Who Can Create/Expand Holdings

[Solmyr]

>I have a lot of problems with a regent who can not get RP's from
>a Temple actually creating a Temple holding. At best if I am a God
>and an idiot tries to make a Temple in my name I am going to be
>upset, not to mention the attitude the legitimate temples will take.
>
Why should a god be upset if some devout worshipper creates a temple in his name? He may not get realm spells, but it would show all the more piety, as the regent is willing to serve the god even without any rewards. Example: Tihara min Buseri, leader of the Shield of Halaia in Khourane, is a fighter.

******************
Aleksei Andrievski
aka Solmyr, Archmage of the Blue Star
solmyr@kolumbus.fi
Visit the Archmage's Tower at
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Fortress/2198/index.html

[Whalejudge@aol.co]

Who says the temple is fake? The blooded character may control things, but
the priests and worshippers may be quite real. And the god controls the
priests.

[Mark A Vandermeulen]

On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, Gary V. Foss wrote:

> Craig Greeson wrote:
>
> > Aha, there's our difference of opinion. I've always interpreted Source
> > holdings as being the only ones that a regent can't create and grow outside
> > their normal "sphere of influence". Sources are specialized enough that
> > they get special treatment among the 4 holding types IMC. IMO, thieves
> > should be able to create Law or (rarely) Temple holdings, wizards should be
> > able to create Law, Guild, or (again, rarely) Temple holdings, etc... How
> > do other people interpret this in their campaigns? Are landed wizard
> > regents powerless to expand their Law holdings?
>
> I've always ruled any regent/scion can create any type of holding.... Of course,
> some of them might find themselves better able create or hold onto one type of
> holding or another, and some holdings might be close to useless to other types of
> regents, but I can't come up with a reason why they should be allowed to create
> them.

I have to agree with Craig on this one. I've always played that any regent
can create any type of holding OTHER than sources, AS LONG AS he has a
lieutennant of the proper type to do it for him as a lieutennant action.
Thus, fighters can set up guilds and trade routes, but must do it through
guilder lieutennants (this applies only to the Create Holding action,
Ruling holdings can be done normally). This greatly limits the ability of
fighters to gain money through setting up their own guilds, and encourages
them to cooperate with their guilders (or at least play them off one
another). My basic rule is this: if you can gain regency from it, you can
Create it by yourself (thus explaining the situation for rangers and
paladins). Otherwise you need a lieutennant to do it for you.

Sources are a different matter. With sources, I rule that only wizards can
either Create or Rule. In fact, a wizard lieutennant that succeeds in
creating a source holding ceases to be a lieutennant any longer and
becomes a separate regent (although probably still somewhat loyal to the
master he once served). The only way around this is to make the wizard
regent a vassal (which is still a semi-DM-controlled character) under a
particular investiture ceremony that creates the "court wizard"
relationship. In the ceremony, the regent agrees to provide the wizard
with regular GB's, and in return the wizard promises to defend the land
using the magical power he is going to be able to harness with the help of
the regent. At the end of the ceremony, the wizard receives a number of
RP's from the regent's RP pool that he can use to begin creating his
source holdings (after which he begins to receive RP's normally, from his
holdings).

Mark VanderMeulen
vander+@pitt.edu

[JD Lail]

This post was delayed for 10 days until you all got tired of beating
each up over the GS and alignment.

J. D. Lail wrote:

>I have a lot of problems with a regent who can not get RP's from
>a Temple actually creating a Temple holding. At best if I am a God
>and an idiot tries to make a Temple in my name I am going to be
>upset, not to mention the attitude the legitimate temples will take.

>Gary V. Foss said:

>I'm against the idea of keeping temples out of the hands of fighters
>(or wizards or thieves, for that matter....)



You are weakening the distictions between classes by allowing regents
to create holdings of types from which they can draw regency. I can't
support something like that.

As far as letting any idiot start a Temple because Hank the Octic, son
of Hank the Septic did so in real life is pointless. The BR dieties are
active in that world. That fact alone invalidates most comparisons.

>Aleksei Andrievski said:

>Why should a god be upset if some devout worshipper creates a temple in
>his name? He may not get realm spells, but it would show all the more
>piety, as the regent is willing to serve the god even without any rewards.
>Example: Tihara min Buseri, leader of the Shield of Halaia in Khourane,
>is a fighter.

If that Fighter created "Temple" does not reduce the number of Temple
holdings then it bothers me much less. However nothing in any statement
made by the proponents of allowing this has even intimated that such
was or is the case.

*******************
Whalejudge said;

>Who says the temple is fake? The blooded character may control things,
>but the priests and worshippers may be quite real. And the god controls
>the priests.

Sorry, I meant fake as in no real god behind it.
*******************Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 13:33:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark A Vandermeulen
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Who Can Create/Expand Holdings (was Mage Regents
was Fighter Regents)

> Craig Greeson wrote:

>>Aha, there's our difference of opinion. I've always interpreted Source
>>holdings as being the only ones that a regent can't create and grow
>>outside their normal "sphere of influence". Sources are specialized
>>enough that they get special treatment among the 4 holding types IMC.
>>IMO, thieves should be able to create Law or (rarely) Temple holdings,
>>wizards should be able to create Law, Guild, or (again, rarely) Temple
>>holdings, etc... How do other people interpret this in their campaigns?
>>Are landed wizard regents powerless to expand their Law holdings?

>I've always ruled any regent/scion can create any type of holding.... Of
>course, some of them might find themselves better able create or hold onto
>one type of holding or another, and some holdings might be close to
>useless to other types of regents, but I can't come up with a reason why
>they should be allowed to create them.

>Mark A Vandermeulen wrote:
>I have to agree with Craig on this one. I've always played that any regent
>can create any type of holding OTHER than sources, AS LONG AS he has a
>lieutennant of the proper type to do it for him as a lieutennant action.
>Thus, fighters can set up guilds and trade routes, but must do it through
>guilder lieutennants (this applies only to the Create Holding action,
>Ruling holdings can be done normally). This greatly limits the ability of
>fighters to gain money through setting up their own guilds, and encourages
>them to cooperate with their guilders (or at least play them off one
>another). My basic rule is this: if you can gain regency from it, you can
>Create it by yourself (thus explaining the situation for rangers and
>paladins). Otherwise you need a lieutennant to do it for you.

>Sources are a different matter. With sources, I rule that only wizards
>can either Create or Rule.



This is inconsistent with the rules. If that is your house rule great !
[Our group has so many that we have a 15 page file of them. :) ] But we
were talking about the rules as written here unless otherwise noted.

BTW the intimation in the BoM is that a Wizard can not create a guild
since a level 7 source grants him a 0 level guild for the purposes of
trade. This is unneeded if he can simply create a 0 level guild by
spending a GB.

L8R

[Bernardo79@aol.co]

This is an nonsensical debate. Any regent can great a holding of any type.
Temples not run by priest regents still have the same structure and support
staff that those rune by priest regents do. There are still temples and
cathedrals that have preist to preach, heal and do preistly things. Same goes
for everything else. Who owns a holding or if they gain regency form it, is
irrellivent. To say a priest can not control a source or a guild holding
because they can not gain regency from it makes no sense. One of yoiu guys who
do not want this to happen please explain it to me, with some good reasons.
THat they don't gain regency is not a good reason. If you think that is then
I seriously doubt your grasp of the rules behind holdings.

Benrie

[Ryan Freire]

Its simple really, the regent MAKES the holding by publicly announcing
his support for that temple, granting money to help build and run it,
aiding in day to day finances, and worshipping at it. If the regent
withdraws his support, the temple falters... THAT is how non priest
regents run a temple or guild holding.

__________________________________________________ ____
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com