Mathieu Roy wrote:
> I think I see your argument -- that blooded regents are like little gods, and that they, like gods, gain power from "worship"; once gained, this power can be used in other purposes that would not seem to require respect. I just think that this definition is not sufficient, since a blooded wizard with souces can be so secretive that neither Joe nor Kong nor anyone else will have ever heard of him. How can he gain regency then? If Thaddeus, a 20th-level human wizard, somehow clears the Giantdowns, places good King Ralph on the throne, and then strives to
continually aid the people with his magic, but never controls a holding,
won't he gain respect, mystique and "worship" that would lead to him
gaining Regency under that definition?<

Hurrah! Some one else sees the Regency problem I have constantly been
harping on! I side with Mr. Roy's logic here. Unfortunately, the
current poor definition of regency is exactly the sort of thing that
places the entire regency paradigm in jeopardy IMHO. This is a game
about heroic adventure kings/queens, right?


The current system allows regents to just sit there and suck in huge
amounts of 'respect' and 'power', and demand worship because of their
specialness, and do nothing for it! What kind of message does this send
out, 'O Mighty TSR Designers? I don't know about the rest of you good
maillisters, but this just cries out to encourage bad role-playing and
power-gaming abuse! Uggh! And this in the best RPG system TSR has ever
put out to boot, too! Aaagh! Or is it? :)

> Actions that require RP are actually complex combinations of actions by different people; for example, an espionage action might require contacting several, unrelated agents through intermediaries. Regency
> provides a convenient way to gloss over the myriad actions and effort and uses of favors and influence that are required by rulership.<

Which is unfortunate since this also detracts from the role-playing
experience. I think regency should stress more the personal, heroic
endeavours a regent performs, rather than having others do the work for
the regent.

> Regency requires a bloodline because the connection to the land is the most important aspect of BR Regency. Cerilia is a land that breathes magic; Bloodlines allow the user to tap this magic and perform better as a ruler than an unblooded individual could.<

Actually I disagree with your first statement precisely *because* of
your next statements. I'm very much a fan of characters being a
reflection of their personal bloodlines (or visa versa) and, because of
this, neither regency nor the manifestation of this (connection) ought
to be the focus of the game. Rather, a *personality* ought to be the
focus. Thus, the Roeles were Hero-Kings precisely *because* their
natures reflected the very virtues of leader and kingship, which is
reflected in the strength of their bloodlines. Conversely, the Gorgon
is so despised because of WHO he is, and WHAT HE REPRESENTS, that gives
him a popular and well-known bloodline, and not what he has in power.
In other words, a regent is special because of *who* she is and what she
*represents*, rather than because she comes from a certain gifted
segment of the population.

This is why I think *anyone* who represents the traits displayed by the
various bloodlines ought to be a regent, or have the capability to be
one if they chose; needless to say, after my revelation from Tim's
sermon on regency, I am a born again 'land's choice' regency man! :D
Now IMC I say that bloodlines and regency really comes solely from the
land - Aebrynis, and not the gods as everyone in Cerilia believes it to
be. Now, Aebrynis chooses those destined to rule despite the wishes of
mere mortal or immortal machinations.

Bloodlines ought only to add distinction, or specialness, to an already
special group of individuals - player characters! And because of this,
should not detract from the game - a ROLE-PLAYING, not *power-gaming*
game, if you'll excuse my emphasis.

> An unblooded individual might be crowned king in BR, but he would collect no regency; he may be able to cause actions similar to those that cost RP to happen, like he would do in another world, but this would be much less effective compared to what a blooded regent could accomplish with RP.<

Now I have never understood why anyone ought to be excluded from
effectively running a kingdom, even because the rules state that
not-withstanding. I have always maintained that having a bloodline does
not necessarily make one any smarter, wiser, or a better ruler. In
fact, I would bet good money that there are a lot of commoners out there
in Cerilia who *would* make better rulers than blooded people, if only
that they (in game terms) get more experience! Whatever the case, I
suppose, the current rules are sufficient with the introduction of the
Land's Choice DM fiat, so those traditionalists of the old school of BR
needn't worry.

Anyway, I'll get off my favourite soapbox now.