Hogunmark

[Rey]

You don't need that much higher social order to plunge a harpoon in someone's chest and cause two tribes to kill each other over an ice cube.

And nobody says that you can't just grow vegetables, go fishing and then hump like the rabbits rest of the time.

[kgauck]

Fighting is not the same as war.

In Birthright we have rules for raising troops and maintaining troops through a system of taxation and bureaucracy. A surplus is captured from labor by domains, and then they can spend that accumulated wealth on people who have given up productive labor, at least while their leaders summon them to war. This is war.

Feuds, civil disorders, clashes between two peoples other than war are handled as random events (or planned events), not as a kind of war. Surely in a Birthright context we don't need to define where between a man stabbing another with a harpoon and the battles between Avanil and Boeruine one kind of fighting ends and war properly begins. Birthright presumes states, surpluses, full time leaders, not bands fighting over hunting grounds. While primitive groups may lurk about in the background of Rjurik society, they are presumed off books. What is on the books? What gets recorded, tracked, and counted? A domain system which represents a state, guild, and temple hierarchy reflecting complex social organization.

[Rey]

Nevermind, I see other domains have been changed, too. Adjust what the province level means in terms of population so the rules are consistent.

[stv2brown1988]

From recollection RP from vassalage occurs after the bloodline cap comes in - so it can be used by a king with a low bloodline score to increase RP income via vassals - the capped vassal doesn't get to tithe for free.

To me jarls are ready-made lieutenants, champions, etc. Most have minimal income, if they sponsor the 'summer festival of the folk' or some such then they've paid enough - mostly they should provide the odd unit of scouts and suchlike at most.

Thanks for the first paragraph. I like your ideas on making vassels contribute. But to continue, do you consider the Jarls to be indepent regents in a vassalage agreement with the King/Queen? How else do they earn money they might contribute? Or do you let them have 1-2 GBs per turn that they could contribute if the player can make a plausible argument for it? (Maybe by a Decree action?) Do you treat the Jarls differently in Hogunmark than Halskapa where (according to the PS) they each want to be king/queen?

I don't see them as Lts very well because they all seem to have their own motivations on a domain scale. I think they are more like small time regents, if they don't already have holdings maybe they should create level 0 holdings for their provences. At least this way they have a seat at the table. I feel the same about Nobles in Anuriean realms. I just don't see where they get their power from or why a Ruler should pay them anymore attention than anyone else. (I think Kenneth explained it in an older post, but I'd have to look for it again, because I forgot what he wrote.)

[AndrewTall]

I like your ideas on making vassels contribute. But to continue, do you consider the Jarls to be indepent regents in a vassalage agreement with the King/Queen?

Vassalage in which sense? Regency rules or the 'owes fealty' sense? Generally the latter, possibly the former as well - particularly for those with more significant holdings. I'd suggest that a rule for 'annual income/payments' be added to BR to allow for these 'minimal regents' to earn and contribute.

How else do they earn money they might contribute? Or do you let them have 1-2 GBs per turn that they could contribute if the player can make a plausible argument for it? (Maybe by a Decree action?)

Ken suggested that as holding income represents "profit" that those lower down in the social chain would also have their own "profit" that is implicit in domain income. As such the jarl of a province might get 1/3 or 1/2 the Gb that the province ruler gets - which is spent on their goons, courts, given as charity, spent on minor works, etc and so not generally available for use on 'surplus' expenditure. The issue of 'what if I am jarl and king' can be resolved by saying that the PC then needs a right hand man to act as jarl-in-all-but-name while they are ruling.

Do you treat the Jarls differently in Hogunmark than Halskapa where (according to the PS) they each want to be king/queen?

The jarls of Halskapa - and other examples of independent regents like Rohrmarch - could be province rulers in their own right, or simply not aid the ruler with their law holdings - something I'd generally assume if the relationship between ruler and jarl was good and the topic relating to the ruler's sphere of influence.

Jarls, and for that matter unnamed nobles in other realms, would then have gold and perhaps regency to contribute if the regent was sufficiently persuasive - as a GM I'd be tolerant of an approach from a ruler who has been generous with power, but likely refuse a request from a god-king tyrant type who would have crushed the nobility.

I don't see them as Lts very well because they all seem to have their own motivations on a domain scale.

All Lts have their own motivations - any lt who says otherwise are either fanatically loyal - and dangerous as a result, or deceptive - and equally dangerous.

I think they are more like small time regents, if they don't already have holdings maybe they should create level 0 holdings for their provences. At least this way they have a seat at the table. I feel the same about Nobles in Anuriean realms. I just don't see where they get their power from or why a Ruler should pay them anymore attention than anyone else.

Rulers should pay attention - and lots of it - to the 'invisible tiers' of nobility because that is what gives them their power - the army commanders, mayors, sundry officials, etc will almost all be minor nobles. The ruler is king/queen typically because they are the highest ranking / best connected noble - any ruler who disdains the higher social echelons will suffer intrigue, corruption, unrest, etc routinely as the rest of the nobility withdraw their aid or even turn hostile. Add the increased risk of peasant revolt and the ruler who ignores their nobles is doomed - the nobility holds the wealth (that, ultimately, is why they are noble) and thus the power even if they are below the surface domain-wise.

For a rules mechanic position, disdaining/ignoring the nobility should cripple law holdings, reduce province morale, increase the chance of negative random events, and give rival rulers better intelligence on the PC realm as the scorned nobles are courted by the PC's enemies.