Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
  1. #11
    Member Exile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The UK
    Posts
    31
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    If the Jarls refuse to contribute to tax collection they have a suicide wish. Its a rough world and jarls don't have the resources to defend themselves. It would be an usual situation that would lead a jarl to refuse this kind of cooperation. And it amounts to a breech of feudal duty, so they are liable to be ousted for doing so. Rebellion or near rebellion would be the only case this would be done.
    Not the point I'm making - by default in the rules, if the province ruler doesn't personally control the law holdings, raising taxes of any kind is a seriously risky proposition. Off the top of my head, controlling "less than half" the available law means that you can't ignore any Loyalty losses at all and that Severe tax causes a double level loss, while Moderate taxation causes the loss of one Level. I have the feeling that there's a reference somewhere to things getting even worse if you have _no_ Law at all in the province, but I wouldn't want to swear to that.

    Unless the DM confirms a home rule that vassals can use their law holdings to count as if they were the province-ruler's own in this regard, income for the realms with jarls (or, from personal experience, for Khurin-Azur, with its single ruler-owned Law holding) is likely to be pitiful. And it's worth sorting that out in advance - and also confirming quite what the situation is for those law-holding-only vassals who are said to provide military units while lacking any visible source of GB income.

  2. #12
    Member Exile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The UK
    Posts
    31
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by InVinoVeritas View Post
    The playing area becomes the Siren's Realm, Halskapa, Svinik, Rjuvik, Stjordvik, Dhoesone, Cariele, Thurazor, Talinie, and possibly Tuarhievel. The big power in the area becomes the Oaken Grove of Erik. Storm Holtson and Banner Andien get access to their entire guilds. Sea travel dominates, in one of the few major bodies of water without an awnshegh.
    Oooh. That does sound like an interesting area you've delineated, and the emphasis on the sea should make for some unusual dynamics in play.

    I'd advocate including Tuarhievel, if only as an active NPC realm - it's got major ties to Dhoesone, and would provide an interesting counterpoint to the organised humanoids in Thurazor, the Giantdowns, and the Blood Skull Barony (the latter pair presumably actively involved in the playing area as raiders). Goblins and elves have interesting interactions of their own, and if there's just one non-human domain in a game it can easily become very isolated.

  3. #13
    Site Moderator Sorontar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    4,248
    Downloads
    88
    Uploads
    8
    While I don't regard it as a canon example, but the Dragon article for the Yikarian Empire that I am working on in the wiki has 8 provinces, 7 of which are controlled by the Seven Sages. It is expected that they all are vassals to the Lotus Emperor and will surrender one fifth of their income to him.

    "Failure to do so
    results in the harsh punishments,
    including deaths by impalement,
    quartering, and pressing for minor
    infractions, and the razing of entire
    towns for major offenses. The Emperor
    is not a lenient ruler."

    Mind you, in this kingdom I have read it that their "god" (an awnshegh like the Serpent) is actually the leader of the realm. Even the Emperor is only a provincial leader with vassals.

    Sorontar.

  4. #14
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Exile View Post
    Not the point I'm making - by default in the rules...
    Rules without context are like a trigger happy blind man with a gun. I don't read rules to figure out what may or may not happen. Rules are merely means to assess the impact of actions. Context tells us what may or may not happen. The owner of the land and the owner of the law have a relationship. Depending on that relationship, you apply the rules to figure out how to arrive at a reasonable quantification of the result that makes the most sense based on the context. The rules serve to make the context playable as a game. If they can do that, great. If they can't, they context - the reality in-game - requires the rules be interpreted, extended, extrapolated, or house-ruled to serve the context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sorontar View Post
    (re: Yikarian Empire) 7 of (8 provinces) which are controlled by the Seven Sages. It is expected that they all are vassals to the Lotus Emperor and will surrender one fifth of their income to him.
    20% is typical historically. It seems more consistent than the taxes that peasants pay to the lords, which varies between 8% and 12%.

  5. #15
    Member rjurikwinds's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle, NY
    Posts
    35
    Downloads
    7
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Exile View Post
    Unless the DM confirms a home rule that vassals can use their law holdings to count as if they were the province-ruler's own in this regard, income for the realms with jarls (or, from personal experience, for Khurin-Azur, with its single ruler-owned Law holding) is likely to be pitiful. And it's worth sorting that out in advance - and also confirming quite what the situation is for those law-holding-only vassals who are said to provide military units while lacking any visible source of GB income.
    Hold on... I didn't know that was a "house rule" -- I assumed that "vassals counting as support for liege" was standard core rules -- I ran through the basic chapters of the printed material and of course found nothing, but I thought I had read this somewhere...
    Can others confirm?
    This does mean that realms like Halskapa are really powerless kingdoms! As are much of the highlands!

    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    Rules without context are like a trigger happy blind man with a gun. I don't read rules to figure out what may or may not happen. Rules are merely means to assess the impact of actions. Context tells us what may or may not happen. The owner of the land and the owner of the law have a relationship. Depending on that relationship, you apply the rules to figure out how to arrive at a reasonable quantification of the result that makes the most sense based on the context. The rules serve to make the context playable as a game. If they can do that, great. If they can't, they context - the reality in-game - requires the rules be interpreted, extended, extrapolated, or house-ruled to serve the context.
    I know, I know, you are correct that we need to be smart and interpolate from the setting to explain and mold it into a playable situation... But I try to stick to the book, even if the rule seems unfair -- I guess we could go into the alignment metaphor (Lawful Neutral), I'll just admit to being a weak DM, and that often I need the rules in order to push back my player's urges (demands). I haven't played BR tabletop in years; but even back then, my players had spreadsheets and were trying to figure how best to "grow" -- and no doubt those "law holdings that don't do any good" would have been the first to go...
    And maybe that might be the way Halskapa was intended to be played; Rid the Jarls one by one, and consolidate the "weak central state"... Same for Svinik, Rjuvik, Khurin Azur etc...

    The question InVinoVeritas asked initially about the "role of jarls" becomes central then for those realms; and in the case of a PBEM I'd recommend the "house rule" of having vassal's law count as supporting the liege.
    Last edited by rjurikwinds; 06-01-2009 at 05:10 AM.

  6. #16
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rjurikwinds View Post
    often I need the rules in order to push back my player's urges (demands).
    Here is a by the book solution:
    The relations between any regent and any vassal is either, hostile, unfriendly, indifferent, friendly, or helpful.

    If the vassal is unfriendly, they make law claims against your taxation, but otherwise support the taxes.

    If the vassal is hostile, they refuse to support the taxation. This is an act of rebellion.

    Everyone else supports taxation without issue.

    Diplomacy actions are required to improve relations with vassals.

    Its clear, it uses a defined mechanic that is a normal part of the rules. Consequences are predictable.

    Normal vassals should be indifferent. If the color material suggests friendly makes more sense, then so be it. Only where characters are specifically mentioned otherwise should vassals be unfriendly or helpful. Hostile should only be an at-start situation in places like Rohrmarch or Osoerde, where rebellion is open.

  7. #17
    Site Moderator AndrewTall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    2,476
    Downloads
    30
    Uploads
    2
    The various books can be read as a 'snapshot' or as 'typical' - powerful jarls are found in almost every Rjurik realm, the 'king' tends to have at most half the law, if that.

    The Rjurik are however written of as a very community oriented people where everyone 'pulls together'. So I'd expect that jarls automatically support the ruler and the law holdings stack as Ken notes. The few jarls that are indifferent/hostile such as those mentioned in Stjordvik and possibly Halskapa do not offer support, but pretty much everyone else does - even jarls that don't particularly like the king will generally recognise the need for a strong army - and that failing to support taxation will likely lead to them being replaced as jarl...

    So with Halskapa for example, I'd expect that if Bervinnig dies, the 'winning' jarl will be supported by their advocates, negotiate at least minimal support from most of the other jarls (I see that taxes are paid, you leave me alone otherwise), and maybe have 1 or at most 2 dissidents who refuse their rule - but to simply absorb the rebellious jarls holdings into the kings would likely cause more problems than it solved, the Rjurik expect local jarls to have significant influence, and don't want to become an Anuirean realm dancing at the whim of a 'would-be emperor'. A PC might get away with it if Halskapa had a civil war which resulted in the need for 'a single strong ruler' but otherwise they'd have to stick loyal placemen in the seats of the former jarls to rule effectively.

  8. #18
    Member rjurikwinds's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle, NY
    Posts
    35
    Downloads
    7
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    Here is a by the book solution:
    The relations between any regent and any vassal is either, hostile, unfriendly, indifferent, friendly, or helpful.

    If the vassal is unfriendly, they make law claims against your taxation, but otherwise support the taxes.

    If the vassal is hostile, they refuse to support the taxation. This is an act of rebellion.

    Everyone else supports taxation without issue.

    Diplomacy actions are required to improve relations with vassals.

    Its clear, it uses a defined mechanic that is a normal part of the rules. Consequences are predictable.

    Normal vassals should be indifferent. If the color material suggests friendly makes more sense, then so be it. Only where characters are specifically mentioned otherwise should vassals be unfriendly or helpful. Hostile should only be an at-start situation in places like Rohrmarch or Osoerde, where rebellion is open.
    Ok, yeah, so that makes total sense; I see the case (like Osoerde) that would represent the hostile vassal -- and yeah that would be total war...

    So back to InVinoVerita's game, and AndrewTall's example of Halskapa; the Halskapan "succession" might be something that other rulers might be tempted to meddle with... Support a vassal and have it turn hostile to the new King (So diplomacy actions on jarls, to win them over?)

  9. #19
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rjurikwinds View Post
    So back to InVinoVerita's game, and AndrewTall's example of Halskapa; the Halskapan "succession" might be something that other rulers might be tempted to meddle with... Support a vassal and have it turn hostile to the new King (So diplomacy actions on jarls, to win them over?)
    Why would anyone want this? It makes no sense. They only kind of power that would operate this way is one that is already denied possibility of friendship.

    I can see supporting a Jarl in hopes that he becomes King of Halskapa, with a friendly Jarl as a consolation prize.

    I can see supporting a Jarl in hopes of having a friend at court in Halskapa.

    Supporting a Jarl with the hopes of turning them hostile to the new king is something you have to keep secret from everyone. If the Jarl finds out, he'll resent being used, and will cease to be a friend. If the new king finds out you have a serious rival. Three people can keep a secret when two of them are dead. Your hope is that you do some damage (why?) before your secret is exposed.

    I can see the Siren doing this to prevent a new king from trying to deal with those lost provinces. But, only if the Siren can't expect civil relations with the new king. Because once she does this, civil relations are basically off the table, and she and he are rivals, likely to make Halskapan aggression more likely. So unless the new king already had dialed hostility so high that the Siren thinks this kind of aggression is better than laying low, this is a bad call for the Siren.

    I can see the White Witch doing this, especially a White Witch bent on undermining Rjurik kingdoms with espionage based on infiltration, subversion, and disinformation. But I also see the White Witch as the Big Bad of the Highlands use tactics are like those of the Comintern with committed agents, fellow travelers, and useful idiots peppered throughout the Highlands. If the White Witch was not bent on subversion, but wanted to be, or could be accepted as a normal realm, this makes less sense.

    Rjuvik does this with regard to Guthrim Gauksson, but Rjuvik is a pariah realm unable to win the legitimate recognition of its peers. If its relations could be normalized, this kind of approach would be counter-productive.

    For the most part the Highlands lacks a zero-sum dynamic like the Iron Throne to make interstate competition necessary.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by kgauck View Post
    For the most part the Highlands lacks a zero-sum dynamic like the Iron Throne to make interstate competition necessary.
    This is probably the greatest impediment to a Rjurik campaign as written; although the land and its people are compelling and interesting, they lack the dynamic of everyone trying to reach for a goal--or indeed, trying to coordinate to solve a crisis--outside of outright ambition. And political ambition is frowned upon in traditional Rjurik society.

    However, I think that Bervinig of Halskapa is the solution to this. At the beginning of the campaign, Bervinig dies, but in his senility, he completely muddles the choosing of an heir, and all the Province holdings of Halskapa become uncontrolled. Now, every jarl, every Rjurik king, every ambitious traveler has a good reason to stake a claim in Halskapa, while remaining true to Rjurik ideals. If a realm like Rjuvik overstretches itself in the attempt to claim Halskapa, then they become potential takeover targets as well. Finally, it is a good idea to take over anywhere that has grown weak, because otherwise it will fall to the White Witch or the Blood Skull Barony. That might get the instability going.

    Instead of a political struggle of a zero-sum game, the Taelshore becomes the land of a political gold rush.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Gavin Tael
    By shaewoo in forum BRWiki Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-13-2007, 12:55 PM
  2. Gavin Tael
    By asoe in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-17-2005, 03:30 PM
  3. Playing A God
    By kari in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-30-2003, 09:04 PM
  4. Tales Of The Firth
    By Bervinig in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-09-2003, 05:53 PM
  5. Playing BR another way.... Variation?
    By greegan in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-21-2002, 10:33 AM

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.