Merry Christmas All!

Gosh, I'm so proud of my apprentice! I can see he studies diligently
towards a greater understanding of Aebrynis! :P

I cannot agree more with Keith & Craig's take on regency. After my new
found enlightenment and conversion to the Stupendous Order of Tim (The
Nutting Man), I have come to the same conclusions my apprentice and
followers have! :D (At least I think I have ...)

What I propose here is a new definition of regency - one that better
explains the dynamic relationship of divine blood and the Power of
Aebrynis. I do this mainly because I feel that such an integral part of
this setting demands such. Take the following as you will ... (because
all of this comes from the stewing morass found within my brainpan -
don't say I didn't warn you!). Tell me what you think! Its a little
long, but I hope you all read through it.

(Also, this won't explain EVERYTHING - that comes from my take on the
relationship of the old and new gods with Aebrynis; I'll have to get a
webpage and post that sometime ... - this excerpt only explains how the
divine essence in mortals interacts with the what Cerilians call
'regency'. Please pay attention to the wording in the text - I believe
it becomes very important - but I don't claim to be an English Major or
anything, so be gentle ... :P).

(Oh, and you elf lovers out there will probably rejoice ... :P)

Oh, one more thing. I guess I should explain my reasoning in more
detail. Well, I defined regency based on the following assumptions:

1) The Land's Choice makes more sense given the below definition (to me
at any rate). Otherwise, it cheapens the elven culture and makes their
beliefs seem 'inferior' to that of cultures who worship Powers, gods who
are more selfish and egotistical than they lead their followers to
believe. Furthermore, I believe this new definition explains why
wizards (and rogues) don't need the investiture spell for their holdings
(as per the BoP) much better than the current perceptions implied by the
official rules.

2) I don't think bloodlines are as all powerful as they are made out to
be, in the face of the power of regency - the ability to lead a people
and a world. To me, bloodlines are just superpowers for great people;
thus their importance should be reflected as such in the game while
keeping to the spirit of the game (by which I mean: heroism - such that
true heroism is more in strength of character than in the amount of
superpowers or fancy +20 magical items one has to whip the bad guys).
This is why I define bloodlines the way I do - in that bloodlines are as
much a curse as a boon to the holder.

3) I don't think the Gods of Aebrynis are as omnipotent as they are made
out to be like the other gods are in other settings - I liken them to
the Greek Gods and heroes; Aebrynis' Powers have failings (and have made
mistakes in the past) and have shortcomings and drawbacks, and might
even be defeated by mortals, if said mortals are on par with heroes like
Hercules, and Conan, and King Arthur, and the like (which is to say,
legendary *in (im)moral character*). Cerilian Gods are not faultless,
and certainly don't know everything (besides, lying to their followers
can't hurt, especially since their divine power is based on how many
believers they can persuade to worship them. hehehe - THAT reality cuts
to the heart of Azrai's curse, IMNSHO! Muwhahahaha).

4) Just because the priests say its the way it is, doesn't necessarily
mean its the way it is. Priests and nobles say the things they do about
regency (like is stated on page 30 & 31 of the rulebook) because it
keeps them in power - and perpetuates the paradigms of rulership needed
to keep them a priveleged fraction of society. Sadly, this is only
human nature ... and this is game about humans, made for humans, and
made by humans, so naturally it should relect this outlook in the hopes
that we can learn what NOT to fool ourselves into believing in the
future. Besides, its fun to pretend and play this other way (in
character ignorance) knowing that its something we wouldn't really do in
RL (as long as we understand the differences here in RL). Isn't there a
saying: "In order to defeat evil, we must understand it first?" At
least, that's my outlook.

5) Regents shouldn't be omnipotent with their RPs either. As per the
rules, regents can fail at things, but this seems to be lost in the
original definition of regency with all that talk about divine essence
being the source for power for regents. Divinity seems to imply a
greater understanding and wisdom, etc., which I don't think scions are
any different from unblooded people. At least, my player regents sure
don't act any smarter or different in my campaigns! :P Here I simply
correct the dichotomy by saying that the Land itself gives meaning to
regency (rather than the bloodline itself), in that Aebrynis (read: DM)
itself arbitrates in any and all actions regents take. Now, regents and
their actions must fully submit to the will of the DM. If a DM says you
can't spend RPs, a PC regent simply can't - because The Land controls
the RPs in the regent. Besides, none of my players act anywhere near
divine, so why should divinity be the basis for their raison d'etre?


6) Going with the above, I never liked the possibility that say, for
instance, a regent could tax a population mercilessly, suffering the
loss of loyalty drop, but the next action would just agitate in their
favour again. Moreover, some things should be left secret from players,
and thus regents should not always be able to spend RPs in every
instance, nor even perform certain actions anytime they wish. Mystical
divine representation in control of the regent flies in the face of
explaining keeping certain things from players. DM control should
always be backed up by the rules, no matter what the players wish (cause
they ALWAYS complain ). Unfortunately for scions, Aebrynis
doesn't revolve around them, its the other way around.

Without further ado, here it is!