Holdings as 3e Classes

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:20 PM


> Personally, I am inclined to think non-elves should not be able to
> create any non-source holding at all in an elven province (and
> probably non-dwarves in dwarven and non-orog in orog;

I`d be inclined to require a diplomacy action with a high DC to get the
opportunity to build holdings. In a realm like Tuarhievel it seems that
approval has been given, likewise in Baruk-Azhik, both have granted guilds
some access. If you can`t get the local people to agree that you would be
welcome to set up your holding, it just won`t collect GB or RP, effectivly
limiting you to a 0-level holding.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zaor" <zaor81@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:23 PM

> Something similar related to loyalty and law happens that I can´t
finish
> to understand: you have a province with high loyalty, you tax them with
> severe taxes, but you have all the law. The loyalty continues being high.

I think this reflects a situation where the ruler has the rights to collect
high taxes (acknowledged by the people). Their loyalty becomes an issue
because severe taxes are a hardship. But, once the tax goes away, the
grievance goes too. These kinds of taxes were known as extraordinary taxes.
As I put it on Nov 29, 1998,
"Light taxation would represent the regent`s hereditary income, but moderate
taxation would represent the normal hearth taxes, salt taxes, which people
have become accustomed to. Severe taxation represents the extraordinary,
barely tolerated for the shortest duration, under the most extream
circumstances, and otherwise cause for rebellion." These extraordinary
taxes are legal, and if applied when neccesary are accepted in hindsight
(the loyalty doesn`t drop).

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

[Peter Lubke]

On Fri, 2002-12-13 at 09:57, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 4:20 PM
>
>
> > Personally, I am inclined to think non-elves should not be able to
> > create any non-source holding at all in an elven province (and
> > probably non-dwarves in dwarven and non-orog in orog;
>
> I`d be inclined to require a diplomacy action with a high DC to get the
> opportunity to build holdings.

I think that diplomacy is subsumed in many actions. However ...

I wouldn`t like to think that you`d be non-humanly racist in these
matters. :-)

After all, ANY ruler in ANY realm, might want to discourage the setting
up of temples, law, guilds and even sources.

The creation of a new holding "Create Holding" may be opposed by "any
regent with a similar holding in the province, or by the province
ruler". The modification to the success number happens at no cost to the
opposing regents. I personally think that such is sufficient to show
resistance. So realm regents already have a significant advantage in
determining holdings in their realm.

Forget for the moment that the mechanic for doing so is pretty flaky.
e.g. (and see if you can guess where the example comes from)
Create holding in a province(3) where the ruler is opposed is: 13
Create law holding in a province(10) where the ruler is opposed and
where the ruler has a law of 3, would be success: 23.

On a slightly off-tangent topic is the consideration that a 0-level
holding is (usually) quite different to any non-zero level holding. In
fact, it`s possible to argue that a 0-level holding and a contested or
neutralized holding are more similar.

I`d be more inclined to change the rule so that:
(i) creating a 0-level holding is not opposed; but;
(ii) rule holding is opposed (free resistance) instead;

Such a rule would increase the realm regents advantage re holdings
significantly if you retain the original mechanic however.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
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: Thursday, December 12, 2002 9:30 PM

> I wouldn`t like to think that you`d be non-humanly racist in these
> matters. :-)

Not at all, I regard the gheallie Sidhe as a branch of the chamber of
commerce, welcoming human regents in with temples and guilds. :-)

> After all, ANY ruler in ANY realm, might want to discourage the setting
> up of temples, law, guilds and even sources.

If you don`t see the difference between a Medoerean holding in Roesone, and
one in the Sielwode, there really isn`t any purpose is continuing this
discussion.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

[ryancaveney]

On Fri, 13 Dec 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:

> I think that diplomacy is subsumed in many actions. However ...

Very true.

> I wouldn`t like to think that you`d be non-humanly racist in these
> matters. :-)

It`s not that I`m being racist, it`s that I`m trying to model the fact
that some Cerilian races are, much more than others.

> After all, ANY ruler in ANY realm, might want to discourage the setting
> up of temples, law, guilds and even sources.

Any *ruler*, sure. But what I`m talking about is the *people*, regardless
of what the ruler may want, or be able to do anything about. I am
inclined to say that even if someday the regent of the Sielwode were
officially to allow human guilders to set up shop in her forest, none of
the people would go along. That gnollish temple near the
Vosgaard/Brechtur border (Hjorig?) in human lands seems really, really
silly to me. Thousands of humans there are not worshipping Yeenoghu!
The only thing I can think of to explain it is that the province
population has now changed to the point where it actually consists not
mostly of humans, but about equally of humans and gnolls; the temple level
reflects mainly how many gnolls there are in residence.

> The modification to the success number happens at no cost to the
> opposing regents. I personally think that such is sufficient to show
> resistance.

Sufficient to show normal within-race resistance. But as I said, I think
in some cases even if the province ruler used their levels to *support*
the new holding, they should *still* fail, because all of their underlings
will refuse to carry out that particular order. Perhaps you would say
that rather than forbid it, what I should do instead is allow it, with the
consequence that the province in question immediately rises in rebellion,
and military units sympathetic to it occupy and destroy the new holding?

> So realm regents already have a significant advantage in
> determining holdings in their realm.

Yes, but your example...

> Create holding in a province(3) where the ruler is opposed is: 13

...shows that the advantage just isn`t nearly significant enough to
correctly model some interactions, IMO.

> (i) creating a 0-level holding is not opposed; but;
> (ii) rule holding is opposed (free resistance) instead;

I allow opposition in both cases.


Ryan Caveney

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

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> I`d be inclined to require a diplomacy action with a high DC to get
> the opportunity to build holdings.

Maybe. For some realms, though, I`d even forbid diplomacy -- a dwarf
diplomat sent to an orog realm is coming home in pieces, if at all.

> In a realm like Tuarhievel it seems that approval has been given,

To me, the entire description of Tuarhievel is one of the most downright
goofy things in any of the books. Not even counting the inconceivable
silliness of the PS, Ruins of Empire doesn`t describe nearly as deep an
internal division over Fhilerane`s human policy as I think must exist.
IMC, though, I`ve solved that: Rhuandice is Queen, and Tuarhievel is as
aggressively isolated as the Sielwode -- except for the fact that they
have a lot of adjoining forest in the hands of those verminous humans...

> likewise in Baruk-Azhik, both have granted guilds some access.

Baruk-Azhik makes more sense, in that dwarves are much more inclined to
follow their leader, whatever he may say, than elves are. I`d have that
province`s loyalty drop, to reflect the people grumbling about the
Overthane doing a bad job of looking out for his people`s interests; but
being dwarves they`d mostly just go along while muttering. Elves, on the
other hand, would openly reject the ruler`s decision, and I suspect such
an announcement would spark significant, open resistance, likely to
blossom into full-scale civil war.

> If you can`t get the local people to agree that you would be welcome
> to set up your holding,

Right, this is what I`m thinking. Convincing the regent may not be the
same thing as convincing the people. I am inclined to think that any
regent who has a social agenda radically different from his people is
going to be deposed by a land`s choice great captain if he doesn`t change
his tune real soon now. This is not in my mind an argument that power
ultimately derives from the people -- rather, that a regent`s job (in DROK
terms) is to act as god`s steward of the flock, so if he starts feeding
them to the wolves, god is going to fire him. It`s sort of a Calvinist
DROK -- if you act in a way not befitting a king of our people, then
obviously you aren`t the rightful king, and it is our duty to find the
rightful one and replace you with him, you wicked, weird impostor!


Ryan Caveney

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

[Peter Lubke]

On Sat, 2002-12-14 at 02:59, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

> Any *ruler*, sure. But what I`m talking about is the *people*, regardless
> of what the ruler may want, or be able to do anything about. I am
> inclined to say that even if someday the regent of the Sielwode were
> officially to allow human guilders to set up shop in her forest, none of
> the people would go along. That gnollish temple near the
> Vosgaard/Brechtur border (Hjorig?) in human lands seems really, really
> silly to me. Thousands of humans there are not worshipping Yeenoghu!
> The only thing I can think of to explain it is that the province
> population has now changed to the point where it actually consists not
> mostly of humans, but about equally of humans and gnolls; the temple level
> reflects mainly how many gnolls there are in residence.

Well a DM can always create loyalty shifts if he/she deems that a realm
regents actions have affected the loyalty of a province or two. In
general though, I think that we should consider that the regent does
represent the wishes and interests of the population more or less.
Sometimes, it`s best to leave such decisions to be subjective.

>
> > The modification to the success number happens at no cost to the
> > opposing regents. I personally think that such is sufficient to show
> > resistance.
>
> Sufficient to show normal within-race resistance. But as I said, I think
> in some cases even if the province ruler used their levels to *support*
> the new holding, they should *still* fail, because all of their underlings
> will refuse to carry out that particular order. Perhaps you would say
> that rather than forbid it, what I should do instead is allow it, with the
> consequence that the province in question immediately rises in rebellion,
> and military units sympathetic to it occupy and destroy the new holding?

When you say "support" do you mean passive support in that they do not
oppose?

>
> > So realm regents already have a significant advantage in
> > determining holdings in their realm.
>
> Yes, but your example...
>
> > Create holding in a province(3) where the ruler is opposed is: 13
>
> ...shows that the advantage just isn`t nearly significant enough to
> correctly model some interactions, IMO.

Yeah well - I find most of the domain actions to be biased in odd ways.
I personally, do not like the rule that allows a guild(0) to create a
trade route. This makes them quite different to other holding types. A
guild(1) I can live with.

I try and model the domain actions proportionately.

For 0-level holdings, I find this akin to a regent gaining a foothold in
a province. This is not enough for them to undertake many actions
themselves or to earn any income. (except for trade routes as noted
above) To the point of sending an ambassador of trade to the Sielwode
with gifts in an attempt to persuade the regent and influence the people
of the Sielwode - I would regard such as setting up a guild(0). It`s not
a difficult attempt really - of course how long it stays there is
another matter.

[create holding] = 10 + ({current levels} / [province size])*(20-10)
e.g. Creating a 0-level holding, in a province(3)
Success = 10 ; where non-one opposes it (no others exist)

Of course, at this point the regent of Sielwode can [contest holding]
with a pretty good chance of success. The two parties could continue
this dance (at great expense) until one or the other gets tired and
quits.


[rule holding] = 10 + (([proposed level] + {province level}))
/([province level] + {province level}))*(20-10)
For province(N), and holding(0);
Success number = 15+; when the ruler of the province is opposed
e.g. A ruling a (non-source) holding(0) in a province(3) would be:
Success = 16 if the ruler were opposed (20%)
Success = 13 if the ruler were not (35%)

>
> > (i) creating a 0-level holding is not opposed; but;
> > (ii) rule holding is opposed (free resistance) instead;
>
> I allow opposition in both cases.
>
>
> Ryan Caveney
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
> 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
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2002 10:26 AM


> I am inclined to think that any regent who has a social agenda
> radically different from his people is going to be deposed by a
> land`s choice great captain if he doesn`t change his tune real soon
> now. [...] rather, that a regent`s job (in DROK terms) is to act
> as god`s steward of the flock.

"But their descendant did not follow their example, and great Heaven sent
down calamities, employing the agency of our ruler- who was in possession of
its favoring appointment. Our king of Shang brilliantly displayed his
sagely prowess; for oppression he substituted his generous gentleness; and
the millions of the people gave him their hearts."

From the Chinese Classic of History (Shu Jing) on the Mandate of Heaven.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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

[Birthright-L]

Hello,

> > > Create holding in a province(3) where the ruler is opposed is: 13
> >
> > ...shows that the advantage just isn`t nearly significant enough to
> > correctly model some interactions, IMO.

I let the land ruler oppose, and other holding owners of the same type
also play part of that difficulty (you want to set up law, the ruler and
other law holders can help or oppose you). Also, the owner of the land can
make some rulers get a "contested rule". For example: a province (6) with
two guild rulers, one with a guild (4) and another with a guild (2). Let´s
say the province ruler supports the guild (4) ruler. So, the guild (4) ruler
could do a contested rule, and get from level 4 to 5 and lower the other
guild holding from level 2 to 1 (the other guilder wouldn´t be able to do
this). It´s always nice to be in good ways with the land ruler ;)

Greetings,

Vicente

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

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zaor" <zaor81@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2002 6:39 AM

> I don´t have any problem if they are extraordinary taxes. I totally
> agree with your explanation. The problem is that the ruler can keep them
> forever without much concern if he has more than half or all law holdings,
> because the loyalty doesn´t change. I address it reducing the ruler rp
> income, but loyalty should go down sooner or later too, but I don´t know
> when.

So, in terms of role play, what happens when a ruler holds on to severe
taxation too long? The first sign a DM should send are the humble
petitioners. This stream of hopefulls doesn`t let up until the taxes return
to moderate. Next look at giving random events an anti-tax shading.
Festival: If the regent spends the money, rumors begin to circulate that the
high taxes are really only there to make the court extravagant. Go forward
with a Diamond Necklass affair (scandal over court expences).
Feud: The feud occurs between your minister who is in charge of tax
collection or is outspoken in favor of sever taxes, and either a guilder or
a noble who stands up for the hardships of the common subjects.
Diplomatic Matter: An otherwise friendly realm is concerned that your realm
intends to become the next Ghoere. Why else impose such severe taxes
outside of a crisis unless to fund an army with which to intimidate your
neighbors?
Corruption or Crime: Taxes are being diverted to line the pockets of your
own tax collectors. They have become absolutly reviled- loose a grade of
loyalty. Clean up the abuses of the tax collectors.
Brigandage: Robin hood has come to your realm to steal from the rich and
give to the poor. Some say he and his band are well connected figures in
your realm who are acting covertly. Or, maybe its just peasants collecting
"taxes" of their own.
Trade Matter: Someone has set up a trade entreupot just beyond your borders
and your own subjects are going across the border to avoid your taxes, and
smuggling their goods back in. You`ve turned your own people into
smugglers.
Intrigue: A faction opposed to the high taxes moves to discredit the
minister most associated with the severe tax policy. Even if its the ruler
who is behind this, a minister must be sacrificed, or the plotters
uncovered. Warning, a ruler who is too severe with such plotters is digging
himself a pretty deep hole.
Unrest or Rebellion: Vive le roi sans gabelle was one of the common slogans
of unrest during the 16th and 17th centuries in France. Long live the king
without the salt tax. The rebellious subjects protested their loyalty while
opposing the tax, and the hated minister who was behind the tax. This is a
very logical follow-up to any anti-tax intrigue squashed by the regent.
Matter of Justice: The petitioners have gotten organized. The stakes have
gotten higher. Now, if the ruler gives in, he sacrifices a point of
bloodline strength. If he refuses, he lowers the loyalty in every province
by one grade.
Great Captain: A key anti-tax figure has emerged. This could be a nice
follow-up event to many of the others, including Brigandage, Intrigue, or
Unrest. It obviously goes after law holdings. At the DM`s discression, it
could only steal half law holdings, but attack twice as many provinces. The
RP loss is the same for the ruler, but it strikes more effeciently at his
ability to impose severe taxes without loyalty problems. The captain in
question stops when he has 50% of the ruler`s law holdings in each province,
if the DM thinks a peaceful settlement is possible. If the ruler is gearing
up the war machine, the captain may continue to establish himself as a
legitimate ruler in place of the established ruler.

A ruler who starts getting these random events will pretty quickly see he`s
on the road to a particular relationship with his realm and people. If he
persists, he will be veiwed as a tyrant, and his support will shrink along
with his tyranny. At such point its better to call the loyalty grade the
"satisfaction grade" because that`s all it really measures.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

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