Results 1 to 6 of 6
Thread: Law Holdings vs Loyalty
-
04-29-1997, 11:09 PM #1Ian HoskinsGuest
Law Holdings vs Loyalty
On 29-Apr-97, TSRRich@aol.com set out across the seas with this message:
- ->Actually, the rule about law holdings and loyalty changes are there to help
- ->out the bad guys. Why should the Gorgon have to rule by popular consent? The
- ->rules give him the ability to have his troops enforce his will throughout
the
- ->land, and the DM has a perfect rules explanation for why the black-clad
- ->soldiers make the unhappy townspeople keep paying their taxes.
Suprisingly the one evil PC in my campaign was the only one who levied
resonable taxes on his people. He did so to keep the people happy while the
suposed good characters burdened their people with severe taxes as soon as
they controlled all the law levels in their kingdoms.
One of my players is regent of Medoere and with his temple holdings and the
severe taxes he has managed to gather together a massive army and is way more
powerful than he should be. So I changed the rules about law holdings and
loyalty changes slightly so that after a few turns of severe taxes they
started rebelling.
I still use the rules as attended for the evil realm, after all the people
there are used to the actions of their regent. For the Gorgon's kingdoms most
of the people under his control are goblins and Orogs and are used to the
harsh rules he places on his followers.
But for realms that are supposedly goodly, and regent who are supposed to act
good toward the people (mainly my players) I have changed them to keep them a
little bit more under control.
- --
Darkstar
e-Mail: hoss@box.net.au
Home Page: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss/index.html
Page updates: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss/update.html
From the Darkness we came
And to the Darkness we must return.
-
04-30-1997, 09:31 AM #2Diana L. PaxsonGuest
Law Holdings vs Loyalty
In response to Darkstar (30-Apr-97) & He Who Spoke Before:
> On 29-Apr-97, TSRRich@aol.com set out across the seas with this message:
>
> ->Actually, the rule about law holdings and loyalty changes are there to help
> ->out the bad guys. Why should the Gorgon have to rule by popular consent? The
> ->rules give him the ability to have his troops enforce his will throughout
> the
> ->land, and the DM has a perfect rules explanation for why the black-clad
> ->soldiers make the unhappy townspeople keep paying their taxes.
>
> Suprisingly the one evil PC in my campaign was the only one who levied
> resonable taxes on his people. He did so to keep the people happy while the
> suposed good characters burdened their people with severe taxes as soon as
> they controlled all the law levels in their kingdoms.
> One of my players is regent of Medoere and with his temple holdings and the
> severe taxes he has managed to gather together a massive army and is way more
> powerful than he should be. So I changed the rules about law holdings and
> loyalty changes slightly so that after a few turns of severe taxes they
> started rebelling.
> I still use the rules as attended for the evil realm, after all the people
> there are used to the actions of their regent. For the Gorgon's kingdoms most
> of the people under his control are goblins and Orogs and are used to the
> harsh rules he places on his followers.
> But for realms that are supposedly goodly, and regent who are supposed to act
> good toward the people (mainly my players) I have changed them to keep them a
> little bit more under control.
>
> --
> Darkstar
I'm of the opinion that the systems of Alignment and Domain Maintenance
help in evening the odds for would-be hero-gone-conquerers.
1) If a "good" regent is regularly abusing his people with heavy taxes
and sending them off to die in wars against neiboring kingdoms, his/her
alignment should come into question. A forced Alignment shift could
severly mess with the straying hero if their a Paladin, Ranger or Priest
(Gods tend to take a dim vew of High Priests who abuse their station).
Even if ones class is not affected, allies formerly frendly may remove
their support to those they feel they can no longer trust (to the extent
that they could even join with the opposition out of fear for their
safty!)
2) Maintaining large Armies gets increadably expensive. Unless you have
a lot of cash, the Maintenance Cost will bankrupt your kingdom in no
time. Even if you've got $ to burn, letting your neibors know your
filthy rich and "evil" enough to invade them is a good way to make the
more greedy-minded willing to invade you while your armies are
plundering elswhere...
later...
- --
Grendel Tod
-
05-03-1997, 02:42 PM #3DarkstarGuest
Law Holdings vs Loyalty
Brian Stoner wrote:
> One of my players established a level 0 guild holding and then established a
> trade route to the city of Anuire. This now brings in 7gb a turn and helps
> support the military. Unfortunately, that character died and the player now
> plays a character unrealated to his other, but the realm still brings in
> extra cash. I though it was a brilliant move. It helped that none of the
> established guilds opposed him.
Of course if the 0 level holding had been contested by even one of the
guilds in Anuire City then that holding would have been destroyed and
with it would go the trade route.
- --
Darkstar
e-Mail: hoss@box.net.au
Home Page: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss
Page Updates: http://www.box.net.au/~hoss/update.html
>From the Darkness we came.
And to the Darkness we will return.
-
05-03-1997, 09:27 PM #4Cec StaceyGuest
Law Holdings vs Loyalty
> Brian Stoner wrote:
>
> > One of my players established a level 0 guild holding and then
established a
> > trade route to the city of Anuire. This now brings in 7gb a turn and
helps
> > support the military.
Shouldn't that be divided in half between the lvl 0 guild and the guild in
the Imperial city?
.
-
05-04-1997, 03:21 AM #5Brian StonerGuest
Law Holdings vs Loyalty
At 06:27 PM 5/3/97 -0300, you wrote:
>
>
>> Brian Stoner wrote:
>>
>> > One of my players established a level 0 guild holding and then
>established a
>> > trade route to the city of Anuire. This now brings in 7gb a turn and
>helps
>> > support the military.
>
>Shouldn't that be divided in half between the lvl 0 guild and the guild in
>the Imperial city?
>.
I believe that the income is based on the average of the Province levels,
not the guild levels. The route is from Caercas, Roesone (4) to The City
(10). And thus the average would be 7.
- -Brian
-
05-04-1997, 05:12 AM #6UndertakerGuest
Law Holdings vs Loyalty
At 08:21 PM 5/3/97 -0700, Brian Stoner(bstoner@efn.org)wrote:
>
>I believe that the income is based on the average of the Province levels,
>not the guild levels. The route is from Caercas, Roesone (4) to The City
>(10). And thus the average would be 7.
>
I perfer basing TR income on Guild levels. It seems more sensable, and helps
keep GBs under control. Particularly if they have to split the profit with
another Guild. But thats just MHO.
Undertaker, richt@metrolink.net
"War is a matter of vital importance to the State;
the province of life or death;
the road to survival or ruin.
It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied."
-Sun Tzu,(The Art of War)-
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
stabilization (was Holdings Loyalty)
By Birthright-L in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 2Last Post: 04-25-2002, 06:34 AM -
Holdings Loyalty
By geeman in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 2Last Post: 04-24-2002, 03:06 PM -
War & loyalty
By Memnoch in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 01-15-1999, 04:19 AM -
War & loyalty
By Kenneth Gauck in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 01-15-1999, 03:49 AM -
Lah Holdings vs Loyalty
By L.Willett in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 3Last Post: 04-29-1997, 03:24 PM
Bookmarks