Investiture

[relve@Otdk.Helsinki.F]

I finally recieved a copy of the Book of Priestcraft. While appreciate
very much the work done and found a lot of useful information (deep
bow to TSR) the complexity of Investiture action confused me. So, I'd
be glad if you bothered to answer a couple of questions:

What is the connection the investiture creates? To what the regent is
attached? In case of a realm the regent is
connected to the land. But what about holdings? To the people (over
whom the regent has power)? Do the holdings "move around" then with
people? (BTW, the Book of Priestcraft mentions somewhere that although
immovables etc are part of the domain, they are considered assets)

For example: Priest X has 1level Temple Holding (TH) in the City of
Anuire (corresponds approximately to 10 000 persons) If he moves with
all his "followers" and settles in a 0 level province (which he just
created), what happens? Shall the level of the province rise
automatically? And shall the priest got automatically all available
TH levels? (I'm aware that the level of province reflects its
importance and not necessarily the number of people who live in it
but considering that the average 0 level province has about 1 000 or
less habitants, then ...well something should happen.)

Secondly:
Why regents of guild and source holdings do not need
the ceremony of investiture to transfer the respective holdings?
What is so different there compared with THs, provinces and especially
Law Holdings? Or does it mean that ceremony of invetsiture is
mostly show for commoners? That they would know by whom
they are governed (in case of LH and provinces)? Why the spell then?

I guess that the requirement of investiture spell was skipped in
order to give players who control thief and mage regents more freedom
but it would be nice if somebody was able to reason it from "inside"
(i.e. could point out the properties of GH and SH that allow the
transfer without casting the spell)

Thanx,

Curious one

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 relve@Otdk.Helsinki.FI wrote:

> What is the connection the investiture creates? To what the regent is
> attached? In case of a realm the regent is
> connected to the land. But what about holdings? To the people (over
> whom the regent has power)? Do the holdings "move around" then with
> people? (BTW, the Book of Priestcraft mentions somewhere that although
> immovables etc are part of the domain, they are considered assets)

Interesting question. Perhaps some schema like this: the Guilder is
"attached" to the economy of the people, the priest to the faith of the
people, and the judge (i.e. law holder) to the loyalty of the people. I
would say that the "attachment" is mediated through the action of the
"assets" owned by the regent the way light is bent by a prism, and thus
when the people leave, the holding goes bye-bye, until the regent can
build up the assets in the new province (i.e. using the Create and Rule
Actions).

> For example: Priest X has 1level Temple Holding (TH) in the City of
> Anuire (corresponds approximately to 10 000 persons) If he moves with
> all his "followers" and settles in a 0 level province (which he just
> created), what happens? Shall the level of the province rise
> automatically? And shall the priest got automatically all available
> TH levels? (I'm aware that the level of province reflects its
> importance and not necessarily the number of people who live in it
> but considering that the average 0 level province has about 1 000 or
> less habitants, then ...well something should happen.)

One of my players wanted to do something similar to this, and this is how
I handled it: I made him convert the population into levy-like units,
paying 1 gb per unit to create, and 1 gb per unit to maintain. Plus he
had to pay full movement costs as though it were an army, including
increased cost to move across foreign lands. He still had to create and
rule all holdings other than province when he got there.

> Secondly:
> Why regents of guild and source holdings do not need
> the ceremony of investiture to transfer the respective holdings?
> What is so different there compared with THs, provinces and especially
> Law Holdings? Or does it mean that ceremony of invetsiture is
> mostly show for commoners? That they would know by whom
> they are governed (in case of LH and provinces)? Why the spell then?

I rule that they certainly do need the Investiture spell to ensure proper
transfer of holdings to heirs. Further, for flavor, I require a priest of
Sera (or Eloele) to do the Investiture spells for Guild holdings, and a
priest of Ruornil for Source holdings.

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Jim Cooper]

relve@Otdk.Helsinki.FI wrote:

> What is the connection the investiture creates? To what the regent is
> attached? In case of a realm the regent is
> connected to the land.> <

Here's an excerpt from one of those 'free' peasants of Anuire, one of
those (unblooded) disaffected yuppie/high ideal types that seems to be
all the rage in present day Anuire:

"Who says there is any real connection at all? Perhaps its those damn
priests who have brainwashed all of us into THINKING that that silly
ceremony actually does something like *tie* kings and queens to the
land! Perhaps we've been led to believe this just so the priests could
*justify* their lording it over all us unwashed commoners, suppported by
those aristocratic snobs so they can justify their so called 'ruling'
class customs and traditions. If you ask me, its all just ceremonial
mubbo-jubbo. We Anuirean peasants have worked long and hard to free
ourselves from serfdom and servitude; *we* are the backbone of our
society and it is *us*, the common man and woman, who gives these lords
the right to rule and the ability to get things done in our homes and
our lands. You think our _Lord_ does any actual work?!? You are daft,
man! I think its time for a REVOLUTION! You see, there is this system
called republicism, that I learned while on an adventure in Brecht held
lands ..."

Seriously, maybe the domain action of investiture is just a ceremony
perpetuated by priests to continue a perceived role in Anuirean (or
other) society. Religion is a strong influence in societies after all.
Maybe there is no _real_ signifigance; perhaps it is the law regents who
have been led by priests to believe that this ceremony is necessary to
rule ... maybe one doesn't actually *need* this ceremony to be done, and
that explains why guild and source regents don't need to have the
ceremony performed on themselves. Remember that the land itself is
quite capable of making a regent in one fell swoop, no fancy ceremony or
nothing!

And perhaps the regent doesn't actually _receive_ the regency points -
those people or holdings that he/she rules might actually be the
'vessel' that contains the influence (ie regency points) with which the
regent 'uses' to advance the cause(s) of his/her domain. So, in effect,
there could be no real connection to land and/or holding(s).

>< But what about holdings? To the people (over
> whom the regent has power)? Do the holdings "move around" then with
> people? (BTW, the Book of Priestcraft mentions somewhere that although
> immovables etc are part of the domain, they are considered assets)

Yes they can move around, in this mixed up world of Aebrynnis, a world
where there is a loose feudal structure but it really isn't feudalism -
that's why someone who only controls armies is still considered a
regent, and in effect, has 'law holdings' in which to influence his
surroundings (and if blooded, should get regency IMO for leading these
armies).

><
> Secondly:
> Why regents of guild and source holdings do not need
> the ceremony of investiture to transfer the respective holdings?
> What is so different there compared with THs, provinces and especially
> Law Holdings? Or does it mean that ceremony of invetsiture is
> mostly show for commoners? That they would know by whom
> they are governed (in case of LH and provinces)? Why the spell then?

Possibly; see my above rant. The answer lies in what do YOU want to
believe?

><

> I guess that the requirement of investiture spell was skipped in
> order to give players who control thief and mage regents more freedom
> but it would be nice if somebody was able to reason it from "inside"
> (i.e. could point out the properties of GH and SH that allow the
> transfer without casting the spell)

You'll have to ask Ed or Carrie about this one.

Darren