Results 21 to 30 of 60
Thread: Understanding Regency
-
02-03-2004, 06:30 PM #21
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
-
02-03-2004, 07:30 PM #22
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
-
02-03-2004, 09:50 PM #23
- 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
-
02-03-2004, 11:50 PM #24
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
-
02-03-2004, 11:50 PM #25
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
-
02-04-2004, 12:30 AM #26
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
-
02-04-2004, 03:30 AM #27
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
-
02-04-2004, 06:50 AM #28
----- 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
-
02-04-2004, 10:10 AM #29
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
-
02-04-2004, 10:30 AM #30
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)
Bookmarks