Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61
  1. #21
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    I would note that, even in D&D, it should still be possible to be head of a church without being a clerical spell-caster i.e. a 'priest'. Most organisations are run by bureaucrats of one form or another not the 'techies' afterall.

    Although priestly magic is an obvious sign of the god's favour, I can see a regent of another class (so long as they are outwardly pious) being able to rule as the high priest without a problem as long as they are 'gifted' in some way - a strong bloodline or high oratory skill being obvious candidates) - they may of course have difficulty with great captain rolls...

    I would note on democracy that it is quite possible to have a half-way house between oligarchy and democracy i.e. votes only by select groups i.e. men, land-owners, those who have served in the military, members of a specific ethnic caste, the rich, etc. As long as this group can control the rest of the population by one means or another the system can be very stable.

    As regards Feudal govts and the power of the nobles, I think that the Green knight designed a 'manor' type of holding to represent the collection of lands owned by nobles, although I don't know details. I would note that certainly in the UK the nobles tended to be the rich - and the rich always have ways of making their displeasure known.

    I would add one more line to Mr Anderson's comments on the state religion - the position where the religion cannot own land without permission of a noble (loosely the position of the church of England after Henry confiscated the church assets), although this may sound difficult to square with a theocracy,
    the church can still have very strong power without nominally owning anything - if the nobles own the land only by the grace of the church, and the church can withdraw that grace, then the church doesn't actually need to own the land to effectively control it.

  2. #22
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    I am not looking for variations on a theme (paladins, pious whatever). I am asking a fundamental constitutional question. Let me phrase this in a negative way. What would be sufficient to bar a player from inheriting or obtaining the throne of either Medoere or Talinie in the regular way. If theocracy or magocracy mean anything (other than merely describing the class of the current occupant of the throne) they must identify who has the real power in a realm. Every realm has a church which can express its displeasure. Making that statement in a domain summary is useless verbage. What should be included in a summary are the things that are different from other realms.

    Example:
    On page 20 of the Sjordvik PS, it says
    The monarch [...]has the right to name a successor, but the freemen must ratify the choice in provincial assemblies.
    So here there is a democratic limit on the king's power. This page is full of constitutional descriptions of what the king can do and what the people can do. So a good decription of the realm identifies a democratic componant to the realm (among others).

    Can the priests of the NIT or RCS excercise the same bar over who becomes the next ruler of Talinie or Medoere seperatly from their own holdings. Again, its terribly obvious to say that someone in the NIT has some say in who becomes leader of the NIT. The question is, do they contol what happens in Talinie.

    If they have constitutional powers (even if unwritten and traditional) which go well beyond influence and are palpable, I can see calling a state a theocracy. Otherwise you just have a special way of saying those guys are influential, as if everyone with a pile of holdings isn't influential.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    aberdeen, scotland
    Posts
    282
    Downloads
    131
    Uploads
    0
    I was looking at it a lot like you kqauck on a large scale from the serf to the lord and everything in between. I have started making some notes not in any order about the feudal system and udal system. I was looking at getting some sort of basic description about the underpinnings of each system and then specific examples as in the structure of a kingdom of each type, a fief of each type and a few special examples. I will have to look at other institutes such as parliments and lord councils as well.

    This is some of my notes which I have on the computer and not paper on the feudal system so far but it is far from finished notes.

    Birthright societies:

    Feudal society:

    Feudalism refers to a general set of reciprocal legal and military obligations among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals, and fiefs.

    A vassal is someone who enters into mutual obligations with a lord usually of military support and mutual protection. There are two main types of vassal those who are granted fiefs and those who enter the lord’s service and house for example household knights or peasant staff.

    In order to make a man his vassal a commendation ceremony that comprised of the two-part act of homage and the oath of fealty was held. During homage, the vassal would promise to fight for the lord at his command.

    Both the lord and his vassal would agree a series of obligations to each other.
    Common obligations for the lord include the adequate maintenance of the fief granted to the vassal.

    Common obligations for the vassal include military service from himself and depending on the agreement often a number of other men, ships or money. The vassal sometimes had to fulfil other obligations to the lord. One of those obligations was to provide the lord with counsel, so that if the lord faced a major decision he could summon all his vassals and hold a council. The vassal will also agree to pay his lords taxes.

    Vassalage extends to the serfs or peasants who usually swear to give military service and labour in return for land or employment. The vassalage of peasants is called serfdom. Serfdom is the forced labour of serfs, on the fields of land owners, in return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields. Serfdom involved work not only on fields, but almost any other work for example like forestry or crafts.

    Fiefs can vary in size from a farm to a great area that covers much of a realm and are almost always temporary although it is frequently the case that they are passed from one generation to the next in a family. A fief can further be separated into more fiefs. For example the king may grant a large area to a duke, who then grants a number of areas to barons who grant more land to those beneath them. The king did not grant all his land to dukes but would grant fiefs to those at all different stations. The lord-vassal relationship was not restricted to members of the Nobility; religious orders , guilds or freemen, for example, were also capable of acting as lords in some realms.

    As well as lord, vassal and serf there is a fourth class of men called freeborn or freemen. How freemen come about varies depending on the realm in which they exist. It is common for skilled craftsmen to be freemen and this makes good sense they are wealthier than other serfs and they are more useful where they are so they are not going to be asked for military service.

    Allodial land is land that is separate from the feudal system. While there may be little tax and no obligation attached to allodial land a lord or king is not obligated to protect it in any way.

    In some realms you can only be a vassal to one person while in others you can be a vassal to many and it is possible for someone to hold lands in many different realms.

    Variants:

    Absolute feudal system

    In an absolute feudal system all the land and everything in or on it belongs to the king there are no truly freemen and everyone is in effect a serf of the king.

    Strong feudal system

    In a strong feudal system the king controls almost all the land but it is possible for men to be freeborn and to own their own allodial land even if it is rare. Freemen tend to be professional soldiers and skilled craftsmen. The children of freemen are born free and the children of serfs are born serfs. There is little social movement.

    Weak feudal system

    A weak feudal system will still have some of the trapping of feudal law. There will be a king or other ruler but the king will have little land and as a large portion of it is allodial. Freemen are much more common and may outnumber serfs. Fiefs may belong as much to their lord as to the king and he may not be able to redistribute the land.

    Loose feudal system

    A loose feudal system does not have the same detailed land rights/records as other feudal systems although the king will usually still own all the land and people in the land. Territories are granted by a king to a chieftain or other lord with the understanding that they will pay a certain amount of tax and supply a force of men much like other feudal systems. The king has little more control than that in many ways and it is often found in large semi agrarian nations with low populations. The king will usually grant someone control of the lands in which they are already resident as well as the other people there but if the area is disloyal or has other problems an outsider may be granted the land.

    Birthright variants and examples:

    An example of an absolute feudal system may have been the roeles in early anuirian history and their rights over anuire.

    Strong feudal systems are the most common system found in anuire. Boeruine is a good example.

    The goblin realm in anuire is a good loose feudal system. Insecure with a clan system and poor central authority the king grants land to different goblin lords and tribes. The king will often grant a tribe from one province control of another province to keep the tribes divided and attention focused away from him.
    MORNINGSTAR

  4. #24
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck
    If they have constitutional powers (even if unwritten and traditional) which go well beyond influence and are palpable, I can see calling a state a theocracy. Otherwise you just have a special way of saying those guys are influential, as if everyone with a pile of holdings isn't influential.
    But by saying constitutional then you technically eliminate monarchy (except for maybe a constitutional monarchy) and the Vos have no written language so what constitution?

    Medoere is granted its very existence from Rournil.

    Ariya has the prince-paladin, which has been in existance for at least 43 successive rulers (per the Player's Secrets of Ariya).

    pg 19 of the Player's Secrrets of Medoere

    "Medoere is a theocracy insteaad of a monarchy. This means that the highest political authority in the realm is the church - specifically, the Church of Ruornil's Celestial Spell."

    "Under the law of Medoere, everyone is considered equal - noble and commoner, believer in Ruornil and nonbeliever alike."

    "The highest position in the theocracy is that of Celestial Archpriest, a rank that must be held by the regent if Medoere is to continue as a theocracy."

    "The grand curate, a position always held by an invested priest, serves as the prime minister of the realm."
    Duane Eggert

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    California, near LA. (Mo
    Posts
    143
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    A player can take control of the land of Medeore, yes. He can be invested,
    be the official ruler, and all of the provinces and holdings of Ruornil`s
    Celestial Spell even though he is not a priest. He can not, however, gain
    regency points for the temple holdings under his control. To accomplish
    this, he will need a priest to run the temples and have this priest (or
    group of priests) swear fealty to him under an oath of vassalage. This
    creates a situation very similiar to the Dune setup I references earlier,
    where a theocratic agency is governed by the state ruler and decisions are
    made under consensus (or will of the emperor, in that book).

    Let`s take another scenario. The player taking control IS a priest, but
    belongs to a different faith. What problems does this provide?

    I think this would be too big of an issue to just houserule away, but we can
    rationalize any law holdings under the new regent`s control to represent
    poltiical influence, popular appeal, or any other influence he would need to
    convert the state religion. Any unfilled holding slots, any law holdings
    owned by other regents, or any law holdings that get reduced or contested,
    can likely be interpreted as a challenge to the new state faith and the
    presence of radical fundamentalist of the underground suppressed faith
    working within the theocracy`s borders.

    I absolutely love the last statement in the paragraph quoted below, by the
    way.



    On 12/12/06, kgauck <brnetboard@birthright.net> wrote:
    >
    > This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
    > You can view the entire thread at:
    > http://www.birthright.net/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=3264
    >
    > kgauck wrote:
    > I am not looking for variations on a theme (paladins, pious whatever). I
    > am asking a fundamental constitutional question. Let me phrase this in a
    > negative way. What would be sufficient to bar a player from inheriting or
    > obtaining the throne of either Medoere or Talinie in the regular way. If
    > theocracy or magocracy mean anything (other than merely describing the class
    > of the current occupant of the throne) they must identify who has the real
    > power in a realm. Every realm has a church which can express its
    > displeasure. Making that statement in a domain summary is useless
    > verbage. What should be included in a summary are the things that are
    > different from other realms.
    >
    >

  6. #26
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck
    I am not looking for variations on a theme (paladins, pious whatever). I am asking a fundamental constitutional question. Let me phrase this in a negative way. What would be sufficient to bar a player from inheriting or obtaining the throne of either Medoere or Talinie in the regular way. If theocracy or magocracy mean anything (other than merely describing the class of the current occupant of the throne) they must identify who has the real power in a realm. Every realm has a church which can express its displeasure. Making that statement in a domain summary is useless verbage. What should be included in a summary are the things that are different from other realms.
    Per the Player's Secrets of Medoere it is not possible to have the highest office without being the archpriest and the 2nd highest office is held by a priest regent and the highest political authority in Medoere is the RCS.

    Is it actually possible to be the regent of Medoere without being the archpriest? Yes.

    But that is the same as the question is it possible to be the regent of the Imperial City without being the High Chamberlain or is it possible to be the regent of Tuarhievel without being accepted by the Thorn Throne? The answer to all is yes.

    But in each case it would involve drastically chaning the lands political structure - pretty much the same as conquering it. Which means that no political structure is inherently permanent in the setting (which is most definitely true but has nothing to do with the legitimacy of each style of government).

    Medoere is a new domain, it is in its first generation of existence. So having a long standing "tradition" to fall back on is non-existent.
    Duane Eggert

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    124
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Just a note on Theocratic govt: in Talinie it is
    actually set up in the Player`s Secrets that Torias
    Greine (sp?) runs the day to day affairs for the
    church as High Priest while the Thane is more directly
    in charge of the temporal Govt. Torias isn`t blooded,
    so it technically means he doesn`t control the church,
    only looks after it for a (possibly) non-religious (ie
    spellcasting) monarch.


    Anthony Edwards

    --- Andrew Tall <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:
    > I would note that, even in D&D, it should still be
    > possible to be head of a church without being a
    > clerical spell-caster i.e. a `priest`. Most
    > organisations are run by bureaucrats of one form or
    > another not the `techies` afterall.
    >
    > Although priestly magic is an obvious sign of the
    > god`s favour, I can see a regent of another class
    > (so long as they are outwardly pious) being able to
    > rule as the high priest without a problem as long as
    > they are `gifted` in some way - a strong bloodline
    > or high oratory skill being obvious candidates) -
    > they may of course have difficulty with great
    > captain rolls...
    >
    > I would note on democracy that it is quite possible
    > to have a half-way house between oligarchy and
    > democracy i.e. votes only by select groups i.e. men,
    > land-owners, those who have served in the military,
    > members of a specific ethnic caste, the rich, etc.
    > As long as this group can control the rest of the
    > population by one means or another the system can be
    > very stable.
    >
    > As regards Feudal govts and the power of the nobles,
    > I think that the Green knight designed a `manor`
    > type of holding to represent the collection of lands
    > owned by nobles, although I don`t know details. I
    > would note that certainly in the UK the nobles
    > tended to be the rich - and the rich always have
    > ways of making their displeasure known.
    >
    > I would add one more line to Mr Anderson`s comments
    > on the state religion - the position where the
    > religion cannot own land without permission of a
    > noble (loosely the position of the church of England
    > after Henry confiscated the church assets), although
    > this may sound difficult to square with a theocracy,
    >
    > the church can still have very strong power without
    > nominally owning anything - if the nobles own the
    > land only by the grace of the church, and the church
    > can withdraw that grace, then the church doesn`t
    > actually need to own the land to effectively control
    > it.



    __________________________________________________ __________________________________
    Want to start your own business?
    Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
    http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index

  8. #28
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    The reason I objected to Theocracy originally is that it should only be used when rule by priest is a constitutional imperitive. I know what the Talinie and Medoere PS say, that's not the question. The real question here is "is the at start condition of a given domain a fixed condition?"

    Part of this, I think, involves when players take over realms. I always prefered to run around for a while as heirs and aspirants to titles, before doing great things and getting the titles for yourself. In such a situtation, the constitution has become a part of the game setting and changing it requires role play.

    But the original game included ideas that were much more starting from scratch. Even to include customizing your own domain. Is all that out the window even if a campaign is starting with a PC as a ruler somewhere?

    That is to say, are we describing "pre-existing domain[s] with all of the assets and liabilities (detailed in the Ruins of Empire sourcebook" (p. 95 2E rulebook, emphasis my own) and leaving it up to players and DM to find their own way, possibly with the assistance of a little guide like the domain appendix on p 95-96 of the original rules?

    If this is so, I hope that advocates for this position will reflect a bit on whether this is the best way to proceed, and not just cling to this positioin because they assumed it would be done this way.

    I kind of assumed a bit more of a blank slate for what would be presented, but I am flexible if we want to detail all the little peculiarites of every realm.

    However, along those lines, we need to purge idiotic lines like "Under the law of Medoere, everyone is considered equal - noble and commoner, believer in Ruornil and nonbeliever alike." That's obviously contradicted by the restrictions on government office, the RCS is not equal under the law, it requires the state to privledge its position. If the One True Church of Vosgaard started up holdings would the ruler's law holdings be barred from providing a bonus to contest checks because of the equality of non-belivers?

    Its much better to say the law of Medoere is tolerant of unbelivers. The stuff about commoners and nobles just makes no sense in a game with bloodlines and the rest. Obviously non of the authors had given any thought to what that would really look like in practice.

  9. #29
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Suris Enlien: Greetings, good laborer
    Dennis: Please don’t refer to me that way
    Suris: Well - I can't just say: "Hey, Man!'
    Dennis: Well you could say: "Dennis"
    Suris: I didn't know you were called Dennis.
    Dennis: You didn't bother to find out, did you?
    Suris: I’m sorry about that.
    Dennis: What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior ...
    Suris: Well ... I AM Celestial Archpriest.
    Dennis: Oh, very nice. Celestial Archpriest, eh! I expect you've got a palace and fine clothes and courtiers and plenty of food. And how d'you get that? By exploiting the workers! By hanging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the social and economic differences in our society! If there's EVER going to be any progress ...

    an old woman appears.
    Old Woman: Dennis! There's some lovely filth down here ... Oh! how d'you do?
    Suris: How d'you do, good lady ... I am Suris Enlien Celestial Archpriest and regent of Medoere ... can you tell me who lives in that castle?
    Old Woman: Arch WHAT of the WHO?
    Suris: Celestial Archpriest of Ruornil’s Celestial Spell and regent of Medoere
    Old Woman: I don’t know what any of that is.
    Suris: All of us are ... we are all Medoereans and when the moon shines its grace on us we all may know the guidance of Ruornil.
    DENNIS winks at the OLD WOMAN.
    Suris: ... and I am your regent ....
    Old Woman: Ooooh! I didn't know we had a regent. I thought we were an autonomous collective ...
    Dennis: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes ...
    Old Woman: There you are, bringing class into it again ...
    Dennis: That's what it's all about ... If only -
    Suris: Please, please good people. I am in haste. What knight lives in that castle?
    Old Woman: No one live there.
    Suris: Well, who is your lord?
    Old Woman: We don't have a lord.
    Suris: What?
    Dennis: I told you, We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune, we take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
    Suris: Yes.
    Dennis: ... But all the decision of that officer ...
    Suris: Yes, I see.
    Dennis: ... must be approved at a bi-weekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs.
    Suris: Be quiet!
    Dennis: ... but a two-thirds majority ...
    Suris: Be quiet! I order you to shut up.
    Old Woman: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
    Suris: I am your Celestial Archpriest and the regent of Medoere!
    Old Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.
    Suris: You don't vote for the Celestial Archpriest.
    Old Woman: Well, how did you become archpriest then?
    Suris: The God of the Moon, in a vision to me appreared clad in the purest shimmering samite, spoke to me and declared me his Sacred Voice and gave me charge by his authority that by Divine Providence ... that I, Suris Enlien, was to bring peace to Medoere and security for the followers of Ruornil ... That is why I am your regent!
    Old Woman: Is Frank in? He'd be able to deal with this one.
    Dennis: Look, strange midnight visions wherein the moon gives you a crown ... that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical lunar ceremony.
    Suris: Be quiet!
    Dennis: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause you stayed up to late and got delirious.
    Suris: Shut up!
    Dennis: I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some astronomical bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!
    Suris: (Grabbing him by the collar) Shut up, will you. Shut up!
    Dennis: Ah! NOW ... we see the violence inherent in the system.
    Suris: Shut up!
    PEOPLE (i.e. other PEASANTS) are appearing and watching.
    Dennis: Come and see the violence inherent in the system. Help, help, I'm being repressed!
    Suris: (aware that people are now coming out and watching) Bloody peasant! (pushes DENNIS over into mud and prepares to ride off)
    Dennis: Oh, Did you hear that! What a give-away. Did you see him repressing me, then? That's what I've been on about ...

  10. #30
    Birthright Developer irdeggman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia
    Posts
    3,945
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck
    The reason I objected to Theocracy originally is that it should only be used when rule by priest is a constitutional imperitive. I know what the Talinie and Medoere PS say, that's not the question. The real question here is "is the at start condition of a given domain a fixed condition?"

    Part of this, I think, involves when players take over realms. I always prefered to run around for a while as heirs and aspirants to titles, before doing great things and getting the titles for yourself. In such a situtation, the constitution has become a part of the game setting and changing it requires role play.
    I don't think the "at start condition of a given domain a fixed condition" matters at all.

    What I meant was that it is absolutely necessary to recognize theocracy as a government type. Since there are several documented in the setting infor (at the start) and there are definitely means for a priest PC to take over a realm and make it one.

    It shouldn't matter how the domain became a theocracy or whether or not it remains one, but that while it is one the way government works is different than for a monarchy or other types.

    In Birthright all government types are transistory and that is the nature of the game - conquering and expansion.
    Duane Eggert

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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.