Understanding Regency

[camelotcrusade]

Hi everybody,

We're still new at this and having a good time, but questions come up a lot that I'm not prepared to answer.

For example, last night I was reading the revised chapter 2 with the PCs, and we loved how it explained where regency comes from. Essentially it said the loyalty of the subjects of what you rule, among other things.

This raised three questions for us that we are interested in understanding.

1) Does divided loyalty still grant regency? For example, if I am law regent of a realm and I control all the law, I get regency from that. But let's say in the same province there's a templ 4 that I don't control, owned by a non-landed regent. She gets regency, too. Does this mean that
a) we both get regency from the same populace OR
B) the highest loyalty wins out, so people who are most loyal to the church send her regency, and most loyal to the realm give me regency

I can only really fathom choice B, since I don't understand why the more powerful regent in the area wouldn't simply suck up all the regency avialable. I'm afraid I'm not posing the question very well, so if you can think of a way to paraphrase what I'm trying to say, I'd be grateful. I'm just having trouble conceptualizing how multiple draws of regency can co-exist in one province in terms of regency. I mean, if I'm a law regent and I own all the temples, guilds, and sources and the law, I don't get a scrap of extra regency, but somehow these non-landers with these other structures can suck it out of my realm.

2) How then do wizards gain regency from sources? There isn't much loyalty involved there. I know the book of magecraft mentions wizards with a least a source 4 (2nd e. rules) can agitate, but still we had to wonder... we can think of several ideas but we suggest that you explain/clarify it in the same paragraph in the BRCS as you do the regency and loyalty connection.

Thanks in advance for all your wisdom on this topic.

[irdeggman]

Loyalty comes in different types.

A regent that controls temples has religious loyalty, a regent that controls the law holdings has the loyalty based on enforcing the law, etc.

The correct option to use is that both gain regency based on similar holdings only. That is is the law regent gains his based on how the loyalty to the law (his versus his competitors) while the temple regent gains his from who follows his religious teachings. These can cause conflicts but are treated as independent types of loyalty. Guilds reflect the confidence in the commerce ability - think in terms of having faith in the economy versus faith in the government/leadership. Use Pres Bush as an example. Currently his leadership rating is fairly high, while the faith of people in the economy is lesser.

Sources are a different animal. They are a reflection of the wizard's tie directly to the land. You can think of it in a broad sense as the lands faith in the wizard to protect and nurture it.

I hope that helps.

[DanMcSorley]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004, camelotcrusade wrote:

> Hi everybody,We're still new at this and having a good time, but

> questions come up a lot that I'm not prepared to answer.For example,

> last night I was reading the revised chapter 2 with the PCs, and we

> loved how it explained where regency comes from. Essentially it said

> the loyalty of the subjects of what you rule, among other things. This

> raised three questions for us that we are interested in understanding.1)

> Does divided loyalty still grant regency? For example, if I am law

> regent of a realm and I control all the law, I get regency from that.

> But let's say in the same province there's a templ 4 that I

> don't control, owned by a non-landed regent. She gets regency, too.

> Does this mean that a) we both get regency from the same populace OR

> <img src=`http://www.birthright.net/forums/html/emoticons/cool.gif`

> border=`0` style=`vertical-align:middle` alt=`cool.gif` /> the highest

> loyalty wins out, so people who are most loyal to the church send her

> regency, and most loyal to the realm give me regencyI can only really

> fathom choice B, since I don&#39;t understand why the more powerful

> regent in the area wouldn&#39;t simply suck up all the regency

> avialable. I&#39;m afraid I&#39;m not posing the question very well, so

> if you can think of a way to paraphrase what I&#39;m trying to say,

> I&#39;d be grateful. I&#39;m just having trouble conceptualizing how

> multiple draws of regency can co-exist in one province in terms of

> regency. I mean, if I&#39;m a law regent and I own all the temples,

> guilds, and sources and the law, I don&#39;t get a scrap of extra

> regency, but somehow these non-landers with these other structures can

> suck it out of my realm.2) How then do wizards gain regency from

> sources? There isn&#39;t much loyalty involved there. I know the book

> of magecraft mentions wizards with a least a source 4 (2nd e. rules) can

> agitate, but still we had to wonder... we can think of several ideas but

> we suggest that you explain/clarify it in the same paragraph in the BRCS

> as you do the regency and loyalty connection.Thanks in advance for all

> your wisdom on this topic.



Don`t think of RP as loyalty. You`re right, it`s inconsistent. RP are

power, and belief in power. In D&D, gods get power from followers and

worshippers, so it is for regents in Birthright.



Province rulers have power over the lives and lands of people in their

province. That is power. They get RP.



Law holders have authority over the way people live and behave. That is

power. They get RP.



Temple regents guide the spiritual and religious beliefs of the masses.

That is power, and they get RP.



Guilders control the economy and jobs of people in their province. That

is power, and they get RP.



Sourcerors control a source, giving them access to the phenomenal magic of

realm spells. That is power, and they get RP.



In answer to your question, both law holder and temple holders draw their

RP from the same pool of population, and that`s fine, they both collect.

The peasants can believe in the power of more than 1 person at a time. :)



--

Daniel McSorley

[kgauck]

Regency is a mechanism for political capital. Politics is a game of multual

obligation: I do this for you, you do that for me. As a ruler governs he

has opportunities to help people out, to create personal loyalty among key

officials, to get a suplus of favors owed to him. As the ruler spends

regency the process works in reverse. People do favors for the ruler, take

risks for his benefit, and develop the feeling that they have done enough.

A ruler with a small pool of political capital can ask for small favors from

many, or large favors from a few. Beyond that people will make excuses, and

will be unwilling to do much for you. people with a large pool of political

capital can go for a longer period of time asking favors as well as ask for

larger favors.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[camelotcrusade]

Thanks for these great replies. I like it and will share it with my group. However, I am still confused at the fine line between law and province regency. Why does this distinction exist? It seems to me that they should be combined, and that a province regent with no law would be severely weakend in his ability to collect regency from his province. I suppose I could see where you own the country but occupying forces own the law.... hmmm.

Another thing that bugs me is that all of your explanations make sense to me, but they seem to reinforce the idea that a regent who controls all of these types of holdings should get regency from all of them.

I know that&#39;s not how the game works, but it doesn&#39;t make sense to me that Lady Godspeak gets regency when she owns a temple in my realm, but if I&#39;m a law regency and I somehow get it from her I don&#39;t get any regency. Wouldn&#39;t influence and loyalty I can wield through that temple be significant enough to grant me regency? I wonder if somehow regents should get some tiny percentage of regency from things that aren&#39;t their forte but that they clearly control and influence. Has something like this been tried? Sounds really scary... aarg, logic and D&D can only go so far&#33;&#33;

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by camelotcrusade@Jan 31 2004, 03:30 PM
Thanks for these great replies. I like it and will share it with my group. However, I am still confused at the fine line between law and province regency. Why does this distinction exist? It seems to me that they should be combined, and that a province regent with no law would be severely weakend in his ability to collect regency from his province. I suppose I could see where you own the country but occupying forces own the law.... hmmm.

Another thing that bugs me is that all of your explanations make sense to me, but they seem to reinforce the idea that a regent who controls all of these types of holdings should get regency from all of them.

I know that&#39;s not how the game works, but it doesn&#39;t make sense to me that Lady Godspeak gets regency when she owns a temple in my realm, but if I&#39;m a law regency and I somehow get it from her I don&#39;t get any regency. Wouldn&#39;t influence and loyalty I can wield through that temple be significant enough to grant me regency? I wonder if somehow regents should get some tiny percentage of regency from things that aren&#39;t their forte but that they clearly control and influence. Has something like this been tried? Sounds really scary... aarg, logic and D&D can only go so far&#33;&#33;

Check out the Book of Regency (a free download from WotC) it specifically addresses the role of law holding in rulership. It should help to understand the relationship.

[geeman]

At 01:37 PM 1/31/2004 -0500, Daniel McSorley wrote:



>Don`t think of RP as loyalty. You`re right, it`s inconsistent. RP are

>power, and belief in power. In D&D, gods get power from followers and

>worshippers, so it is for regents in Birthright.



"Loyalty" is kind of a loaded term in this context, so--if I can step in to

extend the distinction--holdings and provinces themselves might be better

described as the domain level of "control" or "executive power" of a

regent. Provinces have a loyalty rating (I`ve argued in the past that

holdings should also have a loyalty rating) which determines the

population`s attitude or how firmly in control a regent might be, but the

levels themselves represent the extent of the regent`s control of some

aspect of a population`s activities (legal, religious, economic, or as a

population itself) while RP represents the actual power that such control

earns for the regent, whether the population is particularly loyal to that

regent or not.



Loyalty can, of course, influence whether a regent will remain in control

of his provinces (and holdings too--even in the absence of a loyalty rating

for them) but a regent can be hated in his domain but still earn RP.



Gary

[geeman]

At 09:30 PM 1/31/2004 +0100, camelotcrusade wrote:



>However, I am still confused at the fine line between law and province

>regency. Why does this distinction exist? It seems to me that they

>should be combined, and that a province regent with no law would be

>severely weakend in his ability to collect regency from his province. I

>suppose I could see where you own the country but occupying forces own the

>law.... hmmm.



I don`t think that`s at all unreasonable. In fact, I`m contemplated a

"province-less" domain system in which all pretty much all the features of

the province are combined into the law holding. In the long run I think it

might solve a few of the issues that regularly crop up around here

regarding the rationalization of population level increases using the Rule

action, contesting control of provinces, etc.



> Another thing that bugs me is that all of your explanations make sense

> to me, but they seem to reinforce the idea that a regent who controls all

> of these types of holdings should get regency from all of them.



Can`t argue with that either... especially since I`ve argued exactly that

in the past. I should note, however, that in 3e/3.5 its so easy to

multi-class that the problem itself is less of an issue, and from a simple

"them`s the rules of the game" POV it`s not that big a deal the way it was

in 2e. If a player really wants his PC to control both temple and guild

holdings he should multi-class to reflect that emphasis.



Gary

[Trithemius]

Dan McSorley:

> Sourcerors control a source, giving them access to the phenomenal magic

> of realm spells. That is power, and they get RP.



Lets not forget those wicked metal staves...



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.

[Trithemius]

camelotcrusade:

>However, I am still confused at the fine line between law and province

>regency. Why does this distinction exist? It seems to me that they

>should be combined, and that a province regent with no law would be

>severely weakend in his ability to collect regency from his province. I

>suppose I could see where you own the country but occupying forces own the

>law.... hmmm.



In my games, I base taxation off of Law Holdings, not Provinces. I find this

cuts out the need for "law claims" on the provincial income.



I mentioned in an earlier post that I made today that in one of the games I

ran a wizard PC had a LT who took care of the administration of the realm. The

LT directly controlled the Law Holdings, and was in charge of the taxation.

The wizard collected a portion (a large portion!) of the tax generated to fund

his research and the remainder was used by the LT to pay the militia and

maintain the forts. The LT also collected the RP from the Law Holdings, and so

was able to do minor improvements to the lands and holdings as well as being

able to deal with everyday problems and the odd contestation. The wizard was

still the ruler of the provinces, and so collected the RP from them - which

was used to research and cast spells and improve the wizard`s leyline network.



Ideally, the LT would have been played by another human player, however I had

already decided upon an "each to their throne" model for the game.



I should note that the reason that the wizard PC sought a LT to administer the

law was not due to any 2e-style class RP-collection restrictions. It was

simply that the wizard wanted his realm to be run efficiently by someone who

could devote time to it.



--

John Machin

(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

-----------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."

-----------------------------------------------------

- Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.