Questions

[Samuel Weiss]

1. Theoretically I suppose, but you would have to give a more specific
example.
2. The #1 Wizard in Anuiure is a half-elf. I would say it depends on the
tolerance levels of both the wizard and local populace, and the wizards
ability to hide just in case.
3. Not the way I read that rule. Only land holdings and source holdings
generate RP for wizards.

Samwise

[Sepsis]

At 10:59 PM 12/29/97 -0500, Samuel Weiss(SWeissBB@worldnet.att.net)wrote:
>
>12 times or 4 times, it's still way too much. Especially at higher levels.
>You would have to depopulate adjacent provinces in a major way to achieve
>that sort of poulation growth in that short a period of time. That or
>cloning centers with forced growth. I would suggest a minimum time of 1
>year per new level before you can try and increase the level again. Also
>possibly forbidding the use of regency points to influence the die roll as
>well.
>

I've always felt that the Ruling up of a Province included much more then
just mere population. Roads are built, mines are dug, grants for land are
given, irrigation canals are laid, etc. in other words the Province has its
potential risen. The actual population growth slowly occurs over time as
people are attracted to the area, and the better conditions result in a
baby boom. Although taking the extensive nature of the works involved, I
too only allow a Province to be Ruled up once per year. Just for slightly
different reasons.


Sepsis, richt@metrolink.net (ICQ:3777956)

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-

BR Netbook: http://webpages.metrolink.net/~veleda/birth.html

[E Gray]

- -----Original Message-----
From: Dragon3125
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Wednesday, December 31, 1997 2:36 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Questions


>In a message dated 97-12-30 23:20:36 EST, you write:
>Oh ues I have a few more questions too.
>1.Can you have somone who is both your vassal and your regeant


That defies Common Sense, so No.

>2. How likely would it be for an elf wizard to set up shop in human lands?


Unlikely to Extremely Unlikely.

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Tue, 30 Dec 1997, James Ray wrote:

> > > 3. How would the countries in Anuire, such as Avanil and Diemed, react
> to the
> > > creation of these new provinces?
> >
> > I suspect that it would set off a land rush. Everyone trying to get their
> > fingers into the pie, touching off a new age of exploration and
> > colonization. Swashbucklers galore!
> >
> nothing, really, to add, but it might upset the Empire to the South a
> little bit....

I would hope so! There's nothing like an Implacable Foe to set heroes'
hearts ablaze! And its so much more interesting when its at least partly
their own fault. :)

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Wed, 31 Dec 1997, Dragon3125 wrote:

> Oh ues I have a few more questions too.
> 1.Can you have somone who is both your vassal and your regeant
>

Not quite sure what you mean here. You can certainly have a vassal who is
another regent, that's the whole point. If your question was meant to be
"bath vassal and lieutennant" then I think that the answer is no. When you
make someone a vassal, you are setting her up as the regent of a certain
amount of real estate (etc.) and she is quickly going to become too busy
to do your dirty work. You can certainly still work together, and she will
still owe her loyalty and fealty to you, but she now has enough dirty work
of her own without having to do some of yours each month. Not that this is
bad! Now, instead of having an ally that can do one domain action a
season, you have an ally that can do three domain actions a season. The
trade-off, however, is that the character is now a DM character, and the
DM can feel free to make her turn of you if that is in her character or if
you treat her poorly. (As a DM, I usually allow 2 of a vassal's actions to
be decided by the vassal's PC lord, but sometimes more or less. And I
allow Diplomacy actions to be have a chance of turning the vassal against
his lord.)

> 2. How likely would it be for an elf wizard to set up shop in human lands?
>

Rare but not impossible. You may wish to give it some sort of a back
story. For example, one of my players plays an elven wizard in Roesone.
His story was that his family was charged centuries ago with combating the
Spider and keeping him from ravaging the land. His family is still here
combatting the minions of the Spiderfell, even after virtually all of the
elves of the Erebannien have disappeared, because they intend to remain
true to their oath.

> 3. Can wizards claim RP form law holdings?

No. The best way around this for wizard regents is to set up a "warlord"
vassal from some trusted member of the fighter class. The warlord collects
the regency from the law holdings and heads the armies. Of course, since
vassals are DM characters, you better get one that you trust...

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Samuel Weiss]

1.Can you have somone who is both your vassal and your regeant


That defies Common Sense, so No.>

Just as a note, it may defy modern common sense, but it never stopped them
in the middle ages. It would usually occur when someone was fostered by
someone of lower rank, then became that persons liege later on. They would
be beholden to the person who knighted them, even though that person was
their man when the knight became the king. Also the habit of giving lands
to people to tie them to you more slosely or a s agift or as a show of
wealth caused all sorts of tangled lines of fealty. Common sense? Made
sense to them.

Samwise

[Jim Cooper]

Samuel Weiss wrote:
>
> 1.Can you have somone who is both your vassal and your regeant
>
> That defies Common Sense, so No.>
>
> Just as a note, it may defy modern common sense, but it never stopped them
> in the middle ages. It would usually occur when someone was fostered by
> someone of lower rank, then became that persons liege later on. They would
> be beholden to the person who knighted them, even though that person was
> their man when the knight became the king. Also the habit of giving lands
> to people to tie them to you more slosely or a s agift or as a show of
> wealth caused all sorts of tangled lines of fealty. Common sense? Made
> sense to them.
>
> Samwise
>
Uh, if I may just step in here (there's gotta be some use for this
History Degree I've achieved ...):

About your response, Sam, I think you misunderstand some medieval
terms like vassalage, fosterage, and lordship. While your quite right
that fosterage was prevalent during the so-called Middle Ages, fosterage
implies family bondage and not feudal service. Therefore, fosterage was
used by families in order that their children could learn different
skills that the natural family couldn't teach them and/or to broaden a
family's influence in society (remember that family blood ties were VERY
important during the Middle Ages).
Fosterage was also used as a sort of 'peace agreement guarantee'
where two factions would exchange a child in 'fosterage' to ensure the
goodwill of the other family and their kin. What this did was make each
family related to each other, and was based/relied on the belief that
attacking your kin was considered unthinkable to the medieval mind
(Christian or otherwise).
Incidently, (as I adopt my scholarly professor mode) this type of
action was quite prominent in Ireland and a little less so in most
Scandinavian cultures. Can't tell you why - I suspect this happened
much the same way in other cultures, but other places that we North
Americans think of knights more commonly of (like England, France, etc.)
practiced a different technique: these societies 'turfed off' young
adults into what was called being a 'page' (boys) or 'maid-servant'
(girls) when they were old enough (in the noble class at least; and
remember children weren't considered children anymore when they reached
an age where they could meaningfully work in society (probably around 9
or 10 years old, even less in peasant society). Here the child would
learn everything that would be needed as an adult that befit their
proper station.
When the young adult reached about age 15 or so, (again I'm talking
nobles here now) most boys would enter 'squirehood', girls still
continued as maid-servants. 'Squire' is basically just a fancy word for
a 'knight-in-training' (although this didn't necessarily mean a squire
would become a knight, and no shame was lost for being a squire for
life!). Here squires would continue more detailed learning of all the
necessary skills a gentleman needed to function in society.
Anyway, to get back to your response, when a squire was knighted, the
new knight owed loyalty to that person he was knighted by (a later
development came into practice called liege lordship, whereby a knight
(who was also a *landed* vassal - never any other rank in feudalism)
swore primary fealty to one person (usually the lord who knighted him -
this being considered very proper).
Strictly speaking, a person became a vassal when he received a
grant/gift of land or a special responsiblity. But, in every case, liege
lordship came about because of the practice of sub-infeudination, where
a knight owned land (and was thereby a vassal to the person he received
it from) from many different lords (said lord owning the land from
ANOTHER lord, and so on up to the King (who, of course, really owned all
the land in his kingdom - everyone else kinda 'just' owned titles to the
land they had lordship over (not quite true, but fair enough for this
post).
Now since this vassal technically owed approximately 2 or 3 months
military service/council to each lord, I think you can see that having
more than 3 or 4 lords would be impossible without swearing primary
lordship to one person (and paying off the others in a practice called
*scutage* (a monetary fee) in lieu of military service).
Okay.
Just before I say this, I can see what your trying to get at with
this first question, but its ... not ... quite right. Yes, someone
could have grown up under a person and then *eventually* (maybe remotely
is a better word) become a lord over that person (usually by right of
birth, but sometimes through hard work ... well, hard as anyone of the
noble class had to work at any rate). But the hard fact is: once you
become a lord over someone, that person stops being your lord and starts
being your vassal!!!!!!!!!!! Its funny how that works! If it worked
the way you suggested, than the whole feudal system would have been a
sham! It wouldn't have worked! Then medieval people would've really
been stupid, huh? I mean, practicing a economic/political/social system
for hundreds of years ... sheesh!
Putting aside the notion that you would have grown up under many
people you would have called lord in your (young) adult life, the feudal
system is based on a very rigid and defined 'chain of command', one
where a person owes loyalty to everyone above him (except the king, of
course); not the other way around.
Seriously though, I think you got confused by those weird medieval
terms of 'fosterage' and 'vassalage/oath & fealty'. Fosterage is
unrelated to vassalage/lordship. Yes, a person would most likely be
beholdened to those he held in respect when they were his lords, but
they aren't his lords anymore when that person becomes a lord over
them. Therefore, a king never is a vassal of anyone else, no matter
who they grew up under or were knighted by before they became kings
(unless, of course, they swore vassalage to another king, but then at
that point they would cease to be 'kings' - even though their subjects
mights still call them one).

Sorry this was kinda long, but I hope it helps. And, really, it *is*
just common sense. Medieval people were actually quite logical and not
'dark and backwards' as many 20th century people would like to believe
(I personally think humanity's 'Dark Ages' were the 1960's to mid
1980's). Of course, this all depends on your point of view, doesn't
it? At any rate, what you were saying would be like saying my boss is
also my employee ... Or, my DM is also my player character ...

Now, THAT would be a neat trick to see ... (not to mention being
quite handy: Yea, I think mister boss-man you are going to give me a
raise this week ... yea, that's the ticket! Oh, by the way, I think I'll
dock my raise from your pay! MWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!!!!!)

Darren Cooper

[JD Lail]

What you are really asking is this; if a lord who is a vassal suddenly
became King what happened to his previous vassal relationship. Simply put
it was dissolved and the vassal title became a crown title. When the title
was brought out of being welded to the throne and reissued (usually to a
younger son of the king) the old vassal relationship was ignored.

On the changing of dynasties;

Generally speaking Princesses were shipped out of the country to
be married. (That's why every new house in the history of England
was foreign.)

Cadet branches of the Royal House hold directly from the throne in
every case I have ever heard of.

Germany did not exist until the mid 1800's. What you are thinking of was the
Holy Roman Empire (HRE) which covered the 4 duchies of the medieval Germans,
(Bavaria, Saxony, Swabia, & (IIRC) Lorraine. It also included the Kingdom of
Bohemia (the Modern Czech Republic), Austria, the Baltic provinces, parts of
southern Denmark, Holland, and theoretically Northern Italy (South to the
Papal States). Also it included Switzerland for a while.

I could go on the with the history lesson but the point is this; the feudal
system as most of us think about it did not exist except in post 1066 England,
and whatever it conquered, France, and partially in Germany & Spain.

It never really existed in Scotland or Scandinavia, and failed
in Ireland.

The Slavic Kingdoms and Russia were IIRC, somewhat different in
their approach to Feudalism but I can't remember how they differed
for sure.

The reason for this may probably related to the fact that the Kingdoms that
were raided the most often by the Vikings seemingly had the greatest degree
of serfdom. For that matter remember that William the Conqueror, Duke of
Normandy was a direct descendant from a Viking who conquered Normandy ca.
900 AD. One
predecessor was IIRC known by the name Richard the Devil. The French throne was
happy to be rid of them . :)

L8R

[Daniel McSorley]

From: Jim Cooper


>Therefore, a king never is a vassal of anyone else, no matter
>who they grew up under or were knighted by before they became kings
>(unless, of course, they swore vassalage to another king, but then at
>that point they would cease to be 'kings' - even though their subjects
>mights still call them one).
>
Actually, there were Kings of England who were vassals, to the Kings of
France. This was after the Norman invasion, so they new Kings still had
lands back in Normandy, and were technically vassals, though I think
Normandy was in fact pretty independant from the French crown.

Daniel McSorley
mcsorley.1@osu.edu

[Geniver]

I think we have strayed from the original question: can CIRCULAR
vassalage relations exist?

I think the answer is NO, and I haven't seen anyone come up with a
historical example yet!

Geniver


Jim Cooper wrote:
>
> Daniel McSorley wrote:
> >
> > From: Jim Cooper
> >
> > >Therefore, a king never is a vassal of anyone else...
> > >
> > Actually, there were Kings of England who were vassals...
> >
> You are correct; I should have said...