View Poll Results: How should Domain Attitude affect domain action checks?

Voters
20. You may not vote on this poll
  • (1) It should affect only the province ruler's actions

    1 5.00%
  • (2) It should affect every regent's actions in the province

    2 10.00%
  • (3) (1) above, except for actions involving sources

    2 10.00%
  • (4) (2) above, except for actions involving sources

    7 35.00%
  • (5) (2) above except that there is a lesser effect on non-province ruler's actions

    0 0%
  • (6) (4) above, except that there is a lesser effect on non-province ruler's actions

    3 15.00%
  • (7) It should not have any effect on doman action checks

    0 0%
  • (8) Other (please specify in as much detail as possible)

    4 20.00%
  • (9) Abstain

    1 5.00%
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 35
  1. #1
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,946
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Let's see if we can capture some more potential modifiers to domain actions.

    In this case should the domain attitude affect actions in the province? The assumption is that there could be a bonus or penalty depending on the attitude.

    The other assumption is that the attitude should be calculated on a province by province level. That is a ruler may have different attitudes for each province he rules based on the conditions in the province.

    Let's also use another assumption - otherwise the poll choices get way to involved and complicate. That this modifer applies to actions not directed against the province ruler. Actions against against the province ruler gain a bonus for negative attitude modifiers and a penalty for positive attitude modifers. If you disagree with this assumption please include that in a post so I can determine if we need another poll. But it seems pretty clear and logical to me (which probably means that I'm off-base on it ).
    Duane Eggert

  2. #2
    Birthright Developer Raesene Andu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,357
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Why do so many people think that the loyalty of the province's population towards its ruler should also affect other regents with holdings in the province? Sorry, but that doesn't make sense, yet out of 5 voters, I'm the only one who has voted for 1) or 3).
    Let me claim your Birthright!!

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    883
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Raesene Andu schrieb:



    >This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

    > You can view the entire thread at:

    > http://www.birthright.net/forums/ind...ST&f=36&t=2856

    >

    > Raesene Andu wrote:

    > Why do so many people think that the loyalty of the province`s population towards its ruler should also affect other regents with holdings in the province? Sorry, but that doesn`t make sense, yet out of 5 voters, I`m the only one who has voted for 1) or 3).

    >

    If you already state that it doesn´t make sense then why do you ask why

    so many people voted for that option? Obviously all those people don´t

    have a clue ;-)



    My opinion is that the loyalty of the population to the province ruler

    affects every regents actions in that province. Regents who are openly

    closely allied with the province ruler should receive the same bonus or

    penalty as the province ruler as the population would see them as allies

    of their good/bad regent. And regents hostile to the province ruler who

    try to achieve something, e.g. agitate in that province should have a

    harder/easier time achieving their goal if the population is more or

    less loyal to their province ruler.

    bye

    Michael

  4. #4
    Birthright Developer Raesene Andu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,357
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Regent hostile or allied to the province ruler would already recieve a benefit/penalty due to the support or opposition of the province regent's holding level and province levels to their domain actions.

    And what about neutral regents, or regents who are a little bit allied with the province regent, or a little bit hostile. In 2E the regent who ran the province was allow to apply his province levels as a modifier to any domain actions performed by other regents. This represented the infleunce of the regent's subject over the actions of other regents.

    Loyalty/Attitude should not affect other regents. It is the way the people of a province feel about their ruler, not about his allies or other regents who may happen to have holdings in the province. If you do go with the idea of loyalty affecting all holdings, the you would have a very complex system. It would add another layer of complexity where the DM would have to work out which regents were allies or opposed to the province regent, how much of the loyalty modifier applied in each case, and so on.

    It would be easier to give each holding type (except sources) a loyalty rating if you thought it necessary, but I don't. Province rulers are different that holdings regents, they have to be concerned about the loyalty of their peoples, for other holding types most of their people are simply employees and it is the actions of regent himself who determines the disposition of their holdings.

    The people of a province may be very loyal to their ruler, but dislike his heavy-handed guards. Example, is Ghoere. The people there may disagree with the presence of his Iron Guard, but then go around say "Gee it's good that there's no crime these days." Or in Medoere the people may be all faithful followers of Ruornil, but his like the High Priestess as a weak, infectual ruler.

    Saying that the provinice's loyalty rating effects every holding in the province is another example of making a blanket statement that doesn't make sense. It would be better to introduce a rule that allows the province regent to use a positive loyalty rating as a modifier to other regent's actions (except sources) in that province. This would need to replace the 2E rule where the province regent could use his province levels as a modifier (which often made actions very easy) and give regents another reason to boost loyalty to maximum. This way the province ruler desides who to support and who not to. It is the equivalent of calling together his loyal subjects and pointing to another regent and saying "this guy is OK, please support him instead of that evil Guilder Kalien".
    Let me claim your Birthright!!

  5. #5
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,178
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    7
    At 07:36 PM 10/16/2004 +0200, Raesene Andu wrote:



    >Why do so many people think that the loyalty of the province`s population

    >towards its ruler should also affect other regents with holdings in the

    >province?



    I think the issue here is a transformation of what was called "loyalty" in

    Birthright is most closely related to the "attitude" system of NPCs in 3e,

    so the concept has been reinterpreted into a sort of generalized "morale"

    or "happiness" rating for a province rather than the "loyalty" of the

    population towards their ruler. In truth, there wasn`t a whole heck of a

    lot of personal loyalty involved in the Loyalty system (other than the word

    "loyalty" used to describe it) so it could be easily seen as expressing an

    overall attitude rather than something having to do with the relationship

    of the population to the regent who controls the province in which they

    reside. In any case, this poll really only addresses the new, BRCS

    update`s "attitude" of the population, sans any 2e loyalty of the

    population towards the province ruler, and that seems to be what the votes

    so far are reflecting.



    In the past I`ve used in my homebrew campaign a system of loyalty for all

    regents that have holdings in a province. That is, every holding gets a

    loyalty rating along with the province itself. It makes for more

    bookkeeping but did interact nicely with the now obsolete reaction checks

    and morale check rolls. So maybe something like that is in order?



    Gary

  6. #6
    Birthright Developer Raesene Andu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    1,357
    Downloads
    1
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by geeman@Oct 17 2004, 12:10 PM
    In the past I`ve used in my homebrew campaign a system of loyalty for all regents that have holdings in a province. That is, every holding gets a loyalty rating along with the province itself. It makes for more bookkeeping but did interact nicely with the now obsolete reaction checks and morale check rolls. So maybe something like that is in order?
    If it is decided that the attitude of a province's population is going to apply to all regents (except source regents) then something like this would be my preferred option. It does mean a little bit of extra bookkeeping, but also allows for more flexibility in attitudes.

    This would also help with Great Captain type arrangements, where someone with a small holding could be as popular or more popular than the province's ruler, and therefore be entitled to a greater loyalty modifier than the province regent. William Moergan springs to mind as the most obvious case, but there are also the Jarls in the Rjurik kingdoms, they would likely be more popular in their home provinces than the king.

    It does raise the question, however, of how you handle the whole attitude issue for non-landed regents. What factors would increase or decrease the populations attitude towards them? Province rulers have a number of factors, including taxation, troop deployments etc that can effect the province's attitude, other holdings don't really have anything like that at the moment.
    Let me claim your Birthright!!

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Victoria BC, Canada
    Posts
    368
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Gary, that is exactly the system I was thinking of -- yes, it may be more of a hassle for the DM, but all in all, it makes sense for the populace to have differing opinions of the various regents present in a province.

    It is because of this that I have voted 'Other'. In essence, the loyalties of the province towards each individual regent in question, be it Ruler, law holder temple of regent should affect that particular regent's holdings and domain actions.
    "It may be better to be a live jackal than a dead lion, but it is better still to be a live lion -- and usually easier."

    - R. A. Heinlien, from The Collected works of Lazarus Long

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    Posts
    8
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    I voted Other. Here is my reasoning:

    I am running my second PBEM with over 30 players. In each one, I use a separate Domain Attitude for each Holding Regent (except for Source Regents). With spreadsheets or graph paper, it takes not much more effort for a lot more realism.

    Take for instance, Medoere.

    Suris Enlien is generally well liked by her people. Thus, the Attitude for her should be Friendly.

    In Caerwil though, Guilder Kalien has corrupted the justice system to favour his cronies. Thus, the Attitude for him should be Unfriendly.

    The IHH, a Haelynite church, which the free and happy people of Medoere have lingering bad memories of Haelynites, might have an Attitude of Indifferent.

    And if the OIT went in, well, that would be Unfriendly if not downright Hostile.

    Now, if you are a Holding Regent, so long as the Law or an army unit is present, there is no fear of a Hostile people burning down your house. But if you ever get on the wrong side of the Law Regent and he decides to look the other way.........
    History is much like an Endless Waltz; the three beats of War, Peace, and Revolution continue on forever...

  9. #9
    Administrator Arius Vistoon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Paris ( france )
    Posts
    291
    Downloads
    268
    Uploads
    1
    Originally posted by Raesene Andu@Oct 17 2004, 12:45 AM
    It would be easier to give each holding type (except sources) a loyalty rating
    why not ? it seems good.
    Effectively, for me loyalty of people affect only the regent of province not regent of holding.
    but, if each regent of holding have self-attittude rating with less impact ( because it's just an holding with less people compare the whole people a province have ) it will be more good no ?

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Edinburgh, UK
    Posts
    190
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Originally posted by geeman@Oct 17 2004, 03:40 AM

    I think the issue here is a transformation of what was called "loyalty" in

    Birthright is most closely related to the "attitude" system of NPCs in 3e,

    so the concept has been reinterpreted into a sort of generalized "morale"

    or "happiness" rating for a province rather than the "loyalty" of the

    population towards their ruler.
    I think it would be a good idea to rewrite the description along these a
    lines for the BRCS. In RoE we have renamed it to Prosperity and is a mix of the general happiness and level of progress in the province. Works very well, and it doesn't add any more bookkeeping.

    E

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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.