Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Loyalties

  1. #1
    Eric Dunn
    Guest

    Loyalties

    A fellow PBeM DM and I were having a conversation about law holdings and
    their affect on taxation, as well as how loyalty is changed.

    I wondered if anyone else drew similar conclusions--

    The point is this: Page 47 of the "Rulebook" states that "At the end of
    the domain turn, each ruler adjusts the loyalty grade of his provinces as
    indicated: -1 grade if severe taxes were collected."

    It goes on to give the other affects.

    Under "Law Holdings and Loyalty" it states "A regent who holds his lands in
    an iron grip can tolerate some discontent. Law holdings control changes in
    loyalty as follows:

    A regent who controls all available law holdings in a province can ignore
    two grades of change in loyalty there."

    Again, it goes on to say the various states of loyalty that can be ignored,
    etc.

    Why do I bring this up? Well, we realized that it is a common misconception
    that people feel that if they have all the law holdings, loyalty isn't
    affected AT ALL.

    Such is not the case. If you tax a province severely, that does not mean
    that you maintain high loyalty ratings--it just means that if you control
    all the law, that people may dislike your taxes, but since they fear
    retribution, it takes extreme measures to actually cause a rebellion.

    Case example: I rule up my law in Caercas/Roesone(4/1) to 4. I now tax
    severely. My loyalty which was average, now drops to poor. The next
    season, I repeat the action. My loyalty is now rebellious, but since I
    hold all the law, no rebellion ensues, since I can ignore two grades of
    loyatly change. Several more turns go by, and I continue to squeeze my
    people for all their worth, yet, nothing happens, as I hold them in an iron
    grip. Finally, I decide it's time rule my province up, as I'm rolling in
    "Positive Cash Flow." I succeed. Well, now I have a problem, since my
    capitol province is now in Rebellion, and I collect no regency for that
    province, action costs are doubled, and the next action round in the next
    turn, the province raises 5 levies, and I have a civil war on my hands.

    The point I'm trying to clarify is that law holdings do not mean loyalty
    changes DON'T happen, it just means for the time being, they can be ignored.

    E

  2. #2
    Memnoch
    Guest

    Loyalties

    Actually, this is almost the exact opposite of how I interpret the ruling.
    Using your example of Caercas, this is how that I read it:

    Law 4 in a 4 province is 100% of the law... taxing the populace severely
    causes a -1 step in loyalty... If nothing else happens that has an effect on
    the loyalty of a province, your beginning loyalty is average, and also, the
    ending loyalty is average as well...
    Now, say for example that you tax severely (-1 loyalty, and ignore a random
    event that results in a -1 to loyalty as well... at the end of the DT your
    loyalty would be average still... If on the next domain turn you tax
    severely and ignore a random event that results in a -1 loyalty modifier and
    IHH successfully agitates, which is a cumulative -3 modifier to loyalty for
    the domain turn, your loyalty drops from average to poor.... If IHH's
    agitation would result in a -2 modifier to loyalty by rolling 10 more than
    the final modified success number, you would drop from average straight into
    rebellion due to the total accumulated -4 loyalty modifiers applied during
    the domain turn, of which you can only ignore 2.... resulting in a total
    (after adjustments) change in loyalty of -2... average to rebellion....

    That is how IMO the loyalty modifiers and law holdings should affect the
    final loyalty of the province....


    Memnoch
    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Eric Dunn
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Monday, March 23, 1998 9:22 AM
    Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Loyalties


    >A fellow PBeM DM and I were having a conversation about law holdings and
    >their affect on taxation, as well as how loyalty is changed.
    >
    >I wondered if anyone else drew similar conclusions--
    >
    >The point is this: Page 47 of the "Rulebook" states that "At the end of
    >the domain turn, each ruler adjusts the loyalty grade of his provinces as
    >indicated: -1 grade if severe taxes were collected."
    >
    >It goes on to give the other affects.
    >
    >Under "Law Holdings and Loyalty" it states "A regent who holds his lands in
    >an iron grip can tolerate some discontent. Law holdings control changes in
    >loyalty as follows:
    >
    >A regent who controls all available law holdings in a province can ignore
    >two grades of change in loyalty there."
    >
    >Again, it goes on to say the various states of loyalty that can be ignored,
    >etc.
    >
    >Why do I bring this up? Well, we realized that it is a common misconception
    >that people feel that if they have all the law holdings, loyalty isn't
    >affected AT ALL.
    >
    >Such is not the case. If you tax a province severely, that does not mean
    >that you maintain high loyalty ratings--it just means that if you control
    >all the law, that people may dislike your taxes, but since they fear
    >retribution, it takes extreme measures to actually cause a rebellion.
    >
    >Case example: I rule up my law in Caercas/Roesone(4/1) to 4. I now tax
    >severely. My loyalty which was average, now drops to poor. The next
    >season, I repeat the action. My loyalty is now rebellious, but since I
    >hold all the law, no rebellion ensues, since I can ignore two grades of
    >loyatly change. Several more turns go by, and I continue to squeeze my
    >people for all their worth, yet, nothing happens, as I hold them in an iron
    >grip. Finally, I decide it's time rule my province up, as I'm rolling in
    >"Positive Cash Flow." I succeed. Well, now I have a problem, since my
    >capitol province is now in Rebellion, and I collect no regency for that
    >province, action costs are doubled, and the next action round in the next
    >turn, the province raises 5 levies, and I have a civil war on my hands.
    >
    >The point I'm trying to clarify is that law holdings do not mean loyalty
    >changes DON'T happen, it just means for the time being, they can be
    ignored.
    >
    >E
    >
    >************************************************* **************************
    >>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    >

  3. #3
    prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co
    Guest

    Loyalties

    - ----- Begin Included Message -----

    Actually, this is almost the exact opposite of how I interpret the ruling.
    Using your example of Caercas, this is how that I read it:

    Law 4 in a 4 province is 100% of the law... taxing the populace severely
    causes a -1 step in loyalty... If nothing else happens that has an effect on
    the loyalty of a province, your beginning loyalty is average, and also, the
    ending loyalty is average as well...
    Now, say for example that you tax severely (-1 loyalty, and ignore a random
    event that results in a -1 to loyalty as well... at the end of the DT your
    loyalty would be average still... If on the next domain turn you tax
    severely and ignore a random event that results in a -1 loyalty modifier and
    IHH successfully agitates, which is a cumulative -3 modifier to loyalty for
    the domain turn, your loyalty drops from average to poor.... If IHH's
    agitation would result in a -2 modifier to loyalty by rolling 10 more than
    the final modified success number, you would drop from average straight into
    rebellion due to the total accumulated -4 loyalty modifiers applied during
    the domain turn, of which you can only ignore 2.... resulting in a total
    (after adjustments) change in loyalty of -2... average to rebellion....

    That is how IMO the loyalty modifiers and law holdings should affect the
    final loyalty of the province....


    Memnoch
    - -----Original Message-----

    >A fellow PBeM DM and I were having a conversation about law holdings and
    >their affect on taxation, as well as how loyalty is changed.
    >
    >I wondered if anyone else drew similar conclusions--
    >
    >The point is this: Page 47 of the "Rulebook" states that "At the end of
    >the domain turn, each ruler adjusts the loyalty grade of his provinces as
    >indicated: -1 grade if severe taxes were collected."
    >
    >It goes on to give the other affects.
    >
    >Under "Law Holdings and Loyalty" it states "A regent who holds his lands in
    >an iron grip can tolerate some discontent. Law holdings control changes in
    >loyalty as follows:
    >
    >A regent who controls all available law holdings in a province can ignore
    >two grades of change in loyalty there."
    >
    >Again, it goes on to say the various states of loyalty that can be ignored,
    >etc.
    >
    >Why do I bring this up? Well, we realized that it is a common misconception
    >that people feel that if they have all the law holdings, loyalty isn't
    >affected AT ALL.
    >
    >Such is not the case. If you tax a province severely, that does not mean
    >that you maintain high loyalty ratings--it just means that if you control
    >all the law, that people may dislike your taxes, but since they fear
    >retribution, it takes extreme measures to actually cause a rebellion.
    >
    >Case example: I rule up my law in Caercas/Roesone(4/1) to 4. I now tax
    >severely. My loyalty which was average, now drops to poor. The next
    >season, I repeat the action. My loyalty is now rebellious, but since I
    >hold all the law, no rebellion ensues, since I can ignore two grades of
    >loyatly change. Several more turns go by, and I continue to squeeze my
    >people for all their worth, yet, nothing happens, as I hold them in an iron
    >grip. Finally, I decide it's time rule my province up, as I'm rolling in
    >"Positive Cash Flow." I succeed. Well, now I have a problem, since my
    >capitol province is now in Rebellion, and I collect no regency for that
    >province, action costs are doubled, and the next action round in the next
    >turn, the province raises 5 levies, and I have a civil war on my hands.
    >
    >The point I'm trying to clarify is that law holdings do not mean loyalty
    >changes DON'T happen, it just means for the time being, they can be
    ignored.
    >
    - ----- End Included Message -----
    At the risk of being a "me too" post, I just wanted to say that I agree 100%
    with Memnoch's rule interpretation. Mostly my players hold only 1/2 the law
    "hey it's enough for severe taxes". I'd like to give them the rude shock of a
    double agitation or agitation & random event combo on of these days. They
    seem to realise the importance of not POing Priest regents though.

    Those darn cagey players.

    Randax

  4. #4
    Eric Dunn
    Guest

    Loyalties

    At 03:21 PM 3/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
    >Actually, this is almost the exact opposite of how I interpret the ruling.
    >Using your example of Caercas, this is how that I read it:
    >
    >Law 4 in a 4 province is 100% of the law... taxing the populace severely
    >causes a -1 step in loyalty... If nothing else happens that has an effect on
    >the loyalty of a province, your beginning loyalty is average, and also, the
    >ending loyalty is average as well...
    >Now, say for example that you tax severely (-1 loyalty, and ignore a random
    >event that results in a -1 to loyalty as well... at the end of the DT your
    >loyalty would be average still... If on the next domain turn you tax
    >severely and ignore a random event that results in a -1 loyalty modifier and
    >IHH successfully agitates, which is a cumulative -3 modifier to loyalty for
    >the domain turn, your loyalty drops from average to poor.... If IHH's
    >agitation would result in a -2 modifier to loyalty by rolling 10 more than
    >the final modified success number, you would drop from average straight into
    >rebellion due to the total accumulated -4 loyalty modifiers applied during
    >the domain turn, of which you can only ignore 2.... resulting in a total
    >(after adjustments) change in loyalty of -2... average to rebellion....

    The only problem is this--the rule states the changes in loyalty happen.
    Period. Section "10. Adjust Loyalty and Regency"--it states clearly "-1
    grade if severe taxes were collected." It further goes on to state "A
    regent who controls all available law holdings in a province can ignore two
    grades of change in loyalty there."

    The operative words here are IGNORE and CHANGE. In other words, it's
    assuming you CHANGE the loyalty, and the change can be IGNORED, not ERASED.
    The changes still happen. They just don't affect you..yet.

    The above mentioned example means that, for someone who controls 100% of
    the law, it's darn near impossible to get that province in rebellion,
    regardless of how much you tax. Such is just NOT the case. The rules were
    designed to prevent unlimited severe taxation.

    I can see in one respect, how you could intrepret it that way, since
    "ignoring the change" can imply that you completely disregard, or discard
    it. I think they had trouble trying to phrase that paragraph properly.
    Under one segment the "Rulebook" mentions "...can ignore two grades of
    change...", then a sentence later they write, "...ignore one grade of
    change..." and then two sentences later they write, "..any grades of
    loyalty change..", "..two losses in grade..", and "..-1 loss of loyalty."
    How exactly do you refer to the "change", "grade" and "loyalty" in an
    understandable manner?

    I thought about it, and it is rather difficult. Let me explain...there is
    indeed a change in loyalty happening--but if you are to disregard it
    completely, as you suggest, how would you phrase it? Wouldn't it be easier
    to say "A regent who controls all available law holdings is not subject to
    up to two (2) degradations in loyalty grades." Yet, they chose the word
    "ignore".

    Finally, as I said, it just doesn't make sense. If you tax severely,
    whatever that amounts to..say 60%, from your population, don't you think
    they'd get a little peeved after three months of this? What about after a
    year? Do you really think it would take a miraculous agitate to cause them
    to go into rebellion? As I read it in the rules, your law holdings keep a
    powder keg of a province under wraps. The second you are contested or have
    your province ruled up, where population begins to outweigh available law,
    then that powder keg explodes, and you have rebellion on your hands.

    Under your interpretation, because you control the law in your provinces,
    then somehow the fact that you are taxing severely becomes more palatable
    to the populace...how does that work? Because I see more troops at my
    door, I appreciate the fact that I have to pay more taxes? Little Johnny
    can't get the G.I. Joe with the Kung Fu Grip, but it's okay, since I have 3
    tax collectors instead of 1. :)

    E

  5. #5
    Memnoch
    Guest

    Loyalties

    Let me say first that I agreed with you at one time. And I also made up a
    rule format that reflects this (essentially it had up to two sub-grades of
    loyalty if the ruler had all the law, one sub-grade if the ruler had more
    than 50% of the law and as it states in the rulebook with the four loyalty
    grades. Then I posed the question to Ed Stark and Carrie Bebris and I was
    corrected. Essentially, the word "ignore" as I understand it is essentially
    a modifier to the loyalty that negates up to two negative modifiers that
    apply, so in essence, due to the fear factor of the law holding, the general
    populace will remain at an average loyalty until some outside force prompts
    them to drop "if" and only "if" severe taxes is the only thing that affects
    the loyalty grade in a province. Remember, that all it takes is more than 2
    negative adjustments to loyalty to have that factor nullified. A Priest
    regent of the domain can do up to 4 agitates in a domain turn, which is
    extremely powerful considering that a tyrant is already 1 in the hole when
    it comes to loyalty adjustments all it would take for the whole domain to go
    into rebellion would be 3 successful agitate actions (and if they are really
    successful (i.e. 10 above the needed score for the success number) they
    would go from High loyalty straight into rebellion extremely quickly.

    Memnoch
    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Eric Dunn
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Monday, March 23, 1998 7:22 PM
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Loyalties


    >At 03:21 PM 3/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
    >>Actually, this is almost the exact opposite of how I interpret the ruling.
    >>Using your example of Caercas, this is how that I read it:
    >>
    >>Law 4 in a 4 province is 100% of the law... taxing the populace severely
    >>causes a -1 step in loyalty... If nothing else happens that has an effect
    on
    >>the loyalty of a province, your beginning loyalty is average, and also,
    the
    >>ending loyalty is average as well...
    >>Now, say for example that you tax severely (-1 loyalty, and ignore a
    random
    >>event that results in a -1 to loyalty as well... at the end of the DT your
    >>loyalty would be average still... If on the next domain turn you tax
    >>severely and ignore a random event that results in a -1 loyalty modifier
    and
    >>IHH successfully agitates, which is a cumulative -3 modifier to loyalty
    for
    >>the domain turn, your loyalty drops from average to poor.... If IHH's
    >>agitation would result in a -2 modifier to loyalty by rolling 10 more than
    >>the final modified success number, you would drop from average straight
    into
    >>rebellion due to the total accumulated -4 loyalty modifiers applied during
    >>the domain turn, of which you can only ignore 2.... resulting in a total
    >>(after adjustments) change in loyalty of -2... average to rebellion....
    >
    >The only problem is this--the rule states the changes in loyalty happen.
    >Period. Section "10. Adjust Loyalty and Regency"--it states clearly "-1
    >grade if severe taxes were collected." It further goes on to state "A
    >regent who controls all available law holdings in a province can ignore two
    >grades of change in loyalty there."
    >
    >The operative words here are IGNORE and CHANGE. In other words, it's
    >assuming you CHANGE the loyalty, and the change can be IGNORED, not ERASED.
    > The changes still happen. They just don't affect you..yet.
    >
    >The above mentioned example means that, for someone who controls 100% of
    >the law, it's darn near impossible to get that province in rebellion,
    >regardless of how much you tax. Such is just NOT the case. The rules were
    >designed to prevent unlimited severe taxation.
    >
    >I can see in one respect, how you could intrepret it that way, since
    >"ignoring the change" can imply that you completely disregard, or discard
    >it. I think they had trouble trying to phrase that paragraph properly.
    >Under one segment the "Rulebook" mentions "...can ignore two grades of
    >change...", then a sentence later they write, "...ignore one grade of
    >change..." and then two sentences later they write, "..any grades of
    >loyalty change..", "..two losses in grade..", and "..-1 loss of loyalty."
    >How exactly do you refer to the "change", "grade" and "loyalty" in an
    >understandable manner?
    >
    >I thought about it, and it is rather difficult. Let me explain...there is
    >indeed a change in loyalty happening--but if you are to disregard it
    >completely, as you suggest, how would you phrase it? Wouldn't it be easier
    >to say "A regent who controls all available law holdings is not subject to
    >up to two (2) degradations in loyalty grades." Yet, they chose the word
    >"ignore".
    >
    >Finally, as I said, it just doesn't make sense. If you tax severely,
    >whatever that amounts to..say 60%, from your population, don't you think
    >they'd get a little peeved after three months of this? What about after a
    >year? Do you really think it would take a miraculous agitate to cause them
    >to go into rebellion? As I read it in the rules, your law holdings keep a
    >powder keg of a province under wraps. The second you are contested or have
    >your province ruled up, where population begins to outweigh available law,
    >then that powder keg explodes, and you have rebellion on your hands.
    >
    >Under your interpretation, because you control the law in your provinces,
    >then somehow the fact that you are taxing severely becomes more palatable
    >to the populace...how does that work? Because I see more troops at my
    >door, I appreciate the fact that I have to pay more taxes? Little Johnny
    >can't get the G.I. Joe with the Kung Fu Grip, but it's okay, since I have 3
    >tax collectors instead of 1. :)
    >
    >E
    >
    >
    >
    >************************************************* **************************
    >>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    >

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    317
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0

    Loyalties

    At 03:21 PM 3/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
    >Actually, this is almost the exact opposite of how I interpret the ruling.
    >Using your example of Caercas, this is how that I read it:
    >
    >Law 4 in a 4 province is 100% of the law... taxing the populace severely
    >causes a -1 step in loyalty... If nothing else happens that has an effect on
    >the loyalty of a province, your beginning loyalty is average, and also, the
    >ending loyalty is average as well...
    >Now, say for example that you tax severely (-1 loyalty, and ignore a random
    >event that results in a -1 to loyalty as well... at the end of the DT your
    >loyalty would be average still... If on the next domain turn you tax
    >severely and ignore a random event that results in a -1 loyalty modifier and
    >IHH successfully agitates, which is a cumulative -3 modifier to loyalty for
    >the domain turn, your loyalty drops from average to poor.... If IHH's
    >agitation would result in a -2 modifier to loyalty by rolling 10 more than
    >the final modified success number, you would drop from average straight into
    >rebellion due to the total accumulated -4 loyalty modifiers applied during
    >the domain turn, of which you can only ignore 2.... resulting in a total
    >(after adjustments) change in loyalty of -2... average to rebellion....
    >
    >That is how IMO the loyalty modifiers and law holdings should affect the
    >final loyalty of the province....

    I also interpret law holdings and loyalty this way. If the loyalty actually
    changes, then its full effects are felt. But you can ignore up to -2 with full
    law... in provinces where you have no law, you can only tax lightly and hope
    that nothing bad happens.

  7. #7
    DKEvermore
    Guest

    Loyalties

    In a message dated 98-03-23 11:40:20 EST, you write:

    > Excellent: I think you're right. I had always read it the "wrong" way,
    > too, but this is much more realistic (though in some situations, war,
    > crisis, I.E. stuff that has to be Role Played [you remember.], people may
    > tolerate Severe Taxation (and other impositions they normally wouldn't
    > tolerate) without a change in Loyalty.
    >
    > > > Eric Dunn Wrote:
    > > > The point I'm trying to clarify is that law holdings do not mean
    > loyalty
    >


    I, too, think this is a great interpretation. After all if provincial regents
    really need more cash, they should down-size that army! Most don't really.

    NPCs, on the other hand are often in position where they DO need/want to
    squeeze the last gold out of their populace. In these cases, I have their
    priest regent flunkies spending their time running about and telling everyone
    how great their leader is, and how terrible it is that the evil (insert PC
    domain) forces our beloved leader to raise taxes to defend their children
    (many Agitations).

    Hehe, I learned stuff from nasty old Saddam that the players maybe don't want
    me to learn.

    Anyway, this is an easy solution for DMs like me who have noticed that the
    "bad guy" domains don't seem to make quite enough to be much of a
    threat/challenge for the PCs.

    I'd also note that doing the above mentioned actions are probably evil acts or
    at least a chaotic neutral act. Up to your DM, though.

    - -DKE

  8. #8
    Eric Dunn
    Guest

    Loyalties

    At 10:43 PM 3/23/98 -0600, you wrote:
    >Let me say first that I agreed with you at one time. And I also made up a
    >rule format that reflects this (essentially it had up to two sub-grades of
    >loyalty if the ruler had all the law, one sub-grade if the ruler had more
    >than 50% of the law and as it states in the rulebook with the four loyalty
    >grades. Then I posed the question to Ed Stark and Carrie Bebris and I was
    >corrected. Essentially, the word "ignore" as I understand it is essentially
    >a modifier to the loyalty that negates up to two negative modifiers that
    >apply, so in essence, due to the fear factor of the law holding, the general
    >populace will remain at an average loyalty until some outside force prompts
    >them to drop "if" and only "if" severe taxes is the only thing that affects
    >the loyalty grade in a province. Remember, that all it takes is more than 2
    >negative adjustments to loyalty to have that factor nullified. A Priest
    >regent of the domain can do up to 4 agitates in a domain turn, which is
    >extremely powerful considering that a tyrant is already 1 in the hole when
    >it comes to loyalty adjustments all it would take for the whole domain to go
    >into rebellion would be 3 successful agitate actions (and if they are really
    >successful (i.e. 10 above the needed score for the success number) they
    >would go from High loyalty straight into rebellion extremely quickly.
    >
    >Memnoch

    In actuallity, the book never states the word "negative" at all. So by
    your's (and apparently Ed and Carrie's) logic, you would be foolish to take
    a turn where you DON'T tax at all, since you'd ignore that change in
    loyalty grade also. What's the point? You may as well tax severely,
    irregardless of logic or any kind of real ramifications, because the rules
    allow it.

    I just find it hard to believe that the writers of this book assumed that
    because you hold the law, and the country in an iron grip, the opinions of
    your people don't change? How can you control the minds of your citizens?
    I agree that agitates can go a long way to do that, but LAW? That I just
    don't see.

    E

  9. #9
    Eric Dunn
    Guest

    Loyalties

    >In actuallity, the book never states the word "negative" at all. So by
    >your's (and apparently Ed and Carrie's) logic, you would be foolish to take
    >a turn where you DON'T tax at all, since you'd ignore that change in
    >loyalty grade also. What's the point? You may as well tax severely,
    >irregardless of logic or any kind of real ramifications, because the rules
    >allow it.

    DOH, to clarify, You'd not take a POSITIVE change either.



    >I just find it hard to believe that the writers of this book assumed that
    >because you hold the law, and the country in an iron grip, the opinions of
    >your people don't change? How can you control the minds of your citizens?
    >I agree that agitates can go a long way to do that, but LAW? That I just
    >don't see.

    And I do realize that Ed and Carrie didn't actually write that segment,
    rather it was Rich and Colin.

    E

  10. #10
    Brian Stoner
    Guest

    Loyalties

    I must admit, though it pains me to do so, that I am confused about the
    differences between the two interpretations of how controlling all the law
    holdings allows one to ignore a 2 grade drop in loyalty, particularly in the case
    of severe taxation. Clearly, those of you discussing it see the differences. So,
    if someone could be nice enough to explain them, I would be grateful. I have
    always felt uneasy about the wording of that section of the rulebook, but I did
    not know why.

    I have interpreted it thus: When all the law holdings are held, a 2 grade drop in
    loyalty could be ignored. That is, if the grade is average (for example) it would
    stay at average despite any combination of factors that would normally drop it by
    2 grades (to rebellion). If another factor drops it by an additional grade, it
    would drop to poor, and so on. Obviously, if an action is taken so that the
    regent no longer controls all the law, the ability to ignore these events would
    cease. I believe this has been the common interpretation.

    Is the alternate interpretation that under these circumstances loyalty would
    indeed drop to "rebellion", but that a rebellion would not actually occur due to
    the strength of the law? If so, what is the difference in the end result? Both
    interpretations seem to result in the same situation: one more -1 to loyalty
    grade will certainly lead to rebellion and anything to weaken the law will lead to
    rebellion.

    Again, if someone could explain the interpretations and their differences to me, I
    would be grateful.

    Brian

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.