Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Ryan B. Caveney
    Guest

    Domain Turns: Regents and Lieu

    > Scenario: Player A is the Regent of the Domain (say a
    > fighter, wizard or rogue class), and player B is a regent of holdings
    > (like temples, thus a paladin or priest) in the same lands.
    > 1) Can person A "hire" person B as a lieutenant?

    Lieutenant is not the proper way to do this: since B is a regent
    in his own right, he might consent to become A's ally or vassal, however.
    It seems to me there are two ways to do sort of what you want, each with
    its own benefits and drawbacks. One route is for B to invest A with all
    his holdings, and then become A's lieutenant, only getting lieutenant
    actions when A desires it. The other (and better, in my opinion, unless
    perhaps there is a serious mismatch in bloodlines and domain power) is for
    B to become A's vassal, and thus formalize their relationship, but not
    giving A direct control over any of B's holdings, and enabling B to keep
    all three actions per turn without A having to use a lieutenant action.

    > 1a) Does person B still get the three actions?

    Only if B is still a regent with a domain; from the usage of
    "lieutenant" in both the rulebook and the various domain descriptions, I
    take it to mean someone who does not have a personal domain, but only
    helps to manage another's.

    > 1b) If Regent A uses person B under "Lieutenant action" (such
    > as Agitate), does that take up one action from person B? (If possible,
    > that's how it seems to me it would work)

    My contention is that this state of affairs is not possible, as it
    suffers from trying to implement vassalage in the wrong game mechanic.
    Since lieutenants don't have domains, I'd say B could only become a
    lieutenant by giving up his domain, thus giving up his ability to take
    domain actions.

    > 2) If A and B marry, can they:

    Marriage alone is not going to do any of this: at least one
    Investiture action would be required in each case.

    > 2a) "Merge" their regency? (add both together and draw
    > from it when needed)
    > 2b) Add their regency and both take half?

    This is a topic of great confusion, since TSR has published
    regents who rule jointly (the Three Brothers Mages, for example), but not
    to my knowledge any official rules on how such domains work. Can anyone
    point me to an Official Statement (TM)? This topic should definitely be
    covered in the BR campaign setting reissue.

    > c) Would it not really matter since person B can help out
    > anyways by donating regency to the worth cause (and vise versa)?

    Well, B could spend RPs to influence certain actions but not
    others, depending on the situation, but RPs cannot just be passed around.
    The rules strongly suggest to me that the only way for one person to give
    another RPs is investiture, either as vassal or replacement.
    This is another point on which I would like official clarification.

    > 3) Are there any married regents? If so:

    There are lots of regents who have spouses, but that's not what
    you mean. I don't know of any regents whose spouses are also described as
    being regents.

    > a) Does one rule the land while another has holdings?
    > b) Does one rule the land while the other sits pretty?

    Either of these would be possible. If they are of different
    classes, I would heartily suggest the former -- so long as divorce
    proceedings are unlikely. ;)

    > c) Who would this be?

    That is entirely up to the people in question.

    - --Ryan

  2. #2
    Memnoch
    Guest

    Domain Turns: Regents and Lieu

    I have worked this scenario in a game that was being run a while back... my
    comments are interspersed with Kirby's...

    Memnoch
    - -----Original Message-----
    From: KirbyRanma
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Thursday, May 21, 1998 12:53 PM
    Subject: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Domain Turns: Regents and Lieutenant PCs.


    >Hello everyone,
    >
    > I had read through the pages of the DOMAIN TURN of my DM's book and
    was
    >wondering about some things:
    > Scenario: Player A is the Regent of the Domain (say a fighter,
    >wizard or rogue class), and player B is a regent of holdings (like temples,
    >thus a paladin or priest) in the same lands.
    > 1) Can person A "hire" person B as a lieutentant?
    It is entirely possible, provided person B agree's to it...

    > 1a) Does person B still get the three actions?
    Yes...since he is a regent, he still gets 3 actions...

    > 1b) If Regent A uses person B under "Lieutenant action" (such as
    >Agitate), does that take up one action from person B? (If possible, that's
    how
    >it seems to me it would work)
    IMC, yes it would... Regent B would have to use one of his actions to cover
    Regent A's LT action.

    > 2) If A and B marry, can they:
    > 2a) "Merge" their regency? (add both together and draw from it
    when
    >needed)

    Yes, the investiture ceremony allows for this, provided the DM allows it...
    > 2b) Add their regency and both take half?
    I would say that they would draw regency relative to their bloodline
    strength, if their combined bloodline strength is greater than their domain
    power (which is rare)... For example: Regents A & B have a combined
    Bloodline strength of 50 (30 and 20 respectively) but a domain power of only
    30... Regent A would draw 20 RP per turn, and Regent B would draw 10 per
    turn...
    The higher bloodline naturally attracts greater regency.

    > c) Would it not really matter since person B can help out
    anyways
    >by donating regency to the worth cause (and vise versa)?
    That particular scenario would have to be part of the investiture ceremony
    and approved of by the DM, but it is certainly possible.

    > 3) Are there any married regents?
    Not according to the starting scenario's of the various boxed sets (at least
    that I am not aware of)
    If so:
    > a) Does one rule the land while another has holdings?
    > b) Does one rule the land while the other sits pretty?
    > c) Who would this be?
    This would depend on the two regents involved... They could split up their
    respective domains however they wish, but they have to come to an agreement
    of some kind... Generally this doesn't happen, one usually becomes a
    vassal/heir of the other... Most regents don't like to give away what they
    have worked so hard for.

    > Well, thank you for reading and I hope I didn't a) bore your socks
    off;
    >b) make you sick of multi-part questions; c) get you upset. Thank you for
    >your time.
    >
    >Take care,
    >Kirby
    >
    >"We have nothing to fear except the *fear* spell itself!"
    >************************************************* **************************
    >>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    >

  3. #3
    The Olesen`s
    Guest

    Domain Turns: Regents and Lieu

    THis is in response to the first response to the original question.
    Whoever sent it said regents couldn't make other regents leutienents.

    This is entirly WRONG!

    Just a few printed examples:

    Ghore
    Suiriene (Wind Mage)

  4. #4
    prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co
    Guest

    Domain Turns: Regents and Lieu

    - ----- Begin Included Message -----

    >From owner-birthright@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM Thu May 21 14:52:52 1998
    X-Authentication-Warning: phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM: majordom set sender to owner-birthright@lists.MPGN.COM using -f
    Date: Thu, 21 May 1998 15:40:29 -0400
    From: "The Olesen's"

    THis is in response to the first response to the original question.
    Whoever sent it said regents couldn't make other regents leutienents.

    This is entirly WRONG!

    Just a few printed examples:

    Ghore
    Suiriene (Wind Mage)
    - ----- End Included Message -----
    I would disagree. I think it could be interpreted either way. I think Ryan's
    method is much cleaner and the prefered style. On the other hand, allowing for
    lt. regents gives one greater flexibility, albiet messier mechanics.

    The printed examples for Baron Tael and the Gov. of Suiriene don't say these
    powerful mages are lts. per se. They simply work closely with the realm regent.
    They could just as easily be close allies or liege/vassel. I would say Dashid
    the Astronomer is the Lamia's lt. though. He can't take any independent action
    (ie backstab) even if he wanted to. I treat him as Memnoch and Manta would.

    I like the shared rulership concept. If anybody has played Ars Magica, you
    know how much fun and roleplaying occurs at council meetings. Of course the
    council needs to develop its own rules on how toadies.... er, newcomers... and
    dissidents.... er, old members... are added/removed (invested/divested) from
    the council.


    Randax

  5. #5
    DKEvermore
    Guest

    Domain Turns: Regents and Lieu

    In a message dated 98-05-21 15:51:49 EDT, you write:

    > THis is in response to the first response to the original question.
    > Whoever sent it said regents couldn't make other regents leutienents.
    >
    > This is entirly WRONG!
    >
    > Just a few printed examples:
    >
    > Ghore
    > Suiriene (Wind Mage)
    And there are many examples of this in the Havens of the Great Bay where any
    king worth his rank gets a guilder under his control or looses the kingdom,
    eventually.

    Example: Count of Muden (see TSR's online PS) has Theofold's and the Royal
    Captain( technically a *landed* regent) are regent/lieutenants.

    I've always thought regents make better lieutenants: they have up to 3
    actions they can do for you, if you can make them.

    - -DKE

  6. #6
    Clayton F. Hinton
    Guest

    Domain Turns: Regents and Lieu

    >And there are many examples of this in the Havens of the Great Bay where any
    >king worth his rank gets a guilder under his control or looses the kingdom,
    >eventually.
    >
    >Example: Count of Muden (see TSR's online PS) has Theofold's and the Royal
    >Captain( technically a *landed* regent) are regent/lieutenants.
    >
    >I've always thought regents make better lieutenants: they have up to 3
    >actions they can do for you, if you can make them.

    I agree. An aspiring Overlord should be looking for underlings who have as
    much to offer as possible. And if the overlord's domain is too large, he
    should grant some of it to a worthy friend or underling in return for his
    loyalty. This is Feudalism.

    As for using a regent-liutenant to perform an action for the regent, they
    cannot be forced to do so in any manner different than a non-regent
    liutenant would do. You can't make them spend regency, or gold, for
    example, just because they are your liutenant. You can 'order' them to do
    so, but you may get all manner of excuses in return. And certainly, it
    would use up that liutenant-regent's doman action. If the overlord gets
    too harsh, the "liutenant" could just say "I quit."

    This is best handled using Fealty, wherby the underlings grant a certain
    amount of regency to their leige every domain turn. This alone is a great
    benifit. But the willingness of a vassal or regent-liutenant to spend
    their valuable domain actions on behalf of their leige is entirely
    dependent on role-play. Personally, I would release any liutenant of mine
    if they became a regent in favor of having them as a vassal. Any
    non-regent liutenant can perform an action for you, why waste a regent's
    action?

    It's tough to be an overlord sometimes. Ask Michael Roele. His vassals
    were constantly figting among themselves and dodging their feudal
    obligations, and he had to use force, or the threat of force, to bring them
    back in line. And yes, they were most definately his vassals (except
    Beorine and his allies, of course).

    But for sure, the relationship between a regent and his liutenants is
    different than the relationship between a regent and his vassals. The
    vassals are much more free to handle things as they see fit, whereas the
    liutenants are basically an extension of the regent himself. I simply
    think it is unreasonable to expect the same control over a regent
    vassal/liutenant as you can over a non-regent liutenant. They have their
    own holdings at stake, and if they displease their leige, and the leige
    wants them to step down, well, he'll just have to make them, if they
    refuse. That's Feudalism.

    - -Clay Hinton
    chinton@mail.utexas.edu

  7. #7
    Ryan B. Caveney
    Guest

    Domain Turns: Regents and Lieu

    On Fri, 22 May 1998, MANTA wrote:

    > They can borrow regency with minimum effort

    So, how does one "borrow regency"?

    - --Ryan

  8. #8
    Ryan B. Caveney
    Guest

    Domain Turns: Regents and Lieu

    It is my contention that this entire dispute is due to confusion
    of terminology: I use "lieutenant" in the strict game-mechanics sense of
    "person who can take up to one action per domain turn on behalf of a
    regent who has previously acquired this person by means of the hire
    lieutenant character action," not in the loose sense of "underling".
    Another possible example is that the DMG's mercenary listings have people
    who are called "lieutenants"; does this mean every platoon commander in
    your army is a BR-official Lieutenant who can take a domain action for
    you? Certainly not!
    I completely agree that regents can be in a hierarchy below and/or
    above other regents, and that it can be a very useful arrangement to have,
    but I think that the lieutenant game mechanic is the wrong way to
    implement the concept -- vassalage is the way to go.

    On Thu, 21 May 1998, Clayton F. Hinton wrote:

    > >Example: Count of Muden (see TSR's online PS) has Theofold

    Alright, Havens of the Great Bay has a guild-holding regent listed
    as another regent's lieutenant. I think this is an error: he should
    instead be a vassal. Ed?

    > >I've always thought regents make better lieutenants: they have up to 3
    > >actions they can do for you, if you can make them.

    They can be your subordinates, but not your "lieutenants", because
    lieutenants are people who can take a fourth domain action for you on your
    own holdings using your RPs and GBs, not their own supply to affect their
    own holdings.

    > I agree. An aspiring Overlord should be looking for underlings who have

    *Underlings*, yes! Lieutenants, not necessarily. Certainly you
    should always have at least one, but the return on acquiring a lieutenant
    diminishes much faster than the return on acquiring a vassal.

    > much to offer as possible. And if the overlord's domain is too large, he
    > should grant some of it to a worthy friend or underling in return for his
    > loyalty. This is Feudalism.

    Yes. That's why the investiture action defines vassalage, which
    is the name for the relationship between overlord and underling in
    feudalism. If your domain is too large and you acquire a new lieutenant,
    it doesn't help because your personal domain is still just as big. If you
    want to reduce the size of the domain under your personal control, you
    invest some of your holdings to someone else, and make that person your
    vassal; you don't hire an additional administrator for what you already
    have.

    > Personally, I would release any liutenant of mine if they became a
    > regent in favor of having them as a vassal. Any non-regent liutenant
    > can perform an action for you, why waste a regent's action?

    Exactly my point! "Lieutenant" and "regent" have different game
    mechanics functions, so everything is much clearer if the sets are defined
    as disjoint: particularly as there is already a concept ("vassal") for
    subordinate regent.

    > But for sure, the relationship between a regent and his liutenants is
    > different than the relationship between a regent and his vassals. The
    > vassals are much more free to handle things as they see fit, whereas the
    > liutenants are basically an extension of the regent himself.

    Again, I agree completely. That's why I interpret the rules in
    the way I do. I think we may need to send a group letter to "Sage Advice".

    - --Ryan

  9. #9
    MANTA
    Guest

    Domain Turns: Regents and Lieu

    >
    > I had read through the pages of the DOMAIN TURN of my DM's book and
    was
    > wondering about some things:
    > Scenario: Player A is the Regent of the Domain (say a fighter,
    > wizard or rogue class), and player B is a regent of holdings (like
    temples,
    > thus a paladin or priest) in the same lands.
    > 1) Can person A "hire" person B as a lieutentant?

    Yes



    > 1a) Does person B still get the three actions?


    Yes but:
    If Regent B is going to perform a non-free action as his Liutenent action
    for Regent A he must do it instead of one of his own 3 actions. (Based on
    the fact that theoricaly each non-free action takes one month of the
    regent/liutenent┬┤s time.)


    > 1b) If Regent A uses person B under "Lieutenant action" (such
    as
    > Agitate), does that take up one action from person B? (If possible,
    that's how
    > it seems to me it would work)


    Yes. (See my opinion above)


    > 2) If A and B marry, can they:
    > 2a) "Merge" their regency? (add both together and draw from it
    when
    > needed)


    I would say no. They can borrow regency with minimum effort (suposing they
    are intrested in the success of their housband/wife┬┤s holdings). It works
    almost as a merging of RP┬┤s but it really isn┬┤t.


    > 2b) Add their regency and both take half?


    No.


    > c) Would it not really matter since person B can help out
    anyways
    > by donating regency to the worth cause (and vise versa)?


    Exactly.


    > 3) Are there any married regents? If so:
    > a) Does one rule the land while another has holdings?

    If they wish so.

    > b) Does one rule the land while the other sits pretty?

    If everything┬┤s fine with the other (maybe she/he doesn┬┤t have a choice).


    > c) Who would this be?

    What do you mean?


    > Well, thank you for reading and I hope I didn't a) bore your socks
    off;

    Not realy.

    > b) make you sick of multi-part questions;

    Nope.

    c) get you upset.

    I don┬┤t think so. Let me think about it... ;-)

    MANTA
    ip209007@ip.pt

  10. #10
    DavTyr
    Guest

    Domain Turns: Regents and Lieu

    Hey guys, if you want to allow regents to make other regents luitenents
    then do it. Rules be damned!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Linking Regents together
    By stv2brown1988 in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-14-2007, 09:33 AM
  2. Vos Regents
    By stv2brown1988 in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-12-2006, 04:29 AM
  3. Non-regents
    By James Ruhland in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 04-13-2002, 07:26 PM
  4. Domain Turns: Regents and Lieutena
    By KirbyRanma in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-21-1998, 04:41 AM
  5. Domain Turns Required
    By Morgramen & the Lady Fae in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-10-1998, 04:13 AM

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. ę2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.