For a real-world example, the ruler of England is the head of the
Church of England (unless I missed something along the way).

The BR rules represent an abstract view of the politics. A Fighter can
be the head of a Church, or of a Guild. S/he will not be as effective at it
as a Priest (in the first case) or a Rogue (in the second), because s/he
will not earn Regency from those holdings. A state-run Guild operation,
however, can be desirable just to supplement the Fighter regent's income. A
Temple can serve the same purpose, while also locking up slots that a Priest
regent might use to establish holdings and then agitate against the Fighter.
A Priest Lieutenant could use those Temples to cast the occasional Realm
spell, without the Fighter having to "sell his soul" to the Church for it.

Consider what a Wizard could do with a few Guilds in the populated part
of the country, while earning Regency from some Sources tucked away in the

Likewise, the Thief with a few Law Holdings. Suddenly, the view of Law
Claims as highway robbery can become literally true.


- -----Original Message-----
[]On Behalf Of Soviet
Sent: Monday, July 05, 1999 11:07 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Taxation extremely newbie question?

One more question:
If a fighter can collect from both guilds and temples:
I can see a fighter controlling a guild, but what about a temple?
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
with the line To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
with the line