can still have free farmers in a feudal society. In fact,
> > "feudal" in the modern sense is often used to refer to a hierarchical
> > system of military obligation rather than a social system as a
> > whole
>
> Peter wrote:
> > That is one of the definitions of feudal certainly. It`s the definition
> > that applies to the beginnings of feudalism in late Roman times.
>
> 1) There is no Romano-feudalism.
I`m responding to Garys comment in which he uses the definition of
feudalism as above: (under which context there was feudalism as so
defined during the breakdown of the Roman empire-- see Carls response
for details)

Feudalism: a system of reciprocal personal relations among members of
the military elite, which lead ultimately to parliament and then Western
democracy.

However, there`s argument against that as well.

Building on work of Elizabeth Brown, the historian Susan Reynolds, in
her Fiefs and Vassals, systematically attacked the basis of the
professional medievalists` version of feudalism [although she did not
tackle the older social and economic, or Marxist, model]. Reynolds
argued that recent historians had been too ready to read back 11th- and
12th-century legal texts (which do use feudal) terminology onto a much
more variated 9th- and 10th century society and had ended up creating a
"feudal world" which simply did note exist, or which, at most, described
small parts of France for short periods.

Most reviewers have found Reynold`s arguments compelling. [See, for
instance, the very informative comments of Steven Lane: Review of Susan
Reynolds, Fief and Vassals, [At TMR]. As a result teachers can no longer
teach "feudalism" without severe qualifications.


> 2) The late Roman economy remained slave driven.
But back to the main point. Carl responds as to the facts well enough.
(I was going to put in some historical stuff about the laws passed etc
but it`s boring crap)
The Romans had several problems. One was tax evasion - yes tax evasion -
people were trying to avoid paying taxes - can you believe that ?
Another was the cost of running all those armies - what`s an Emperor to
do ? And another was the growing lack of slaves (these slaves were quite
different from later American slavery model).



> 3) Feudalism is a formalization of Germanic law
> 4) Charlemagne established the system which was feudalism in its earliest
> forms.
Whereas you are referring to another definition:

Before we begin, we should note that the men and women of the middle
ages never talked about feudalism. Feudalism is a term invented in the
sixteenth century by royal lawyers - primarily in England - to describe
the decentralized and complex social, political, and economic society
out of which the modern state was emerging. The term "feudalism" came
from the German vieh, or "cow," the measure of wealth among the early
Germans, a term that gave rise to the medieval word fief. "Fief" simply
meant "something of value." In the agricultural world of the time,
"something of value" was usually land. But the sixteenth-century lawyers
pictured this land as having been under the control of a powerful king
who distributed much of it to his followers, men of distinction whose
breeding and upbringing particularly fitted them for governing and
giving battle.

It has been argued that historians have interpreted medieval documents
and histories in terms of this view, and that, when we examine the
documents more closely, there is actually very little evidence that
society was really organized in such a fashion. This may very well be
true, but a new and different picture of medieval society in the ninth
through the fourteenth centuries has yet to be developed. Lacking
anything possible better, it is only reasonable that we should turn our
attention to the traditional portrayal of feudal society.


Feudalism: a social system based on a society in which peasant
agriculture is the fundamental productive activity; in which slavery is
non-existent or marginal but peasants are tied to the land in some way;
and in which a small elite defined by military activity dominates.
(Marxist model)

This generally defined as "Manoralism" these days.

>
> Explain what you mean by free.
Free to leave the ground that they work firstly. Free to gain income by
laboring where they choose. Free to sell the land that they work. Not
owned or bound to servitude for life.

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

Peter Lubke
05-27-2002, 01:53 AM
On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 21:15, John Machin wrote:
> Peter sez:

>
> I`m actually highly sceptical about the sophistication of the Iranian
> system, although I do understand that reform has occurred. I am unware
> of specifics though, as Israel is currently occupying most of my
> attention.
It is sophisticated compared to what went before it. (Trust me: they
were only a few steps from a cavalry warlord grabbing control.) It`s
more sophisticated in that it is a decentralization of power, allowing
more points of view to be present in the process of government.

>
> I`m also not convinced that the process of political evolution that you
> describe is accurate. Elegant perhaps, and appealing, but not
> neccessarily accurate.
Hey, no one is actually certain that modern thinking on politics is
correct.(who`s certain about anything really?) But it`s the most
accepted model that we as a world society have come up with so far.

Still, I`m drawing on the same material available to the BR creators and
using the latest anthropological and historical explanations to draw
parallels between the BR world and societies that it was modeled on in
the RW. (post or late-empire tyrants and the rise of more sophisticated
forms of government)

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

Peter Lubke
05-27-2002, 03:33 AM
On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 02:56, Michael Romes wrote:
> >
> Lubke sounds german, but when you place Rome outside Europe - you´re not
> from the US, are you? ;-)

No, I`m Australian. :-)
The Roman empire was big - but it was really Mediterranean in form with
the capital at Constantinople. Also time scale, later European feudalism
was til the ninth century (by some theories) and the 13th century by
others.

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

Birthright-L
05-27-2002, 08:21 AM
Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-27 03.34:

> Free to leave the ground that they work firstly. Free to gain income by
> laboring where they choose. Free to sell the land that they work. Not
> owned or bound to servitude for life.

Thank you, this is a good definition of economic freedom. However, I don`t
think it has much to dowith the dreams of most medieval farmers. If this is
your definitin of freedom, no feudal farmer was free, but neither was any
feadal nobleman.

Our society is rampantly individualistic. Each of us wants to persue
individual goals. We view land as a resource that we own and do with as we
please. For us, your definitions of freedom make a lot of sense. This is
very far from the medieval mindset, however.

[specific examples here are all from Sweden] There were laws strictly
regulating the sale of inherited land. You could not sell it outside the
clan, and you could not will it away as you wanted, either. The family or
clan took precedence over the individual. If a nobleman wanted to dodge his
responsibilities as a landowner, he would let someone else in the clan
administer the land, and they gave you a stipend to live on but nowhere nere
the tfull value of the land. Far easier, of course, was to have a steward
(who could be a kinsman) administer the holding for you. There were even
laws prohibiting the willing of land to the church - noble clans though this
too great a risk of reducing their holdings.

A farmer could leave his land, perhaps even sell it, but then he would have
to find a buyer willing to tend to it and fulfill the obligations tied to
it.

In practice, the only people who could move about without drastically
reducing their social status were younger brothers - who did not have much
to lose anyway.

Everyone was either an outcast, or a member of some tight-knit organization
with demands that retricted your freedom. Without kin or lord, you were
nothing. Marriagesfor landholders were not individual decisions; they were
alliances between families. Inheritance was not a personal decision; it was
the clan redistributing it`s wealth. Individuals did not owe military
service; communities did. Artists did not sign their great works. Not even
kings had had portraits made.

No-one in medieval society enjoyed the freedoms you mention. Not peasants,
not nobles, not clergy, not guildsmen. All were bound by a complex social
contract with duties and benefits. Just as roman society restricted the
peasant family`s willingness to invest in their land, this restricted the
individuals willingness and opportunity to invest in various business
ventures, contributing to the revolt of individualism of later centuries.

What I want to show is that the modern concept of an individual representing
only himself is entirely out of place in medieval times.

This pattern of life continues in many parts of the world, and is part f the
reason why immigrants to Europe have such problems integrating in an
individualistic society.

Of course, this was all part of the self-image of the times. It was not an
absolutley correct self-image, just as our self-image is probaly not
correct. In many cases, the scene was much more dynamic. But it was a
self-fulfilling self-image; most people behaved as they were expected to
behave.

The freedoms a medieval farmer would want were probably more in the line
with a freedom from molestation, the right to refuse noble passengers unpaid
room and board, the right to administer his household as he saw fit (thus
limiting the freedoms of his own subjects), the right to grind his grain and
sell his produce anywhere he wanted, not having to put in free labor on
defense works or other projects of the state/nobility, extemption from
military duty and so on. In our parlance, these are not really freedoms, but
economic rights.

/Carl

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

Peter Lubke
05-27-2002, 09:53 AM
On Mon, 2002-05-27 at 18:02, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:
> Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-27 03.34:
>
> > Free to leave the ground that they work firstly. Free to gain income by
> > laboring where they choose. Free to sell the land that they work. Not
> > owned or bound to servitude for life.
>
> Thank you, this is a good definition of economic freedom. However, I don`t
> think it has much to dowith the dreams of most medieval farmers. If this is
> your definitin of freedom, no feudal farmer was free, but neither was any
> feadal nobleman.

Yeah I was being cheeky there.

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

Trithemius
05-28-2002, 02:32 AM
Peter sez:
> Yeah I was being cheeky there.

Hey!
Aren`t you legally obliged to put some smilies at the end of those lines
that you deem cheeky?
It`s like those [sarcasm] headings that we used a long while back...

:)

(See! Cheeky!)

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

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

Trithemius
05-28-2002, 02:32 AM
Peter sez:
> It is sophisticated compared to what went before it. (Trust
> me: they were only a few steps from a cavalry warlord
> grabbing control.) It`s more sophisticated in that it is a
> decentralization of power, allowing more points of view to be
> present in the process of government.

Where I was taught we called that "contraction of the state". I don`t
think the decentralization in Iran was at all what Hayek had in mind
when he was talking about how useful decentralization was.

> Still, I`m drawing on the same material available to the BR
> creators and using the latest anthropological and historical
> explanations to draw parallels between the BR world and
> societies that it was modeled on in the RW. (post or
> late-empire tyrants and the rise of more sophisticated forms
> of government)

Yeah, but what if the writers just though "That`d be cool" and put it
in. Are we justufied in so closely analysing their "motivation" in
including one concept and (apparently) not another?

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

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

Birthright-L
06-13-2002, 11:55 AM
<< Ideally communism benefits everyone equally with all property communal,
but in practice there were flaws.
Ideally democracy would be great too, but no country has been able to
create a democratic state. It`s flawed as implemented anywhere today.
Ideally feudalism wouldn`t have enslaved the farmers (it wasn`t deigned
to do that), but it`s a natural consequence that occurred everywhere.
>>

Slightly off-topic, but I`d like to quote John Lennon here:

"Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you`re so clever and classless and free
But you`re still fucking peasants as far as I can see
A working class hero is something to be
A working class hero is something to be"
- from "Working Class Hero", by John Lennon

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

Birthright-L
07-08-2002, 02:16 PM
<< This is the one thing that worries me about your model. Two 5s have 4s;
two 35s have 11s; and a marriage of an Avan to a Boeruine (70 and 60)
produces children whose bloodline is only 15!
>>

Well, the thing is, under this system, Avan and Boeruine donot have BL 70
and 60 respectively. Blood levels range from 1 to 20, just like character
levels do. Only very exceptional beings can have a blood level higher than
that. I imagine the Gorgon is BL 30 or 40 maybe, but no more than that.
Remember, it takes a ridiculous amount of blood points to get there.


<< So what you`re saying is that marriage of a high noble to a low noble
produces children who are low nobles, rather than high ones. Some
inheritance systems have worked this way, and some the other. What
bothers me is that in your model, two high nobles still have only low
nobles for children! This might reflect a culture in which deeds are far
more important than birth, but I don`t think it fits Cerilia very well.
What I would be inclined to do instead is say that the child`s starting
blood points are the average of the parents` blood points. This produces
the same result as the "average the levels" approach of the standard rules
when the bloodlines are identical (whereas yours is roughly twice the
square root of the average), and when they are far apart tilts the result
in favor of the higher bloodline (a system of inheritance that treats
mixed marriages as closer to the higher class). For 70+0 (Prince Avan and
the milkmaid?) the standard method gives 35, whereas yours gives 11 and
mine gives 49; I can see all of these as reasonable answers. For 60+70,
my suggestion gives the children 65, same as the standard; your method`s
answer of just 15 strikes me as much too low, especially the way I
perceive Anuire as working. There also seems to be almost no way that, in
your model, there could be noble families with bloodlines of 60 or 70
after over 1,500 years (about 60 generations!) of mating.
>>

Here`s a new way of bloodline inheritance I came up with: Child gets the
same blood level as the parent with the lowest bloodline, plus a number of
blood points equal to the other parent`s blood level. Of course, later on,
both parents can still invest both of their blood lines into the child,
giving it an additional number of blood points equal to the total of both
their blood levels.
How about that?


<< I`ve also envisioned (but
not run) a plot in which a commoner happens to be touching (dressing,
selling fruit to, being healed by, etc.) a blooded scion who is killed by
an assassin using a missile weapon, which inadvertently provides the
commoner with the slain noble`s bloodline through accidental "bloodtheft".
>>

Actually, that`s possible in my campaign too. If someone is killed by a
critical hit, but the killer is not in direct contact with the victim,
anyone else who is might get the bloodline instead.


<< I`d make tighmaevril much more efficient -- give the slayer a fraction
(half, perhaps) of the victim`s BP to add to his/her own. This makes them
much more important when dealing with really powerful bloodlines, as seems
mythically appropriate to me.
>>

Half is a lot. I`m not sure I would do it like this at all, but if I would,
something like one-fifth seems better.

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