Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    darkstar
    Guest

    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

  2. #12
    Paul L. Ming
    Guest

    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.

  3. #13
    James Ruhland
    Guest

    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)

  4. #14
    Paul L. Ming
    Guest

    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

  5. #15
    darkstar
    Guest

    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

  6. #16
    nick yates
    Guest

    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

  7. #17
    Pieter A de Jong
    Guest

    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

  8. #18
    DustyAbom2
    Guest

    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

  9. #19
    Gabriel Eggers
    Guest

    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

  10. #20
    Mark A Vandermeulen
    Guest

    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

  1. Unblooded
    By Sorontar in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-14-2009, 05:27 AM
  2. Law Regents vs Province Rulers
    By Enoch in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-19-2007, 01:04 PM
  3. Rulers and Styles of Play
    By kgauck in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 03-15-2007, 09:56 AM
  4. anduria ,rulers
    By Satanta in forum Empires of Blood
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-24-2003, 12:20 PM
  5. Powerful rulers
    By Birthright-L in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-10-2002, 10:28 PM

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.