Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Loss of Regency

  1. #1
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Loss of Regency

    P. 32 in the definition of Regency: "It's a blend of nobility, honor, and
    kismet that a true king wears like an invisible crown. If a character rules
    well and exemplifies his alignment, his regency is strong. If a king rules
    poorly, his regency weakens."

    p. 37 " Regency may dissapate at the end of a turn if a ruler violates the
    tenants of his alignment. Regents must be careful to act in accordance with
    their beliefs."

    >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.

    Your sentence above is directly contradicted by the section "Losses of
    Regency" on p. 48. Rather than quoting the lengthy discussion, I will
    mention only the earlier clause, "If a character rules well and exemplifies
    his alignment, his regency is strong."

    P. 41 "If a priest neglects a festival he suffers a major regency loss
    during the adjustment phase."
    "A regent who ignores [a feud] event suffers a minor loss of
    regency."
    "Theif regents suffer a major loss of regency during the
    adjustment phase every turn until the successfully respond [in the event of
    a trade matter].

    Regency is political capital in a divine right system.

    Kenneth Gauck]
    c558382@earthlink.net

    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Gary V. Foss
    To: birthright@MPGN.COM
    Date: Sunday, November 01, 1998 4:02 PM
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Is this too real, or could this be fun ?


    >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

  2. #2
    Gary V. Foss
    Guest

    Loss of Regency

    Kenneth Gauck wrote:

    > P. 32 in the definition of Regency: "It's a blend of nobility, honor, and
    > kismet that a true king wears like an invisible crown. If a character rules
    > well and exemplifies his alignment, his regency is strong. If a king rules
    > poorly, his regency weakens."
    >
    > p. 37 " Regency may dissapate at the end of a turn if a ruler violates the
    > tenants of his alignment. Regents must be careful to act in accordance with
    > their beliefs."
    >
    > >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.
    >
    > Your sentence above is directly contradicted by the section "Losses of
    > Regency" on p. 48. Rather than quoting the lengthy discussion, I will
    > mention only the earlier clause, "If a character rules well and exemplifies
    > his alignment, his regency is strong."

    You're quite right that a character can lose his regency for the reasons noted,
    but I don't think you're right about my statement contradicting that section.
    In my statement you'll notice a complete lack of the world "alignment" that
    figures so prominently in the quotes you've taken from the Rulebook. My full
    statement was:

    "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."

    Perhaps I should have used a stronger word than "schmuck" to make my point, but
    it's a family channel, so I opted not to say "bastard" or anything more apt. In
    any case, your original argument was that a ruler must abide by the tenets of
    chivalry or he would "face consequences" like the loss of RPs. My argument is
    that an evil or chaotic regent would not abide by the tenets of chivalry. If he
    did, he may very well be subject to the exact kinds of regency loss covered in
    the section of the Rulebook you quote because playing by the rules would be
    against his alignment.

    The baron of Ghoere and the usurper of Osoerde are perfect examples of what I am
    talking about. If someone playing Ghoere disbanded his army and began utilizing
    forthright and honest diplomatic methods in order to foster peace and amity
    throughout Anuire, he would be in violation of his alignment, and could
    potentially lose regency. If Jaison Raenech were to throw down his sword and
    embrace William Moergan as a joint ruler, he would be in danger of violating his
    alignment too. Ghoere is a backstabbing, lying, ignoble social climber who
    would sell his mother to get closer to the Iron Throne. Yet he collects
    regency. Raenech faces an open rebellion in his land (rather, the realm that he
    has unjustly and unchivalrously usurped) but that doesn't prevent him from
    collecting and building up regency either.

    The guilds in many realms plot to maintain and enlarge their holdings behind the
    backs of their lawful rulers. They engage in smuggling and sell illicit goods.
    Would these guilders lose regency for behaving ignobly? Temples to Sera in
    Brechtur operate guilds and use intimidation to maintain their authority, and
    they collect regency. The temples of Kriesha and Belinik would scoff at
    chivalry, and they still collect regency. The king of Thurazor is suspected to
    have killed his predecessor and all his heirs and it is BECAUSE of that
    reputation he is accorded "the respect due to a true king."

    > P. 41 "If a priest neglects a festival he suffers a major regency loss
    > during the adjustment phase."
    > "A regent who ignores [a feud] event suffers a minor loss of
    > regency."
    > "Theif regents suffer a major loss of regency during the
    > adjustment phase every turn until the successfully respond [in the event of
    > a trade matter].
    >
    > Regency is political capital in a divine right system.

    Regency has to be more than just political capital. If it were only political
    capital then why would a bloodline be required in order to collect it?
    Shouldn't a high level, unblooded character be able to collect regency if it is
    merely the political capital owed a ruler?

    In describing the difference between political capital and RPs I've used the
    analogy of "favors" in the past. If you've ever helped someone move you know
    that favors have a shelf life. Six months appears to be the grace period that
    helping someone move is good for. People will return the favor and help you
    move if you've helped them move within that time. After that, for some reason,
    they figure they don't owe you anymore. Oh, they might help you move, but
    they'll give themselves a six month period in which they figure you now owe
    them.

    Regency isn't like that. It has no shelf life. It could potentially last as
    long as the regent is alive. In fact, longer because he can hand it down to his
    heirs. Besides, if regency is just favors and political capital, how does it
    influence domain actions? One could rationalize that favors help many realm
    actions, but if someone were to forge a ley line, for instance, calling in
    favors wouldn't seem to help much. Wizard regents really throw a kink in the
    regency=political capital argument. They collect regency based on sources which
    are stronger when there are no people around. How are they to collect political
    capital from a sylvan forest, a mountain, or a bunch of dragon bones?

    Lastly, if regency was political capital alone how could it increase a
    bloodline? One cannot raise the amount of divine essence in one's body by
    calling favors due. It has to be a tangible magical form of energy that a
    blooded character can sense and manipulate in order for him to be able to
    internalize it to make their bloodline stronger.

    Regency has got to have a magical or psychic aspect to it. In fact, I'd argue
    that that psychic aspect is its most significant property. Spending regency
    means directing the psychic energy built up by the combined belief, fear,
    respect, adoration, greed, worship, hopes or the magical energies that come
    directly from the earth (in the case of sources) towards accomplishing a
    specific goal. Only blooded characters are able to channel this energy because
    only they have the divine essence within them that allows it to be channeled,
    transferred and stored.

    Gary

  3. #3
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Loss of Regency

    - -----Original Message-----
    From: Gary V. Foss
    Date: Monday, November 02, 1998 12:51 AM
    >
    > In any case, your original argument was that a ruler must abide by the
    tenets of
    >chivalry or he would "face consequences" like the loss of RPs.

    Reasoning by sylogism:
    1) Chivalry is a statement of self-interest (I am refering to the parts
    regarding a warrior's conmduct in war, not the courtship of unattainable
    women.)
    2) Failure to act in the interest of the realm, by for example not ransoming
    prisoners, pillaging, or ignoring problems, costs regency.

    hence) Getting into a situation where harm is being done to your realm as a
    direct consequence of unchivolrous behavior costs you regency.

    >My argument is that an evil or chaotic regent would not abide by the tenets
    of
    >chivalry. If he did, he may very well be subject to the exact kinds of
    regency loss
    >covered in the section of the Rulebook you quote because playing by the
    rules
    >would be against his alignment.
    >

    Chivalry is a code of behavior, therefore all lawful characters would regard
    it as a binding code (insomuch as it refers to a warriors combat behavior).
    Lawful evil characters would certainly abide by a warriors code. Not out of
    a humanitarian commitment to the strong defending the weak, but because laws
    can be useful. If we refer to Tim Nuttings exelent critique of Lawfulness
    from a Chaotic perspective, we see he says:
    >Strict laws and binding orders from social betters provide only the
    trappings
    >of order, and further, they permit those of evil intent a tool to use, for
    laws have
    >been, and ever shall be, twisted by evil to suit evil's purpose.
    Justifications for
    >actions can always be made, and laws can be found to protect the wicked,
    while
    >their actions remain unpunished.
    His character Corrin Tristam has seen Lawful Evil at work.

    >The baron of Ghoere and the usurper of Osoerde are perfect examples of what
    I am
    >talking about. If someone playing Ghoere disbanded his army and began
    utilizing
    >forthright and honest diplomatic methods in order to foster peace and amity
    >throughout Anuire, he would be in violation of his alignment, and could
    >potentially lose regency. If Jaison Raenech were to throw down his sword
    and
    >embrace William Moergan as a joint ruler, he would be in danger of
    violating his
    >alignment too. Ghoere is a backstabbing, lying, ignoble social climber who
    >would sell his mother to get closer to the Iron Throne. Yet he collects
    >regency. Raenech faces an open rebellion in his land (rather, the realm
    that he
    >has unjustly and unchivalrously usurped) but that doesn't prevent him from
    >collecting and building up regency either.


    Gavin Tael is Lawful Evil. Jaison Raenech is Lawful Evil. Both would uphold
    the letter of the law, while leaving observers of the Good alignments to
    note that in their hands the law does not protect the weak or render what a
    good aligned character would call justice. Nevertheless, procedures are
    followed, oaths are kept, and the laws upheld. If the laws fail to protect
    life, and insure happiness, if the laws only serve Tael and Raenech, that is
    still lawful.

    Lets review what the PH says about Lawful Evil:
    "These Characters believe in using society and its laws to benifit
    themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as
    well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant. To
    this end, lawful evil characters support laws and societies that protect
    their own concerns. If someone is hurt or suffers because of a law that
    benifits lawful evil characters, too bad. Lawful evil characters obey laws
    out of a fear of punishement [in this case reprisals]. Because they may be
    foreced to honor an unfavorable contract or oath they have made, lawful evil
    characters are usually very careful about giving their word. Once given,
    they break their word only if they can find a way to do it legaly, within
    the laws of society. An iron-fisted tyrant and a greedy merchant are
    examples of lawful evil beings."
    >
    >The guilds in many realms plot to maintain and enlarge their holdings
    behind the
    >backs of their lawful rulers. They engage in smuggling and sell illicit
    goods.
    >Would these guilders lose regency for behaving ignobly? Temples to Sera in
    >Brechtur operate guilds and use intimidation to maintain their authority,
    and
    >they collect regency. The temples of Kriesha and Belinik would scoff at
    >chivalry, and they still collect regency. The king of Thurazor is
    suspected to
    >have killed his predecessor and all his heirs and it is BECAUSE of that
    >reputation he is accorded "the respect due to a true king."
    >
    Chivalry was not a Christian code, and not the exclusive purvue of paladins.
    Everyone used it. Chaotics may not feel bound by it, but they will take
    advantage of it when it suits them. It is not about being nice, its about
    "do unto others".

    >Regency has to be more than just political capital. If it were only
    political
    >capital then why would a bloodline be required in order to collect it?
    >Shouldn't a high level, unblooded character be able to collect regency if
    it is
    >merely the political capital owed a ruler?
    >

    Back in the day when Birthright was an active line and staff spent more time
    interacting with this list...
    On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 17:16, CBebris wrote:
    Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Birthright: Regency points

    In a message dated 98-03-10 00:20:16 EST, you write:

    >

    Think of it as using one's influence on another's behalf. Real world
    examples:

    Political candidates stumping for each other
    Calling in a favor/pulling strings
    Public declaration of support for (or opposition to) a certain
    issue/candidate/bill
    Product endorsements
    Recommendation letters

    When Vernon Jordon used his influence to help Monica Lewinsky get a job at
    Revlon, he was in effect giving her some of his RP. When Ronald Reagan chose
    former opponent George Bush as his running mate, he gained some of Bush's
    RP.
    When Michael Jordan appears on television in Hanes underwear, the Hanes
    corporation receives some of Jordan's RP. (Jordan, in return, receives
    plenty
    of GB in exchange.)
    Revlon, Bush supporters, and underwear consumers all become willing to trust
    someone unknown because someone else they *do* trust has used their
    influence
    on the unknown's behalf.

    Does that help clarify how people can exchange something intangible?

    Carrie Bebris
    - ----------------------end of quote-----------------------------

    >In describing the difference between political capital and RPs I've used
    the
    >analogy of "favors" in the past. If you've ever helped someone move you
    know
    >that favors have a shelf life.

    That's why regents often have to remind others of the many favors (in some
    detail) they have done them.

    >Wizard regents really throw a kink in the regency=political capital
    argument. They >collect regency based on sources which are stronger when
    there are no people >around. How are they to collect political capital from
    a sylvan forest, a mountain,
    >or a bunch of dragon bones?
    >

    BR was designed based on historical circumstance. As Rich Baker said to me
    in a post, "As a historian, you'll probably note that I borrowed a lot of
    the inspiration for Birthright from historical sources." Historically the
    effects of regency were assumed to exist. Their thinking was more
    abastract, but we are playing a game, and points are required to measure one
    character's potential, versus another. Nevertheless, whatever we call
    regency in terms of its character, it existed in the middle ages, and so
    cannot be so divourced from reality that fantastic explanations are
    required. Divine right, divine spark, the order established by God, the
    order established by the events of Deismir, all fantasy trappings for a
    historical situation.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

  4. #4
    Tim Nutting
    Guest

    Loss of Regency

    Sometimes I just feel out of my league. :)

    Still, I couldn't resist jumping into this one with my own views of regency. I
    think both of you guys are right, in a way. Regency is much more than just
    political favors and capital, but there is that.

    Take the scale up one notch and have a look at the next class of divine rulers,
    the Powers. A power, the "new D&D" PC definition of a God, is usually
    omniscient and omnipotent within his own carefully defined Realm. When the god
    wants something done, it gets done, mostly through force of will and a few
    runners and servants.

    Drop it back down to the regents, and you will find laced through the books the
    idea that the land responds to a regent, much the same way that a power's realm
    responds to it. A regent uses this tiny shard of his divine essence to
    manipulate events, and change things where he holds power, most of it
    unconsciously.

    By spending regency on an espionage attempt, a regent is unconsciously
    manipulating happenstance and circumstance surrounding the entire chain of
    people doing the espionage. Consciously, he order certain people to perform
    certain deeds, calls in a few favors, and the like.

    This explains why betrayal of one's beliefs affects regency. By betraying his
    belief, a regent undermines the power of his unconscious conviction and divine
    power. At the same time, when a regent fails to respond to certain events, or
    performs other tangible actions that lose regency, his "worshipers", in
    actuality his subjects, lose confidence in him. What happens when a power
    loses worshipers? The Astral Plane is full of bouncing decaying examples of
    the answer.

    Tim

  5. #5
    Kenneth Gauck
    Guest

    Loss of Regency

    Tim, don't be so modest. Your ideas are worth reading.

    On Tuesday, November 03, 1998 1:10 AM, Tim Nutting
    wrote:
    >
    >Drop it back down to the regents, and you will find laced through the books
    the
    >idea that the land responds to a regent, much the same way that a power's
    realm
    >responds to it.

    This idea was current in many pre-modern societies. When Plantagent and
    Valois fought over the crown of France, many blamed the Plague, as "the
    land's" punishment, to use BR terminology. Poor harvests were blamed on the
    actions of the great.

    Shakespeare makes it clear that Henry IV and Richard III (usurpers both)
    were never seccure in their thrones because they could never achive what the
    Chinese called "the mandate of heaven". Both seem to suffer from shortages
    of Regency, unable to deal with the challenges to their holdings. Henry IV
    was able enough to hold things together long enough for his son Henry V to
    succede him legitimatly. Henry V is still nervous about how his father too
    the throne, but Shakespeare never questions his legitimacy, and Henry is
    allowed to exploit all the powers of his birthright, including (or so it
    would seem) the Battlewise blood ability. Richard III was less able, and
    ultimatly was deposed.

    The history of Osoerde is not yet writ. But the fact that Willaim Moergan
    can resist suggests that Jaison Raenech has problems getting a hold of all
    the regency that the duke of Osoerde is entitled to. Perhaps like Henry IV
    he'll keep it together long enough for a legitimate successor to follow him.
    Perhaps like Richard III, Moergan will depose him later on.

    Kenneth Gauck
    c558382@earthlink.net

  6. #6
    Tim Nutting
    Guest

    Loss of Regency

    > This idea was current in many pre-modern societies. When Plantagent and
    > Valois fought over the crown of France, many blamed the Plague, as "the
    > land's" punishment, to use BR terminology. Poor harvests were blamed on the
    > actions of the great.

    Ignorance on the behalf of "the great" and the unwashed masses does not reality
    make.

    > Shakespeare makes it clear that Henry IV and Richard III (usurpers both)
    > were never seccure in their thrones because they could never achive what the
    > Chinese called "the mandate of heaven". Both seem to suffer from shortages
    > of Regency, unable to deal with the challenges to their holdings. Henry IV
    > was able enough to hold things together long enough for his son Henry V to
    > succede him legitimatly. Henry V is still nervous about how his father too
    > the throne, but Shakespeare never questions his legitimacy, and Henry is
    > allowed to exploit all the powers of his birthright, including (or so it
    > would seem) the Battlewise blood ability. Richard III was less able, and
    > ultimatly was deposed.

    An interesting comparison to reality, but Cerilia is not reality, unless it be
    the reality of one's imagination. Great leaders have never required magic to
    lead. Henry V, perhaps nervous of his place on the throne, displayed the
    amazing breadth of perception to understand just what it is that a "just cause"
    adds to a soldier's ability. Secretly discussing perceptions of leadership and
    tactics with line infantrymen, and exploiting their wants to further his own
    goals is not magic, but shrewd cunning. In Shakespeare's works of fiction,
    magic exists, but these men all lived in the beginnings of the Age of Reason,
    when the thought that magic might exist was... ludicrous to many.

    Tim

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 01:01 AM
  2. Loss of Hit Points
    By Arjan in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 01:01 AM
  3. Loss of Hit Points (Rules)
    By Arjan in forum D20 system reference document
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2007, 10:53 AM
  4. Energy Drain, Negative Levels, and Level Loss (Special Ability)
    By Arjan in forum D20 system reference document
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-20-2007, 01:12 AM
  5. Ability Score Loss (Special Ability)
    By Arjan in forum D20 system reference document
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-19-2007, 09:39 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.