Opposing or supporting a domain

[simong@mech.uwa.edu.au]

>I just got a phone call from one the PCs in my game asking about whether
>or not someone owning source holdings in a province could use those
>holding levels to support or oppose an action. I don't have my rule
>book with me (I don't think my employer would think too highly of that
>habit) but I seem to remember reading that any regent with a holding in
>that province that "has a stake in the matter" (or something like that)
>can spent regency to support or oppose the action.
>
>The PC's argument was that he wanted to raise the law in a province and
>required a friendly wizard to use his source holdings to support the
>action. Seems to me that sources are not the best type of holdings for
>supporting those actions dealing with the administration of a society.
>
>Comments?

The rule reads:

"Other regents who may be affected by the action may spend RP to increase
or decrease the acting regent's chance of succes"

My interpretation of the rule (which I use in my games) is that you can
only oppose or support an action, if it could/does affect you or your
holdings. In the above case, the wizard regent really doesn't have any say
in the law holdings, unless the wizard actually has law holdings himeslf,
so I would rule "No".

However, usually make an on-the-spot judgement call. I'll try and explain
my reasoning, but it is a case of taking each situation on it's merits. For
instance, I rule that law holdings can be used to support/oppose any action
(except where it deals with magic/source holdings), since the law has a
great affect on what goes on in any province, including temple and guild
holdings. Temples and guilds can't really affect each other, unless either
already has a holding of the other type in the province under question.
It's a judgement call as to whether you think temple and guild holdings can
be used to affect law holdings. I generally use the simplification that law
can affect anything (except source), temple, guild and source can only be
used to affect themselves. Though in special cases (like the action is
specifically aimed at someone who doens't have the 'required' holidngs),
this requirement is relaxed. Source holdings are special though, IMO, in
that they are "separate" from the other holding types - they cannot be used
to affect the other types, and, in turn, the other holdings cannot be used
to affect source holdings.

Hope this helps (and doesn't cause too much confusion),

Simon

[darkstar]

Bryan Palmer wrote:
>
> I just got a phone call from one the PCs in my game asking about whether
> or not someone owning source holdings in a province could use those
> holding levels to support or oppose an action. I don't have my rule
> book with me (I don't think my employer would think too highly of that
> habit) but I seem to remember reading that any regent with a holding in
> that province that "has a stake in the matter" (or something like that)
> can spent regency to support or oppose the action.
>
> The PC's argument was that he wanted to raise the law in a province and
> required a friendly wizard to use his source holdings to support the
> action. Seems to me that sources are not the best type of holdings for
> supporting those actions dealing with the administration of a society.
>
> Comments?

I have always only allowed source holding to be used to effect actions
involving other source holding (not your own) and province levels as
they are the only things that directly effect sources.
A law, temple, or guild holding has no effect on source so a source
holding should not be able to effect any rule or create attempts
involving those holding types.

- --
Ian Hoskins

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

[Eric Dunn]

At 12:04 PM 4/23/98 +0800, you wrote:
>>I just got a phone call from one the PCs in my game asking about whether
>>or not someone owning source holdings in a province could use those
>>holding levels to support or oppose an action. I don't have my rule
>>book with me (I don't think my employer would think too highly of that
>>habit) but I seem to remember reading that any regent with a holding in
>>that province that "has a stake in the matter" (or something like that)
>>can spent regency to support or oppose the action.
>>
>>The PC's argument was that he wanted to raise the law in a province and
>>required a friendly wizard to use his source holdings to support the
>>action. Seems to me that sources are not the best type of holdings for
>>supporting those actions dealing with the administration of a society.
>>
>>Comments?
>
>The rule reads:
>
>"Other regents who may be affected by the action may spend RP to increase
>or decrease the acting regent's chance of succes"
>
>My interpretation of the rule (which I use in my games) is that you can
>only oppose or support an action, if it could/does affect you or your
>holdings. In the above case, the wizard regent really doesn't have any say
>in the law holdings, unless the wizard actually has law holdings himeslf,
>so I would rule "No".
>
>However, usually make an on-the-spot judgement call. I'll try and explain
>my reasoning, but it is a case of taking each situation on it's merits. For
>instance, I rule that law holdings can be used to support/oppose any action
>(except where it deals with magic/source holdings), since the law has a
>great affect on what goes on in any province, including temple and guild
>holdings. Temples and guilds can't really affect each other, unless either
>already has a holding of the other type in the province under question.
>It's a judgement call as to whether you think temple and guild holdings can
>be used to affect law holdings. I generally use the simplification that law
>can affect anything (except source), temple, guild and source can only be
>used to affect themselves. Though in special cases (like the action is
>specifically aimed at someone who doens't have the 'required' holidngs),
>this requirement is relaxed. Source holdings are special though, IMO, in
>that they are "separate" from the other holding types - they cannot be used
>to affect the other types, and, in turn, the other holdings cannot be used
>to affect source holdings.
>
>Hope this helps (and doesn't cause too much confusion),
>
> Simon
>


The rule you're referring to above:

>"Other regents who may be affected by the action may spend RP to increase
>or decrease the acting regent's chance of succes"

is found on page 48 of the "Rulebook". Personally, I can't stand that
section, because it tends to contradict later sections of the "Rulebook."
For example, the interpretation I take on other people affecting rolls for
success chances are under the individual action descriptions.

Page 59, under the heading "Rule," it says "The province ruler and any
regent with a similar holding in the province can support or oppose the
action by adding or subtracting the level of their own holdings."

Note, the definitive line here for me is "with a similar holding"--meaning,
law affects law, source can affect source, etc etc. A temple doesn't
affect law, or whatever.

Now, on a logical standpoint, it could be read either way: Why can't the
military pressure put on by a law holding affect the growth of a temple or
guild? Why can't the economic pressure applied by a guild (or a bunch of
assassins running around) affect a temple, or a law holding? No
reason...except the rules don't define that. You could just as easily
argue that those pressures aren't the same, or as great on the whole, as
direct competition from one's own ilk. That guild holding's assassins
might be represented as a scout unit, or perhaps a small band of
role-played hoodlums. It might not be covered in the "rules" action of the
game. Finally, the designers may have just instituted this rule for game
playability. How could a temple affect a source holding? Or vice versa?
How much influence could (or better yet should) a temple have on guilds or
law? Isn't it easier to state a limit, and say the line stops at temples,
instead of having to find a definition or a reason behind every contest
across different holding lines?

For another reference about "similar holdings," we can look at page 52
under the "Create Holdings" heading. Here we read, "Creation of a holding
can be opposed or supported by any regent with a similar holding in the
province, or the province ruler."

Additionally, under the "Contest" heading, it doesn't specifically say
"similar holdings" but the example it lists is a thief contesting another
thief, which implies similar holdings.

I mentioned when I started this "thesis";) that the section on page 48
"contradicts" later sections. Well, the headings under "Create Holding"
and "Rule" don't contradict the statement on page 48, but rather provide a
definition for who "other regents who may be affected by the action" really
are--those with holdings of the same type.

E

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Thu, 23 Apr 1998, darkstar wrote:

> I have always only allowed source holding to be used to effect actions
> involving other source holding (not your own) and province levels as
> they are the only things that directly effect sources.
> A law, temple, or guild holding has no effect on source so a source
> holding should not be able to effect any rule or create attempts
> involving those holding types.

I would allow the wizard to spend the RP to support if the wizard wanted
to, but would make him role-play his involvement in the action (maybe
hanging out with the dude who the regent places in charge of the newly
appointed court, giving him additional respect, deference, tossing a few
useful and showy spells around when he's addressing the public/other
nobles, etc.)

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[simong@mech.uwa.edu.au]

Eric Dunn wrote:
>Note, the definitive line here for me is "with a similar holding"--meaning,
>law affects law, source can affect source, etc etc. A temple doesn't
>affect law, or whatever.
>
>Now, on a logical standpoint, it could be read either way: Why can't the
>military pressure put on by a law holding affect the growth of a temple or
>guild? Why can't the economic pressure applied by a guild (or a bunch of
>assassins running around) affect a temple, or a law holding? No
>reason...except the rules don't define that. You could just as easily
>argue that those pressures aren't the same, or as great on the whole, as
>direct competition from one's own ilk. That guild holding's assassins
>might be represented as a scout unit, or perhaps a small band of
>role-played hoodlums. It might not be covered in the "rules" action of the
>game. Finally, the designers may have just instituted this rule for game
>playability. How could a temple affect a source holding? Or vice versa?
>How much influence could (or better yet should) a temple have on guilds or
>law? Isn't it easier to state a limit, and say the line stops at temples,
>instead of having to find a definition or a reason behind every contest
>across different holding lines?
>
>For another reference about "similar holdings," we can look at page 52
>under the "Create Holdings" heading. Here we read, "Creation of a holding
>can be opposed or supported by any regent with a similar holding in the
>province, or the province ruler."
>
>Additionally, under the "Contest" heading, it doesn't specifically say
>"similar holdings" but the example it lists is a thief contesting another
>thief, which implies similar holdings.
>
>I mentioned when I started this "thesis";) that the section on page 48
>"contradicts" later sections. Well, the headings under "Create Holding"
>and "Rule" don't contradict the statement on page 48, but rather provide a
>definition for who "other regents who may be affected by the action" really
>are--those with holdings of the same type.

good points. The only thing I will add to this is to quantify my statements
a bit, as they were a little confusing. Firstly, let me say that I am of
the opinion that temple, guild and source holdings all seem to me to have
an advantage in some way. For example, you must have guild holdings to set
up trade routes, thereby gaining income. You must have source holdings to
cast realm spells, and temples bring in income and allow the casting of
priest realm spells. Where does this leave law holdings? IMO, law holdings
do very little. Just owning law holdings does not give income, like temple
& guild holdings. They do allow the law holding 'holder' to pressure the
temple and guild holdings for funding, but the negative effects of this
tend to far outweight the 1 or 2 GB which stand to be gained from such a
move (unless of course, there is an active campaign against the
guild/temple holder). They also allow you to ignore loyalty changes. But
loyalty does not seem to affect things too much. I would have liked to see
the loyalty of a province affect taxes. In addition, most of the regents
are warriors, and warriors in general do not get an additional free action
(priests get to agitate, rogues get to spy, etc). To my mind (and I have
found this in my games, though I can't speak for others) regents with law
holdings are at a disadvantage to those who have other types of holdings.

What's the point of my "thesis" above? Well, in my games I allow law
holdings to influence actions taken by other types of holdings (except
source - I keep them completely separate) in any province, but NOT vice
versa. I know that it is not very realistic to say that the church cannot
affect the law (loyalty) of a province (after all, I believe the church had
quite an influence in the Middle Ages), but if the temple holder wants to
do that, then they can use their free agitate action. Likewise, it's not
very realistic to say that the guilds can't affect the law (either overtly
or subvertly). But in the end, it would be difficult (not impossible) for
the guilds or the church to totally squash the law, but the reverse could
quite easily happen (ie. send on the troops to get rid of the
guilds/temples) depending on the whims of the regent.

So allowing law holdings to affect the actions of other holding types is my
way of evening the odds. From my experiences, it works quite well, and
encourages more interaction between the guild/temple holder and the
regent/law holder. Of course, when the action is likely to offend the
regent, then it encourages great secrecy. But, on the whole, it gives
regents with law holdings a little more power (whereas those regents with
guild/temple holdings usually have more income).

just my 2 cents (actually, I think I've put in a bit more than that),

Simon

[Eric Dunn]

>good points.

Thanks :)



The only thing I will add to this is to quantify my statements
>a bit, as they were a little confusing. Firstly, let me say that I am of
>the opinion that temple, guild and source holdings all seem to me to have
>an advantage in some way. For example, you must have guild holdings to set
>up trade routes, thereby gaining income. You must have source holdings to
>cast realm spells, and temples bring in income and allow the casting of
>priest realm spells. Where does this leave law holdings? IMO, law holdings
>do very little. Just owning law holdings does not give income, like temple
>& guild holdings. They do allow the law holding 'holder' to pressure the
>temple and guild holdings for funding, but the negative effects of this
>tend to far outweight the 1 or 2 GB which stand to be gained from such a
>move (unless of course, there is an active campaign against the
>guild/temple holder).

Well, not to be picky--but oftentimes, in fact, I'd say most times, the law
holder is the province ruler as well, which means they get to collect
province taxes. Additionally, by being the province ruler, they have
inherent power above and beyond ANYTHING the temples and guilds can bring
to bare. So income wise, it's pretty even, or more likely, between claims
and taxes, they can make more than a priest--except they typically don't
have as many provinces as priests have temples, but in any case, with a
word, they can evict temples and guilds from within their country. This
gives them the power, or at least the legitimacy to talk and work with
their "tenants" for an equitable solution to monetary problems :) No one
said that they have to be strong-armed about it--simply going to the local
guilder/templer and hashing out the ways they can help you, help them, etc
etc.

They also allow you to ignore loyalty changes. But
>loyalty does not seem to affect things too much. I would have liked to see
>the loyalty of a province affect taxes. In addition, most of the regents
>are warriors, and warriors in general do not get an additional free action
>(priests get to agitate, rogues get to spy, etc). To my mind (and I have
>found this in my games, though I can't speak for others) regents with law
>holdings are at a disadvantage to those who have other types of holdings.
>
>What's the point of my "thesis" above? Well, in my games I allow law
>holdings to influence actions taken by other types of holdings (except
>source - I keep them completely separate) in any province, but NOT vice
>versa. I know that it is not very realistic to say that the church cannot
>affect the law (loyalty) of a province (after all, I believe the church had
>quite an influence in the Middle Ages), but if the temple holder wants to
>do that, then they can use their free agitate action. Likewise, it's not
>very realistic to say that the guilds can't affect the law (either overtly
>or subvertly). But in the end, it would be difficult (not impossible) for
>the guilds or the church to totally squash the law, but the reverse could
>quite easily happen (ie. send on the troops to get rid of the
>guilds/temples) depending on the whims of the regent.

Again, when the province ruler is the law holder, he can do these things
anyway, because it mentions, in almost all the cases where I mentioned
"similar holdings" that the province ruler can affect those actions already.

The rules also account for the situation where the law holder isn't the
province ruler--at any time he can contest the province, and take it over
relatively easily. When you think of situations where the law is split,
you can easily rationalize the fact that the province ruler has an
overwhelming influence on the action--Let's take for example, The Imperial
City. Basically, several people all have law holdings there--Aeric
Boeruine, Prince Darien, Baron Diem, and the Chamberlain. But, the
Chamberlain rules the province, so he's able to apply that 10 modifier to
pretty much any action in the province. He gains overwhelming superiority
on actions there, and the little 3 law he has is inconsequential, in so far
as influence, EXCEPT that, since it's NOT 0, he can't simply be "province"
contested out of existence. A very useful holding indeed...


Oh, and on a different note, when I play BR in RL, I found a lot more
negative connotation on law claims than when I play in a PBeM. I think the
reason lies in the fact that when I'm playing in RL, I'm sitting in the
same room, typically with friends, and peolple I adventure with, and it
seems rougher, on me and them, just "taking" money from them, because I
can. On the otherhand, in a PBeM, I have no compunction against taking
money from someone I don't know! *grin*


>
>So allowing law holdings to affect the actions of other holding types is my
>way of evening the odds. From my experiences, it works quite well, and
>encourages more interaction between the guild/temple holder and the
>regent/law holder. Of course, when the action is likely to offend the
>regent, then it encourages great secrecy. But, on the whole, it gives
>regents with law holdings a little more power (whereas those regents with
>guild/temple holdings usually have more income).
>
>just my 2 cents (actually, I think I've put in a bit more than that),
>
> Simon
>

I also want to point out that you had very good points also :) From my
experiences, especially now that I've run a PBeM, and played a PBeM, it has
redefined for me, what a Landed regent is capable of doing. I mean, before
when I played only in RL, and I was somewhat hesitant to tick off friends,
and fellow adventurers, I felt constrained, and quite frankly it wasn't
completely realistic. I mean, chances are, people would rarely know the
local highpriest, head guilder THAT well. It certainly cut down on my
influence! I mean, I would be pretty hesitant to threaten the High priest
with kicking him out, if he didn't cough up some money for me! So, it did
force us to work on things peacably--but I digress :)

E

[John Normand]

Simon Graindorge wrote:
>
> Eric Dunn wrote:
> >Note, the definitive line here for me is "with a similar holding"--meaning,
> >law affects law, source can affect source, etc etc. A temple doesn't
> >affect law, or whatever.
> >
> >Now, on a logical standpoint, it could be read either way: Why can't the
> >military pressure put on by a law holding affect the growth of a temple or
> >guild? Why can't the economic pressure applied by a guild (or a bunch of
> >assassins running around) affect a temple, or a law holding? No
> >reason...except the rules don't define that. You could just as easily
> >argue that those pressures aren't the same, or as great on the whole, as
> >direct competition from one's own ilk. That guild holding's assassins
> >might be represented as a scout unit, or perhaps a small band of
> >role-played hoodlums. It might not be covered in the "rules" action of the
> >game. Finally, the designers may have just instituted this rule for game
> >playability. How could a temple affect a source holding? Or vice versa?
> >How much influence could (or better yet should) a temple have on guilds or
> >law? Isn't it easier to state a limit, and say the line stops at temples,
> >instead of having to find a definition or a reason behind every contest
> >across different holding lines?
> >
> >For another reference about "similar holdings," we can look at page 52
> >under the "Create Holdings" heading. Here we read, "Creation of a holding
> >can be opposed or supported by any regent with a similar holding in the
> >province, or the province ruler."
> >
> >Additionally, under the "Contest" heading, it doesn't specifically say
> >"similar holdings" but the example it lists is a thief contesting another
> >thief, which implies similar holdings.
> >
> >I mentioned when I started this "thesis";) that the section on page 48
> >"contradicts" later sections. Well, the headings under "Create Holding"
> >and "Rule" don't contradict the statement on page 48, but rather provide a
> >definition for who "other regents who may be affected by the action" really
> >are--those with holdings of the same type.
>
> good points. The only thing I will add to this is to quantify my statements
> a bit, as they were a little confusing. Firstly, let me say that I am of
> the opinion that temple, guild and source holdings all seem to me to have
> an advantage in some way. For example, you must have guild holdings to set
> up trade routes, thereby gaining income. You must have source holdings to
> cast realm spells, and temples bring in income and allow the casting of
> priest realm spells. Where does this leave law holdings? IMO, law holdings
> do very little. Just owning law holdings does not give income, like temple
> & guild holdings. They do allow the law holding 'holder' to pressure the
> temple and guild holdings for funding, but the negative effects of this
> tend to far outweight the 1 or 2 GB which stand to be gained from such a
> move (unless of course, there is an active campaign against the
> guild/temple holder). They also allow you to ignore loyalty changes. But
> loyalty does not seem to affect things too much. I would have liked to see
> the loyalty of a province affect taxes. In addition, most of the regents
> are warriors, and warriors in general do not get an additional free action
> (priests get to agitate, rogues get to spy, etc). To my mind (and I have
> found this in my games, though I can't speak for others) regents with law
> holdings are at a disadvantage to those who have other types of holdings.
>
> What's the point of my "thesis" above? Well, in my games I allow law
> holdings to influence actions taken by other types of holdings (except
> source - I keep them completely separate) in any province, but NOT vice
> versa. I know that it is not very realistic to say that the church cannot
> affect the law (loyalty) of a province (after all, I believe the church had
> quite an influence in the Middle Ages), but if the temple holder wants to
> do that, then they can use their free agitate action. Likewise, it's not
> very realistic to say that the guilds can't affect the law (either overtly
> or subvertly). But in the end, it would be difficult (not impossible) for
> the guilds or the church to totally squash the law, but the reverse could
> quite easily happen (ie. send on the troops to get rid of the
> guilds/temples) depending on the whims of the regent.
>
> So allowing law holdings to affect the actions of other holding types is my
> way of evening the odds. From my experiences, it works quite well, and
> encourages more interaction between the guild/temple holder and the
> regent/law holder. Of course, when the action is likely to offend the
> regent, then it encourages great secrecy. But, on the whole, it gives
> regents with law holdings a little more power (whereas those regents with
> guild/temple holdings usually have more income).
>
> just my 2 cents (actually, I think I've put in a bit more than that),
>
> Simon
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
> ************************************************** *************************
> > 'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
you have no brains. If you did, you'd know that law is half the fun of
crime. And Vecna is a lich with superhuman fellatio ability. When Kas
sucked Vecna's dick, he received a +5 sword of happy cum shot laser beam
stuff. So there.

[Daniel McSorley]

From: John Normand
>Simon Graindorge wrote:

John Normand responded