How much does a regent know?

[Delazar]

Does a regent know the how many holdings, and which levels, other regents have in the same province? And in adjacent provinces?

[Dyark]

in my campaigns, the regent know what he has a foot on, meaning as long as he have a holding or own the province, he knows what is inside the province : level, fortification, ownership etc...

[AndrewTall]

I'd expect that they know what holdings there are, and can hazard a guess at who controls most of them, but it would, in my view, take an espionage action to see who the holding truly answers to - a lot of 'non regent' law holdings for example probably represent subversion or diversion of the regent's legal due.

Where the other regent is trying to be discreet, or there is a vassalage chain to be uncovered, it might take several espionage actions to uncover the ownership chain.

I'd exclude source holdings from that concept though - unless the regent is off with the fairies I wouldn't expect them to have any idea of the source holdings present.

[Delazar]

indeed my main issue is with Sources :)

Would a True Wizard regent know who controls Sources in a province adjacent to his own?

[Retillin]

indeed my main issue is with Sources :)

Would a True Wizard regent know who controls Sources in a province adjacent to his own?

While by rules I believe they do, I think it is something that should have to be found. UNLESS they do something like contest or cast a realm spell. Then I would say they blow their cover.

[AndrewTall]

Hmm, I'm not sure why anyone would automatically know holdings in a neighbouring province.

That said, a law holder would inevitably have some contact with customs agents, sheriffs, etc, guilders would trade with/compete with rivals, etc, etc so there would definitely be knowledge that there was a presence, probably a reasonably accurate name, and at least some idea of structure, even if the true power structure was fairly opaque.

It depends a lot on what a source holding is. I like to think of a source holding to include hundreds, possibly thousands, of fairies, spirits, semi-awakened trees and rocks, etc, etc. To me a wizard is not some solitary figure who mediates alone - although that is part of them, rather they are the focus of a faerie court with a multitude of retainers who bring them information, aid them in shaping the flow of mebhaighl, exert their will, etc, etc. My view in this is shaped heavily by Katherine Kerr's Deverry I must admit.

Under that sort of perspective at least some knowledge of neighbouring sources is a given ("stuck-up lot them red forest pixies are sire, treat us like dirt they do - but a fine source of nectar for the quick-witted and swift fingered! Protected by some sidhe woman they say...")

If however you do use the hermit-approach for wizards, with sources non-sentient poolings of mebhaighl tappped by the quietly meditating wizard, etc, etc then the wizard may not know anything of any source holdings other than their own - even within the same provinces.

[Delazar]

I really like this "Deverry" approach, consider it stolen!

My main issue is that a PC is about to start a Source (0) in a region adjacent to his main Source, and that region's Source is actually fully "taken" by an enemy wizard.

So, I don't want him to look at me and say "What?! You should have told me all slots were already taken!"

[AndrewTall]

meh, its one lousy action they've wasted tops, hardly something to cry over... I'd note that barring a recent death most holdings of any description should be taken, fought over, or problematic for some reason - free lunch does lie around unclaimed for long.

If the other wizard is secretive then you could make an adventure out of discovering who they are - the local fey refuse to talk to your gnomes, "they seem scared/busy sir - you'll have to investigate yourself or find one willing to talk, they won't listen to the likes of us you see..."

[Nameless One]

My personal rule is:

Province ruler knows all holding owners and levels in the province except Source holdings.
Non-Source Holding owner knows all other holding owners and levels in the same province except Source holdings.
Source holding owner knows all other holding owners and levels in the same province.

I guess it would be more realistic for Source holding owners to be unaware of non-Source holding levels but it would require an easy way to discover the information to be added to the rules.

[tpdarkdraco]

The rule I use with my players is that if they are the province ruler they know the different holding parties but necessary their level (espionage will uncover this). For regent that only have holdings I let them know the different holding rulers but once again not necessarily their level (espionage once again). In provinces close by or adjacent I let them know if there are any free holding levels but unless they have done espionage they do not know who control what in those provinces. They always know if there are any free holdings in provinces that they have a holding of the same type.

Some exampes of info I give my players might be that the Temple of Haelyn controls most, some or all of the temple holdings in a province in which they are a ruler.

For source regents I usually tell them available free source holdings within quite a large area (if there are any). They usually do not know who controls what in the province but they might have knowledge that another wizard is known to call certain lands eg. Mhoried home.

[Arentak]

I suppose its fair to say a regent should know the names of the holding owners in adjacent provinces, and the holding owners and levels of holdings in his own provinces.

So, Queen Liliene Swordwraith of Aerenwe would know that ETN has a temple 6 in Calrie, and would know that IHH has a presence in Bellam. It might even be fair, if you were willing to get complicated, that a regent might know holding levels of their own type of holding in adjacent (only) provinces. So, while Queen Liliene would know IHH has a temple in Bellam, she might also know that MR has a Law 1 in Bellam.

Its all about the DM.

In an online game, it gets more complex then with 4 or 5 friends playing at a table.

[Nameless One]

I guess the most realistic way would be to allow everyone to know all holding owners everywhere as they are at the beginning of the game. Then, when new holdings are created or old ones destroyed, the DM would judge how fast and how far the new spreads with travellers and merchants. Of course, this is easier to accomplish in an online games where the pace is rather slow. It's not so feasible in a tabletop game where fast responses are required from the DM.

[Nicholas Harrison]

Well, when the Birthright Campaign Setting first came out, I remember that there was a lot of discussion about the nature of "regency" -- what it represents and how it is accumulated. The best comparison that, I think, I have ever been able to make is the Ancient Roman concept of auctoritas. See the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auctoritas

I've always thought of regency accumulated being a form of auctoritas -- with the regency cap imposed by one's bloodline score being a form of dignitas. See the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dignitas_(Roman_concept)

The discussion, I remember, going on when the setting came out centered around guild holdings in particular -- the idea being that, given the nature of regency, it was difficult to explain how guild holdings accumulated regency when a simple financial transaction really shouldn't generate that degree of influence. There were some counterarguments (which I thought were fairly weak) revolving around customer trust and brand loyalty.

However, I never really thought that those modern concepts really fit into the Birthright setting -- which is why I've always gravitated more toward the idea the guild holdings probably can be best explained as representing the medieval political institutions that evolved in cities and towns. Firth guilds and merchant guilds gradually giving way to civil governments and eventually giving way to leagues of towns . . . . That's never been really popular in the Birthright community because a lot of people think it's too modern and it's not "feudal" enough for the setting. However, I think there isn't much understanding that, in medieval times, there were really two parallel social structures -- the traditional feudal agricultural system and the civil/guild structure which evolved in cities and towns, which kings/regents actually supported (again, contrary to what most people think) as a counterbalance to fickle nobles because it was a more secure base of power for the kings/regents that allowed them to start building standing armies.

Anyway . . . . That discussion all aside, I think that all holdings really have to be public (including sources). If you accept the fact that regency generated by holdings is a form of auctoritas, then in order for that regency to be accumulated people have to be able to pin it to a specific figure. If they can't do that, then it can't really accumulate.

That would be my two cents . . . . I'll see what people's reactions are to these thoughts.

(Edited out some typos.)

[AndrewTall]

I like the auctoritas approach, but would blend it with a Feng Shui approach of the world bending partly around the will - conscious or not - of the regent to reflect the scion vs non-scion ruler split and allow those blessed with powerful fragemnts of godhood to be successful beyond the norm consistently without being totally unbelievable. So a regent with a high bloodline who really wants something to happen will in effect find their localised part of the universe favouring their actions to some degree, the people who look to them will lean towards favouring their views, etc and so routinely be far more succesful than someone equally smart, hard-working, etc but without a bloodline.

Either way I agree that there needs to be a focal point/person who is the recipient of the respect/worship/etc. This person could as easily be a pious monk who dispenses daily wisdom as readily as some grandee with legal titles, they just need to be someone that other people look to for guidance, etc. The details of what the GB, structure, etc that spread their power or their actions are then pure flavour for me.

I note that you can still have a hidden ruler and keep a larger domain intact by means of the vassalage rules. So the White Witch can be active in Rjurik without national hysteria because everyone locally thinks that the head of the holding is the respected and honoured warcaptain Bjorn Redbeard, Bjorn in turn follows the wise advice of his aaolfer advisers 'from the north', without any idea that in practice he is serving the awnshegh. That sort of approach would of course constrain the actions carried out by the local holding, make discovery of the secret chain of advisers cause havoc, and therefore allow a small band of cunning doughty adventurers to make a major difference in the region without wholescale slaughter - a novel concept but one which intrigues me.