Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61
  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    124
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Ahhh....good ol` Monty

    Always good for a laugh!

    But I agree totally...nobody is equal with everyone
    else in Medeore...and that is why Diemed needs to take
    back over so folks aren`t confused. LOL

    Anthony Edwards

    --- 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:
    > 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 outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the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 ...
    >
    >

    >
    > Birthright-l Archives:
    > http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    > To unsubscribe, send email to
    > LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
    >
    >




    __________________________________________________ __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
    http://new.mail.yahoo.com

  2. #32
    Senior Member ploesch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    182
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    Quite Entertaining KGauck.

    In Fantasy settings Priests wield real power granted to them by the gods. There isn't even as much a basis in BRCS for doubting the power comes from gods because mages are so rare. So even a non-believer wouldn't just dismiss the power of a priest out of hand.

    Also, look at the History of Medoere, people are still alive that witnessed what occured at the pass. They would know it was Rournil that made Medoere free.

    I tend to agree with you about wording of "all peoples are considered equal" however, it is a fair assesment for most of society in Medoere. Tolerant of non-believers carries a much different connotation, and I think would really change the flavor of how life in Medoere is perceived. To me tolerated sound like "Well, we don't kill them outright, but they better not get out of line", while the other says "we would prefer you to be one of the faithful, but if you choose not to you won't be treated any differently in legal cases".

    The other regents in Medoere are not part of the faith, and if the faith only "tolerated" the unfaithful then I don't think the other regents would be tolerated.
    When you play the game of thrones you win or you die.
    George R. R. Martin - A song of Ice and Fire

  3. #33
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    KGauck: The reason I objected to Theocracy originally is that it should only be used when rule by priest is a constitutional imperative. <snip> The real question here is "is the at start condition of a given domain a fixed condition?"

    Andrew Tall: I'm not sure if I'm disagreeing or just coming at it from a different perspective. To my mind if the population is sufficiently religious that the king will be deposed by rampaging fanatics if the high priest demands, then the realm is a theocracy regardless of the official constitution. Since any constitution is a construct of mortals rather than the divine the theocracy, to my mind, has no need of such a document if it is supported by a) the word of god and b) legions of peasants with pitchforks and flaming torches.

    If the law simply states that only a priest may own land, only a high priest can own more than 2000 acres or employ armed bodyguards, etc, then the realm may be legally be a theocracy, but in reality it's just the nobility in funny hats and can probably change quite from generation to generation easily.

    If it's what I would consider a theocracy - priestly control via moral imperatives - then it is going to be astoundingly hard to change the government - equivalent to getting the majority of the population to change their entire moral belief system.

    I hope that's a little clearer.

    KGauck: 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?

    Andrew:I definitely agree here and would take various nation and realm descriptions with a very liberal pinch of salt. I had Rjurik going aviking as the reason for Boruine, etc to stomp the Taelshore leading to its inclusion in the empire, and Basarji slavers being the excuse for the unlanded nobles of the next generation to invade the Basarji realms. Read the books and the Rjurik were quietly minding their own business when the Anuirean's invaded for no reason at all (a love for snow?) and similarly for the Basarji. I tend to see the books as a 'this is how we like to think of ourselves' spiel.

    KGauck: 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 privilege 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-believers?

    Andrew: 'one law for rich and poor alike to bar stealing bread and sleeping under bridges' is equality, so is 'legally we are you are both equal but he can afford a better lawyer'. Our current law certainly says everyone is equal, but happily mandates different punishments for crimes that differ primarily by who does them rather than severity.

    So the fact that ROE gaily trots out the 'equal in god's eyes' line is basically church propaganda - they are all equal as long as they accept the guidance of Ruornil as expressed via his faithful and abide by his very reasonable rules of conduct. If the population agrrees fervently then its the state that relies on the church to privilige it's position, not the other way around.

    I'm not sure that I’m disagreeing here, I think it's all in how you read it.

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

    Andrew: That depends how literally you take the temple 'nominated deity' descriptor, if you see temple holdings as more like the guilds - i.e. many businesses but one co-ordinating body that speaks on external matters - then it's quite possible to have priests of Haelyn, etc inside the Ruornil temple hierarchy. In a theocracy however I would have thought it would be harder to be high priest when from a 'junior' order. I would note that as regency reflects the respect etc, of the population the class should be irrelevant, I much prefer the 3.5 BRCS approach of skills, although it swings a bit too rapidly for my taste.

    KGauck: 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.

    Andrew: Perhaps I was excessively English at you.

    Example 1. Priest A of the state church expresses his displeasure with the king's tax policies in a pantheonistic realm on Monday, on tuesday priest B and his church is sworn in as the new state religion and solemnly proclaims the king defender of the faith. - Regardless of what the constitution says on rights of the church this is not a theocracy.

    Realm 2. Priest A expresses his displeasure on Monday, on Tuesday the king sees his nobles in arms about the peasants gathering to riot, begs forgiveness from priest A and offers penance in the form of 10,000gp, revocation of all rights of taxation over the priesthood, and the right of priests to administer church law over the faithful. - This otoh is a theocracy, again regardless of who is nominally in charge.

    Neither of these examples requires the church to own land, have a place in the feudal structure, or any formal constitution regarding the position of the priesthood. The difference is all dependant on how fervent the population is - some people see religion as the core, or indeed whole of their culture whereas others see it as just one part of their culture and tradition. That perspective of the general populace has far more impact on the real power of the faith than any legal constitution or official role.

    Again I'm not sure if I'm disagreeing with you here, I saw you as coming from a legalistic background whereas I think on reflection you are leaning more towards a description of the true as opposed to apparent power balance.

    I think that rather than simply saying 'a theocracy' the guides should refer to 'fundamentalist approach', 'fanatical believers', etc to be useful. I would see a useful description of Medoere therefore not as 'a theocracy' but as 'a realm of devout Rournites who in the most part came to these lands to worship the word of the moon god as expressed by his most faithful servant, her grace Suris Enlien'. A sprinkling of church teachings and comments about the interaction of the church on the nobility, business, etc could then fill out the detail on how it works in practice.

    Of course if the position of the church is not written in law the power will depend tremendously on the relative charisma's of the head of state and church (if distinct) with power swaying as the personalities at the top change. I.e. the PC's take over and find that while the old king could oppose the church with relative impunity they have far less leeway - or vice versa.

    Irdeggman: 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?

    Andrew: The Brits have had an 'unwritten' constitution for ages, it's what made it historically so hard to change. (Words can be re-interpreted or re-written pretty much at the whim of the current govt, to change ours you need to convince the general population, or at least the vocal one’s interested, to agree on what the constitution should be, herding cats leaps to mind). Obviously though some constitutions are taken more seriously than others.

    The Vos could easily therefore have a 'constitution' which demands right to a trial of strength, jury of peers etc, since they all recognise the code that they live by.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    124
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    To me, the important thing to remember is that the
    original intent of the setting was to allow one of
    three possible campaign types:

    1) Conquest and Government only; where players simply
    rule one of the domains with a regent and do no
    adventuring.

    2) As one above, but also with adventures thrown in
    here and there.

    3) Adventure only, with the setting only as a backdrop
    to characters and their adventures.

    Some aspects of each nation are needed for each of
    these scenerios; but it can still be left to the
    players what they will change. If someone wants to
    rule Medeore as a militaristic dictatorship, then
    simply incorporate it into the existing descriptions
    of the nation and the lands around. Ilien and Roesone
    would have to be explained away as to why they did not
    interfere in such a change since Medeore is their
    ally; as well as why Diemed didn`t either (or did if
    the new ruler was funded or supported somehow by
    Diemed).

    You can place "Concrete" definitions of each nation in
    a book, and this makes it useful as the information
    can be used or discarded at need...but leaving things
    out makes more work for the players to create and can
    take more time. Better to have things set out in the
    book and allow whoever is using it to do with it as
    they please.


    Anthony Edwards

    --- irdeggman <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET> wrote:

    > ------------ QUOTE ----------
    > 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.



    __________________________________________________ __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
    http://new.mail.yahoo.com

  5. #35
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by irdeggman
    What I meant was that it is absolutely necessary to recognize theocracy as a government type.
    Why? Why should this varient of oligarchy be privledged in this way? Why not Aristocracy, Gerontocracy, Kleptocracy, Meritocracy, Plutocracy, or Technocracy?

    Why is Medoere not an oligarchy in which there simply happen to be temple holdings and a priest in charge?

    If Medoere is called a theocracy, why isn't Endier a plutocracy, Rjuivik a kleptocracy, Avanil an aristocracy, and Rovninodensk a meritocracy?

    In Birthright all government types are transistory and that is the nature of the game - conquering and expansion.
    What exactly is the point of this statement. It would seem to be so obvious as to defy the need to actually state it, but since its here I must be missing its actual purpose.

  6. #36
    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
    Why? Why should this varient of oligarchy be privledged in this way? Why not Aristocracy, Gerontocracy, Kleptocracy, Meritocracy, Plutocracy, or Technocracy?

    Why is Medoere not an oligarchy in which there simply happen to be temple holdings and a priest in charge?
    With the extreme importance on the political side of religion in the setting there is a distinct purpose for a theocracy style of government.

    If Medoere is called a theocracy, why isn't Endier a plutocracy, Rjuivik a kleptocracy, Avanil an aristocracy, and Rovninodensk a meritocracy?
    Then why have any type of governments?

    Why any of these?

    Anarchy Province/Kingdom
    Autocratic Province/Kingdom
    Democratic Province/Kingdom
    Feudal Province/Kingdom
    Magocratic Province/Kingdom
    Theocratic Province/Kingdom
    Tribal Province/Kingdom
    Oligarchy Province/Kingdom
    Mixed Province/Kingdom

    They are different in one way or another from each other and so is a theocracy.


    What exactly is the point of this statement. It would seem to be so obvious as to defy the need to actually state it, but since its here I must be missing its actual purpose.
    Because you made of bringing up a constitution-based case for a government type. I tried to point out that since government change with rulers they are tied to the ruler and not a set of historic "laws" that can change with rulers.

    The point being that it is not necessarily the "history" of the domain that determines its government type but the present ruler which "typifies" it. Although a longer "history" generally means a more difficult time in changing government styles without a rebellion of some type.
    Duane Eggert

  7. #37
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    The catagories I favored took two things into consideration, how widely distributed was the power in a domain, and what shape that distribution took. The rest should be obvious from the other natural parts of a domain, such as the listed ruler and the types of holdings involved.

    At one point I thought you were building a pretty good argument about the historical weight of the past and the established constitutions

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

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

    "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."
    But then you dismiss your own mounting argument by saying

    Quote Originally Posted by irdeggman
    since government change with rulers they are tied to the ruler and not a set of historic "laws" that can change with rulers.

    The point being that it is not necessarily the "history" of the domain that determines its government type but the present ruler which "typifies" it.
    So I don't know why you want to recognize theocracy as a significant catagory only that you do.

    What I specifically don't want to do is use a lable to institutionalize and enshrine what are coincidenal and transitory phenomena. If the badge of office of Avanil is a red cap, that's worth mentioning. If you happened to see the prince wearing a red cap one day, that doesn't mean we say Avanil has a Red-cap-archy.

    Using a few clear catogories is simple and elegant. This suits a summary stat block for a realm far better than using words that need a lot of qualifiers, like its a theocracy because Suris wants it do be until she doesn't or it changes.

    Autocracy, oligarchy, democracy all establish how wide the power base is. It would be useful to identify is the power base is unified or distributed. That is do the oligarchs or the people come together at one place to express there will, such as in a Chamber of Masters or a Thing of all Halskapa, or whether there are many distributed centers of power, like each noble having considrable power in his own lands, or granting each town with a charter extinsive rights to govern on its own.

    Everything else is obvious when you identify the kinds of holdings involved and the class of the ruler.

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    California, near LA. (Mo
    Posts
    143
    Downloads
    0
    Uploads
    0
    In the end, what does this matter to the players, in your view?

    I mean, if my autocratoc/oligarchic/democratic regent wants to invade Diemed
    with 4 untis of archers and 2 units of infantry, than that`s what the
    autocracy/oligarchy/democracy is going to do, right? After all, I`m the
    damn regent and have got the bloodline and Regency points to back it up.

    I really don`t see what the deal is. My realm of a theocracy because I`m
    the ruler/regent and hold all the temples. If I lose all the temples
    (Ruornil forbid!), then I will Decree that we are no longer a theocracy and
    henceforth we will live in a democratic realm where everyone has an equal
    vote. Why? Because I will it so. And if I decide that the democracy
    invades with 4 units of archers and 2 units of infantry, than that`s the
    will of the people in my democracy.

    That`s the way realms work in the fantasy realms of Birthright; that`s what
    Regency *is*.

    -Lord Rahvin


    On 12/13/06, 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:
    > The catagories I favored took two things into consideration, how widely
    > distributed was the power in a domain, and what shape that distribution
    > took. The rest should be obvious from the other natural parts of a domain,
    > such as the listed ruler and the types of holdings involved.
    >
    >
    >
    > At one point I thought you were building a pretty good argument about the
    > historical weight of the past and the established constitutions
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ------------ QUOTE ----------
    > Ariya has the prince-paladin, which has been in existance for at least 43
    > successive rulers (per the Player`s Secrets of Ariya).
    >
    >
    >
    > Medoere is a theocracy instead of a monarchy. This means that the highest
    > political authority in the realm is the church - specifically, the Church of
    > Ruornil`s Celestial Spell."
    >
    >
    >
    > "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."
    > -----------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > But then you dismiss your own mounting argument by saying
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ------------ QUOTE ----------
    > since government change with rulers they are tied to the ruler and not a
    > set of historic "laws" that can change with rulers.
    >
    >
    >
    > The point being that it is not necessarily the "history" of the domain
    > that determines its government type but the present ruler which "typifies"
    > it.
    > -----------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > So I don`t know why you want to recognize theocracy as a significant
    > catagory only that you do.
    >
    >
    >
    > What I specifically don`t want to do is use a lable to institutionalize
    > and enshrine what are coincidenal and transitory phenomena. If the badge of
    > office of Avanil is a red cap, that`s worth mentioning. If you happened to
    > see the prince wearing a red cap one day, that doesn`t mean we say Avanil
    > has a Red-cap-archy.
    >
    >
    >
    > Using a few clear catogories is simple and elegant. This suits a summary
    > stat block for a realm far better than using words that need a lot of
    > qualifiers, like its a theocracy because Suris wants it do be until she
    > doesn`t or it changes.
    >
    >
    >
    > Autocracy, oligarchy, democracy all establish how wide the power base is.
    > It would be useful to identify is the power base is unified or
    > distributed. That is do the oligarchs or the people come together at one
    > place to express there will, such as in a Chamber of Masters or a Thing of
    > all Halskapa, or whether there are many distributed centers of power, like
    > each noble having considrable power in his own lands, or granting each town
    > with a charter extinsive rights to govern on its own.
    >
    >
    >
    > Everything else is obvious when you identify the kinds of holdings
    > involved and the class of the ruler.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Birthright-l Archives:
    > http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
    >
    >
    >

  9. #39
    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
    What I specifically don't want to do is use a lable to institutionalize and enshrine what are coincidenal and transitory phenomena. If the badge of office of Avanil is a red cap, that's worth mentioning. If you happened to see the prince wearing a red cap one day, that doesn't mean we say Avanil has a Red-cap-archy.
    But all governements in Birthright fall under that label.

    I was trying to point out that the style is important at the moment.

    Also when writing information detailing "existing" domains it is likewise important to address these categories.

    Theocracy describes, very well IMO, a government where the church is presiding authority for all legal matters.


    Using a few clear catogories is simple and elegant. This suits a summary stat block for a realm far better than using words that need a lot of qualifiers, like its a theocracy because Suris wants it do be until she doesn't or it changes.
    This is like saying we shouldn't have kingdoms because someone decides to declare himself "king". Avanil anyone?

    Autocracy, oligarchy, democracy all establish how wide the power base is. It would be useful to identify is the power base is unified or distributed. That is do the oligarchs or the people come together at one place to express there will, such as in a Chamber of Masters or a Thing of all Halskapa, or whether there are many distributed centers of power, like each noble having considrable power in his own lands, or granting each town with a charter extinsive rights to govern on its own.
    Again so does theocracy since it reflects that the people fel that way and are deeply religious, well to the point of

    Everything else is obvious when you identify the kinds of holdings involved and the class of the ruler.
    Then no government except for one that bases its rulership on controlling Law holdings is necessary - since those are the significant holding for maintaining authority within a domain.

    Politics is more complicated than that and too much simplifying ruins a lot of the "flavor" of the game IMO.
    Duane Eggert

  10. #40
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Rahvin
    In the end, what does this matter to the players, in your view?

    I mean, if my autocratoc/oligarchic/democratic regent wants to invade Diemed with 4 untis of archers and 2 units of infantry, than that`s what the
    autocracy/oligarchy/democracy is going to do, right?
    Only if I ignore the pages of text in the various PS which say otherwise. There are two sources you can consider (as I already mentioned in post #14 of this thread). You can consider the BR rules which uses dice to decide whether you are successful or not for a given action, or you can consider the descriptive text which is full of limits on the will of the ruler. The former strikes me as way to much game and way too little role play. The latter is they way I run my own games. If the Diemed description were to say that declarations of war or assembling an army required the consent of the nobles (either through the ratification of a noble council or because it was the nobles who actually muster the troops) then its very possible that if Diem outran his nobles in some plan to make a war it could end very badly.

    I immediatly think of the the 1559 war between England and Scotland over the succession of Elizabeth (Mary, Queen of Scots claimed the throne herself). The English force sent to invade Scotland, lacked support from key Catholic nobles, like the Earl of Northumberland, whose approval was critical. The English were defeated. As it happens, there were plenty of Scottish lords who preffered and alliance with Elizabeth to the Guise alliance with France, and despite England's defeat, they deposed Mary of Guise and forced Mary Queen of Scots to accept the withdrawl of the French army (she refused but it happened anyway).

    Neither ruler simply willed action and these failures happened, because core constituancies were not on board. Now, you can either see this as rolling very poorly on realm actions supporting the war, or you can game it out and let the players deal with these problems directly.

    Quote Originally Posted by irdeggman
    Politics is more complicated than that and too much simplifying ruins a lot of the "flavor" of the game IMO.
    I hope I didn't simplify that too much.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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.