The bigest restrictioon on Investitures are that it is concidered an evil
and a chaotic act (BoP p.80) and any priest who supports an act of
divestiture face serious alignment reprecussions. Also if I am not wrong
the affected holding/province need to be contested for a divestiture to be

Another problem with divestitures is that the "victim" of it is allowed to
spend RPs to increase the difficulty.


- -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
Fran: Pieter Sleijpen []
Skickat: den 11 november 1998 11:56
Amne: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - mean Investure?

Olesens wrote:
> This word sound familar? Yes. Commonly used? Nope.
> I play in many diffrent BR PBeMs and I have never seen divesture used
> as a weapon. Why bother creating a holding, double contesting that
> other guy's holding, and ruling yours up when you can do it all in one
> 10+ action (with modifers, as usual) with just the help of a priest?
> In my home game one of my players was a priest and never even thought
> of divesture. Maybe I'm overlooking something but this simple realm
> spells looks to me like a very potent, but unused, weapon.

There are a few restriction to the use of the spell. First of all both
the regents affected must be together for the complete month the spell
is being cast. Secondly both regent must do it by free will, though the
other person can always be forced to do it by free will (including magic
domination). So to make use of it you will have to capture the other
regent and this is not always that easy. Ofcoarse you always could try
to blackmail the other regent into coming by free will... But there are
a lot of situations this is not possible and a regent will be forced to
use contest actions.
begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT
M>)\^(AH0`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ 6]U(&UE86X@26YV97-T=7)E/P"F$ $%@ ,`#@``
M`,X'"P`+`!$`%P`8``,`+@$!(( #``X```#.!PL`"P`1`!,`# `#`!X!`0F
M\C$B?B:%ST6%T0?]Z!1V12P*)4UA#*A$LH 4P_ROS