Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    124
    Downloads
    9
    Uploads
    0

    Law holding mechanical alternatives

    I've recently re-read Ruins of Empire and it struck me how in the write up for Elinie, Coeranys and a lesser extent Mhoried and Roesone's regents purposefully don't rule up their law holdings too much as they and/or their people oppose heavy handed rule.

    The mechanics however benefit regents to rule up law holdings as it allows them to generate more wealth, regency and ignore domain attitude changes. If one plays with the optional build rule for units, the benefits are further compounded. I can certainly see this is as a sort of different perspective on how best to rule other than interpretation based on alignment. i.e. a lawful evil regent's law holdings would be more oppressive than say a lawful good regent and so forth. As it stands, there's no mechanical reason other than keeping reserve cash and regency from ruling up holdings.


    One idea I've come to consider are potentially removing the ignore domain attitude changes for controlling 50%/100% of law as the BR 3.0/3.5 rules have done away with taxation levels which were the major driving force behind attitude changes. Having a higher level of law would already represent that increased taxation as law holdings now generate income on their own. That said, I'm reluctant to give a benefit to domain attitude for having low number of holdings because it might seem like it places value of Freedom over Security and a strong government or conversely imposing penalties for maxing out law.


    Another would be modifiers on handling random domain events but I've been able to argue both sides of the coin so have a hard time deciding where one might be better over the other.


    Has anyone come up with any solutions or suggestions on how having a realm with light law holdings might be beneficial?

  2. #2
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    I find that it is better to disregard the silly notion that some realm rules do not want to fill their law to capacity. I think whoever wrote that bit confused a lack of law holdings with the fact that 'law' can be many different things, not just the king's royal service or the iron-handed fist of oppression.
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  3. #3
    Administrator Green Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,018
    Downloads
    20
    Uploads
    0
    Example: The law of the Mhor is quite different from the law of Ghoere. The former promotes fairness and freedom, while still collecting taxes and keeping the peace. Mr. Tael's law is somewhat more heavy-handed.
    Cheers
    Bjørn
    DM of Ruins of Empire II PbeM

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    124
    Downloads
    9
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Knight View Post
    Example: The law of the Mhor is quite different from the law of Ghoere. The former promotes fairness and freedom, while still collecting taxes and keeping the peace. Mr. Tael's law is somewhat more heavy-handed.
    Oh I'm very aware of the interpretation on the flavour of the law based on the domain's alignment and did allude to it in my original post. My question was borne more out of a curiosity in trying to offer alternative realm management styles for characters and my players other than: "max out holdings".

  5. #5
    Member Michael Romes's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Rhineland-Palatinate
    Posts
    71
    Downloads
    22
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Knight View Post
    I find that it is better to disregard the silly notion that some realm rules do not want to fill their law to capacity. I think whoever wrote that bit confused a lack of law holdings with the fact that 'law' can be many different things, not just the king's royal service or the iron-handed fist of oppression.
    While a law holding may be a lot of different things - royal taxcollectors and sheriff´s vs. organized crimed vs. Robin Hood´s Men and their way to achieve something be different,
    the purpose is the same.

    Law claims against other regents holdings, Control of the law in the land, better organized tax collection and the ability to tax higher without the risk of rebellion.

    A regent who does not believe in taxing everyone and everything in his realm, who would not want to alienate neighbours by law claims or simply thinks that people have to rely on their own traditions without being told by the law whatever they should or should not do, might from a philosophical point of view restrain himself from raising law holdings to the maximum in all provinces.

    Yes, that is a disadvantage considering the rules and yes, that allows rivals to step in and create a beachhead for competition and usually players will tend to max out their holdings to prevent that and strenghten their position.

    But it is still a valid point fromt he original game that a regent might not want to rule into the last village of the forests of his realm and just create enough law to be able to pursue his agenda without craving more control.

    A chaotic good regent taking full control by the establishement of a bureaucrazy / organized banditry that is able to tax /raid the sale of every chicken´s egg on distant village markets is a contradiction in itself.
    Last edited by Michael Romes; 05-01-2021 at 03:22 PM.
    Michael Romes

  6. #6
    Senior Member Osprey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    1,475
    Downloads
    34
    Uploads
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Romes View Post
    While a law holding may be a lot of different things - royal taxcollectors and sheriff´s vs. organized crimed vs. Robin Hood´s Men and their way to achieve something be different,
    the purpose is the same.

    Law claims against other regents holdings, Control of the law in the land, better organized tax collection and the ability to tax higher without the risk of rebellion.

    A regent who does not believe in taxing everyone and everything in his realm, who would not want to alienate neighbours by law claims or simply thinks that people have to rely on their own traditions without being told by the law whatever they should or should not do, might from a philosophical point of view restrain himself from raising law holdings to the maximum in all provinces.

    Yes, that is a disadvantage considering the rules and yes, that allows rivals to step in and create a beachhead for competition and usually players will tend to max out their holdings to prevent that and strenghten their position.

    But it is still a valid point fromt he original game that a regent might not want to rule into the last village of the forests of his realm and just create enough law to be able to pursue his agenda without craving more control.

    A chaotic good regent taking full control by the establishement of a bureaucrazy / organized banditry that is able to tax /raid the sale of every chicken´s egg on distant village markets is a contradiction in itself.
    I always play it (as a DM) that many regents want full control of their Law for control when needed (like keeping out bandits and dickish neighbors), but aggressive Law Collections are actually rare unless the regent is oppressive and bullying by nature, or is targeting a guild or temple they really don't like (often one in their own land).
    The other time is collections on land by foreign law regents - that's where the actual banditry happens. Darien Avan and Aeric Boeruine are probably big bandit supporters at times, or bribe rival lawmen for similar effect. Guilders with Law holdings are the other ones who would level Law collections, making crime pay!

  7. #7
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    A lot depends on whether you have 'unclaimed' law (or whichever) holdings as non-existent or not, I tend to see ruling up a holding as organising/centralising existing stuff rather than as creating it.

    So if a L3 province in Mhoried has only one L1 law holding, that doesn't mean that there is less 'law' going on than if it had 3, just that 2 levels-worth of it are spread over large numbers of petty nobles rather than 'properly' focused on one.

    As a result I can see regents like the Mhor not taxing 'severely', and avoiding 'decree' actions, and so on, I wouldn't expect them not to rule up.

    I would also see the concept as covering a lot more than tax collectors vs. robin hood, I can see a sidhe law holding as just being an understanding that 'so and so deals with that sort of stuff' with no real formality at all, or a number of petty nobles knowing that the regent is wise/powerful/etc so being generally supportive without necessarily seeing themselves as subordinate - the GB/RP mechanics are deliberately vague so can cover 'doing favours' and so on as well as implying an actual flow of coin or support.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Bag of Holding
    By Arjan in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2011, 01:01 AM
  2. Holding
    By Sorontar in forum Main
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-22-2010, 03:44 AM
  3. Holding attack/defense Holding system
    By bbeau22 in forum BRCS 4th Edition
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 08-28-2008, 12:49 PM
  4. law holding
    By George Koch in forum Main
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-22-2007, 10:51 PM
  5. Alignment Alternatives
    By Osprey in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-16-2003, 07:01 PM

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.