Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Is this too real, or could this

    I would not dice for capture in one meta-roll. This is the kind of thing
    that should happen because of player actions or because you have a plot line
    that would work with this kind of thing.

  2. #2
    Sindre Berg
    Guest

    Is this too real, or could this

    Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > I would not dice for capture in one meta-roll. This is the kind of
    > thing
    > that should happen because of player actions or because you have a
    > plot line
    > that would work with this kind of thing.
    >
    > ****************************************
    > **********************************
    > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the
    > line
    > The dice roll was more intended if a PC wasn't at the battle site. Like
    for NPC battles and such...I agree that capturing the player just
    because a single die-roll is bad, I hadn't obviously made that clear...
    Anyway what do people think of the idea ???

    - --
    Sindre

    Take a look at my homepage and Birthright PBMG at:

    www.uio.no/~sindrejb

  3. #3
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Is this too real, or could this

    Sindre Berg wrote:

    > The dice roll was more intended if a PC wasn't at the battle site. Like
    > for NPC battles and such...I agree that capturing the player just
    > because a single die-roll is bad, I hadn't obviously made that clear...
    > Anyway what do people think of the idea ???

    I like it. There aren't really any rules in the game for this sort of thing,
    and the suggestions you make seem quite reasonable. I would agree with Kenneth
    (and your own acknowledgment) that such events should be role-played whenever
    possible, but having some sort of guidelines for it is reasonable.

    As you noted, regents were not the only ones ransomed in medieval times. One
    didn't get the same amount of money for lesser nobles, but a few barons and
    counts could add up to quite a nice payday....

    It seems to me that I remember reading that even commoners were ransomed off
    sometimes, though they would often get screwed by the whole process, as was the
    norm for common folks in that time. If that's the case, whole units could be
    captured and ransomed. A regent might not want to spend much money ransoming
    his people when he could just muster more, but doing that might have a serious
    effect upon the loyalty of his soldiers. Someone who captured a unit could
    potentially ask more for it than it was "worth" using that loyalty issue as a
    bargaining chip.

    Gary

  4. #4
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Is this too real, or could this

    Ransoms were set according to custom, and regulated (gasp) by heralds.
    Deviation from custom could land you in a court of chivalry. So could
    threating violence to obtain a ransom, holding a captive in unhealthy
    conditions, or certain local violations. It would be much cheaper to ransom
    common soldier than to muster new ones.

    There are two purposes to such codes, 1) humane treatment, and 2) you'll
    want the same treatment when the shoe is on the other foot.

  5. #5
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Is this too real, or could this

    Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > Ransoms were set according to custom, and regulated (gasp) by heralds.
    > Deviation from custom could land you in a court of chivalry. So could
    > threating violence to obtain a ransom, holding a captive in unhealthy
    > conditions, or certain local violations. It would be much cheaper to ransom
    > common soldier than to muster new ones.
    >
    > There are two purposes to such codes, 1) humane treatment, and 2) you'll
    > want the same treatment when the shoe is on the other foot.

    I think this is one of those real world vs. imaginary world differences that
    tends to get overlooked.

    The cultures of Cerilia are less restricted to codes of chivalry than rulers in
    the real world (supposedly) were. Orders of knighthood imply a code of
    behavior, but don't necessarily require it. Chivalry probably exists but I
    haven't read anything that makes me think it is codified in Anuire like it was
    in the real world. Even if it were, the state of the Empire means that those
    who don't abide by it would face relatively little backlash. There are no
    courts of chivalry on Anuire that I've heard of. The closest thing would
    probably be going to the Chamberlain for judgment, but even a ruling by him
    seems pretty unlikely to be enforced should a regent just decide to ignore it.

    There are legal systems described in the various sourcebooks but, since the fall
    of the Empire, holding a regent responsible seems pretty difficult. Roesone
    could appeal to the court of public opinion for crimes committed by the baron of
    Ghoere, for instance, but accountability among the rulers is rather hard to come
    by in Anuire. Regents have other things to concern themselves what with
    plotting constantly going on and awnsheghlien running around and all.

    Under these circumstances, wouldn't it be easy for Osoerde to demand more money
    for a unit of archers than they were worth in order to "compensate the people of
    Osoerde" for the lives lost in battle? Pay more, Raenech could say, or they go
    to work in the swamps....

    Gary

  6. #6
    Mark A Vandermeulen
    Guest

    Is this too real, or could this

    On Sun, 1 Nov 1998, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > Ransoms were set according to custom, and regulated (gasp) by heralds.
    > Deviation from custom could land you in a court of chivalry. So could
    > threating violence to obtain a ransom, holding a captive in unhealthy
    > conditions, or certain local violations. It would be much cheaper to ransom
    > common soldier than to muster new ones.
    >
    > There are two purposes to such codes, 1) humane treatment, and 2) you'll
    > want the same treatment when the shoe is on the other foot.

    Just on a procedural note, it was very common for a captured noble to
    "give his parole" to the capturer. This meant that the hostage gave his
    sworn word that he would not attemt to escape or work to directly harm his
    "host" until he was released by the captor upon receipt of the ransom.
    This meant that the hostage had more or less complete run of the castle,
    rather than being locked in a dungeon or tower room. The only wall that
    kept him inside the castle in which he was being held was his own honor,
    but of course, honor was very important to nobles of the middle ages, as
    it should be for noble Anuireans. It also means, however, that the hostage
    CAN act as a spy and source of information inside the enemy stronghold, as
    long as he doesn't act DIRECTLY against his captor. However, some poeple
    are more comfortable at splitting such fine hairs in matters of honor than
    others. It might make for some interesting scenarios. It also means that
    the captive cannot attempt to escape FOR ANY REASON. So even if her
    friends broke into the castle in an attempt to spring her, her honor would
    prevent the noble from going with them: her word was given.

    Mark VanderMeulen
    vander+@pitt.edu

  7. #7
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Is this too real, or could this

    The code of Chivalry is a self-interest code which worked accross
    international lines even during war-time, because like most sensible PC's,
    you don't want dirty tricks being played on you, so you don't play them on
    anyone else. Chivalry evolved in under circumstances where there was no
    central authority, and in multiple locations where the powers that might
    exist in one place did not exist in the other. It worked because nobles
    don't want to be executed on the field of battle. Unless nobles of Cerilia
    are not rational, some warrior code exists, whether it resembles Bushido,
    Chivalry, or some ancient warrior code of behavior. A noble's authority
    (read RP's) rests on his reputation as worthy. Unworthy behavior has a
    price.

    Captivity can be a fun plot device for players.

  8. #8
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Is this too real, or could this

    Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > The code of Chivalry is a self-interest code which worked accross
    > international lines even during war-time, because like most sensible PC's,
    > you don't want dirty tricks being played on you, so you don't play them on
    > anyone else. Chivalry evolved in under circumstances where there was no
    > central authority, and in multiple locations where the powers that might
    > exist in one place did not exist in the other. It worked because nobles
    > don't want to be executed on the field of battle. Unless nobles of Cerilia
    > are not rational, some warrior code exists, whether it resembles Bushido,
    > Chivalry, or some ancient warrior code of behavior. A noble's authority
    > (read RP's) rests on his reputation as worthy. Unworthy behavior has a
    > price.

    I just don't buy it, Kenneth. If you think evil folks are going to abide by a
    code of chivalry when they freely cast aside the more commonly accepted moral
    code then fine. I just don't see it happening in Anuire, when such a code
    might or might not exist (I don't see any evidence that it does in the
    published materials) but the authority to enforce it certainly does not.

    Chivalry isn't any more rational or logical than any other code of behavior. A
    code of behavior that allowed you to kill a defeated opponent is just as
    logical because that opponent isn't likely to come attack you again in the
    future, preserving your life in years to come and establishing a Darwinian
    strongest shall survive social system. Sure, your opponent could kill you
    under the same circumstances, but... oh, wait... he's dead! Oh, well, better
    luck next generation....

    If you want to put it in terms of alignment, you could see it as a law vs chaos
    dispute in which lawful characters might follow the precepts of chivalry
    assuming they agreed to do so at some point in their lives while chaotic people
    would cast them aside at will. Or you could use the same argument with good vs
    evil as the basis of the conflict. Regardless, a chaotic evil character
    probably not going to give much of a hoot about chivalry except in ways that he
    might use it to his advantage.

    Gary

  9. #9
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Is this too real, or could this

    Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > A noble's authority (read RP's) rests on his reputation as worthy. Unworthy
    > behavior has a
    > price.

    One last note on this (already tiresome) topic. RPs in BR are not actually
    based on a ruler's reputation for worthiness. They come from a regent's
    mystical tie to the land that started with the cataclysmic battle at Deismaar
    when the gods infused both the earth and the people at the battle with their
    divine essence. A regent could be a total schmuck and still collect regency in
    Birthright. He may face rebellions, intrigues, coup attempts, etc. which could
    influence his future RP collection, but they would have no influence on his
    already existing pool of regency.

    Gary

  10. #10
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Is this too real, or could this

    I was on an internet game of medieval warfare in which the assasinations,
    kidnappings, and the gamesmanship (using the program in unintended ways) was
    out of control. The players were brutal, but most NPC's were ransomed,
    because next time it was just as likely to be yours captive, and even the
    most cold hearted assasins did not want their NPC's executed. So I'll say I
    saw it with my own eyes.
    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Gary V. Foss
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Sunday, November 01, 1998 3:52 PM
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Is this too real, or could this be fun ?


    >Kenneth Gauck wrote:
    >
    >> The code of Chivalry is a self-interest code which worked accross
    >> international lines even during war-time, because like most sensible
    PC's,
    >> you don't want dirty tricks being played on you, so you don't play them
    on
    >> anyone else. Chivalry evolved in under circumstances where there was no
    >> central authority, and in multiple locations where the powers that might
    >> exist in one place did not exist in the other. It worked because nobles
    >> don't want to be executed on the field of battle. Unless nobles of
    Cerilia
    >> are not rational, some warrior code exists, whether it resembles Bushido,
    >> Chivalry, or some ancient warrior code of behavior. A noble's authority
    >> (read RP's) rests on his reputation as worthy. Unworthy behavior has a
    >> price.
    >
    >I just don't buy it, Kenneth. If you think evil folks are going to abide
    by a
    >code of chivalry when they freely cast aside the more commonly accepted
    moral
    >code then fine. I just don't see it happening in Anuire, when such a code
    >might or might not exist (I don't see any evidence that it does in the
    >published materials) but the authority to enforce it certainly does not.
    >
    >Chivalry isn't any more rational or logical than any other code of
    behavior. A
    >code of behavior that allowed you to kill a defeated opponent is just as
    >logical because that opponent isn't likely to come attack you again in the
    >future, preserving your life in years to come and establishing a Darwinian
    >strongest shall survive social system. Sure, your opponent could kill you
    >under the same circumstances, but... oh, wait... he's dead! Oh, well,
    better
    >luck next generation....
    >
    >If you want to put it in terms of alignment, you could see it as a law vs
    chaos
    >dispute in which lawful characters might follow the precepts of chivalry
    >assuming they agreed to do so at some point in their lives while chaotic
    people
    >would cast them aside at will. Or you could use the same argument with
    good vs
    >evil as the basis of the conflict. Regardless, a chaotic evil character
    >probably not going to give much of a hoot about chivalry except in ways
    that he
    >might use it to his advantage.
    >
    >Gary
    >
    >************************************************* **************************
    >>'unsubscribe birthright' as the body of the message.
    >

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Parallels with real world strategies
    By Rowan in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-20-2008, 10:40 PM
  2. Is this too real, or could this be
    By Sindre Berg in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-01-1998, 04:33 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.