Results 11 to 20 of 22
Thread: Unblooded Rulers
-
04-06-1998, 04:06 AM #11darkstarGuest
Unblooded Rulers
Mark A Vandermeulen wrote:
> 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.
I look on the situation much like this.
Gods require worshippers to gain power (Regency) this is then either
returned to their worshippers in the form of spells or can be used for
miracles, to fight other gods, or increase the godly power (bloodline).
The more followers a god has the more powerful they become.
Similarly a blooded regent gains RPs from their followers or those who
live in their lands and can spend these is a varity of ways including
increasing their bloodline. And similar to gods a scion gains more power
the larger their holdings. So when a blooded scion creates a holding,
and spends RPs they are using the support granted by the people of their
realm to alter the chances of success.
So it is similar to worship if you look at it that way.
Of course a commoner without a bloodline is unable to gain regency and
therefore lacks the power to alter the chance of an action being
successful in the same way.
- --
Ian Hoskins
e-Mail: hoss@box.net.au
Homepage: http://darkstar.cyberserv.com
ICQ: 2938300
-
04-06-1998, 06:34 AM #12Paul L. MingGuest
Unblooded Rulers
Hi all.
The way I see it, if a non-bloded character (or NPC) can protect his
people, give them at least an average quality of life and hold his own
agains the 'oposition', the people of the land won't care. Quite honestly
they might not even know he/she doesn't actually *have* a "bloodline".
If a non-blooded adventurer adventures for a few years, he is almost
certain to be higher level than most of the 'blooded regents' (looking at
the domain guide supplements confirms that most of the 'rulers' are lowish
to medium [ 3rd to 7th ] level). This, to me, would inspire a lot of people
to follow him.
Lastly, if a non-blooded pc or npc is just smarter and a better leader,
well in warfare, intelligence almost always make the difference. Bloodline
or no, if a regent 'attacks' another country, but the attacking regent is a
tactical moron no matter how much 'blood power' he has he's most likely
gonna get his butt kicked.
Those are just my thoughts on the matter. I don't see too many things
that a blooded regent can do over a non-blooded one....unless you are a
spellcaster. :) Then again, a 20th level non-blooded magician would be
nigh-unstopable come to think of it. After all, a master
Illusionist/Diviner can cast just about any spell ....anything he can
imagine, he can 'create'. Even if his opposition knows he is an
illusionist, they still have to make a save (ie, convince themselves that
that huge giant actually IS just an illusion).
Ok. I'll be quiet now. :)
Denakhan the Arch-Mage.
-
04-06-1998, 06:51 AM #13James RuhlandGuest
Unblooded Rulers
>
> The way I see it, if a non-bloded character (or NPC) can protect his
> people, give them at least an average quality of life and hold his own
> agains the 'oposition', the people of the land won't care. Quite
honestly
> they might not even know he/she doesn't actually *have* a "bloodline".
>
Yes, but this is Birthright. Not Birthrightless. I *did* like what you
described. In fact, such people as you describe would be ideal candidates
for a "Land's Choice" Investiture. However, *usually* this doesn't happen,
just like *usually* some pesant thwacking at the ground with a stick didn't
become the next Duke of Burgundy after the last foolish one got himself
impailed on a pike or something.
Why? well, once the whole process got started, back after Deisimar and
all, thouse with Regency were noted for their advantage over unblooded
rulers. And once they had displaced the old aristocracy, it was them, and
not commoners, who had the time & oportunity to obtain the talents for
stewardship: I.E. not just Bloodlines, but Administration, Law, Leadership,
et al. Now, a commoner can learn these skills too. But most commoners,
unless they plan on or become Lieutenants, have better things to spend
their (limited) Proficiciency slots on (to put it in game terms).
And Regents have, for the most part, attempted to monopolize wealth &
influence, just as Midieval/Renaissance lords & prelates did. If someone
*does* rise up from the ranks of the "masses", they tend to do one of two
things, IMO:
1) Co-opt them into the current hierarchy (this is where Lts come from;
such Lts get married off to one of the current ruler's children & implied
promises of inheritance are made).
2) Unite to slap them back into the general masses. Sure, they are
talented. Many people, given the oportunity, could be fine rulers. But they
are at a *massive* disadvantage. Even a Blooded Scion is at a massive
disadvantage, because the Scion has *NO* RPs to spend. Thus, in theory,
this talented individual would make a better ruler. But it is *much* easier
for even an "incompetent" Regent to *demonstrate* their effectiveness as a
ruler (just poor enough RPs on any Task and you will succeed; whereas the
unblooded person will fail aproximately half the time, or *much* more if
his actions are opposed by Regents; even if the Scion or Commoner is
Augustus reborn.)
But, of course, Augustus had a Bloodline:
Augustus (MR, T5/F7*, An, True, 100)
*Octavian, aka "Caius Julius Caesar" or Augustus wasn't much of a fighter;
he was however a dual-classed person who raked in lots of GBs & RPs. Later
in his life (circa 1 AD) he might even be considered:
Augustus (MR, T5/F7/P9, An, True, 100).
Cleopatra, on the other hand, had a Bloodline that had been weakened over
the centuries (catastrophic mismanagement of the Ptolmaic realm & etc).
Thus she & Antonius wilted in the face of Augustus' rising might, once
Octavian inherited Caesar's old BL:
Cleopatra (FG, T6, Br, minor, 30)
-
04-06-1998, 06:51 AM #14Paul L. MingGuest
Unblooded Rulers
>Our basic conclusion .... 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.
I have missed a few of these posts (our server here is 'moving' and
being, shall we say, 'quirky'? ;-), so bare with me.
My question is (and sorry if this has already been addressed), if all
these other worlds (Greyhawk, FR, Mystara, etc) have rulers and they do just
fine, what makes it impossible (or highly unlikely) that a non-blooded
character in BR can't be a regent? Yes, I know that the blood of the regent
is 'tied' to the land, but shouldn't that just make it easier for him to
rule? Or maybe just give him certain abilities that non-blooded regents
can't get? (like being able to 'feel' when his people are upset ["I felt a
great distubance in the force, as if millions of..." ...you get the point]).
I just started my BR campaign two weeks ago, and three of the five
players have blooded characters...two of those are regents. One thing I did
was expand the 'domain turn actions'. Now, it has a few more Character
actions. Why? Well, at the begining of the first session, I decided to
start off with a domain turn. To get the hang of it and to let the PC's
start their holdings up, so to speak. At that first session, there were
only 3 people. Two of them were regents. That turn took over 4
hours...during which time the non-regent PC just sat around and twiddled her
thumbs. It sucked. So, I expanded it a bit (by three character actions).
I allow the non-regnets to do things in the domain turns. Is this normal?
Or are the non-rengents just supposed to sit on their butts as the regents
get to do all the 'cool stuff'? This isn't fair, so now, while regents will
frequently be improving their lands, the non-regents will be improving
themselves. :) Now there seems to be more thought put into what kind of
character the player wants....do they want political power....or personal
power? (Base terms, yes, but it works.)
What do you guys think?
Denakhan the Arch-Mage
-
04-06-1998, 09:17 AM #15darkstarGuest
Unblooded Rulers
Paul L. Ming wrote:
> My question is (and sorry if this has already been addressed), if all
> these other worlds (Greyhawk, FR, Mystara, etc) have rulers and they do just
> fine, what makes it impossible (or highly unlikely) that a non-blooded
> character in BR can't be a regent? Yes, I know that the blood of the regent
> is 'tied' to the land, but shouldn't that just make it easier for him to
> rule? Or maybe just give him certain abilities that non-blooded regents
> can't get? (like being able to 'feel' when his people are upset ["I felt a
> great distubance in the force, as if millions of..." ...you get the point]).
This is what I was saying in my previous two posts. It is possible for
commoners to rule lands, and be good and kind rulers, but the can not
bond with the land as a blooded regent, so provinces under the control
of a unblooded ruler would be considered uncontrolled when it comes to
investiture actions etc. So if you had a large kingdom of say 10
provinces that was ruled by a unblooed regent and a blooded scion (with
the assistance of a pirest regent) showed up then the scion would be
able to invest the provinces and claim them as his own. However the
current unblooded ruler could still inforce his rule with his armies,
much the same way as occupying a province, so unless the blooded scion
was backed by an army then his claim would be fairly useless.
The reason a blooded scion could claim the provinces is that he is
different from the commoners. A blooded scion has a presence about his,
one that makes people follow him, so in the case I have mentioned above
it would be as if the people of the province claimed by the blooded
scion began to follow him instead of their unblooded ruler as they saw
him as a better and more worthy ruler. Of course the unblooded ruler
could just send out some assasins and end the problem, but if given a
choice between a blooded regent and an unblooded one then the commoners
would choose the blooded one. The bloodline he possesses gives him the
right to rule over others, while the commoner who rules is little
different from the rest of the people.
Perhaps though in areas that have never known a blooded regent this
would be a little harder though, as the people would not recognise the
blooded scion as quickly. But in Cerilia which has known only blooded
rulers for well over a thousand years then the commoners expect their
rulers to have a bloodline.
- --
Ian Hoskins
e-Mail: hoss@box.net.au
Homepage: http://darkstar.cyberserv.com
ICQ: 2938300
-
04-06-1998, 10:19 AM #16nick yatesGuest
Unblooded Rulers
At 19:51 05/04/98 -0400, you wrote:
>> 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
I though that when Blooded Characters invested their successor with their
Bloodline, they gave up all their points so that the successor rises to
their previous Bloodline Strength. After doing so they have a Strength of
0, but are still Blooded. Isn't that why the table for Blood Ability
acquisition goes from 0-10?
Plus they keep the Bloodmark ability if they have it, like Prince Gerad of
Ariya keeps his distinctive features, even though he is supposed to have
invested his successor.
Nick
-
04-06-1998, 03:27 PM #17Pieter A de JongGuest
Unblooded Rulers
At 07:16 PM 4/5/98 -0300, 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.
>
I do not think so, this would in effect be a mortal transforming his own
essensce into the divine. Remember, the bloodlines are divine essence
passed on from the original survivors at Deismaar.
Pieter A de Jong
Graduate Mechanical Engineering Student
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
-
04-06-1998, 09:53 PM #18DustyAbom2Guest
Unblooded Rulers
yeah, you can't "create" divine essence within yourself. It's conceptually
impossible for someone to "borrow" a few RP's from a regent and use them to
"put a little of vorynn's sunshine in their soul" by themselves. However,
i've been thinking that it may be possible if they had the aid of a very
powerful priest of the god that was created from the destroyed one (i.e. a
priest of Ruornil bestowing a level 0 bloodline of Vorynn). how's that sound?
The Shrike
-
04-07-1998, 01:11 AM #19Gabriel EggersGuest
Unblooded Rulers
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
theruler 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).
Ian Hoskins
Doesn't sound all that great to me. The way I would run it is to
give an unblooded regent regency based on the loyalty of the people.
(Remember that law holdings improve loyalty) If regency is the
representation of the right to rule the loyalty of the people would be a
reflextion on this. An unblooded regent recieves all regency from a
highly loyal province, half from an average loyalty province and and
only one point reguardless of the level from a province with poor
loyalty. As a second resistriction on this a poor loyalty province
won't even give one regency if half the law isn't controled in the area.
Of course rebellious provinces provide nothing. The law holdings in
affect become a way of gaining regency from increased loyalty and
control. As for Source Holdings; there are none. I'm thinking the
temples would gain full regency in provinces where they control every
available holding and only half in others. Agitate actions would
directly affect regency allowing them to steal from province holding
regents or vice versa. Of course I would say that Guild holdings are
the same as Temple holdings, but with their regency implying a certain
economic influence, though I supose they could probably just use gbs and
not regency. As for the espionage action it could be used to let the
guilds influence temple or landed regents into helping them out. Kind
of rough, but I like it better then the other ideas I've heard and maybe
someonre else will too
- -Sandsinger, Balad of the wimpy desert minstrel
"Sunshine on my shoulder gives me blisters,
Sunshine in my eyes makes me blind,
Sunshine on the desert burns my sandels,
Sunshine allmost always makes me whine"
__________________________________________________ ____
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
-
04-07-1998, 05:31 PM #20Mark A VandermeulenGuest
Unblooded Rulers
On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, DustyAbom2 wrote:
> yeah, you can't "create" divine essence within yourself. It's conceptually
> impossible for someone to "borrow" a few RP's from a regent and use them to
> "put a little of vorynn's sunshine in their soul" by themselves. However,
> i've been thinking that it may be possible if they had the aid of a very
> powerful priest of the god that was created from the destroyed one (i.e. a
> priest of Ruornil bestowing a level 0 bloodline of Vorynn). how's that sound?
I think it would be possible, but VERY difficult. I would probably require
a difficult Quest as proof of the god's support of the character.
(Although I suppose I would allow a retroactive Quest: i.e. awarding the
bloodline not as the result of a quest, but as a reward for a notable deed
that could have been considered a Quest.) After all, if they were easy to
obtain, EVERYONE would have one.
Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Unblooded
By Sorontar in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 08-14-2009, 05:27 AM -
Law Regents vs Province Rulers
By Enoch in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 04-19-2007, 01:04 PM -
Rulers and Styles of Play
By kgauck in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 52Last Post: 03-15-2007, 09:56 AM -
anduria ,rulers
By Satanta in forum Empires of BloodReplies: 3Last Post: 02-24-2003, 12:20 PM -
Powerful rulers
By Birthright-L in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 9Last Post: 06-10-2002, 10:28 PM
Bookmarks