I simply have one final jab at those who are COMPLETELY against Unblooded
Regents, and think it is a STUPID idea.

Heres a little story.

A thief named Davan had a little 3 year old boy. He had a 16 charisma, and
was very well liked. One day, as he
was one of the Guild Leaders (he was blooded) Leutenants, he was invested
during the Guild Leaders final moments.
15 years pass by. The 3 year old grows up around all the Guildsmen, and is
well liked as the Guild leaders (still unblooded)
son. He is also the heir to the guild, as his son.

One day, Davan kicks the bucket unexpectedly, before he can invest his
bloodline in his son. The son is heir, and becomes the leader of the

I want to know if those of you people who say that NO WAY a person can have
regency think that:

This son could not set up a FREAKING TRADE ROUTE (1 GB, and ****1 RP****)
before he was slaughtered (in your ideas)
just because he didnt have blood, even though he was well-liked as the son
of a regent. He obviously couldn't set up a trade
route without a regency point.

What kind of tie does a Guild merchant have to the land?

It is absurd to think that the rules restrict some people so much as to
outlaw a move like this.

Thanks for listening,
Daniel Perkin