Resources

[vota dc]

I am agree with many points,not with the swamps!
Swamps—3 Timber, 7 Food-this is simple too much.Swamps aren't famous for their resource and 2 timber,6 food is enough or regent could think that flood their own plain provinces is a good idea!

Also we must remember that some resource are problematic such the timber of Aerenwe and that a low populated province shouldn't give the same resource.

[Rowan]

Regarding those temples again, it's the monasteries and other lands held by them that I'm thinking about. Perhaps they can develop those assets/holding fortifications to access a food resource. Much of their income comes from the tithes and other donations, but they may cultivate land, or hold the wind and watermills to process grains, granaries, and vineyards/distilleries.

Vota, thanks for the input. I was originally trying to just set up each major inhabitable province type with 10 resources, so that manors and guilds could tap into those resources until they got high level, when they would have to build assets (holding fortifications like deeper mines, better irrigation and less arable land brought under cultivation, sawmills, quarries, etc) to expand the supply beyond the readily available resources. Note that the resources numbers are potential surplus resources (the amount produced beyond a population's everyday use), and that they are not accessible without a one-for-one match with Manor or Guild holding levels. Thus in a Hills province, a Manor 4 might harvest 3 Food, 1 Timber resource, while a Guild 4 in the same province might harvest 2 Stone and 2 Ore (listed as Manor 4:3F/1T, Guild 4:2S/2T or somesuch notation). So not all potential resources are yet tapped.

As for those swamps, you're probably right. That max 10 of resources doesn't quite fit there. Though when swamps are drained, they can be pretty fertile. Do keep in mind, though, that the Food resources are not just crops, but fishing and hunting (assumed to be at a sustainable level).

I have also been thinking about changing Mountain provinces to 5 Stone, 5 Ore, 1 Timber, 1 Food. The main reason here is that otherwise, certain mountainous realms just can't do much. They'd still need to import a lot of food to maintain large armies, or have the armies forage and pillage a lot. Dwarves, though, would have to either be able to use Stone resources as food (someone here had the idea that dwarves can eat stone), or they need those food resources. I haven't yet looked in detail at Brechtur, but those mountainous realms could also be limited otherwise. I figure they'd all tend to develop assets to expand the food supply (terraces), but I've limited maximum expansion to twice the base resources, so that still only gives 2 Food per mountain province. (I increased stone because hey, there's virtually unlimited stone in mountains; you just need traversable paths to bring it down; same thing with Timber, although the slopes make it more difficult).

[kgauck]

Regarding those temples again, it's the monasteries and other lands held by them that I'm thinking about.

Why do we assume they have lands? Do they collect tithes of some kind from followers? if they do, a big part (if not all) of their revenue would be these kinds of collections from followers. Lands and productive resources seem to lay elsewhere.

[Arentak]

In the old D&D stronghold system of domains, churches collected a 10% tithe from all production. This might emulate too much the modern experience. In medieval times, the Church was the largest landholder. Churches owned vinyards, manors, farms, mines, every type of productive enterprise they had their hands in. Maybe the argument is the Catholic Church was more of a Guild/Temple combo domain, and true temples are tithe type places only.

[AndrewTall]

Well, you can go too far down the commerce = guild route - farms are businesses too...

Monasteries should include something for the monks to do - tending flocks, vineyards, etc were popular (keeping sheep allows land clearance which is both very profitable and avoids distractions, early land clearances were by the church not the nobles!)

That said I agree that at some point the church should have guild holdings to represent its income, just as law holdings should represent rights to tithe, levy duties, hold courts, etc. A church that is effectively a bank / major investor should have guild holdings representing such activity.

I see guild holdings as the 'glue/grease' of the society - organised trade, fairs, guilds, etc - most economic activity is below their radar so as long as individual enterprises are small scale the churches should be fine with them.

Of course much church produce is internal - making paper, ink, candles, foodstuffs, etc, etc increase 'profit' by reducing costs but the end result is the same as external sales from a mechanic perspective.

[kgauck]

If I can account for all of the money a temple domain has on tithes alone. Then shouldn't I expect that additional productive activities would generate extra income? Perhaps the religious properties are notoriously unprofitable and are basically large break-even operations, which is certainly possible, but then I may well have regents who want to make them efficient and productive.

Further, while I can imagine large monasteries of Haelynites making beer, growing sheep, or making honey at a small loss, no profit, or small profit, would a temple of Sera organize such things to produce no such wealth? Many of these domains are said to be run like a business. That means they don't grow bees primarily to give something to do to monks to keep them busy, but intend to produce honey as a means to wealth and income.

Its quite possible to envision the world in a medieval situation, where the Church owned large landholdings and collected tithes. But the end-of-the-day results of the domain system does not lead to this conclusion. Temples don't make enough money or collect enough regency to give this impression. And a proper medieval environment would include few if any guilds, all of those holding being held by the nobles or the Church.

Instead, consider the ancient world, where temples were not great land-owners, but collected money through ritual. People wanted the gods to aid them, they went to a temple, and paid for rituals.

If temple domains are presumed to have extensive properties, like the medieval Church, then they almost certainly collect no income from a tithe, voluntary or otherwise. And ritual incomes can't be terribly large either, without putting pressure on the properties.

Ultimately,

contributions from followers + surplus from capital investment + ritual incomes must = two third's GB per holding level.

A medieval Church would own a quarter to a third of all province levels, maybe half of all law holdings, all (or nearly all) temple holdings, and a third or more of the guild holdings. This can't be a 1:1 model for a BR temple that controls much less of the domain pie.

[AndrewTall]

It is an interesting question why the DnD churches are so weak compared to the medieval churches, I see the following IC reasons (ignoring metagaming and player ignorance)

1. Pantheonistic worship. The temples effectively compete for followers, as such it is far harder for them to monopolise guilt, afterlife terror, marriage and succession rights, etc and accordingly their power is reduced.

2. Mages. Wizards undermine the priests claim to supernatural support with every spell - is Haelyn really so great a lord of war when his priest can but make ones blade a little lighter - and the sword mage hurls fiery doom left and right? Surely the sword mage has the far greater power? This sort of view leads to a Barbara Hambley view of the relationship between church and wizards and is always amusing...

3. Guidance of the power. In RL we have inquisitions, suicide cults, etc, etc - various wacko's hear a voice in their head saying 'do whatever you want, it's good and righteous!' and go ahead without any further constraint on their behaviour. In most DnD the deity takes an active role, and while they might want prominence, I think some of them would speak against naked political jostling and the more sanguine aspects of RL religion.

[Kitch]

Adding my own input on the temple issue.

From my understanding, the Temples only gather their generated income based on the tributes of the populance, plus anything that the resident Cleric or Priest might gather for renting his services out to the locals. Now, yes it is important to keep in mind that religion plays the important role in medieval soceity (not ignoring the presence of Arcane spellcasters which would undermine a considerable amount of this influence) but it is important to remember, as it was mentioned before, that on the whole, the Temple Holding is considered to only be what it suggests: the center for religious activity within the province.

This is easiest to explain by this: some churches did have vinyards, some did gain tithes, some did gain taxes from the surrounding land in the province in which they resided, but not all of them did. By that, you cannot generalise from one to the next, so it is best to simply leave the game rules rather in tact, and instead allow the residing Temple Regents the ability to purchase Law and Guild holdings instead to represent what their religious influence would also have.

My example would be a local Temple Regent in a province 3 (owning 2 Temple) either contests or purchases an unclaimed Guild slot in a province to suggest that his temple's monks and clerics are now tending a vinyard that supplies wine at a base price in the surrounding region.

[Rowan]

Really have something against religion, eh, AT?

I think temples are only weak when the DM does not consider their effect on the minds and hearts of the people. A common assumption in the games I have played, for instance, is that realm rulers routinely tax both guilds and temples 25% or more of their income (in addition to the normal income from provinces and law holdings). This is not suggested in the rules anywhere, so far as I can tell, and I think represents a further weakening of non-landed domains; I would not allow it as DM, myself. Guilds would undermine rulers in all sorts of ways under such a tax, and temples would agitate unfavorably and deny spells.

Realm rulers in these games may threaten retaliation through occupation and reduction of holdings, but again, this only works if the DM is extremely superficial, looking just to the rules. Still, I think it would be worthwhile to have some standard or at least suggested formula in the rules to guide DMs in such cases--occupation and reduction of holdings is such use of force that most provinces would go into rebellion, particularly if the temples are the ones under attack. Other temples and even guilds might well band together to prevent a landed ruler from getting away with such an abuse of force. Surely temples would try to Interdict the ruler.

So I don't think temples should functionally be very weak at all. The question is just what do they do with their time and money? If they are allowed some troops and can undertake useful (in game terms) construction projects or programs, those things would take care of things beyond the cost of domain actions.

[kgauck]

The past several messages have had widely divergent meanings for the term "power".

I know that I was limiting myself entirely to the collection and spending of GB and RP. Other kinds of power ought to be related to holdings as collections and action resolution are. Simply put, a temple with more holdings has more power.

This is why, when confronted with a more powerful medieval church, my answer is, they have more holdings.

So when I read Andrew's reply, with its reference to the impact of polytheism, arcane rivalry, and transcendent divine purposes, I think, "true, but how does this effect RP and GB collection?"

Whereas both Andrew and I related BR temples to the medieval Church, it seems as if Rowen is comparing poorly played temples realms with well played temple realms.

Since I would rather not see us all talking past each other, I thought it might be profitable to draw attention to this issue.