Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 60
  1. #21
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 11:49 PM 2/2/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



    > > Of course, you may run an altered campaign in which Bloodlines are

    > > mere superstition, but I`m talking about the canon here.

    >

    >You don`t get it. I assume that what medievals belived is true.



    What medievals believed had fundamental aspects to it which were very

    different from BR`s system of bloodline. It matches up in some of the most

    general aspects of divinity, but in its specifics BR`s system of rulership

    and bloodline is quite different. There is, of course, no event that

    created real the world right to rule among medieval people`s rulers (though

    some might claim ancestry back as far as Egyptian pharaohs.) There is no

    "derivation" to the medieval concept of divine right to rule, except

    perhaps in the good/evil--God/Devil sense. There is no bloodline strength

    rating. The powers of blood ability are quite different. Most importantly

    to the issue of regency in particular, however, is that the capacity to

    gain the energies of the people through holdings, provinces, etc. is not a

    medievalist mindset. Divine rulers ruled by mandate of heaven, where BR`s

    system assumes that it is the people who provide the energies that they

    manipulate. A medieval mindset barely considers the power of the masses

    belief at all. Such a thing is distinctly post-medieval, and I would argue

    that it really does not even fit very well into Renaissance thought very

    well. It`s more the product of 20th century fantasy fiction

    reinterpretation, a version of what a literary critic might call the

    magical realism of monarchy, not a real world historical

    recreation. Mixing the two concepts makes for a fun campaign world, but

    it`s a mistake to associate them too closely.



    In fact, regency isn`t really a requirement at all to describe a system of

    medievalist thinking like you describe. A system without the concept is

    just as viable, and probably more accurately describes the kinds of

    medievalist thinking you espouse.



    Gary

  2. #22
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 03:25 PM 2/3/2004 +0100, Milos wrote:



    > > The Brecht are Germans.

    >

    >Yet less militaristic and more commercial like Italians, wouldn`t you say?



    Personally, I think the Brecht are more Dutch than anything else. There

    is, of course, a fusion thing going on with regards to the BR cultures, but

    the vibe I get isn`t really German or Italian--neither of whom really had

    the kind of sea power-based mercantile system as did the Dutch.



    > > > There is a Celtic overlay to the whole campaign world.

    >

    > There are Celtic traits among Rjurik and their language was used as base

    > for Sidhelien, but I don`t see more than that.



    In particular, I don`t get a very Celtic vibe out of the Vos, Brecht or

    Khinasi. One could argue, however, that the existence of the Shadow World

    is in many ways of Celtic origin--or that it is more of a nod towards the

    Celtic mythology than to any other mythos that has a similar thing going

    on--and that since the SW permeates the whole planet the whole campaign as

    a Celtic theme. It`s a bit of a tenuous argument, but there it is.



    > Well, a lot is mixed up. The Khinasi are probably the only "pure" nation

    > if we consider analogy with real world nations. The Vos, the strangest

    > mix, are mix of Mongols and Slavs.



    Personally, I find the Khinasi a rather strange (and fun) mix of African

    through Persian cultures with a bit of Asian philosophy thrown in. I find

    Anuire to be the most "pure" culture in that it is English/French and in

    real world history those two mixed themselves pretty well in a series of

    mutual invasions at about the same time that the BR setting is analogous

    to. The Mongol/Slav mix of the Vos (kind of need to throw the Rus in there

    too for the sake of generality) is slightly more vague, but has a similar

    thing going on in that there was the occasional horde running around to

    suit the mix.



    > I`m not trying to copy the real world into everything. Yes, we can

    > use what we know about our late medieval world and apply a lot of it in

    > Birthright, but we don`t have to make an exact copy. For example, Haelyn`s

    > churches don`t have to be exactly the same as Catholic church, although I

    > guess that they would have similar buildings and clerical hierarchy.

    > Cerilia is based on a part of real world, yes, but it doesn`t have to be a

    > copy, and I don`t want "it didn`t work that way in middle ages" to be an

    > argument against my actions in some game.



    Personally, I would stay away from any comparisons of the temple structure

    of BR to the Church. Not for fear of offending anyone (though I`m sure

    that`ll happen sooner or later) but because I just don`t see them as very

    well connected other than, perhaps, in the loosest "we are the secular

    application of a non-secular organization" kind of way. There are too many

    fundamental differences between the real world Church in its history,

    demographic, core beliefs, conflicts with rulers, etc. than is very well

    presented by the BR system of temples and polytheism.



    Having noted that, I absolutely agree with the sentiment regarding the

    application of history to the campaign`s themes. IMO history can provide

    an interesting take on things, but I don`t think it`s the closest

    connection to the themes of the setting. There are at least two degrees of

    separation between history and BR; the legends and myths of the period, and

    several centuries of fantasy fiction. BR (and D&D) is based more on the

    fantasy fiction, which is in turn only loosely based on the mythology of

    history. Historical paradigms can be interesting--to be fair they can be

    quite useful--in that we get a view of the context of that mythology and,

    therefore, the root of the fantastic fiction, but usually there are more

    direct methods of getting at BR themes. _Highlander_ is more of an

    influence on BR`s system of bloodline than medieval thought on the divine

    right to rule.



    Gary

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary schrieb:



    > At 03:25 PM 2/3/2004 +0100, Milos wrote:

    >

    >> > The Brecht are Germans.

    >> Yet less militaristic and more commercial like Italians, wouldn`t you

    >> say?

    >

    Less militaristic than the Italian Roman Empire?

    Or more commercial than the Fuggers or Welser familys? Or the Hanse? ;-)



    > Personally, I think the Brecht are more Dutch than anything else. There

    > is, of course, a fusion thing going on with regards to the BR

    > cultures, but

    > the vibe I get isn`t really German or Italian--neither of whom really had

    > the kind of sea power-based mercantile system as did the Dutch.



    Venice had a few ships. Without italian ships Lepanto would have looked

    different.



    > Well, a lot is mixed up. The Khinasi are probably the only "pure" nation

    > Personally, I find the Khinasi a rather strange (and fun) mix of African

    > through Persian cultures with a bit of Asian philosophy thrown in. I

    > find

    > Anuire to be the most "pure" culture in that it is English/French and in

    > real world history those two mixed themselves pretty well in a series of

    > mutual invasions at about the same time that the BR setting is analogous

    > to. The Mongol/Slav mix of the Vos (kind of need to throw the Rus in

    > there

    > too for the sake of generality) is slightly more vague, but has a similar

    > thing going on in that there was the occasional horde running around to

    > suit the mix.



    The Rus? If you mean russians are they not slavs?

    bye

    Michael

  4. #24
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    The changes Gary identifies only intensify trends, they don`t change

    attitudes. The magical reverence for the elite strata may be more tangible,

    it may provoke less resistance, at may be more deeply embeded in Cerilian

    society, but these are changes in degree, not in kind.



    Kenneth Gauck

    kgauck@mchsi.com

  5. #25
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 10:31 PM 2/3/2004 +0100, Michael Romes wrote:



    >>Personally, I think the Brecht are more Dutch than anything else. There

    >>is, of course, a fusion thing going on with regards to the BR cultures, but

    >>the vibe I get isn`t really German or Italian--neither of whom really had

    >>the kind of sea power-based mercantile system as did the Dutch.

    >

    >Venice had a few ships. Without italian ships Lepanto would have looked

    >different.



    That`s a good point, but from a cultural standpoint, I still don`t get a

    real Latin feel from the Brecht. Were there some examples other than trade

    you had in mind? The artwork in the BR materials for the Brecht, for

    instance, might be more reminiscent of Italian Renaissance costume....



    >>The Mongol/Slav mix of the Vos (kind of need to throw the Rus in there

    >>too for the sake of generality) is slightly more vague, but has a similar

    >>thing going on in that there was the occasional horde running around to

    >>suit the mix.

    >

    >The Rus? If you mean russians are they not slavs?



    I don`t mean that so much as that I think Rus is a bit more general than

    Slav. "Slav" nowadays probably has more of a southeastern European

    connotation, while tossing in the Rus extends the concept a bit. Just me

    maybe.



    Gary

  6. #26
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 05:14 PM 2/3/2004 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



    >The changes Gary identifies only intensify trends, they don`t change

    >attitudes. The magical reverence for the elite strata may be more tangible,

    >it may provoke less resistance, at may be more deeply embeded in Cerilian

    >society, but these are changes in degree, not in kind.



    Sure they are. They are fundamentally different. Where real world

    medievals believe their leaders are divinely mandated that mean their

    authority and power comes from God alone. In BR, the power facility to

    rule (bloodline) comes from divinity, but the actual power to rule

    (regency) comes from the people. That`s a vital difference, and very

    different in its basis than any medieval concept. Furthermore the nature

    of BR divine rule is that it can be transferred, both in the transfer of

    bloodline and the exchange of regency. One could hardly make the same

    argument of a real life medieval concept of divine right to rulership.



    Gary

  7. #27
    Senior Member Trithemius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Canberra, Australia.
    Posts
    408
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Milos Rasic:

    > Yet less militaristic and more commercial like Italians, wouldn`t you

    > say?



    If the Brecht are not the Hanse, I`ll eat my hat.



    > There are Celtic traits among Rjurik and their language was used as

    > base for Sidhelien, but I don`t see more than that.



    The sidhelien gave the Anuireans their written language, I am willing to credit

    a fair bit of pseudo-Celtic impregnation of the cultures by way of the

    Sidhelien contact.



    > Well, a lot is mixed up. The Khinasi are probably the only "pure"

    > nation if we consider analogy with real world nations.



    And which nation is that? The Persians? The Arabians? The Egyptians? Or the

    Phoenecians? The Basarji (Khinasi is an abbreviated place-name dammit! :)) are

    the fusion of the culture from the Dragon Isles and the Masetians. This

    provides the modern Basarji culture in Khinasi with its complicated mix.



    > The Vos, the strangest mix, are mix of Mongols and Slavs.



    The Vos confuse the hell out of me, I`ll freely admit that!



    > I`m not trying to copy the real world into everything. Yes, we can

    > use what we know about our late medieval world and apply a lot of it

    > in Birthright, but we don`t have to make an exact copy. For example,

    > Haelyn`s churches don`t have to be exactly the same as Catholic church,

    > although I guess that they would have similar buildings and clerical

    > hierarchy.



    Some of the Haelynic churches might be episcopal in structure, I expect some of

    them might be rather presbyterian though.



    > Cerilia is based on a part of real world, yes, but it doesn`t have to

    > be a copy, and I don`t want "it didn`t work that way in middle ages" to be

    > an argument against my actions in some game.



    Some of BR is clearly inspired by our history. I think it is silly to ignore

    that.



    --

    John Machin

    (trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

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

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

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

    - Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
    John 'Trithemius' Machin
    The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
    "Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius

  8. #28
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- Original Message -----

    From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>

    Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 5:59 PM



    > Where real world medievals believe their leaders are divinely

    > mandated that mean their authority and power comes from God

    > alone. In BR, the power facility to rule (bloodline) comes from

    > divinity, but the actual power to rule (regency) comes from the people.



    Perhaps you missed my first post in this thread? Its posted on Jan 31, 1:57

    pm.



    > That`s a vital difference, and very different in its basis than any

    > medieval concept.



    Which is why popular assemblies from the Estates General, the English

    Parliament, the Anglo-Saxon Wittan, the Norse Athing, the Italian commune,

    the German Diet, and so many others were so important? Check. This is why

    the elective nature of monarchy was so fundamental? English, French, and

    German monarchs were often elected, and when a presumptive heir had

    herititary claims, the motions of electivity were applied, such the

    presentation to the court, the royal oath (which in England was a guarantee

    of limits).



    Listen, you can make a case that there are differences, but no one is making

    that an issue but you. You seem to lack the imagination to understand that

    I can selectivly take ideas from history (and I have plainaly stated on

    numerous occasions I don`t limit myself to medieval history) and build a BR

    setting totally within the descriptions of the texts, entirely without

    inventing a new concept. Remeber, I am only trying to mine ideas from human

    history to serve the BR game in order to fill in concepts that game has not

    filled in. Judging by the ideas the game has already presented, their

    source is simply the human past as well. There is nothing new in BR.



    What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is

    nothing new under the sun.



    > Furthermore the nature of BR divine rule is that it can be transferred,

    > both in the transfer of bloodline and the exchange of regency. One

    > could hardly make the same argument of a real life medieval concept

    > of divine right to rulership.



    This is an absurd statement. Certain you write this just to troll around

    here. Fiefs were never transfered by marriage, purchase, vassalage,

    inheritance, peace settlement, donation to religious orders, escheatment,

    will, charter (usually to cities, but also monastaries), forfiture,

    wardship, or transfer for service? Titles never moved from one person to

    another by the same list as I presented for fiefs? The people of the new

    fief, county, duchy, kingdom, &c never accepted the new ruler because this

    was untransferable? The Roman concept of adoption has no parallel to

    transfer of bloodline or right to excercise the rights of the paterfamilias?

    Upon what principle exactly did Henry VII claim to be a Lancastrian?

    Regarding regency, as it is political capital, it is transfered whenever a

    king wins the cooperation of his vassals, or a noble wins the support of his

    liege.



    Kenneth Gauck

    kgauck@mchsi.com

  9. #29
    Senior Member Trithemius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Canberra, Australia.
    Posts
    408
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary:

    > I don`t mean that so much as that I think Rus is a bit more general

    > than Slav. "Slav" nowadays probably has more of a southeastern European

    > connotation, while tossing in the Rus extends the concept a bit. Just

    > me maybe.



    Rus says "Princes of Novgorod and Muscovy" to me.

    Perhaps I am just being down on the Vos, but I don`t see them as that

    organised (although that fellow in the Zhainge River Valley might almost

    qualify...).



    --

    John Machin

    (trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

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

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

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

    - Athanasius Kircher, `The Great Art of Knowledge`.
    John 'Trithemius' Machin
    The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
    "Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius

  10. #30
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    At 11:22 AM 2/2/2004 +0100, irdeggman wrote:



    > Here are some simplified definitions that may help:

    >

    > A vassel must be a regent of some type (landed or non-landed).



    In the past I`ve found it useful to distinguish between a Vassal (cap V)

    and a vassal (lc v) in that a vassal is anyone who has sworn fealty to a

    liege, while a Vassal is someone who not only is a regent in his/er own

    right, but whose fealty to their Liege (cap L) automatically transfers RP

    or GB. Personally, I like the idea that the V/vassal issue is simply a

    difference in scale, but we have no rules for what a swearing vassalage

    does other than adventure level role-playing, really. (Green Ronin,

    however, has put out some interesting stuff.) Most often a LT is a vassal

    in the sense that he has some sworn sort of oath or has terms of service

    with his liege, and his liege has performed some sort of domain level

    action to establish that character`s role at the domain level, enabling him

    to perform LT actions.



    I`ve used several definitions for the role of characters in the domain

    system, including Vassals, Lieutenants, advisors, vassals, cohorts or

    followers, retainers, staff, subjects and clients. For the most part these

    differences really come into play when DMing NPCs in that one can use their

    status as a basis for how they will respond to a regent PC. That is, a LT

    will fight for his liege, an advisor probably not, the staff of a holding

    will likely obey all commands of a regent having to do with their duties,

    while a mercenary may have his own agenda. It`s not a hard and fast rule

    or anything, but it does provide a starting point for defining a NPC`s

    attitude.



    Vassals are regents who have a Vassalage agreement that automatically

    transfers RP or GB to their Liege.

    Lieutenants are agents of a regent who can operate at the domain action

    and perform LT actions.

    A vassal is a character who has sworn fealty to a regent (and cannot

    perform domain level actions.)

    Advisors are characters whose skills and efforts can aid a regent or LT

    in performing domain level actions. (They provide a +2 bonus on checks.)

    Cohorts and followers are characters who act at the adventure level of

    play and are gained through the Leadership feat (or a Reputation system.)

    Staff are characters who have been hired to perform duties within a

    regent`s domain structure. The people who work within a province`s

    bureaucracy, the reeves of a law holding, clerks of a guild or priests of a

    temple are retainers.

    Soldiers are hired warriors mustered from provinces in the regent`s

    domain. They are loyal to the regent and to their homes.

    Mercenaries are soldiers hired from outside the domain (including spies.)

    Subjects are characters who live in a landed regent`s province over whom

    he has influence.

    Clients are characters under the influence a non-landed regents holdings.



    > A Lt is not a regent, but can be a scion.



    I`ll have to go through the BR materials to find them, but IIRC there are a

    couple of occasions where the relationship between regents appears to be

    that of a Regent/LT. It appears that originally a character could be both

    a Vassal and a LT to the same Liege.



    As a general rule of thumb I think I don`t think it is necessary to

    actually write up guidelines for this kind of thing. If one leaves it open

    ended then DMs and players can decide for themselves how they want to

    portray the relationship between characters. A particularly controlling

    regent might want his Vassals to also be his LTs or he might make his LTs

    his Vassals by giving over a few holdings or provinces to them, while other

    regents might take a more hands-off approach.



    > Just noticed that these terms wern`t included in the glossary of the

    > BRCS, we will have to `fix` that during the revision.



    Sound good. Were the aforementioned definitions the ones that will go in

    the glossary?



    Gary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.