Loyalties

[Memnoch]

The distinction, I think, of the two different ways of interpreting the
Loyalty adjustment rules is that with the Province regent ignoring the
effects of the loyalty adjustment and the province loyalty staying the same
is quite different in the event of losing the law holding after the
adjustments that are made. In "Type 1" (the one that I am advocating), the
loyalty of the province stays the same as long as the negative adjustment is
less than or equal to the amount of negative adjustment being ignored.
Whereas in "Type 2" the province loyalty actually drops, but the end results
are "ignored." That is, in the case of Severe taxation and ignoring a
random event, the loyalty of the province actually drops to rebellion, but
the province cannot rebel due to the 100% lock on the law. If this is
incorrect in my interpretation please let me know.

The only problem with Type 2 loyalty interpretation is that, granted the
province cannot raise levies and fully rebel, but what about the "other"
effects of rebellion, the doubling of the cost of actions performed in the
province, etc. What happens in this case, can this be ignored as well, due
to the 100% of the law holdings being held? Just a question that needs to
be answered

Come to think of it, from a programming standpoint, Type 2 is much harder to
implement logically.... the province is in rebellion but it actually can't
rebel, etc. Granted Type 1 is no walk in the hay either, but I'm kinda
getting off the subject.

Memnoch

- -----Original Message-----
From: Brian Stoner
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 7:12 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - 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
>
>************************************************* **************************
>>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
>

[Eric Dunn]

>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
>

You have hit it on the head, actually. And yes, in most cases, it would
result in the similar results really. The difference is, in my
interpretation, since the loyalties do actually exist at a lower level, the
chances of outside interference is actually greater...I.e. someone can
contest a law holding, you could make a house rule that a province that is
at rebellion level is invaded, then is at a High level when occupied, a
province raise, without a corresponding law level raise could result in a
rebellion (as population expands, the iron grip is "loosened" and rebellion
rears its ugly head), if a priest DOES agitate, then it does lower the
province loyalty (or raise it), and it's not ignored.

I can see how it can be interpreted either way (Like Memnoch), I just don't
see the logic the other way, at all.


Let me give you a few historical examples.

How often has revolution been successful in Russia, in recent memory?
Well, it was in 1917, and you can see discontent in the people, a loosening
of the law (due to war), and finally rebellion. Even with the law in
place, before WWI, the opinions of the populace were still poor to
rebellious, they just couldn't do anything about it. During Stalin's
purges later on, you still saw a populace that had extremely poor loyalty,
yet, still they could do nothing since the law was so high. Does that mean
the actual loyalty was average? Don't think so. Who wanted to live in fear
of their life?

Another example--The American Revolution. As taxes increased, loyalty
decreased, despite high law levels. Eventually, as population expanded,
and "random events occcured", and new "law holdings" (Va's House of
Bugesses, Sam Adams, etc etc) were created, they owned less of the law, and
since the current status was rebellion, it occurred.

Oh, and I just read Memnoch's post...and I agree, with 100% lock on the
law, it is harder for a rebellion to occur, and such actually was the case
in many historical examples-- East Germany, Soviet Russia, Midieval Japan,
etc etc. If you hold all the law, you don't have to be as sensitive to the
peoples needs--but on the other hand, you don't control their opinions of
your actions.

E

[rad smith]

in an attempt to bring a measure of intellectual rigour to the
proceedings..

(shit, i've gone into scientist mode. oh well.)

there are two ways to look at this issue. either;
1) it is a matter of interpretation of the rules.
2) which game mechanic is better.

(or more baldly: letter or spirit of the law)

in case 1) the argument is fundamentally semantic. although i don't have
the book with me (my phd supervisor might look askance at me if i started
bringing roleplying books into the lab) i understand that the contentious
phrase is "the change in loyalty can be ignored".
as written, this phrase is ambiguous; it can be taken to mean "the change
of loyalty does not occur" or "the *effects* of the change in loyalty can
be ignored".
in general the only way semantic arguments can be resolved is to ask the
person who wrote the statement. until the game designer in question (i
don't know who did what, so..) answers there's not much point arguing
about it.

case 2) is largely aesthetic. and as with all aesthetic choices, it's
subjective. there are arguments that you can make for either case (which
i'm not going to rehearse here) but in the end the DM concerned has to
decide.

**the point i'm going to make here is that neither answer is objectively
correct.**

and let's face it, to publish an system with no ambiguities or game
imbalances would require inhuman perfection (considering i'm trying to
write my own rpg ATM) it's a credit to the BR designers that there are so
few.

- --
rad

i consider myself to be one of england's finest liars.
-- blackadder II

[rad smith]

On Wed, 25 Mar 1998, Eric Dunn wrote:

> Let me give you a few historical examples.
>
> How often has revolution been successful in Russia, in recent memory?
> Well, it was in 1917, and you can see discontent in the people, a loosening
> of the law (due to war), and finally rebellion. Even with the law in
> place, before WWI, the opinions of the populace were still poor to
> rebellious, they just couldn't do anything about it. During Stalin's
> purges later on, you still saw a populace that had extremely poor loyalty,
> yet, still they could do nothing since the law was so high. Does that mean
> the actual loyalty was average? Don't think so. Who wanted to live in fear
> of their life?

there are two factors here; historical accuracy and game balance.

i agree that the interpretation you advocate is more historically
accurate, however that does not necessarily mean that it is a better game
mechanic.


- --
rad

i consider myself to be one of england's finest liars.
-- blackadder II