Unblooded Regents

[Magian]

A couple of sources have brought me to this conclusion.

Solmyr`s rule about the highest law holding is ruler of province and Ian`s
rule of unblooded regents in Anduria.

What I have been thinking is that unblooded regents are possible anywhere
even in Cerilia. They however can only rule over law holdings(temple and
guild are possible also) signifying their power over the people and giving
the highest law holder the taxes. Perhaps with some penalties for other law
holders who oppose. The province investiture simply does not exist for
unblooded regents since they do not have a tie to the land.

Why am I bringing this up? Other lands than Cerilia do exist and possible
rules for how they maintain order would be nice to look into. Also I am
begining to expand into other settings as part of my campaign.

How about true magic and sources? I would say they remain under Ian`s rules
with one exception. Like elves certain cultures could tap into true magic
but not delve into the source and realm magic level until they are blooded.
So those of us who see the Magian as a normal wizard from a distant land can
explain his mastery of it and his compulsion to learn more about this
bloodline and realm magic stuff. This would also bring about a balancing
force if the wizards of Cerilia make a massive exodus to other continents in
order to grab the vast expanses of untouched sources. Indigenous Archmages
would catch on to this phenomena and work to preserve their own power.

I await comments on this potentially heretical post.

ciao

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

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

[Ariadne]

Example temple holding: To become a temple regent, a potential regent must do something outstanding for his church (I think). Further he must be accepted by his god (thats why I can't understand the investure of Taril Herad) and he should be blooded.

From this aspect there can be a window for unblooded regents, if they are skilled. But they wouldn't ever get regency points (for game terms). In my oppinion this symbolises that he would be never accepted by commoners and other priests (as regent). So if he is skilled and accepted by his god, his deity would arrange a bloodline for him...

[Lord Eldred]

Why couldn't unblooded regents earn regency points? I have argued before about this that regency points are like political clout. It is not some sort of magic. It is clout you can choose to spend or build up. You shouldn't have to be blooded to earn political clout. you should just have a vehicle to spend it through such as being a law holder or guild holder.

Further more why couldn't a unblooded regent take power of a country through a peoples revolution? Thus becoming a province ruler?

[geeman]

At 02:39 PM 7/19/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

>Why couldn`t unblooded regents earn regency points? I have argued before
>about this that regency points are like political clout. It is not some
>sort of magic. It is clout you can choose to spend or build up. You
>shouldn`t have to be blooded to earn political clout. you should just
>have a vehicle to spend it through such as being a law holder or guild holder.

The Rulebook describes regency as a "mystical power that regents derive
from their stewardship" (p32) and the BR domain rules are written under the
assumption that RP really is some sort of magic. That doesn`t mean you
couldn`t reinterpret RP as political clout, of course, but there are
several issues you should probably take into consideration in doing so.

1. Source holdings. Even given the magical power interpretation of RP
source holdings are kind of hinky. Going with a purely political version
of RP puts sources in an even stranger situation, though. Sources
represent the non-population based aspect of realms, so if RP represent
political clout then it might make sense to reinterpret what source
holdings do, who controls them, what they generate for the regent who does
control them and generally their role in the domain system, because it`s
hard to picture the control of animals, rocks and plant life of a source(5)
generating the same amount of political clout that a law(5) does.

2. Realm spells. It`s hard to picture political clout being required to
empower a domain level magical spell, so a bit of reinterpretation is
needed here too. You could probably just do away with RP costs and
maintain the holding level, GB costs and time required and most realm
spells would be fine, though a few might need GB costs added to them or
their current GB cost increased, and keeping some realm spells as is (the
Alchemy spell, in particular) wouldn`t make buckets of sense.

3. Investiture. In the BR domain rules investiture can transfer RP from
one regent to another without any dissipation, which doesn`t really fit the
political clout interpretation. The mundane system of favors, allegiances,
etc. aren`t as transferrable as mystical power derived through a divine
bloodline connection to the land. Vassalage agreements and investing an
heir with one`s RP should both be either eliminated or penalized
somehow. That is it "costs" 2RP to transfer 1RP to another
regent. Something like that.

4. Bloodlines. If no bloodline is required to rule then what is the role
of a bloodline? Further, what is a bloodline if one can spend RP to
improve it? If RP are represented by political clout rather than magical
energy AND they can still increase bloodline strength then should
bloodlines have magical powers associated with them? Should a system of
bloodlines be used at all if one is going with the political clout
interpretation of RP?

5. Bloodtheft. "If a scion or regent dies as a result of another blooded
character piercing him through the hear, the victim`s heir assumes his
domain, but the victim`s Regency Points are lost." Stabbing one through
the heart really doesn`t have anything to do with political clout except in
the kind of ancillary, "et tu Brute" adventure level kind of way. Take the
way bloodtheft works with RP into consideration if going with the political
clout version of RP.

6. RP and GB. In a few occasions RP and GB are used interchangeably and
you may want to take into consideration whether or not you can still spend
RP to maintain troops, for instance, rather than GB. This one`s a little
iffy, since you could certainly view the RP spent as being used to call in
enough favors to maintain a unit of soldiers for a domain turn, but some
people may have trouble with the concept that 200 men are "eating"
political favors for three months.

There are a few other weird issues that will likely pop up if using a
political clout interpretation of RP, and if you DM players who are of the
"go along, get along" disposition and don`t question the why`s and
wherefore`s behind the rules then you may not need to even bother with any
of the above issues.

>Further more why couldn`t a unblooded regent take power of a country
>through a peoples revolution? Thus becoming a province ruler?

He could. He couldn`t be invested with those provinces or holdings, nor
could he collect RP (or GB presumably) from them without some
reinterpretation of the system. What you`re talking about is probably best
expressed by provinces and holdings being "neutralized" (generating no
RP/GB for the blooded regent) per the Great Captain or Heresy random
event. The Unrest or Rebellion event could similarly be used.

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.

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, Gary wrote:
> >Further more why couldn`t a unblooded regent take power of a country
> >through a peoples revolution? Thus becoming a province ruler?
>
> He could. He couldn`t be invested with those provinces or holdings, nor
> could he collect RP (or GB presumably) from them without some
> reinterpretation of the system. What you`re talking about is probably best
> expressed by provinces and holdings being "neutralized" (generating no
> RP/GB for the blooded regent) per the Great Captain or Heresy random
> event. The Unrest or Rebellion event could similarly be used.

He could hold and tax them with military units- occupied provinces can be
taxed, using the occupier`s military units as law holdings. I don`t
remember the rule exactly, but it`s something like that. So GB, but no
RP.

If he were really destined for great things, the land`s choice would be
the way out for him.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

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

[geeman]

At 04:46 PM 7/19/2002 -0400, Daniel McSorley wrote:

>He could hold and tax them with military units- occupied provinces can be
>taxed, using the occupier`s military units as law holdings. I don`t
>remember the rule exactly, but it`s something like that. So GB, but no RP.

That`s true. Conquest and Occupation. Each unit represents a level of a
law holding for the purpose of collecting GB. At least, that`s the way it
would appear to work. The Rulebook doesn`t say it as neatly as that. It
says "the occupying forces serve as a temporary law holding equal to the
number of units present" and "As long as the conqueror occupies the
province with at least one unit, he can perform taxation and replace the
ruler in all respects but he _cannot_ collect regency until he invests the
province" p66-67.

>If he were really destined for great things, the land`s choice would be
>the way out for him.

That`s a possibility. I`ve never really used the Land`s Choice myself, and
I`m under the impression that it`s more of a random kind of thing than a
reward to the successful rebel, though I kind of like the idea and it does
fit into a couple of ideas I had regarding the interaction of the adventure
level and the realm level.

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]

A political interpretation of regency doesn`t lead to unblooded rulers if
one regards the whole relationship between a ruler and the people as being
sacred. Politics itself is a sacred art infused with the mandate of heaven.
While modern thought might view politics, government, learning, economics,
&c as secular and totally without a divine componant, BR with its
bloodlines, regency, and mebhaighl supports the interpretation that
rulership is divine. When the ruler steps before his court and wins their
approval, this is a sacred act. It is because of his divine essence that he
is capable of attracting support in the first place. Politics is impossible
without nobility because its not mediated by divinity. Describing it as
magical, or a mystical energy doesn`t mean we have to exclude day to day
things as a part of that. This divine power can be in all things.

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]

I interpret the land`s choice as being an in-setting description for the
transfer of an abandon bloodline by investiture to any but-for-a-bloodline
legitimate ruler. I have pulled a bloodline out of my hat when I thought it
was better to make an established character blooded than to leave them
unblooded. I used a few quests and visions to add weight to this
investiture. I would never allow any random assignment of bloodlines as a
part of land`s choice. That`s altogether the very essence of democracy.

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.

[Magian]

>From: Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM>
>This divine power can be in all things.

Careful Kenneth you are getting philosophical. You may get your head bit
off.

ciao,

Paul

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

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

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by geeman

At 02:39 PM 7/19/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

>Why couldn`t unblooded regents earn regency points? I have argued before
>about this that regency points are like political clout. It is not some
>sort of magic. It is clout you can choose to spend or build up. You
>shouldn`t have to be blooded to earn political clout. you should just
>have a vehicle to spend it through such as being a law holder or guild holder.

The Rulebook describes regency as a "mystical power that regents derive
from their stewardship" (p32) and the BR domain rules are written under the
assumption that RP really is some sort of magic. That doesn`t mean you
couldn`t reinterpret RP as political clout, of course, but there are
several issues you should probably take into consideration in doing so.

1. Source holdings. Even given the magical power interpretation of RP
source holdings are kind of hinky. Going with a purely political version
of RP puts sources in an even stranger situation, though. Sources
represent the non-population based aspect of realms, so if RP represent
political clout then it might make sense to reinterpret what source
holdings do, who controls them, what they generate for the regent who does
control them and generally their role in the domain system, because it`s
hard to picture the control of animals, rocks and plant life of a source(5)
generating the same amount of political clout that a law(5) does.


Political clout can come from magic power. A source holding gives more than just control of animals, rocks and plant life. It gives the owner a source of power. That source of power gives the owner political clout. Just as the law holding is really a source of physical power for the owner which translates into political clout. Thus I would argue both give the same amount of regency or political clout.


Orginally posted by geeman
2. Realm spells. It`s hard to picture political clout being required to
empower a domain level magical spell, so a bit of reinterpretation is
needed here too. You could probably just do away with RP costs and
maintain the holding level, GB costs and time required and most realm
spells would be fine, though a few might need GB costs added to them or
their current GB cost increased, and keeping some realm spells as is (the
Alchemy spell, in particular) wouldn`t make buckets of sense.



Perhaps you are right. One way to handle it is to eliminate the use of regency in casting spells. Or you could view the casting of realm spells differently. They take time and effort. One argument could be while you are spending the time and effort on casting the spell you are not maintaining your political clout and thus you lose some. Or you have to spend some of your clout to get the spell done such as using it as part of the Demagogue spell to increase loyalty. I don't see it as a stretch. In fact it is a better logical explanation than what is given when you interpret R.P. as some sort of magical substance.


Orginally posted by geeman
3. Investiture. In the BR domain rules investiture can transfer RP from
one regent to another without any dissipation, which doesn`t really fit the
political clout interpretation. The mundane system of favors, allegiances,
etc. aren`t as transferrable as mystical power derived through a divine
bloodline connection to the land. Vassalage agreements and investing an
heir with one`s RP should both be either eliminated or penalized
somehow. That is it "costs" 2RP to transfer 1RP to another
regent. Something like that.


You need to start thinking outside of the box. If magic can make a person look differently and magic can charm people, than magic can transfer someones political clout from one person to another. In your example, people suddenly think the allegiance is with me instead of you when the R.P. transfers. Vassalage is the ultimate example of how this really works. The vassal says I will let you use the favors people owe me instead of me using them myself.


Orginally posted by geeman
4. Bloodlines. If no bloodline is required to rule then what is the role
of a bloodline? Further, what is a bloodline if one can spend RP to
improve it? If RP are represented by political clout rather than magical
energy AND they can still increase bloodline strength then should
bloodlines have magical powers associated with them? Should a system of
bloodlines be used at all if one is going with the political clout
interpretation of RP?


A blooded regent has certain advantages that an unblooded regent can't claim. They have certain powers that their bloodline brings. They have a claim on the rule of land based on their bloodline, just as kings and queens of old. They have the ability to gain regency just because they are a descendant of someone. They also can gain it like the unblooded would have to through their domain power (domain power is their ability to influence through holdings). Unblooded rulers can only gain regency through domain holdings. The one rule that has to be changed based on this interpretation is that r.p. is the samller of bloodline score or domain power. I would argue it should be the larger to give the blooded the advantage.

As far as increasing your bloodline. First I would ask you how you think the whole process works? My explanation is that you can spend regency to make people think your family was a lot more powerful or respected than they really were thus generating more support for you and thus increasing your ability to generate regency points. Another possible explanation is that it is a magic ritual. I don't believe that any normal soul can perform this ritual. So you have to use your political clout with the person who can perform the ritual to have it done.



Orginally posted by geeman
5. Bloodtheft. "If a scion or regent dies as a result of another blooded
character piercing him through the hear, the victim`s heir assumes his
domain, but the victim`s Regency Points are lost." Stabbing one through
the heart really doesn`t have anything to do with political clout except in
the kind of ancillary, "et tu Brute" adventure level kind of way. Take the
way bloodtheft works with RP into consideration if going with the political
clout version of RP.


Actually it makes more sense if you think of it my way. If regency points are some sort of magic tied to the bloodline, why does it get lost when someone steals your bloodline. Shouldn't the regency transfer with it? Now in my interpretation it makes sense. When a guy is dead, he can't spend his political clout anymore. All agreements are off with anyone they had clout with!


Orginally posted by geeman
6. RP and GB. In a few occasions RP and GB are used interchangeably and
you may want to take into consideration whether or not you can still spend
RP to maintain troops, for instance, rather than GB. This one`s a little
iffy, since you could certainly view the RP spent as being used to call in
enough favors to maintain a unit of soldiers for a domain turn, but some
people may have trouble with the concept that 200 men are "eating"
political favors for three months.


Not if you are calling in political favors to have the men fed!



Orginally posted by geeman
There are a few other weird issues that will likely pop up if using a
political clout interpretation of RP, and if you DM players who are of the
"go along, get along" disposition and don`t question the why`s and
wherefore`s behind the rules then you may not need to even bother with any
of the above issues.


I think you answered it yourself.

[geeman]

At 07:25 PM 7/22/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

First off, I should note that I think it`s fine to go with a political
clout interpretation of regency. All I`m saying is that if you`re going to
do so you also need to justify certain aspects of how the BR rules work at
the realm level, and that could cause some conflicts and situations that
would be sensible to address.

Now then... I didn`t say that source holdings wouldn`t generate RP in a
political clout interpretation of regency. I said it`s hard to picture
equivalent amounts of control (holding levels) over the animals, rocks and
plant life represented by a source holding being able to generate the same
amount of political clout as a law holding, and that the role of the source
holding when using a political clout interpretation of RP should be
considered. Compare a source(3) to a law(3), guild(3), or temple(3) in a
province 3/3. Would the regent who controlled the source really have as
much political influence as the regents who control the legal lives of the
approx. 10,000 people in that province or the one who controls trade and
commerce, or the one who controls their religion? Presumably the source
ruler has control over an equivalent number/hit dice/power of flora, fauna
and real estate, but his connection to the political clout of the province
is less direct. Sure, a given population can have an environmental
sensibility that lends itself to political power, and control over natural
resources does represent a political influence, but I don`t think it has
the day-to-day significance (or 1:1 holding level to political clout RP)
that law, commerce and religion have, so it shouldn`t get the same
political influence.

>>2. Realm spells.
>
>Or you could view the casting of realm spells differently. They take time
>and effort. One argument could be while you are spending the time and
>effort on casting the spell you are not maintaining your political clout
>and thus you lose some. Or you have to spend some of your clout to get the
>spell done such as using it as part of the Demagogue spell to increase
>loyalty. I don`t see it as a stretch. In fact it is a better logical
>explanation than what is given when you interpret R.P. as some sort of
>magical substance.

If you`re going with this option (which is just as plausible as any other)
then shouldn`t all realm spells have the same RP cost? That is the same
time and diverted effort is spent casting Dispel Realm Magic as was spent
on Honest Dealings, isn`t it? GB costs can still provide a balancing
factor, but since wizards tend to be cash poor, if you`re going to fiddle
with the way RP function in realm magic using GB as the basis of realm
spells might further restrict what many people see as an imbalance for
wizards in the realm rules.

>>In the BR domain rules investiture can transfer RP from one regent to
>>another without any dissipation, which doesn`t really fit the political
>>clout interpretation. The mundane system of favors, allegiances, etc.
>>aren`t as transferrable as mystical power derived through a divine
>>bloodline connection to the land. Vassalage agreements and investing an
>>heir with one`s RP should both be either eliminated or penalized
>>somehow. That is it "costs" 2RP to transfer 1RP to another
>>regent. Something like that.
>
>You need to start thinking outside of the box. If magic can make a person
>look differently and magic can charm people, than magic can transfer
>someones political clout from one person to another. In your example,
>people suddenly think the allegiance is with me instead of you when the
>R.P. transfers. Vassalage is the ultimate example of how this really
>works. The vassal says I will let you use the favors people owe me instead
>of me using them myself.

You need to start reading entire paragraphs. If you read what I wrote a
bit more carefully, I think you`ll note that I didn`t say one couldn`t
transfer RP or have vassalage agreements using the political clout
interpretation of RP. All I`m saying is that political clout isn`t as
easily transferred from one person to another as a magically interpreted
version of RP is, because "magical points" can be seen as "magical energy"
being conserved and passed on, where an abstract concept like political
clout isn`t so easily justified being transferred without any loss from one
person to the next. So you might want to take into consideration some sort
of "cost" or "loss rate" when transferring RP from one regent to another,
be they regent to regent, Vassal to regent or whatever.

As for political clout RP being magically transferred.... If you`re going
to go with a hybrid kind of thing (magically transferred political clout)
then, of course, anything can happen, but I`d suggest that the difference
between "magical RP" and "political clout RP that are transferred
magically" is pretty slim, because I would think that if it could be
transferred magically then it could also be spent magically and changed
into bloodline magically, etc. so it might as well just be magical. Magic
transferring favors from one person to another without any dissipation in
political clout doesn`t strike me as any more plausible than making RP
magical to begin with.

But if you really want to go with magically transferred political clout RP
(there`s a mouthful...) then you might want to look at how that magical
transfer is aided. Magical devices? Magic spells? Magical special
abilities a la some sort of prestige class, racial template or blood
ability? It opens up a whole new line of possibilities (many of which
could be very interesting to play.)

>A blooded regent has certain advantages that an unblooded regent can`t
>claim. They have certain powers that their bloodline brings. They have a
>claim on the rule of land based on their bloodline, just as kings and
>queens of old. They have the ability to gain regency just because they are
>a descendant of someone. They also can gain it like the unblooded would
>have to through their domain power (domain power is their ability to
>influence through holdings). Unblooded rulers can only gain regency
>through domain holdings. The one rule that has to be changed based on this
>interpretation is that r.p. is the samller of bloodline score or domain
>power. I would argue it should be the larger to give the blooded the advantage.

I`m not really following your logic there since it seems to me that if RP
represent political clout rather than magical energy there isn`t a game
mechanical limitation that can ever be put on it that can`t be very easily
challenged or changed (which isn`t a bad thing--people should be able to
manipulate a system as they like) so the option (bloodline score or domain
power--whichever is higher for the amount of RP collected) isn`t
necessarily as cut and dried as you make it. Bloodline as a limitation on
magical RP collection gets changed from time to time in various house
rules, and that`s the basis of the BR domain rules, so going with a
definition of RP that isn`t tied to the background, game mechanics of the
setting will inevitably draw many different interpretations. Personally, I
wouldn`t go with a bloodline score or domain power, whichever is higher
system since it makes a guy with a high bloodline score and a single level
of a holding (or even a level 0 holding, right?) a possibly more serious
political player than someone with a vast series of provinces and holdings
regardless of his bloodline score.

[continued...]

************************************************** **************************
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]

[continued from previous post...]

Lord Eldred wrote:

>As far as increasing your bloodline. First I would ask you how you think
>the whole process works?

Under the magical version of RP or in "real life?" The magical one doesn`t
require much additional explanation, I don`t think. Under the real
life/political clout interpretation of RP... I don`t know if there really
is a very good rationale for spending RP to increase one`s bloodline. I
don`t think it actually happens anywhere in "real life" or politically. At
least not in the sense that it exists in the game.

>My explanation is that you can spend regency to make people think your
>family was a lot more powerful or respected than they really were thus
>generating more support for you and thus increasing your ability to
>generate regency points. Another possible explanation is that it is a
>magic ritual. I don`t believe that any normal soul can perform this
>ritual. So you have to use your political clout with the person who can
>perform the ritual to have it done.

OK, but do you really need RP for this at all? And if you`re going with a
political clout interpretation of RP you should consider the system of
turning RP into bloodline strength. Can someone "create" a bloodline by
spending a single RP? Why or why not? Should the amount of RP required to
increase one`s bloodline remain the same? Why or why not? Should there be
a flat rate? Should the scale be higher or lower? How powerful is a
political clout RP and does it really have the kind of "power" needed to
raise someone`s bloodline?

Your response would seem to indicate that you also favor a non-magical
interpretation of bloodline--which is also perfectly plausible, but
bloodline is undoubtedly magical in nature in the current rules so if
you`re going with a non-magical RP system that interacts with
a non-magical bloodline system then it would make sense to look at blood
abilities, how bloodlines are transferred to children, bloodline
derivations, etc.

>>Bloodtheft.... Take the way bloodtheft works with RP into consideration
>>if going with the political clout version of RP.
>
>Actually it makes more sense if you think of it my way. If regency points
>are some sort of magic tied to the bloodline, why does it get lost when
>someone steals your bloodline. Shouldn`t the regency transfer with it?
>Now in my interpretation it makes sense. When a guy is dead, he can`t
>spend his political clout anymore. All agreements are off with anyone they
>had clout with!

I didn`t really present the issue very well there so let me
rephrase. Compare the BR rules: a regent slain by a commoner or who dies a
natural death transfers all his RP to his heir, but a regent slain by a
_stab through the heart_ by another scion does not transfer RP to his
heir. The magical interpretation of RP is tied up with the magical nature
of bloodlines on this one.

Using a different interpretation of RP you should consider whether or not
or how many RPs will be transferred upon the death of a regent. The
specific decision here isn`t really the point. You could handle it however
you think best and rationalize it any way fits into your interpretation of
RP. One person might transfer all RP to an heir when a regent dies under
any circumstances, another might transfer none, yet a third might think it
makes sense to transfer a fraction, or one could have circumstances dictate
how many RP are transferred. My point is that it would be a good idea to
decide such a thing before it happens in a campaign.

>>RP and GB. This one`s a little iffy, since you could certainly view the
>>RP spent as being used to call in enough favors to maintain a unit of
>>soldiers for a domain turn, but some people may have trouble with the
>>concept that 200 men are "eating" political favors for three months.
>
>Not if you are calling in political favors to have the men fed!

Yes, you could go with that interpretation (as, again, I noted in the
paragraph in which I raised the point) but what I`m saying is that it might
get a bit difficult to justify eventually. If a realm isn`t producing
enough GB to pay its soldiers then it`s hard to see why it would be able to
feed them on favors, which is something that using the current rules on RP
could be done indefinitely and could strain verisimilitude. There are a
few other occasions than the example of maintain troops, however, in which
RP can be used in place of GB and vice versa. Agitation actions, for
example, and it seems to me there are a few others. If one can spend
political clout RP to maintain troops then it would be justifiable to spend
them to maintain castles, courts, or spend them on just about any other use
of GB, right?

In fact, some folks have suggested doing away with RP entirely and going
with a purely GB based realm system. Such a system could work just as well
as a magical or political clout interpretation of RP, which leads me to
wonder if one wants to go with a political clout interpretation of RP then
why not take that next step and do away with RP? "Favors" and
"alliegances" are all well and good, but aren`t they really role-playing
decisions, not something that need be articulated by RP? Couldn`t
political clout be as easily expressed economically, especially since realm
level activities all have a GB cost. GB talk, RP walk....

Anyway, other things you might want to take into consideration if going
with a political clout interpretation of RP:

1. You`ve noted some limitation on RP collection, but that`s something that
really needs some thought. Bloodline strength represents the maximum
amount of RP a regent can collect, but if RP is political clout it need not
necessarily have anything to do with bloodlines. Anybody can have
political clout, and anybody can garner political influence. If there`s no
limit of RP collection then there is little need for the Vassalage system
of BR and it might make sense to just assume such a system of
loyalty/allegiance exists.

2. RP awards. Along the same lines, should RP collection necessarily be
restricted to province/holding levels and trade routes in a non-magical
interpretation of RP? In the same way that RP can be lost by not
responding to random events, losing several provinces, etc. in the current
rules, it`s easy to picture non-regents gaining political/RP from
successfully participating in adventures that have a political
significance. Rescuing the princess should give you political clout with
the king, as should fighting off the hordes of rabid minions of <whatever>
when they threaten the kingdom. Many typical D&D adventures might earn RP,
turning regency into another aspect of the reward system.

3. Shelf Life. Owing someone a favor grows stale pretty quickly, and oaths
of allegiance fade in significance over time. Several people have
suggested system in which RP storage is lost ranging from things like
bloodline strength score as the maximum RP that can be transferred from one
domain turn to the next to all unspent RP are lost at the end of the domain
turn. RP as political clout should probably not allow one to store up
"favors" for use indefinitely and without any maximum storage limit.

Gary

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

[Peter Lubke]

On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 03:25, brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG wrote:

Lord Eldred wrote:

Orginally posted by geeman

At 02:39 PM 7/19/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

>Why couldn`t unblooded regents earn regency points? I have argued before
>about this that regency points are like political clout. It is not some
>sort of magic. It is clout you can choose to spend or build up. You
>shouldn`t have to be blooded to earn political clout. you should just
>have a vehicle to spend it through such as being a law holder or guild holder.

I agree. (in principle at least)


The Rulebook describes regency as a "mystical power that regents derive
from their stewardship" (p32) and the BR domain rules are written under the
assumption that RP really is some sort of magic.

Nowhere does it come even close to stating such. That`s hanging a long
cloth on the one-time use of mystical here.


1. Source holdings. Even given the magical power interpretation of RP
source holdings are kind of hinky. Going with a purely political version
of RP puts sources in an even stranger situation, though.

While this is a good point, look at what you can`t do (barred actions)
from sources. Certainly sources are some kind of special case - but, in
being a special case (and that is certainly acknowledged in the rules)
do not serve as a refutation to a general case.



Perhaps you are right. One way to handle it is to eliminate the use of regency
in casting spells. Or you could view the casting of realm spells differently.
They take time and effort. One argument could be while you are spending the
time and effort on casting the spell you are not maintaining your political
clout and thus you lose some. Or you have to spend some of your clout to get
the spell done such as using it as part of the Demagogue spell to increase
loyalty. I don`t see it as a stretch. In fact it is a better logical
explanation than what is given when you interpret R.P. as some sort of magical
substance.

If you define regency as being the reflection of "the aura of command
that surrounds a ruler or a great scion - their innate expectation that
they will be obeyed/followed", then a non-blooded ruler with a powerful
domain would have as much regency as a powerful blooded scion with no
domain.

Such a reflection can occur in the mundane or the magical world, but not
equally into both - that is, being a great king grants you very little
influence in the realm of magic and vice versa. The usefulness of
regency from a magical perspective is simply different from the use of
regency in a mundane perspective - and of course, vice versa. [e.g. no
matter how much regency a king of a realm has - this does not empower
him to cast spells]

Regency points then, (cf regency itself as above - and I will get to the
point eventually) are a game mechanic that allows us to measure the use
of regency by allowing expenditure of a controlled number of points over
a fixed time period.

[quote]Orginally posted by geeman
3. Investiture. In the BR domain rules investiture can transfer RP from
one regent to another without any dissipation, which doesn`t really fit the
political clout interpretation. The mundane system of favors, allegiances,
etc. aren`t as transferrable as mystical power derived through a divine
bloodline connection to the land. Vassalage agreements and investing an
heir with one`s RP should both be either eliminated or penalized
somehow. That is it "costs" 2RP to transfer 1RP to another
regent. Something like that.


You need to start thinking outside of the box. If magic can make a person
look differently and magic can charm people, than magic can transfer someones
political clout from one person to another. In your example, people suddenly
think the allegiance is with me instead of you when the R.P. transfers.
Vassalage is the ultimate example of how this really works. The vassal says
I will let you use the favors people owe me instead of me using them myself.

This is well put. I would add that it doesn`t have to be a magical
thing. The rules allow for easy transference without investiture of law
holdings and guild holdings (and, through the BoM, source holdings -
although whether this is magical or not is blurry). Again, and even more
so than before, hanging a lot on the use of `mystical` == `magical`.


[quote]Orginally posted by geeman
4. Bloodlines. If no bloodline is required to rule then what is the role
of a bloodline? Further, what is a bloodline if one can spend RP to
improve it? If RP are represented by political clout rather than magical
energy AND they can still increase bloodline strength then should
bloodlines have magical powers associated with them? Should a system of
bloodlines be used at all if one is going with the political clout
interpretation of RP?
[quote]

A blooded regent has certain advantages that an unblooded regent can`t
claim. They have certain powers that their bloodline brings. They have a
claim on the rule of land based on their bloodline, just as kings and
queens of old. They have the ability to gain regency just because they
are a descendant of someone. They also can gain it like the unblooded
would have to through their domain power (domain power is their ability
to influence through holdings). Unblooded rulers can only gain regency
through domain holdings. The one rule that has to be changed based on
this interpretation is that r.p. is the samller of bloodline score or
domain power. I would argue it should be the larger to give the blooded
the advantage.

Exactly. Bloodlines are a head-start. An advantage to those favored of
the gods. A bonus by virtue of inheritance. Between a small domain run
by an unblooded character (or a character with a lowly tainted
bloodline) and an equally small domain run by a character with a great
bloodline - there should be an admission that the character with the
great bloodline has a greater aura of command and is a more inspiring
and effective regent.

************************************************** **************************
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]

On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 09:28, Gary wrote:

[continued from previous post...]


G,
yes you are right - there is a lot to be considered to balance
everything out. Then again to put things into perspective, how balanced
is everything now?


Anyway, other things you might want to take into consideration if going
with a political clout interpretation of RP:

1. You`ve noted some limitation on RP collection, but that`s something that
really needs some thought. Bloodline strength represents the maximum
amount of RP a regent can collect, but if RP is political clout it need not
necessarily have anything to do with bloodlines. Anybody can have
political clout, and anybody can garner political influence. If there`s no
limit of RP collection then there is little need for the Vassalage system
of BR and it might make sense to just assume such a system of
loyalty/allegiance exists.

`collection` is a board game term to describe a game mechanic. (e.g.
collect $200 as you pass "GO") Perhaps it`d be easier to think of it in
terms like "restore hit points/regency points to maximum value" - I`ll
come back to that further on.


2. RP awards. Along the same lines, should RP collection necessarily be
restricted to province/holding levels and trade routes in a non-magical
interpretation of RP? In the same way that RP can be lost by not
responding to random events, losing several provinces, etc. in the current
rules, it`s easy to picture non-regents gaining political/RP from
successfully participating in adventures that have a political
significance. Rescuing the princess should give you political clout with
the king, as should fighting off the hordes of rabid minions of <whatever>
when they threaten the kingdom. Many typical D&D adventures might earn RP,
turning regency into another aspect of the reward system.

Potentially some actions might generate political clout or influence -
but, given your point 3, (coming up), a player should turn that into
reality ASAP. e.g. Get a vassalage or grant of some kind - turn it into
a domain. "King Rufus: I appoint you Baron Renfrew, with all the rights,
incomes, and responsibilities thereof - owing allegience only to the
throne of Flatland etc etc..."


3. Shelf Life. Owing someone a favor grows stale pretty quickly, and oaths
of allegiance fade in significance over time. Several people have
suggested system in which RP storage is lost ranging from things like
bloodline strength score as the maximum RP that can be transferred from one
domain turn to the next to all unspent RP are lost at the end of the domain
turn. RP as political clout should probably not allow one to store up
"favors" for use indefinitely and without any maximum storage limit.

Yes Gary, here again I agree. Shelf life is very short, especially when
viewed in terms of political expediency. I favor the all unspent RP are
lost scenario. There is room I think however for a more binding form of
agreement, sanctioned by the gods (i.e. priesthoods via investiture) and
bound in blood (sworn on pain of losing bloodline/honor).


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.

************************************************** **************************
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]

At 09:50 AM 7/23/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>The Rulebook describes regency as a "mystical power that regents derive
>>from their stewardship" (p32) and the BR domain rules are written under
>>the assumption that RP really is some sort of magic.
>
>Nowhere does it come even close to stating such. That`s hanging a long
>cloth on the one-time use of mystical here.

Well, it`s the very next sentence after the section entitled "Regency" the
same way many other terms are defined throughout the BR texts and many
other D&D materials.... It`s the genus of the definition. "Regency is the
MYSTICAL POWER [genus] associated with blooded rulers and leaders
[species.]" It further describes regency as "an invisible crown" or an
"unseen aura of power that allows him to do things that lesser mortals
COULDN`T EVEN DREAM ABOUT." [Emphasis mine.]

Also, it is not a one-time reference. On p30-31 (again under a "Regency"
heading) it says, "Blooded characters who control kingdoms are blessed with
a MYSTICAL [mine] connection to the land--a right to rule that infuses them
with SUPERNATURAL [mine] powers, responsibilities and benefits." It goes
on to speculate about the nature of regency as "something in the
semi-divine blood of a noble scion responds to the allegiance of his
followers in the same way that a true deity gains strength from
worshippers. Kings and nobles aren`t the only rulers blessed with this
MYSTICAL [mine] ability." And continues that "The MYSTIC [mine] powers
that regents derive from their stewardship is known as divine right, karma,
or nobility--but it`s most commonly and correctly called
_regency_." [sic] In the next paragraph, it says "In game terms, regency
is measured by Regency Points".

It never says anywhere flat out that "the domain rules were written under
the assumption that RP is some sort of magic" but they are nonetheless. If
RP is not mystical power then:

How does it empower realm spells as it does?
Why is a bloodline required to earn RP?
How does it grant magical abilities when it is spent to increases
bloodline strength score, and how does it increase bloodline strength score
in the first place?
Why is the transfer of RP from a regent to an heir stopped by an act of
bloodtheft?
How is it transferred without any restriction at all through vassalage
agreements or from regent to heir?
Why is an investiture realm spell required in order to transfer RP
through vassalage? If it`s political favors and allegiance then what need
for the magical ceremony?

Having said all that, it`s 100% OK, completely kosher, absolutely no
problem, honky dory, fine and dandy to go with a non-magical interpretation
of RP. It is. Really. I`m not at all saying one can`t do reinterpret RP
and go with such an interpretation. It`s not a superior or inferior method
of playing at the realm level. All I`m saying is that questions like those
listed above should be addressed if one is going to go with that
interpretation because sooner or later they are going to come up.

I do kind of suspect, however, that a non-magical interpretation of RP will
eventually lead to a non-RP based system of realm rules. At least, that`s
the way I think I`d do it. The only D&D material that I can think of that
has presented domain level effects with some sort of RP (be they mystical
or mundane) is BR. The other systems that have been published in issues of
Dragon or the smidges of domain-like rules presented in a few campaign
sources, didn`t bother with the concept at all, instead just using money to
represent political strength.

One thing that might help sustain a "political power" based RP system is an
interaction at the adventure level. If spending an RP or three allowed one
to get the benefit of the "Favor" special ability given to the noble
character classes in the WoT setting and the new Star Wars update. That
might make some sense, and serve as a gateway into the realm level of play.

Gary

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

[Peter Lubke]

On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 11:50, Gary wrote:

At 09:50 AM 7/23/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>The Rulebook describes regency as a "mystical power that regents derive
>>from their stewardship" (p32) and the BR domain rules are written under
>>the assumption that RP really is some sort of magic.
>
>Nowhere does it come even close to stating such. That`s hanging a long
>cloth on the one-time use of mystical here.

Well, it`s the very next sentence after the section entitled "Regency" the
same way many other terms are defined throughout the BR texts and many
other D&D materials.... It`s the genus of the definition. "Regency is the
MYSTICAL POWER [genus] associated with blooded rulers and leaders
[species.]" It further describes regency as "an invisible crown" or an
"unseen aura of power that allows him to do things that lesser mortals
COULDN`T EVEN DREAM ABOUT." [Emphasis mine.]

"Couldn`t even dream about" - a figure of speech that is always used in
an exaggerated context to add emphasis - all the time knowing full well
that it is completely incorrect. i.e. Bob is so rich you couldn`t even
dream about it. <- but Bob IS that rich - it IS possible (and lesser
mortals CAN gain that much regency - and they CAN dream about it - in
fact not all regents have gobs and gobs of regency, some have but a
small amount)

Anyway, that`s not the point.

(i) The argument/position is that you could have a non-blooded ruler -
or more exactly - that a non-blooded (or weakly blooded) ruler could
have a great deal of regency, if they control a powerful domain. That
control of the domain and the authority, power, influence, prestige etc
that surround the ruler of a powerful domain are not a personal
attribute - that they depend on the position occupied. e.g. The
President of the US is a powerful man, not personally, but in his
office. [also see in the above reference derive from their stewardship]

(ii) A man put into such a position does however assume some
characteristics of command through experiencing the effects of the
position, they come to a personal power that they can take with them
when they leave office (in most cases). Using the same example an
ex-President still has a great deal of "presence", but not so great as a
current President.

(iii) The further position is that blooded characters have the aura of
command, an innate sense of personal right, before they even gain such a
position. The heir to a throne - in expectation of an eventual
ascendancy to such power - will exhibit some characteristics of
rulership even before any authority is actually passed to them. And
others will treat them with the respect due a future ruler. Some people
were born to be President so to speak. (ha!)

IMO (and IMC currently in hiatus), whenever a character that is
unblooded gains control of a domain - they will also gain a bloodline,
although initially of only 1 point. This from a house rule that states
"the probability of gaining a bloodline point (BP) each domain turn is
equal to difference between domain power(DP) and bloodline proportionate
to domain power. (DP-BP)/(DP)", which for an unblooded character is
always a probability of 1.00 (DP-0)/DP. Such a rule leads logically to
the point that only blooded characters can rule domains - due to the
effects of point (ii) above.



Also, it is not a one-time reference. On p30-31 (again under a "Regency"
heading) it says, "Blooded characters who control kingdoms are blessed with
a MYSTICAL [mine] connection to the land--a right to rule that infuses them

I not contesting the use of "mystical" -- just the connection that you
are drawing from its use (that mystical is "magical"). And this
reference is regarding supernatural powers -- again - does
"supernatural" == "magical" ? If the authors meant "magical" why not
come right out and say so? Why use these other terms? Variety at the
expense of clarity? lack of funds to get the document edited before
printing?

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

[Lord Eldred]

Geeman,

Thanks for giving me permission to go with a political interpretation. If you want to go with a magical interpretation then be my guest. However, you need to answer the following:

1. How did people rule before bloodlines since the Rulebook indicates "Bloodlines were created when the heroes at the battle of Mount Deismaar were imbued with the essence of the gods? IF people could rule before Deismaar without a bloodline, why do the rules require that you have to be blooded?

2. At the same time the rulebook hints at the possibility for non-blooded rulers when it says on page 3 "...most of Cerilia's rulers are descendants of the blood." How do these rulers lead without regency since EVERYTHING calls for its use when it comes to ruling?

3. Do you agree with Magian's interpretation on what unblooded characters can rule and if so how do you justify it based on all the arguments you made against me?

4. Since regency is a blend of nobility, honor, and kismet, (in rulebook under regency) how does a source holding under your interpretation give a wizard the same amount of regency points as a guild or temple? Does having a source make the wizard more noble or honorable? Maybe it has some influence on kismet.

5. Why does a realm spell cost a wizard/priest his/her nobility, honor or kismet to cast? After all if the Wizard dispels a plague or a Priest blesses the land wouldn't that make him/her more noble and honorable?

6. If r.p. can be magically transferred upon death, why doesn't it magically transfer during bloodtheft?

7. You fluffed off the answer to this question before, how does r.p convert into a better bloodline strength? I would like a better answer than it is magic. There are explanations for all magic, that is why wizards spend time studying it...to understand it. How does it work?

If you notice I have thrown most of your questions about political clout back at your theory of magical interpretation and added some more questions. Both theories may have some problems. I think the rule makers intended a mix of both. Here is some of my evidence:

1. Geeman indicates that page 32 describes regency as a "mystical power that regents derive from their stewardship." That is actually page 31. The quote from 32 is "Regency is the mystical power associated with blooded rulers and leaders. It's a blend of nobility, honor, and kismet that a true king wears like an invisible crown. If a character rules well and examplifies the qualities of his alignment, his regency is strong-his unseen aura of power helps him to do things that lesser mortals couldn't dream about. If a king rules poorly, his regency weakens."

a. please notice the choice of the word mystical not magical. WE are trying to define regency when by definition it is a mysterious thing by definition. This would allow for regency being political clout and magical power or a combination thereof.

b. It indicates that it deals with nobility, honor, and kismet. None of which are necessarily magical unless you want to argue that fate is...People of a noble nature have more political clout, people want to follow them. The more noble they are the more clout they have. Nothing says that this political clout doesn't translate into a magical power of such.

c. It indicates that the way the regent acts determines the amount of regency. Which fits well with my political clout interpretation, the better you act the more people want to follow you for good characters. And for evil characters the more terrified people are of you the more they will do what you want.

2. Geeman doesn't give you the full quote from page 31 either. It says " Because every ruler and every domain is unique, the people of Cerilia refer to these individuals as regents. In this sense of the word, they're stewards of power who hold both the trust of the people and the responsiblity for the land. The mystic power that regents derive from their stewardship is known as divne right, karma, or nobility-but it's most commonly and correctly called regency." This shows that the regency comes from both political clout and 'magic'. The political clout is the trust of the people and the 'magic' is the responsibility for the land. These together give the mystic power known as regency.

The reason why other political settings failed to capture the flavor of how it is to rule is that they did not have game mechanics to manipulate the rulers power. Regency points is what does it for Birthright. I don't care what way you interpret them, they are a necessary part of the game. I don't get the logic that says if R.P. is not magical then we should abandon them altogether. Then it wouldn't be Birthright any more.

Look, the political clout theory easily explains how unblooded characters can and have ruled (in Birthright before Deismaar). It also accounts for their being more blooded regents than non-blooded because blooded regents have an advantage based on the powers the bloodline gives them. It does have a few kinks but both interpretations do. IF you don't want to go with the polical clout theory then I think you have to go with no unblooded regents. That does not mean an unblooded character could not become a regent. They can inherit the bloodline. The rule book says that sometimes exceptional commoners have become blooded and that some of the explanations for these occurrences remain a mystery, but history records several such incidents. So that leaves open the leader of a revolution could suddenly become blooded and take over as regent.

ONE FINAL MESSAGE TO GEEMAN...I did read all of your paragraphs. I understood that you thought partial political clout could transfer. I am saying think outside of the box. There can be explanations for the entire political clout to transfer. I am however sorry if I offended you by the statement.

[Peter Lubke]

On Tue, 2002-07-23 at 13:54, brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG wrote:

Lord Eldred wrote:
Geeman,


I have one more.

8. Could the Rulebook (page 40, under 3. Collect Regency Points) be in
error when it states "The lower of the two numbers represents Regency
Points." ? If not, how do you account for the discrepancy between this
ruling and the calculations for regents "Regency Generated/Accumulated:"
values in Ruins of Empire on pages 10 (Roesone), 19 (Port of Call
Exchange), 22 (Boeruine), 24 (Talinie) ... in fact in ALL cases
throughout where the calculation is done - where the results are as if
the wording was "The higher of the two numbers..." ?

************************************************** **************************
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]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:
> 8. Could the Rulebook (page 40, under 3. Collect Regency Points) be in
> error when it states "The lower of the two numbers represents Regency
> Points." ? If not, how do you account for the discrepancy between this
> ruling and the calculations for regents "Regency Generated/Accumulated:"
> values in Ruins of Empire on pages 10 (Roesone), 19 (Port of Call
> Exchange), 22 (Boeruine), 24 (Talinie) ... in fact in ALL cases
> throughout where the calculation is done - where the results are as if
> the wording was "The higher of the two numbers..." ?

The rulebook is correct as written, pretty much by definition. I find it
much easier to believe the tallies in Ruins are incorrect, or were written
by someone with an incomplete version of the rules. In particular, I just
looked at Boeruine, and as near as I can tell, his bloodline is 60, his
domain power, including Boeruine itself, plus law holdings in the imperial
city, Taeghas, Talinie, and Tuornen, is 83. Thus, the 91 quoted on p22 of
Ruins is wrong by either standard, and it`s easier to just go with the
rulebook.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

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

[ConjurerDragon]

Hello!

brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG wrote:

>Lord Eldred wrote:
>..1. How did people rule before bloodlines since the Rulebook indicates "Bloodlines were created when the heroes at the battle of Mount Deismaar were imbued with the essence of the gods? IF people could rule before Deismaar without a bloodline, why do the rules require that you have to be blooded?
>
They ruled - less successfull. Without RP to raise their chances in
their actions it would have been just like it´s here on earth.
I would consider it to be before Deismaar like every realm ruled by a
lieutenant, who can´t use RP.

>2. At the same time the rulebook hints at the possibility for non-blooded rulers when it says on page 3 "...most of Cerilia`s rulers are descendants of the blood." How do these rulers lead without regency since EVERYTHING calls for its use when it comes to ruling?
>
More difficult. They could occupy lands with troops which then count as
law holdings. So they can pillage, tax, make decrees (laws)... and hope
for the lands choice or a chance to be invested with a bloodline...

>4. Since regency is a blend of nobility, honor, and kismet, (in rulebook under regency) how does a source holding under your interpretation give a wizard the same amount of regency points as a guild or temple? Does having a source make the wizard more noble or honorable? Maybe it has some influence on kismet.
>
Political clout is not only influence - a wizards RP could be
interpreted as the fear of the magical powers the wizard/source holder
wields. You do not want to anger one who can summon 200 Ogres in your
backyard, would you?

>5. Why does a realm spell cost a wizard/priest his/her nobility, honor or kismet to cast? After all if the Wizard dispels a plague or a Priest blesses the land wouldn`t that make him/her more noble and honorable?
>
It certainly should have some positive effects for the caster - maybe a
reward by the landed lord. Gratitude by the people - even a few RP... As
are losses of RP described on p. 48 of the rulebook for failures you
could always give some RP away for successes...

>6. If r.p. can be magically transferred upon death, why doesn`t it magically transfer during bloodtheft?
>
Why not? It´s magical, not necessarily logical...
And with a Tighmaevril weapon it does in part...

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.

[ConjurerDragon]

Hello Daniel!
The 91 you give here (I haven´t checked the number) COULD be right.
Not that he earns that much RP himself, but the additional RP could be
tributes from his wizard Arlen Innis,
gifts/tribute from Talinie which is a vassal, from the Boeruine Trading
Guild as tribute, from the Temple of Cuiraceen in Boeruines lands and
from the Northern Imperial Temple who has holdings in northern Boeruine...

Just like Avan has more RP than he can earn himself through the vassals
(Mieres...)
bye
Michael
************
daniel mcsorley wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
>>8. Could the Rulebook (page 40, under 3. Collect Regency Points) be in
>>error when it states "The lower of the two numbers represents Regency
>>Points." ? If not, how do you account for the discrepancy between this
>>ruling and the calculations for regents "Regency Generated/Accumulated:"
>>values in Ruins of Empire on pages 10 (Roesone), 19 (Port of Call
>>Exchange), 22 (Boeruine), 24 (Talinie) ... in fact in ALL cases
>>throughout where the calculation is done - where the results are as if
>>the wording was "The higher of the two numbers..." ?
>>
>
>The rulebook is correct as written, pretty much by definition. I find it
>much easier to believe the tallies in Ruins are incorrect, or were written
>by someone with an incomplete version of the rules. In particular, I just
>looked at Boeruine, and as near as I can tell, his bloodline is 60, his
>domain power, including Boeruine itself, plus law holdings in the imperial
>city, Taeghas, Talinie, and Tuornen, is 83. Thus, the 91 quoted on p22 of
>Ruins is wrong by either standard, and it`s easier to just go with the
>rulebook.
>--
>Communication is possible only between equals.
>Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu
>
>************************************************** **************************
>The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
>To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
>with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>

************************************************** **************************
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]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 brnetboard@TUARHIEVEL.ORG wrote:
> 1. How did people rule before bloodlines since the Rulebook indicates
> "Bloodlines were created when the heroes at the battle of Mount
> Deismaar were imbued with the essence of the gods? IF people could
> rule before Deismaar without a bloodline, why do the rules require
> that you have to be blooded?

You can reverse engineer the rules, to a certain extent. Provinces and
holdings can be created and ruled to level 1 without using any RP.
Beyond that, rule wouldn`t work, and you`d be at the mercy of natural
population growth- barring mass migrations, the province level might go up
by 1 every few generations. Pre-modern medicine, I might go 1 every
century.

Some realm actions are unavailable. Looking at the book, Adventure, Build,
Create Holding, Declare War, Decree, Disband, Espionage, Finances,
Fortify*, Grant, Hold Action, Lieutenant, Move Troops, Muster, Ply Trade,
Rule**, and Training all ought to be available to unblooded rulers.

*Fortify- wtf does that cost 1 RP? Just found a rule I`ll have to modify;
if build costs no RP, neither should fortify.
**Rule- as noted above, only to level 1.

> 2. At the same time the rulebook hints at the possibility for
> non-blooded rulers when it says on page 3 "...most of Cerilia`s
> rulers are descendants of the blood." How do these rulers lead
> without regency since EVERYTHING calls for its use when it comes to
> ruling?

The hard way, and not extremely well. Non-blooded rulers will be
out-competed by blooded ones. Just the ability to rule is a big advantage
for scions. Non-scions can`t spend RP to modify success chances.

> 4. Since regency is a blend of nobility, honor, and kismet, (in
> rulebook under regency) how does a source holding under your
> interpretation give a wizard the same amount of regency points as a
> guild or temple? Does having a source make the wizard more noble or
> honorable? Maybe it has some influence on kismet.

I think RP represent power. Magical, or coming from the adoration or
adherance of people. Scions are able to grab that, hold it, and use it
much more directly than non-scions, the same way gods gain power from
worship.

> 5. Why does a realm spell cost a wizard/priest his/her nobility, honor
> or kismet to cast? After all if the Wizard dispels a plague or a
> Priest blesses the land wouldn`t that make him/her more noble and
> honorable?

If RP are political clout, how are they used to cast realm spells? Either
way, you get the same problem. If they represent power, then I think it
works.

> 6. If r.p. can be magically transferred upon death, why doesn`t it
> magically transfer during bloodtheft?

They can be transferred upon death by prior arrangement and linking up via
an investiture spell, the same as a bloodline. Bloodlines can be somewhat
stolen, because their physical representation, the heart`s blood, can be
touched. RPs don`t have that physical connection- they`re tied to the
person`s bloodline, but not physically. That`s why tighmaevril, which
severs the connection between the physical and spiritual components of the
bloodline, can prevent RP transfer, but not take any of it. Once severed,
it`s gone.

> 7. You fluffed off the answer to this question before, how does r.p
> convert into a better bloodline strength? I would like a better answer
> than it is magic. There are explanations for all magic, that is why
> wizards spend time studying it...to understand it. How does it work?

In D&D mythology, gods get their power from the adoration of the people.
In BR, so do regents. Get enough adoration, and it can make you more
inherently powerful.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

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

[geeman]

Lord Eldred wrote:

>Thanks for giving me permission to go with a political interpretation.

Sheesh, man. I`m not giving anyone permission. I`ve gone to great lengths
to say that one interpretation isn`t superior over the other. The books
are pretty clear on what the intent was, but nobody should be married to
that. A non-magical interpretation of RP, bloodlines, etc. is perfectly
feasible. In fact, you could even have a non-magical interpretation of
spells without diminishing the game one bit. Star Wars does. (I`m going
to wave a red flag in at the "No New Skill!" crowd by mentioning the fact
that the Force is largely skill based in Star Wars. Ha! Toro! Toro! New
skills ROCK! Ole!)

All I`m saying is that the BR domain rules are written based on the
assumption that RP are magical, and many aspects of system reflect
that. Changing the interpretation of what RP are without taking a look at
the other aspects of the domain system that are tied up in it is
inconsistent. As in, RP are not magical, but they still absolutely assure
the success of domain actions in a way that would appear magical even to
the most powerful political figure in any other context. RP are not
magical, but they fuel vast, province wide magical spells. RP are not
magical, but they can be spent to increase a person`s divine bloodline,
garnering him magical powers. These things should be considered. I`m not
really concerned by what specific decisions or other rationales you make in
order to fit them into you`re overall interpretation, and I like the idea
of taking a non-magical interpretation on for various reasons, so this
isn`t personal. Step back a moment.

>1. How did people rule before bloodlines since the Rulebook indicates
>"Bloodlines were created when the heroes at the battle of Mount Deismaar
>were imbued with the essence of the gods? IF people could rule before
>Deismaar without a bloodline, why do the rules require that you have to be
>blooded?

Well, we don`t really know since there aren`t a lot of rules for a
non-magical D&D type realm level campaign. I would speculate that
pre-Deismaar rulers used a non-magical version of RP, but there`s no real
reason to assume even that since RP are so wrapped up in the domain
system. If there was some sort of BR-like domain system pre-Deismaar, it
would have to be one that accommodated all the questions I`ve asked, plus a
few that I haven`t brought up yet.

For instance, a non-magical version of RP should really accompany a
non-magical version of the domain rules. The same basic functions would be
performed, but the costs, time required and effects would likely be
different. One of the rationales for activities happen as quickly as they
do (the Rule action raising the population in a month`s time, troops of
knights armed and outfitted in a like period, etc.) is because in the
standard interpretation of RP there is a magical explanation for the speed
at which things occur. Regents can make things happen at a much faster
pace than non-magical rulers, and can assure the success of their
activities using the magical energies of RP. Mundane regents using in a
non-magical system can`t do that. Not only are they unable to spend RP to
make their actions work (except when opposed by another regent, of course)
but it would be more in keeping with a non-magical interpretation of RP to
change not only the pace at which domain activities occur, but also the
amount of non-magical RP that can be spent to assure them. In non-magical
terms, no domain action should be assured.

Further, the province and holding level of the BR domain rules is all
wrapped up in the mystical interpretation of RP. 1 holding level = 1
RP. RP are maxed out by divine bloodline strength. Etc. So here`s the
$64,000 question.... Why would a non-magical system of RP have anything
like holding levels, province population levels or any other of the
features of the BR domain system? It could look like the BR domain system,
but the rest of the D&D materials have gone a completely different
way. Communities have a particular set of values and rates (town, small
city, large city, capital) an overall alignment and one for the community`s
ruling body, lists of assets and available materials. Things like
that. Why should a D&D based non-magical interpretation of events at the
realm level follow along with so many BR specific rules and categories?

Dragon #293 presented a system of realm rules that included a reference to
the BR system, and though it was only tangentially related to BR, many
readers would recognize several aspects of it. That system was very brief
(and I didn`t think anything could be more vaguely worded than certain
sections of the BR system--that article disabused me of that notion) but
afternoon of playtesting at my house showed that it was a serviceable
system of realm rules that didn`t use RP at all.

>2. At the same time the rulebook hints at the possibility for non-blooded
>rulers when it says on page 3 "...most of Cerilia`s rulers are
>descendants of the blood." How do these rulers lead without regency since
>EVERYTHING calls for its use when it comes to ruling?

I`m sure rulers existed before Deismaar. Did those rulers exist in the
context of post-Deismaar system of domain rules? That I`m not so convinced of.

>3. Do you agree with Magian`s interpretation on what unblooded characters
>can rule and if so how do you justify it based on all the arguments you
>made against me?

Using the Rulebook as my guide, I`d have to say they can`t rule
anything. Not even a level 0 holding (one of the reasons I think level 0
holdings are a bad idea, but we needn`t get into that.) Only blooded
scions can become regents. "Unblooded characters don`t have a bloodline
strength or derivation and cannot be regents" p32. That seems pretty
definitive, and it`s not the only such statement. A bloodline is required
to enter into events at the domain level, and the domain level functions
more quickly, efficiently and magically than any mundane ruler could hope
to compete with. A BR regent can rule a province from nothing to level 10
in under 3 years. In fact, he could rule three provinces from nothing to
level 10 in that time. IMO, mundane rulers should have a whole different
system of rulership.

>4. Since regency is a blend of nobility, honor, and kismet, (in rulebook
>under regency) how does a source holding under your interpretation give a
>wizard the same amount of regency points as a guild or temple? Does having
>a source make the wizard more noble or honorable? Maybe it has some
>influence on kismet.

Source holdings circumvent population (and the involvement of the human
factors of nobility, honor and kismet) by tapping directly into the source
of mystical power in the land itself; mebhaighl. This stuff is covered
pretty extensively in several of the published texts. I could argue (and I
think I have once or twice) that using a magical interpretation of RP means
those who control source holdings might be able to earn more RP than the
standard levels of their sources would indicate.

>5. Why does a realm spell cost a wizard/priest his/her nobility, honor or
>kismet to cast? After all if the Wizard dispels a plague or a Priest
>blesses the land wouldn`t that make him/her more noble and honorable?

As for wizards, see above, but for priests the Rulebook describes the
mystical power of RP also coming from the "confidence of their
congregations" on p31 and I would argue that realm spells cost RP because
confidence (and nobility/honor/kismet) of priestly regents becomes mystical
power and that mystical energy is used to fuel their standard (1st through
9th level) spells, giving them effects at the realm level.

>6. If r.p. can be magically transferred upon death, why doesn`t it
>magically transfer during bloodtheft?

Because the magical power of RP is stored by the magical nature of the
bloodline. The reason only blooded characters can become regents and earn
RP is because a bloodline is necessary to earn and contain RP. When a
bloodtheft occurs the character loses his bloodline. It isn`t transferred
to his heir per the investiture description, and along with it the RP he
was storing.

>7. You fluffed off the answer to this question before, how does r.p
>convert into a better bloodline strength? I would like a better answer
>than it is magic. There are explanations for all magic, that is why
>wizards spend time studying it...to understand it. How does it work?

Did I fluff that off? OK, I`ll try again. Rulebook, p30-31 "Something in
the semi-divine blood of a noble scion responds to the allegiance of his
followers in the same way that a true deity gains strength from
worshippers." The bloodlines that allow for regency collection are derived
from "death" of the gods at Deismaar, and mortals were infused with godly
powers. Regency (per the essay on the subject on pp30-31 of the Rulebook)
is the same sort of energy that empowers the gods.

>If you notice I have thrown most of your questions about political clout
>back at your theory of magical interpretation and added some more
>questions. Both theories may have some problems. I think the rule makers
>intended a mix of both. Here is some of my evidence:
>
>1. Geeman indicates that page 32 describes regency as a "mystical power
>that regents derive from their stewardship." That is actually page 31.

Just to clarify here, I didn`t actually make that error. My page reference
at the top of the paragraph with that quote (and additional quotes below)
was p30-31 not p32. The stuff quoted in the previous paragraph is from p32.

>2. Geeman doesn`t give you the full quote from page 31 either. It says "
>Because every ruler and every domain is unique, the people of Cerilia
>refer to these individuals as regents. In this sense of the word, they`re
>stewards of power who hold both the trust of the people and the
>responsiblity for the land. The mystic power that regents derive from
>their stewardship is known as divne right, karma, or nobility-but it`s
>most commonly and correctly called regency." This shows that the regency
>comes from both political clout and `magic`. The political clout is the
>trust of the people and the `magic` is the responsibility for the land.
>These together give the mystic power known as regency.

Those quotes were in response to the statement that the Rulebook only used
the word "mystical" once, so they were duly edited.

Anyway, the above is something of a change from your original
position. Which was (in its entirety so as not to earn any more ire
regarding editing):

>>Why couldn`t unblooded regents earn regency points? I have argued before
>>about this that regency points are like political clout. IT IS NOT SOME
>>SORT OF MAGIC. [OK, I added the capitalization.] It is clout you can
>>choose to spend or build up. You shouldn`t have to be blooded to earn
>>political clout. you should just have a vehicle to spend it through such
>>as being a law holder or guild holder.

So, is regency magical power, political clout or a combination thereof? I
think there`s plenty of reasoning to assume it has to be at least _some_
magical power, so it can`t be political clout alone, and I`d suggest that
there`s probably not really a difference between it being magical power and
a combination of magical power and political clout. Being "partially"
magical is kind of like being "a little pregnant." If it`s a combination
of political clout and magical energy then for all intents and purposes
it`s magical energy.

>Look, the political clout theory easily explains how unblooded characters
>can and have ruled (in Birthright before Deismaar).

People before Deismaar did rule by political clout. People in other
campaign worlds rule by political clout, and I`m sure people in the real
world rule by political clout. I just don`t think political clout is what
RP are meant to represent. Certainly not political clout alone. Regency
is something extra.

>It also accounts for their being more blooded regents than non-blooded
>because blooded regents have an advantage based on the powers the
>bloodline gives them.

Well, it gives them an advantage in a non-magical RP interpretation if you
also change the standard methods of RP collection to bloodline strength or
domain power, whichever is higher--rather than lower, per the Rulebook--as
you suggested. Without doing something like that, however, blooded
characters aren`t very much advantaged at the domain level.

Gary (which is how I prefer to be referred to rather than Geeman. TIA.)

************************************************** **************************
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]

At 01:25 PM 7/23/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

> Well, it`s the very next sentence after the section entitled
> "Regency" the
> same way many other terms are defined throughout the BR texts and many
> other D&D materials.... It`s the genus of the definition. "Regency
> is the
> MYSTICAL POWER [genus] associated with blooded rulers and leaders
> [species.]" It further describes regency as "an invisible crown" or an
> "unseen aura of power that allows him to do things that lesser mortals
> COULDN`T EVEN DREAM ABOUT." [Emphasis mine.]
>
>"Couldn`t even dream about" - a figure of speech that is always used in
>an exaggerated context to add emphasis - all the time knowing full well
>that it is completely incorrect. i.e. Bob is so rich you couldn`t even
>dream about it. <- but Bob IS that rich - it IS possible (and lesser
>mortals CAN gain that much regency - and they CAN dream about it - in
>fact not all regents have gobs and gobs of regency, some have but a
>small amount)

Well, yeah, but the context they use the phrase in is "an unseen aura of
power." If we were reading a cookbook, I`d be inclined to agree with your
assertion that it`s an exaggeration, but in the context of the gods
exploding and infusing one with divine power... well, then it`s a bit more
plausible that their not puffing to sell an idea.

>Anyway, that`s not the point.
>
>(i) The argument/position is that you could have a non-blooded ruler -
>or more exactly - that a non-blooded (or weakly blooded) ruler could
>have a great deal of regency, if they control a powerful domain.

Was that the point? I thought the point was whether or not other aspects
of the domain system should be changed if one went with a non-magical
interpretation of RP. At least, that`s what I`ve been talking about. I
don`t think a non-blooded ruler could have any RP (unless, of course,
that`s something you`re changing from the current domain system in order to
accommodate a non-magical interpretation of RP.)

>IMO (and IMC currently in hiatus), whenever a character that is unblooded
>gains control of a domain - they will also gain a bloodline, although
>initially of only 1 point.
>
>This from a house rule that states "the probability of gaining a bloodline
>point (BP) each domain turn is equal to difference between domain
>power(DP) and bloodline proportionate to domain power. (DP-BP)/(DP)",
>which for an unblooded character is always a probability of 1.00
>(DP-0)/DP. Such a rule leads logically to the point that only blooded
>characters can rule domains - due to the effects of point (ii) above.

See, these are the kinds of things you have to change in order to
accommodate a non-magical interpretation of RP. Which, again, is fine. I
don`t take issue with any such changes. (I wouldn`t grant a bloodline of
1, though. In the non-BR system of domain rules I use I tie RP to
character level in addition to bloodline, allowing any character to
generate a few RP. Those RP can then be spent to "create" a new bloodline
from nothing. (Note: I don`t really use RP and bloodlines in my non-BR
rules, but the terms that replace them serve a similar function.)

> Also, it is not a one-time reference. On p30-31 (again under a "Regency"
> heading) it says, "Blooded characters who control kingdoms are
> blessed with
> a MYSTICAL [mine] connection to the land--a right to rule that
> infuses them
>
>I not contesting the use of "mystical" -- just the connection that you are
>drawing from its use (that mystical is "magical"). And this reference is
>regarding supernatural powers -- again - does "supernatural" == "magical"
>? If the authors meant "magical" why not come right out and say so? Why
>use these other terms? Variety at the expense of clarity? lack of funds to
>get the document edited before printing?

I`ve found that arguing word definitions on BR-l can get pretty numbing, so
I`ll just state that my reading of the terms "mystical, supernatural,
semi-divine and unseen aura of power" when describing an ability gained
through powers derived from the cataclysmic death of several gods pretty
much translates into "magical" to me. It doesn`t really matter if those
adjectives somehow wind up meaning "non-magical, political clout" to other
readers (I may scratch my head and blink for a moment, though) because I
think it would be fine to go with such an interpretation no matter what the
Rulebook says. Going with a more mundane definition of RP, however, raises
several lines of speculation above other aspects of the domain system, many
of which I`ve listed. What those issues are and how to deal with them is
the question. In a non-magical version of RP:

Shouldn`t RP dissipate over time, or when transferred to heir or
liege? How much?
How would you handle bloodlines? Shouldn`t they be non-magical too?
How would you empower realm spells? (There`ve been a couple of comments
on this, but not a lot of specifics regarding RP costs.)
How are political RP earned from source holdings?

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.

[Peter Lubke]

Shouldn`t RP dissipate over time, or when transferred to heir or
liege? How much?

Okay, RP is just a mechanism for measuring regency. It isn`t regency
itself. It`s a fine point but an important and useful one to make. At
any single point in time a regent`s "regency" is pretty much the same as
it was an hour before, a day before, a week before, a month before, and
even a year before - (of course there may be variations, but generally
they are very slight, although sometimes, rarely, they may be greater).
The aura of a regent doesn`t get "used up" because they just cast a
spell, or set an espionage action in train. From a game mechanic point
of view, this is not a useful point of view, hence RP. RP is a way of
saying that - over a fixed period of time (a domain turn), the maximum
measurable effect of using that "regency" can be represented by the
cumulative expenditure of RP.

So to answer "Shouldn`t RP dissipate over time?": In this case, yes (or
no) depending on your point of view - because RP cannot accumulate at
all, nor may it be transferred to an heir of liege, none at all (after
all I just defined it to be but a mechanism for measuring something).
BUT ... there`s a second part, "Shouldn`t regency dissipate over time,
or when ...". The transfer of power and authority carries with it a
transfer of regency, and the transfer of a bloodline to an heir carries
with it the effect of that bloodline - and thus a transfer of regency in
that way also. So, am I saying yes or no or both?

How would you handle bloodlines? Shouldn`t they be non-magical too?

No, why? It doesn`t follow at all. If RP is equal to your domain power
or your bloodline score whichever is greater then it makes perfect
sense. A characters regency can derive from their bloodline (their
personal mojo so to speak) or from their organizational power (respect
and aura not for the person of the regent but for the position of the
regent).

How would you empower realm spells? (There`ve been a couple of comments
on this, but not a lot of specifics regarding RP costs.)

Yeah, look I don`t think the RP costs and GB costs for running sources
and ley lines was very well thought out. The original play-test had
Aglondier with all the resources of Ilien as the only player wizard
while the other wizards were all NPCs - this gives a somewhat distorted
view of the capabilities of pure wizards.

Using the above suppositions, it will generally be found that most
wizards have more bloodline power than domain power, which is consistent
with the operation of sources - they are a very personal form of power
again themselves. Given that personal power is required to cast true
magic - and we have that for humans at least (leaving the elves out of
it for the time being) -- all wizards must be blooded characters (or
derived from pixie dust and starlight - lalalala), the use of RP as a
mechanism for measuring the casting power of a realm wizard doesn`t seem
that contrived at all.

How are political RP earned from source holdings?

First, source holdings are and always have been a special case. Second,
rather than ask "How are political RP...", let`s ask "How is regency
derived from source holdings ?", then let`s measure it with respect to
and in reference of other regency values and assign RP accordingly.

From a `political` point of view, we see that there are some restricted
or barred actions for sources depending on the source level - reflecting
that the power of sources is not organizational power but a more
personalized kind. So the RP from source holdings can`t be used for all
purposes -- well sort of not, it`s a pretty shaky and arbitrary set of
rulings -- I prefer to clean it up just a bit.

But these last two a really good points - although they are still good
points under the mystical/magical explanation too.

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

[Lord Eldred]

Gary, my opinion does develop as I see your arguments and adapt mine too them. That is what this site is for. My comments were meant to be playful not to show anger. However, I may have offended you and I want you to know that was not my intention. Sometimes I am offensive by just walking into the room ;)

With that said:

Gary indicates "All I`m saying is that the BR domain rules are written based on the assumption that RP are magical, and many aspects of system reflect that." Here I disagree. Nowhere does it indicate that RP is magical. It says it is mystical. Mystical does not equal magical. It really means that it is unexplainable. So why are we trying? Because we like to argue. In fact some of your argumentation points to non magical power from the support of the congregation. I quote "As for wizards, see above, but for priests the Rulebook describes the mystical power of RP also coming from the "confidence of their congregations" on p31 and I would argue that realm spells cost RP because confidence (and nobility/honor/kismet) of priestly regents becomes mystical power and that mystical energy is used to fuel their standard (1st through 9th level) spells, giving them effects at the realm level. SO DO WE NOW AGREE THAT SOME OF THE MYSTICAL POWER IS MAGICAL AND SOME IS MORE MUNDANE BY STILL MYSTICAL? Could political clout be considered mystical?



I still don't get the argument that says if they are not magical why do you need RP!

{2. At the same time the rulebook hints at the possibility for non-blooded rulers when it says on page 3 "...most of Cerilia`s rulers are descendants of the blood." How do these rulers lead without regency since EVERYTHING calls for its use when it comes to ruling? Gary rights "I`m sure rulers existed before Deismaar. Did those rulers exist in the context of post-Deismaar system of domain rules? That I`m not so convinced of."} How does this answer this question. The rulebook says that most rulers are descendants of the blood which means some currently are not. It reads in the present tense.


{6. If r.p. can be magically transferred upon death, why doesn`t it magically transfer during bloodtheft?

Gary answers "Because the magical power of RP is stored by the magical nature of the bloodline. The reason only blooded characters can become regents and earn RP is because a bloodline is necessary to earn and contain RP. When a bloodtheft occurs the character loses his bloodline. It isn`t transferred to his heir per the investiture description, and along with it the RP he was storing." }

I am not sure this answers it. If the R.P. is stored in the bloodline and the bloodline transfers to the person who did the bloodtheft why doesn't the regency go with it.




For those of you who didn't catch it...Gary is Geeman and prefers to be referred ot as Gary.

By the way Gary thanks for the dialogue. It has helped me formulate my opinion on the matter which is not the same as when we started.

[kgauck]

Lord Eldred wrote:
>
> I am saying think outside of the box.

It may not be fasionable to say so, but I think that such attempts only
dilute BR. The box, as it were, defines the boundaries beween what is and
what is not BR. I think problems are better solved by looking at the core,
or essence, of what a thing is and contemplating that core in light of the
problem under debate.

Bloodlines and the authority (measured in RP`s) that flows from them are
central to the BR concept. You can certainly play a fine game without them,
but its not BR anymore.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

[Trithemius]

Paul M:
> Careful Kenneth you are getting philosophical. You may get
> your head bit off.

By who? I like philosophy. I even agree with Kenneth`s philosophy from
time to time :)

--
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.

[Lord Eldred]

Orginally posted by kgauck

Lord Eldred wrote:
>
> I am saying think outside of the box.

It may not be fasionable to say so, but I think that such attempts only
dilute BR. The box, as it were, defines the boundaries beween what is and
what is not BR. I think problems are better solved by looking at the core,
or essence, of what a thing is and contemplating that core in light of the
problem under debate.

Bloodlines and the authority (measured in RP`s) that flows from them are
central to the BR concept. You can certainly play a fine game without them,
but its not BR anymore.

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.



I get what you are saying Kenneth. I am not arguing to take away either. I am trying to explain them or get an understanding of them. The arguments have made serve to help me define what I truly want. So far this where I am at...

1. Unless I want to change the limitation on R.P. to that of Bloodline strength or domain strength whichever is higher instead of lower, I will be sticking to only allowing blooded characters rule. I BELIEVE THAT BLOODED CHARACTERS HAVING A GREAT ADVANTAGE IN RULING IS CENTRAL TO BIRTHRIGHT.

2. I believe that R.P. is a mystical power derived from both mundane political clout and magic sources.

3. You should think outside of the box to make sure that what is in the box is the right thing to do.

[geeman]

At 12:27 AM 7/24/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>Shouldn`t RP dissipate over time, or when transferred to heir or
>>liege? How much?
>
>So to answer "Shouldn`t RP dissipate over time?": In this case, yes (or
>no) depending on your point of view - because RP cannot accumulate at
>all, nor may it be transferred to an heir of liege, none at all (after
>all I just defined it to be but a mechanism for measuring something).
>BUT ... there`s a second part, "Shouldn`t regency dissipate over time,
>or when ...". The transfer of power and authority carries with it a
>transfer of regency, and the transfer of a bloodline to an heir carries
>with it the effect of that bloodline - and thus a transfer of regency in
>that way also. So, am I saying yes or no or both?

Well, it doesn`t sound to me like you need RP at all, since you`re
interpreting RP not only as political clout, but an abstract and
intransigent political power at that. (Or maybe I`m just reading some
cogency into what seems to be an exercise in doublespeak.)

>>How would you handle bloodlines? Shouldn`t they be non-magical too?
>
>No, why? It doesn`t follow at all. If RP is equal to your domain power or
>your bloodline score whichever is greater then it makes perfect sense. A
>characters regency can derive from their bloodline (their personal mojo so
>to speak) or from their organizational power (respect and aura not for the
>person of the regent but for the position of the regent).

If RP still increase bloodline strength in this interpretation, and
bloodlines are still magicalit doesn`t make a lot of sense that political
clout is expended in order to earn magical power. Trading in favors isn`t
the kind of thing that will empower a character with, say, the Animal
Affinity blood ability, or make a regent with a bloodline derivation of
Basaia more resistant to fire based attacks because his bloodline strength
is increased by spending RP. At least, I don`t find it very plausible....

Also, I don`t see the logic behind the "whichever is higher" change. Not
only does it eliminate any need for a system of Vassals, but it also
eliminates most of the need for a domain. If RP collection equals
bloodline strength score then holding and province levels make very little
difference to a blooded character. Wouldn`t any blooded PC create a level
0 holding, _maybe_ rule it up a level to prevent it from being destroyed
easily and then earn his bloodline in RP per domain turn. He could then
meddle in the affairs of other regent`s realms by spending RP from a pool
generated by his bloodline.

Aside from that, if RP are to represent political clout only, how are they
generated by bloodline strength over the domain power? Shouldn`t bloodline
be eliminated as an influence? The size of the domain alone would seem a
more likely source of political power. If you go with the "whichever is
higher" ruling then why would anyone with a bloodline bother run more than
a level or two of holdings, and why is being a regent a requirement at all?

Gary

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

[Peter Lubke]

On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 13:56, Gary wrote:

At 12:27 AM 7/24/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

>>Shouldn`t RP dissipate over time, or when transferred to heir or
>>liege? How much?
>
>So to answer "Shouldn`t RP dissipate over time?": In this case, yes (or
>no) depending on your point of view - because RP cannot accumulate at
>all, nor may it be transferred to an heir of liege, none at all (after
>all I just defined it to be but a mechanism for measuring something).
>BUT ... there`s a second part, "Shouldn`t regency dissipate over time,
>or when ...". The transfer of power and authority carries with it a
>transfer of regency, and the transfer of a bloodline to an heir carries
>with it the effect of that bloodline - and thus a transfer of regency in
>that way also. So, am I saying yes or no or both?

Well, it doesn`t sound to me like you need RP at all, since you`re
interpreting RP not only as political clout, but an abstract and
intransigent political power at that. (Or maybe I`m just reading some
cogency into what seems to be an exercise in doublespeak.)

I interpret political power as empowering a character with regency. But
I don`t think it`s the only way to do so. A bloodline also empowers a
character with regency for example. As does the tapping of magical
sources. RP is still needed to measure and control the application of
regency as a force (or mystical power).

When you use you imagination to create things or think of new ideas - it
doesn`t deplete your capacity to be imaginative. But the number of new
ideas or creations that you can come up with in a finite amount of time
is limited by how creative your are. Let`s call them creative points (or
CP). Some persons are more creative than others - they have more CP to
spend each week. This is the kind of relationship that exists between
regency and RP also. [I`m really not trying to use doublespeak - but it
is a difficult subject.]


>>How would you handle bloodlines? Shouldn`t they be non-magical too?
>
>No, why? It doesn`t follow at all. If RP is equal to your domain power or
>your bloodline score whichever is greater then it makes perfect sense. A
>characters regency can derive from their bloodline (their personal mojo so
>to speak) or from their organizational power (respect and aura not for the
>person of the regent but for the position of the regent).

If RP still increase bloodline strength in this interpretation, and
bloodlines are still magicalit doesn`t make a lot of sense that political
clout is expended in order to earn magical power.

Political clout doesn`t give you magical power - it gives you regency.
Bloodline strength can also give you regency. It`s not a one-to-one
relationship. It`s not even a commutative relationship. (`give` is a
misleading verb here too BTW, I prefer to use `derive`)


Also, I don`t see the logic behind the "whichever is higher" change. Not
only does it eliminate any need for a system of Vassals, but it also
eliminates most of the need for a domain. If RP collection equals
bloodline strength score then holding and province levels make very little
difference to a blooded character.

Actually if it affects it at all, it increases the need for and
advantages of a system of vassals.


Wouldn`t any blooded PC create a level
0 holding, _maybe_ rule it up a level to prevent it from being destroyed
easily and then earn his bloodline in RP per domain turn. He could then
meddle in the affairs of other regent`s realms by spending RP from a pool
generated by his bloodline.

Yes, most absolutely he could. Of course his RP collection is
limited(capped) by his bloodline score, while that of other regents is
as large as their domains. Perhaps he might feel driven to build a
domain. Consider the difference between a scion doing this and a
commoner.


Aside from that, if RP are to represent political clout only,

I think I`ve dealt with the "only" part enough.

how are they
generated by bloodline strength over the domain power? Shouldn`t bloodline
be eliminated as an influence? The size of the domain alone would seem a
more likely source of political power.

Yes.

If you go with the "whichever is
higher" ruling then why would anyone with a bloodline bother run more than
a level or two of holdings, and why is being a regent a requirement at all?

Because no-one stated that RP was ONLY political clout, just that it
COULD be considered political clout. A blooded character is a born
leader with regency that derives outside of politics, giving a scion a
boost up in the world in the creation of domains.


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.

************************************************** **************************
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]

at 11:17, Gary wrote

> Wouldn`t any blooded PC create a level 0 holding, _maybe_ rule
> it up a level to prevent it from being destroyed easily and then
> earn his bloodline in RP per domain turn. He could then meddle
> in the affairs of other regent`s realms by spending RP from a pool
> generated by his bloodline.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:42 AM


> Yes, most absolutely he could. Of course his RP collection is
> limited(capped) by his bloodline score, while that of other regents is
> as large as their domains. Perhaps he might feel driven to build a
> domain. Consider the difference between a scion doing this and a
> commoner.

Well, no wonder Peter thought that family members were so dangerous. Those
of us who don`t subscribe to the "whichever is higher" accounting system
obviously won`t find family to be so dangerous. I am refering to the Blood
Level and Blood Points discussion of May 23 2002, to May 27th. Falcon added
comments on 6/13 and 7/8.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

[Lord Eldred]

Gary, I think the problem is your interpretation of political clout. I think it is a lot more than polical favors. It is all the qualities that makes people want to follow you. Even real life politicians have some level of mystical power. Thus in my new and improved idea. A person can gain R.P. either through his political clout or his bloodline magic.

[Peter Lubke]

On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 16:25, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

at 11:17, Gary wrote

> Wouldn`t any blooded PC create a level 0 holding, _maybe_ rule
> it up a level to prevent it from being destroyed easily and then
> earn his bloodline in RP per domain turn. He could then meddle
> in the affairs of other regent`s realms by spending RP from a pool
> generated by his bloodline.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:42 AM


> Yes, most absolutely he could. Of course his RP collection is
> limited(capped) by his bloodline score, while that of other regents is
> as large as their domains. Perhaps he might feel driven to build a
> domain. Consider the difference between a scion doing this and a
> commoner.

Well, no wonder Peter thought that family members were so dangerous. Those
of us who don`t subscribe to the "whichever is higher" accounting system
obviously won`t find family to be so dangerous. I am refering to the Blood
Level and Blood Points discussion of May 23 2002, to May 27th. Falcon added
comments on 6/13 and 7/8.

True enough -- although your argument at the time was "that they
wouldn`t want to", not that "they wouldn`t be able to". The argument
centered around the basic nature of man, and of men imbued with the
"divine right" to rule in particular - what would be their desire -
whether it would be to rule or to serve. Although this change would make
them "more able to", it wouldn`t change the other. Also, of course, it`s
only more able to - not unable versus able - a matter of degree only.

I bowed out of that argument after conceding that there was a conflict
between the selfish human desires and love of power and potentially that
of the scion`s godly nature to be cooperative and to serve - although I
reserve judgment on whether that is a true reflection of what the gods
really want (at least in all cases).


Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

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

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 11:34 PM


> True enough -- although your argument at the time was "that they
> wouldn`t want to", not that "they wouldn`t be able to".

It never dawned on me that you calculated RP`s by bloodline. I just assumed
you did it like nearly everyone else. Had I known that this was an issue, I
would have addressed it.

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]

On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 14:39, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 11:34 PM


> True enough -- although your argument at the time was "that they
> wouldn`t want to", not that "they wouldn`t be able to".

It never dawned on me that you calculated RP`s by bloodline. I just assumed
you did it like nearly everyone else. Had I known that this was an issue, I
would have addressed it.

It wasn`t an issue in that discussion.The position taken was that a
scion wouldn`t go against his family (or any family), but would seek to
stabilize his own family`s dynasty even if he was not the heir. The
reason given was that he would do this because of the nature of the
bloodline (the godly essence) would make it his nature to do so. My
argument is that (irrespective of how RP is calculated) the bloodline
itself is a driving motive force within an individual - that they would
seek to found their own domain to satisfy the desire/need to fulfill the
bloodline`s potential.

The different calculation would make it easier to do so, but does not
change the basic nature. Even using the minimum calculation a scion
would IMO still desire to do so. On the other hand, if it is in their
nature to be cooperative then RP calculations are not an issue at all as
they do not affect the ability to cooperate.


Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

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

[kgauck]

Consider this Peter.

No RP for scions makes them more likely to settle for a supportive role. RP
collection for scions makes it easier for them to act on the realm level.
They are fundamentally connected. I agree that if scions collect RP based
on nothing but their bloodline, they are inherently destabilizing. Under
that condition I am in total agreement with you. Since you happened not to
mention this uncommon interpretation of RP collection I had no way of
knowing that there was a mechanical advantage to your interpretation.
That`s the kind of thing that`s lurking right behind an explanation of
motive. Since it should now be clear that I was always assuming that Prince
Avan`s brother had mother`s good looks and the ability to talk to house
martins, it seemed obvious to me to argue for a supportive role. It comes
from the fact that as a non-RP collector he could only establish a
defensible realm (more than a level one holding here or there) with backing.

It wasn`t an issue in the previous discussion because you happened to never
mention it. Its come up as an issue several times on the list and list
members hail posts against RP collection for bloodlines alone (or whichever
is higher). This is where full disclosure comes in handy.

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]

On Thu, 2002-07-25 at 16:58, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

Consider this Peter.

No RP for scions makes them more likely to settle for a supportive role.

Okay, -- but less likely is a subjective opinion based on their ability
rather than their tendency or desire to do so. Previous posts on this
subject indicated that they would not desire to do so, and thus their
decision to act on those desires did not depend on how achievable it
was. But this only holds if, (as I previously contended) a scion would
desire such a thing irrespective of his ability to achieve it - rather
than not desiring it because his nature is to be supportive.

However, rather than reopen a previous discussion - here`s a piece from
Tribes of the Heartless Wastes which I think is germane to several lines
of discussion. Vos leaders are chosen from the strongest warriors.
Bloodlines don`t enter into the equation - the priesthood has the job of
procuring a suitable bloodline for a qualifying chief/leader. Apart from
the inconsistency of the materials available to us, let`s assume and
accept that descriptions of a people/race etc, their customs etc should
hold more sway than any inference taken from sourcebook data - primary
versus secondary data rule. My question (not an argumentative one - I`d
like to open it to opinions everywhere - I have no firm position at this
time) is that: Is the nature of the Vos society bound as it is by the
nature of Belinik`s desire to prove strength through conflict so
ingrained as to override the natural tendency of scions of non-Azrai
derivations to be more humane?, In this context (Vos society) it would
appear that all (or all warriors) need desire to be regent, because RP
collection will be granted to them this is not an impediment. Could this
extend (in a lesser sense) to other cultures (in particular I`m thinking
the Iron Throne), and their desire to make claims against realms.
Because (at least in Vos society) even an unblooded character can desire
and make good a claim (in Vos by being the best warrior, elsewhere
...who knows), then bloodline may not be the reason for desire but human
nature. This was one of the reasons that I did accept that the godly
nature of a bloodline would be a reason/factor in a blooded character
NOT being so troublesome - although how such could be regulated in game
terms without denying them a bloodline is a bit tricky.

************************************************** **************************
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]

At 04:33 PM 7/24/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

>Gary, I think the problem is your interpretation of political clout. I
>think it is a lot more than polical favors. It is all the qualities that
>makes people want to follow you. Even real life politicians have some
>level of mystical power. Thus in my new and improved idea. A person can
>gain R.P. either through his political clout or his bloodline magic.

That may very well be. I think it`s hard to compete with magic, and a more
mundane concept--even one that includes that intangible quality that makes
people follow you--just doesn`t compare. Aside from which, I`ve done a lot
of study on what that mundane intangible quality is and how it works for
various projects on military and political history, so to me it may be less
mysterious than it is to most folks and certainly not "mystical" in the way
the BR setting describes.

I do, however, like the idea of a realm system for D&D that is based on
more mundane qualities than those I find in BR. The BR system, however,
should have distinct advantages over a more generic system of rulership IMO
not only due to what I see as the basic magical nature of the BR system,
but to establish the more powerful relationship of blooded characters to
that system.

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.

[Magian]

Does anyone have anything to offer on the interpretation from the rulebook of Regency that it is mystical energy (kismet and so on) for possible rules regarding unblooded regents?