Unblooded Rulers

[Undertaker]

At 05:26 PM 4/24/97 -0300, Cec Stacey(cec@auracom.com)wrote:
>
>I know we've beat the "unblooded ruler" question to death, but I couldn't
>help but respond to this post.
>

I couldn't agree more, and I promise this will be my last post on this subject.

>
>The idea of not comparing RPs to a BL is ridiculous, Rich!
>

A bit of a reach, but not entirely insane. I should have explained that
better. I was trying to seperate(in part)the effect of Regency from the
mystical force that empowers Blooded Regents with this game mechanic. In
short something would have to reflect the ability to rule for a "normal"
man/woman who rose to a position of power, in a game.

>
>Take a look at a realm like the Sayer of Coullabhie.It's a group
>of sources with a domain power of 103. Assume the Sayer, an
>ancient elf with a bloodline of 26 (I think - I'm going off the top of my
>head here) will collect 26RP. Under your system, an *unblooded* character
>would take in 103 RP. Even if you cut that in half, it's still 52. That's
>double what the blooded ruler brings in! Make your character an elf (so
>you get true magic), a commoner (for +10% XP), and the regent spoke of
>above, and you're set! You don't have to worry about bloodtheft and you've
>gots tons of RPs for your realm magic. You get the regency benefit of a
>great bloodline without having to roll it up.
>

Its true the general rule of 50% of the total PL you control needs to be
adjusted under different circumstances. Your example above shows this. Still
it is a place to start. With the above example you can also point out that
non-Blooded Rulers can't cast Realm Spells. Thier RPs can only be used on
Domain Actions. Next the DM should not allow a non-Blooded
character(particularly the one in your above example)to control more then a
few(1-3)Proviences, at least at first. In general a N-B Ruler should not get
more then 15-16 RPs a DT at the very most, again at least at first. In the
end it would probably stink to play a non-Blooded Mage or Priest Regent, but
Fighters and Thieves might be able to make an interesting time of this. I
want to point out that I'm not sure I would allow a N-B Regent in one of my
games, but I still think a good DM could make a game of this if there
Players really wanted to do it. This can happen, its the reason I had to
think about this before it was brought up here. One of my Players originally
wanted to play a N-B Thief Ruling several Proviences through is GHs. A sort
of crime syndicate, I didn't like the idea and eventually talked him out of
it. Although if he had his heart set on it I wouldn't have denied him the
chance to try. It would be a major task for both DM and Player to pull this
off right, but I hope I would be up to the challenge. Basically I feel that
if Player, and DM can come to an understanding its alright to bend the rules
and see what happens.

>
>IMNSHO, having unblooded rulers is a dumb idea.
>

That may be so, but that won't stop Players from thinking of it. Its
perfectly alright to just say this is way it is, and no N-B Regents. But
don't pass up on a great storyline just because it might call for some
ruleings not covered in the books. BTW, thanks for making me think a little
harder on this subject. I hope to be more prepared the next time this Player
comes at me with this idea.


Undertaker, richt@metrolink.net

"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)-

[Bearcat]

>There was a lot of discussion about this a couple of weeks back and as I
>was working on the latest of my Adurian Empires today I was thinking
>about the whole thing of Unblooded Rulers vs Blooded Rulers, and I came
>up with the following which I think could work ok.

Wouldn't it be possible for an unblooded ruler who has at least one
single RP to create a bloodline for himself by using the "pay RPs equal to
one greater than the currnet bloodline to raise the bloodline by one" rule?
If so I believe that this would solve the problem of unblooded rulers once
and for all.



Bearcat
lcgm@elogica.com.br
Come visit Bearcat's Birthright Homepage at:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/6204

[Bearcat]

>> Wouldn't it be possible for an unblooded ruler who has at least one
>> single RP to create a bloodline for himself by using the "pay RPs equal to
>> one greater than the currnet bloodline to raise the bloodline by one" rule?
>> If so I believe that this would solve the problem of unblooded rulers once
>> and for all.
>
>Well, yeah, but then ANYONE can be blooded. Even the COMMONERS!
>We can't let THAT happen! It would be chaos, I tell you, CHAOS!

Not neccessarily. How easy do you think it is for a COMMONER to get
even one regency point if even nonregent scions could do so?

[darkstar]

There was a lot of discussion about this a couple of weeks back and as I
was working on the latest of my Adurian Empires today I was thinking
about the whole thing of Unblooded Rulers vs Blooded Rulers, and I came
up with the following which I think could work ok.

First Unblooded rulers can not rule provinces the same as a blooded
regent. They lack the bloodline and the tie with the land to do so. I
did make up some rules a while back for unblooded regent but decided
today that they were really unfair towards blooded regents as a ruler
without a bloodline but running a large realm could gain more RPs that a
blooded ruler with a weak bloodline who ran the same kingdom. So I have
decided to toss that idea out and start again. So here goes.


A. Ruling provinces.
Because an unblooded ruler lack a bloodline then he can not invest a
province or holding, and there for can not gain RPs at all. However the
ruler can still gain taxes by the same way that a army occupying a
province can be used to tax the people of that province. So the
unblooded ruler can still control the provines and levy taxes, but can
not gain any RPs at all from controling these provinces.
The reason behind this is that I see the gaining of regency as a form of
worship. The RPs reprent the peoples belief in the power of their regent
and this support the regent gains from the people can then be used to
influence decisions in their lands.
Of course this means that a blooded regent could walk in and get someone
to invest the provinces to him (with the assistance of a blooded regent
priest).


B. Actions.
Because an unblooded regent would not have access to RPs then they would
not be able to influence their actions in the same way. So basically
they can not spend RPs on action. Basically the actions would be altered
as follows. I have left out the action that are uneffected.

Action Roll Cost Modification
Agitate: 10+ 1 GB can spend GB to modify
Contest: 10+ 1 GB can not spend GB to modify (blooded regents have huge
advantage with RP here)
Create Holding: 10+ 1 GB can not spend GB to modify
Diplomacy: 10+ 1 GB can spend GB to assist in diplomacy.
Espionage 20+ 1 GB can spend GB
Forge Ley Line - - impossible as need bloodline to be wizard.
Invesititure - - also impossible, only blooded regents can be invested
with provinces. Can transfer holdings though (as with guild/source
holdings). Law and Temples holdings may only be given to a regent of
the same religion, not possible for enemy unblooded regents to
invest these holdings.
Realm Spell - - impossible as would need a bloodline.
Rule 10+ var costs 1 GB for each level you want to rule up (eg 4-5 cost
5 GB). Ruling provinces costs double (eg 5-6 cost 12 GB). Can not
modify with extra GB.
Trade Route 10+ 1 GB can modify with extra GB.

So you see that a blooded regent would gain a massive bonus over
unblooded regents with the addition of RPs which can effect the rolls to
be made, but it would still be possible for an unblooded regent to rule
a kingdom or holding.

This is just a quick write up of the idea, mainly so I do not forget it.
What does everyone think, is that a reasonible way of allowing for
unblooded regents in areas such as Aduria and Djapar? This is just a
really quick idea I though of tonight so would like to get everyone's
thought on it and if you think it would work. It is mainly something I
would like to use for Adurian regents who generally do not have
bloodlines.


- --
Ian Hoskins

e-Mail: hoss@box.net.au
Homepage: http://darkstar.cyberserv.com
ICQ: 2938300

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, darkstar wrote:

> There was a lot of discussion about this a couple of weeks back and as I
> was working on the latest of my Adurian Empires today I was thinking
> about the whole thing of Unblooded Rulers vs Blooded Rulers, and I came
> up with the following which I think could work ok.


Yeah, Ian, I like these rules a lot better than your previous ones. I
agree that unblooded rulers should be able to DO all of these things, just
that blooded regents should be able to do them much better. Interesting
tying the gaining of regency into the concept of "worship." I may have to
think about that some more. It may lead to some interesting ideas.

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Drake90094]

>la la la la

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Sun, 5 Apr 1998, Bearcat wrote:

> >There was a lot of discussion about this a couple of weeks back and as I
> >was working on the latest of my Adurian Empires today I was thinking
> >about the whole thing of Unblooded Rulers vs Blooded Rulers, and I came
> >up with the following which I think could work ok.
>
> Wouldn't it be possible for an unblooded ruler who has at least one
> single RP to create a bloodline for himself by using the "pay RPs equal to
> one greater than the currnet bloodline to raise the bloodline by one" rule?
> If so I believe that this would solve the problem of unblooded rulers once
> and for all.

Well, yeah, but then ANYONE can be blooded. Even the COMMONERS!
We can't let THAT happen! It would be chaos, I tell you, CHAOS!

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[Daniel McSorley]

> Wouldn't it be possible for an unblooded ruler who has at least one
>single RP to create a bloodline for himself by using the "pay RPs equal to
>one greater than the currnet bloodline to raise the bloodline by one" rule?
>If so I believe that this would solve the problem of unblooded rulers once
>and for all.
>
I have to say no, for a coupl'a reasons.
1 Then, what would be the point of playing a blooded guy?
2 Where are they going to get that 1 RP?
3 (The technical reason) If you'll notice, on table 12: Blood ability
acquisition, the first category is 0-19. This implies that a bloodline can
have a 0 rating (through bloodline loss of various types, esp if your RP
drops to 0 during the turn.) This is different from _not_ having a
bloodline. It is similar to the difference between a holding(0) and not
having a holding at all. So, the commoners don't have a bloodline of 0,
they don't have a rating at all. Therefore, unlike the unlucky soul with a
bloodline of 0, they have _nothing_ to increase, while the 0 represents at
least the potential.
Daniel McSorley
mcsorley.1@osu.edu
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/~mcsorley/
ICQ:5299865
AIM:DanMcS

[James Ruhland]

I think this system is much closer to the originally intended "power gap"
between Blooded Regents and unblooded rulers. It demonstrates why there can
be some old, even powerful empires in (say) Aduiria, but also gives due
advantage to a Blooded Scion who may show up.
How would such unblooded rulers remain in charge, and keep being pushed to
the wall the way Montezuma & the Inca were? Well:
1) the Blood of a Scion is as red as any commoners ("kill them all. Their
gods will know their own.")
but
2) it wouldn't. Anyone want to be Cortez?
>
> There was a lot of discussion about this a couple of weeks back and as I
> was working on the latest of my Adurian Empires today I was thinking
> about the whole thing of Unblooded Rulers vs Blooded Rulers, and I came
> up with the following which I think could work ok.
>

[James Ruhland]

>
> Wouldn't it be possible for an unblooded ruler who has at least
one
> single RP to create a bloodline for himself by using the "pay RPs equal
to
> one greater than the currnet bloodline to raise the bloodline by one"
rule?
> If so I believe that this would solve the problem of unblooded rulers
once
> and for all.
>
We discussed this awhile back, tangentially (while dealing with Lts & how
to reward them). Our basic conclusion about this potential abuse is that
the 1st BL point should come at a premium. I.E. you can't just spend 1 RP
to gain your 1st BL point. You need to spend *at least* 10 times as much.
And since the unblooded *cannot* collect *any* RPs of their own, these RPs
have to come from a Blooded Regent.
.