Guild and Temple Holdings

[AndrewTall]

Ryan, this is, at least in part, a 2e:3.5e split.

In 3.5e all actions become GB base cost only (barring domain magic and a couple others) with RP then just modifying the success chance.

So the unblooded ruler can do all the same actions as a blooded ruler - although in effect being unblooded halves a regents the effective income as they have to use GB for base cost and also for boosting chances whereas a blooded rival could use RP for the latter freeing up gold for use elsewhere.

The 3.5e system seems better to me - although I disagree with GB costs for source actions - as the 3.5 e rules still give the blooded regent a major advantage in rulership, but a blooded regent is possible - under the 2e rules I wonder how holdings worked before Deismaar - was there simply no trade, law, etc, or more likely did bloodlines simply give the blooded a major boost in their attempts to control the holdings that already existed?

As for whether non-blooded regents could survive in Cerilia it all depends on how common bloodlines are, if bloodlines are few and far between unblooded regents can rule in the gaps.

Personally I'd make source actions have RP base costs only as they aren't open to non-blooded rulers and sources produce no income (under standard rules) making a mage regent beg and scrape for every action, not simply for realm spells.

[ryancaveney]

In 3.5e all actions become GB base cost only ... So the unblooded ruler can do all the same actions as a blooded ruler

Huh! I hadn't noticed that -- or if I had, I forgot it years ago.

although in effect being unblooded halves a regents the effective

OK, so while unblooded people might not be impossible regents, they're still highly implausible ones, especially given the degree of cutthroat competition common in BR games. I therefore stand by my statement that, even in BRCS-land, unblooded regents of any holding type are so unlikely in practice as to be legitimately ignorable.

under the 2e rules I wonder how holdings worked before Deismaar - was there simply no trade, law, etc, or more likely did bloodlines simply give the blooded a major boost in their attempts to control the holdings that already existed?

Yeah, this was always the big problem. I suppose GB in place of RP (though not necessarily at 1:1 exchange) was always the most common answer, too.

As for whether non-blooded regents could survive in Cerilia it all depends on how common bloodlines are, if bloodlines are few and far between unblooded regents can rule in the gaps.

There are only a few hundred regents out of the millions of people in Cerilia. The canon blooded fraction is 1 in 100 (or 1 in 1000 if you believe PSoMuden), which is more than enough to fill every regent slot several hundred times over. I'm quite sure that every single regent who lasts more than a year is blooded, either by starting that way or by using their new status to acquire one by Investiture.

[kgauck]

Under the 2e rules I wonder how holdings worked before Deismaar - was there simply no trade, law, etc, or more likely did bloodlines simply give the blooded a major boost in their attempts to control the holdings that already existed?

My own sense is that things were so tribal that there was no law, temple, or trade as we understand them in an intensive society. Diesmaar not only provides the mechanism for doing it, but encourages the abandonment of tribal, nomadic because intensive, agricultural society is now possible.

[AndrewTall]

My own sense is that things were so tribal that there was no law, temple, or trade as we understand them in an intensive society. Diesmaar not only provides the mechanism for doing it, but encourages the abandonment of tribal, nomadic because intensive, agricultural society is now possible.

hmm, I struggle with the idea that the tribes (Masetian, Basarji, Brecht, etc) which built huge fleets to transport substantial chunks of their population by ship lacked powerful organisations -similarly that the Anuirean clans which could whelm thousands of warriors apiece did not revere their leaders sufficiently to be considered holdings.

It depends a lot on how you envisage the holding mechanic to function of course - I look at the reverence for central leaders, so to me the clan chief ruling a clan of 2,000 has a L1 province holding even if the clan moves around - similarly they have a L1 law holding if their word is respected by the people, a L1 guild holding if they over-see all trade with other tribes, a L1 priest holding if they are seen as the voice of the gods, etc - in modern times competitive pressures may have meant that only those cultures holding settlement, intensive agriculture etc have survived but the human power structures are likely to be unchanged. Aside from anything else many feudal structures have very tribal ideals in the nobility as opposed to the communal ideals of those they rule and if it the ethos of the rulers which dictates the existence of holdings then the notions of rulership and noble rights would have to be drastically altered in some parts for holdings to exist. If by contrast you see the holding as representative of structures - farms, fields, buildings, etc then clearly a nomadic people would lack holdings.

[kgauck]

So to me the clan chief ruling a clan of 2,000 has a L1 province holding even if the clan moves around.

Sure, post Diesmaar. The question is backwards though. Pre-Diesmaar, could the tribes have settled and formed modern holdings as we know them now. The answer is, if you as DM want them to, sure. But for me, I use the pre-post D divide to explain why tribal people settled and formed intensive societies.