The Social Ramification of Bloodtheft

[harvs2]

I have always been rather curious about how people feel Bloodtheft is seen in Cerilia. It seems to me that it is not seen well at all, but I would love to hear the opinions of others.

[ConjurerDragon]

harvs2 schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...=ST&f=2&t=2309

>

> harvs2 wrote:

> I have always been rather curious about how people feel Bloodtheft is seen in Cerilia. It seems to me that it is not seen well at all, but I would love to hear the opinions of others.

>

That would highly depend on who your character is and where he is,

e.g. a Vos Barbarian slaying without any warning or reason, some

unprepared, unarmed whiny Brecht scion in Vosgaard who dared to travel

to far east would likely be seen as acting in the best way possible -

strenghtening his power and at the same time culling the weak... I can

see no negative reaction in that climate - neither for the murder, nor

for commiting bloodtheft.



In more civilized areas, and for lawful characters the requirements

would be higher. Murder would be out of question, and a honorable combat

needed. But even if the kill is not murder, and in former times the arms

and weapon of the loser in a tournament went to the victorious fighter,

I can´t see taking the bloodline of the loser in the same way.



Not only does the word itself BloodTHEFT scream out that it is like

stealing, but while the arms and weapon of a character are his personal

property in my view his bloodline is not. It is his connection to the

land and his means to collect regency if he was a ruler and just as the

land it is supposed to be inherited by his heirs so are the RP amassed

by the victim. According to the 2E way of bloodtheft if a regent is

slain normally the heirs get the domain AND the RP score of the victim -

but with bloodtheft the heir gets no RP. With a tighmaevril weapon the

tie between regent and land is severed and the domain falls into chaos.



Commiting bloodtheft on anyone except an ancestral enemy whose whole

family/clan is at war/feud with you, or against monsters I would see as

a chaotic and despised act . Using a tighmaevril weapon that throws a

whole domain into chaos and denies the heir the RP of the slain enemy is

even more chaotic and more despised.



Reading in the BRCS I noticed that the chance to have ones own bloodline

converted to Azrais does not raise if one commits bloodtheft instead of

simply slaying a scion with Azrais blood. (while you get more RP the

chance that you have to make the conversion check is higher but the

check does not become more difficult). Wouldn´t it be approbiate to make

it more likely to have ones bloodline change to Azrai if the character

intentionally kills a monster/awnsheglien using a coup de

grace/tighmaevril instead of just killing it? And the passage in the

BRCS about Bloodtheft (after Usurpation) does not mention the loss of

the victims RP as the 2E Rulebook does so that the heir gains the domain

but no RP.

bye

Michael

[irdeggman]

Actually in the BRCS-playtest and the revised Chap 2 there is the following:

" While this bloodline usurpation may seem an easy way to increase a scion’s blood power, it does come with its risks. When a scion absorbs the bloodline essence of a scion with a bloodline score higher than his, then he faces the risk of the victim’s bloodline derivation effectively overwhelming his own. It is actually possible for a scion’s bloodline derivation to change as the new, more powerful bloodline grounds itself in the slayer’s body. This can only occur if the slayer absorbs the maximum RP (twice his current bloodline score) during usurpation. If this happens, then the scion must make a contested bloodline check or change the derivation of his bloodline to the newly absorbed derivation.

The scion normally gets a +10 circumstance bonus to this check, unless the slain scion possessed a bloodline derived from Azrai. The corrupting influence of the dark god’s bloodline is particularly difficult to resist, and scions absorbing the energy of Azrai do not gain this bonus. This is one of the reasons why Azrai’s bloodline is still so prevalent in Cerilia; many a scion has slain an Awnshegh only to discover his has become corrupted by Azrai's foul taint. "

So Azrai usurpation will have a greater chance of converting a scion's bloodline.


Bloodtheft is something that all scion's fear. Commoners don't really care either way because it is outside of their control and above their station.

IMO it would be highly situational as to how bloodtheft is perceived at the time. Was it in single combat? Where was it (e.g., Vosgaard, Rjurik Highlands, Anuire, etc.)? Did it involve another race? Was it an attempt to recover a 'stolen' birthright - like in Osoerde? I don't think there is a simple answer here, as is the case in most things in Birthight, political conditions have a great influence on what happens and why.

[kgauck]

I don`t think it actually happens.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Osprey]

Well, the answer that perception of bloodtheft is conditional and variable is definitely the easy, broad, catch-all answer that is likely to be true...but here are some examples of my own.

In Anuire (and I'll limit it to that for my purposes here, as it s what I'm most familiar with and where most of my campaign takes place), I think bloodtheft would be considered the right of the victor in honorable combat IF death by combat was considered just in the first place - like on the battlefield.

However, like any political action, it will have consequences as waves rippling forth through time and space. Who were the slainb scion's heirs, if any? Who were their allies? Who were their friends? How well-loved were they by their people and by other regents/scions? If an unpopular or treacherous bloodtheft occurs, I imagine it will be looked on with disdain, even disgust. If it's a righteous slaying of an ancient enemy or an unpopular regent, it will probably be called "justice" by most folks with a medieval mindset.

In most cases, though, I think it falls into that messy gray zone somewhere in-between. Some people will get upset, because they didn't want that scion to die or see their line ended. So bloodtheft goes on the list of crimes committed by the slayer. Others, siding with the slayer(s), will see it as a natural or at least predictable end result of victory over another scion. As I understand the BRCS, heirs always get the RP and half collection from the domains they inherit when their patron/liege dies, even when they're bloodthefted, with the single exception of tighmaevriel, which specifically severs the connection between regent and land/holdings, making that regent's lands and holdings uncontrolled. And of course the heir is left an heir in name only, as I imagine the bloodsilver severs that connection as well (it being essentially of the same nature).

I don't see the act of bloodtheft being condemned in and of itself - I think it's too much a part of Anuire's history to not be somewhat accepted as "how things happen." I believe this is particularly true when one regent conquers another regent's realm - it seems quite natural as the crowning finale to that conquest, though in Anuire best done on the battlefield rather than later as part of a criminal sentencing.

Lastly, keep in mind that all of these things boil down to my interpretation based on the core source material and BRCS - I like the fact that these things aren't spelled out in the publications, because it is one of those issues that each DM may then shape according to how they envision Cerilia and the consequences of character (or NPC) actions. But if you like this version, by all means take what you like!

-Osprey

[Benjamin]

I agree with the general consensus so far. It is variable.

But let me discuss some of the variables.

In Anuire, Brechtur and Khinasi, I would see any bloodtheft in battle to be accepted widely. Duels would also be accepted, provided both parties took a 'till death' position.

Any time bloodtheft was the result of treachery, deceit or magic, though, I can see there being problems. And the same goes for the violation of hospitality rules - you can't drug/poison your guests just to bloodtheft them. However, I can see some vendettas/blood feuds in Khinasi where bloodtheft by deceit is accepted, provided both parties are aware there is a type of feud going on (similar to Dune series kanly).

In Rjurik, I think honor will have more influence, and fewer witnesses on whole. The idea of challenging rulers for position, though, means bloodtheft will likely be more prevalent.

In Vosgaard, bloodtheft will be widely accepted - after all, if you aren't strong enough to keep your bloodline, then you needed to be killed off. This doesn't mean, though, that family members won't come looking for revenge.

Usurpation, though, I will see as abhorrent to most people. The killing by a blow through the heart takes some effort. It usually means the foe is incapacitated and/or helpless. I see it being looked upon as dishonorable and evil in all regions.

And anyone with tighmaevril is just asking to be hunted down, mostly because each and every hunter will want for him/herself. Of course, publicly they will say it's to destroy an evil weapon.

[Foundry_Dwarf]

Originally posted by Benjamin@Feb 29 2004, 04:52 AM
In Anuire, Brechtur and Khinasi, I would see any bloodtheft in battle to be accepted widely. Duels would also be accepted, provided both parties took a 'till death' position.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I can easily see one blooded character challenging another for the right to wed and thus advance one step closer to the throne (I can even see characters being forced to either "step aside" or face all reasonable challengers). Such would help ensure the strength of the bloodlines and, at the same time, permanently still any possiblity of the loser trying to reclaim what once was his (ressurection does not restore taken bloodlines IIRC).
In a game I ran one Khinasi paladin sought out and challenged another (his cousin no less) because the cousin was bethrothed to one a step higher up in the hierarchy). [Translation: PC rolled "Blood Challenge" and I fleshed it out ]

[Osprey]

And given the number of references and hints as to the frequency of Blood Challenges, I think it safe to assume that most regents face Blood Challenges sooner or later, and that in general this is simply not all that uncommon.

BUT...I also think it's important to emphasize that this is deadly serious. Duels to the death, especially when an invested regent is involved, causes a serious upset in the stability of things...and as regents must always concern themselves with the people, we must ask ourselves: just how much of this "changing of the kings" could the people really stomach? At what point would too many usurpations simply collapse the system altogether and pitch the land into anarchy and civil war?

Heh heh, well there's a dark future seed for Cerilia...the times when the people say "enough is enough" and rebel against the blooded altogether...to be blooded is to be hunted, hated, and blamed for the misery of the people, who were the pawns of the scions in century upon century of endless warfare, strife, espionage, deceit, and struggles for power.

An idea, anyways. <_<

[ConjurerDragon]

Foundry_Dwarf schrieb:



>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...=ST&f=2&t=2309

>

> Foundry_Dwarf wrote:

>

Originally posted by Benjamin@Feb 29 2004, 04:52 AM
[b] In Anuire, Brechtur and Khinasi, I would see any bloodtheft in battle to be accepted widely. Duels would also be accepted, provided both parties took a `till death` position.

> I agree with this wholeheartedly. I can easily see one blooded character challenging another for the right to wed and thus advance one step closer to the throne (I can even see characters being forced to either "step aside" or face all reasonable challengers). Such would help ensure the strength of the bloodlines and, at the same time, permanently still any possiblity of the loser trying to reclaim what once was his (ressurection does not restore taken bloodlines IIRC).

> In a game I ran one Khinasi paladin sought out and challenged another (his cousin no less) because the cousin was bethrothed to one a step higher up in the hierarchy). :) [Translation: PC rolled "Blood Challenge" and I fleshed it out :D ]

>

A Khinasi Paladin? And he did ignore the example of glorious El-Arrasi

who spared the life of his brother Eirat?

bye

Michael

[kgauck]

Osprey`s post is an intriguing thought on bloodtheft, but also serves as an

example of what I totally reject in BR. My own view is to see the story

from the point of view of the PC`s as nobles, and heroic nobles. They are

right and good. Portraying the vary nature of things as dark and corrupt

doesn`t fit with my vision of the game. Boodtheft understood in that way

rubs me the wrong way. As a mechanism that can reflect the shift in power

that comes from victory, I can embrace. The notion that anyone (except

maybe abominations) seeks to steal, hence bloodtheft, someone`s bloodline I

reject.



YMMV

Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com