Results 11 to 14 of 14
Thread: Adventures in Cariele
-
05-07-2002, 02:11 PM #11
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
The players have a very poor grasp of northern church politics - the unified
Life and Protection f Avanale contempiously views the divied Haelyn churces
in the ast as weak, and blitherly ignores the church of Erik. So this could
indeed be a surpsise for the players.
An alliance like this is likely to have an agenda similar to that of the
players`, but will probably get into conflict with them anyway, because the
players stand for `progress` (increasing province levels) and because any
outsider will likely be seen as a threat.
So this is a nice twist to the story!
/Carl
Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote at 02-05-07 04.52:
> Here are some things I`ve been setting up in that region -
>
> There is a movement afoot in places like Stjordvik, Talanie, and Dhoesone
> called Holn`s Companionship. In response to guilders like Storm Holtson and
> Mheallie Bireon, some druids in Aeric`s Oaken Grove and Haelyn`s temples
> (both the Northern Imperial and Bastion of Truth) have been working
> together. Many druids in Brant`s Oaken Grove have come to believe that a
> strong law wielded by a single powerful, landed regent is the best way to
> uphold Erik`s teachings about natural resources. For one thing, its easy to
> hold a king accountable. Jarls, counts, and guilders can always just point
> the finger at the other guy, but its the hope of Holn`s Companionship that a
> single powerful king, holding most or all of the law would be someone the
> druids could apply some pressure on. In Talinie, the priests of Haelyn have
> been supporters of the druid`s point of view *on resource stewardship*
> questions. Since the druids are willing to pick their battles, they have
> been satisfied to see their principles upheld, even if it is by means of law
> holdings and sheriffs rather than druids. In fact, Talanie has embraced as
> a motto a line from Lofnhilda`s Saga, where the archdruid Maelnir Greenbough
> enjoins the people of Halskapa to "enjoy without grasping". The alliance
> between some druids of Erik and some priests of Haelyn has proven successful
> where the priests of Haelyn are content to confine their influence to the
> nature of the crown and state, and the druids are content to confine their
> influence to sustainable natural resources policy. Both parties can
> generally agree in other areas, but pursue their common goals in their
> different ways, and agree to disagree on other issues. As long as guilders
> like Holtson and Bireon are exploiting the land, Holn`s Companionship will
> have a reason to exist.
>
> Storm Holtson and Mheallie Bireon are birds of a feather, but they are both
> after the same thing - control of Dhoesone`s commerce, and this has led them
> into the openings of a guild war. Larra Nielems (of the Northern Reformed
> Church of Sarimie) has tried to mediate a modus vivendi between the
> headstrong guilders, but it does not appear to be working. Larra Nielems
> fears that if Stjordovik Traders and the Northlands Exchange exhaust each
> other in a guild war, the Holn`s Companionship forces will be able to bring
> the knights and the law priests and the barbarians and the druids together
> and drive the profit-minded guilds out of Dhoesone. The druids and law
> priests, who used to hold sway in Cariele haven`t quite been driven out of
> that county, so Larra Nielems would prefer to be on the offensive in
> Dhoesone before Holtson and Bireon quarreled, rather than to remain still
> vulnerable in Cariele. Both Günther Brant and Anita Maricoere have set
> aside sufficient RP`s to protect their 0-level holdings in Cariele. At the
> moment, neither Brant nor Maricoere are subscribers to the idea of a
> Holn-Erik alliance embodied in the doctrine of Holn`s Companionship. Larra
> Nielems is aware that if the temples of Erik, or just the whole of the Oaken
> Grove, and the temples of Haelyn, even just in the northern marches, were to
> form a real alliance, she would pushed out and the cause of profit, material
> wealth, and its benefits would be lost to the people of the region.
> Fortunately for Nielems, she has a concert of interests with Torias Griene.
> Griene is more devoted to his own power and is not willing to put his place
> in Talinie at risk for greater objectives against the temples of Haelyn and
> Erik, but he has his uses.
>
> There is talk among the law priests and druids of Holn`s Companionship that
> a rivalry between Holtson and Bireon is a just a fasade to draw out the
> enemies of the guilds where they can be identified and crushed. They
> suspect that Holtson and Bireon have already agreed to a partition of
> Dhoesone and only play at quarreling to keep everyone else off balance.
>
> The Baroness of Dhoesone considers herself in a terribly vulnerable
> possition, and is mostly unwilling to risk making anyone openly hostile.
> Her one real ally, Tuarhievel has made it clear that its support is designed
> to create a safe area to her rear while the Thorn Crown devotes its
> attentions to their frontier with the Gorgon. As such, the baroness has
> made treaties with Thurazor and Stjordvik. She has tried to make peace,
> even at very favorable terms, with the Blood Skull Barony (called the Barony
> of the Crimson Skull in Anuire) but Thrakkazz, the Scarlet Baron, smells
> weakness and will have no peace. The Baroness of Dhoesone does not realize
> this, but the alliance with the Tie`akar Graecher in Thurazor is worthless,
> because the tide in that realm is turning against the humans as Kral Two
> Toes preaches crusade. On the other hand, the alliance with Stjordvik is
> worth far more than it would appear to be. While King Varri plays the pawn,
> he is in fact a canny creature and would be a reliable friend against the
> Blood Skull Barony or the exploitive guilders.
>
> Have fun.
>
> Kenneth Gauck
> kgauck@mchsi.com
>
> ************************************************** **************************
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
-
05-07-2002, 10:20 PM #12
At 09:35 AM 5/7/2002 +0200, Carl Cramér wrote:
>I agree on the name of the domain action (though it`s not important enough
>to merit a change), but I don`t agree that it should cost you more to
>conduct offensive opperations agains several enemies. Perhaps the cost of
>the action should vary depending on the number of troops you employ? But
>then again, moving troops costs money in and of itself.
I just use "War" as the name of the action myself. I like the idea that a
War action (or whatever one wants to call it) allows the regent to cross
more than one border, but I like it because I can`t really come up with a
satisfactory rationale for why one wouldn`t be able to do exactly that
after mobilizing the troops and all. What`s to keep borders
sacrosanct? Presumably the original "Declare War" allowed one to cross the
border of the nation one had declared war against, but since the whole
issue with the diplomatic/legal nature of war implied by "Declare War" is
even more ambiguous I figure it`s still a trade up to go with the less
hinky action.
Anyway, as to the costs of military actions. I think it might make sense
for each "body" of troops to have an individual cost whether they are
crossing the same border (and moving into different provinces) or not,
since each group represents its own administrative, supply and
command. There might be an increased cost per "army" put into action
rather than a cost per border. This is in addition to the standard costs
for moving troops. Does that seem sensible?
Gary
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
05-07-2002, 11:23 PM #13
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Gary wrote:
> At 09:35 AM 5/7/2002 +0200, Carl Cramér wrote:
>
>> I agree on the name of the domain action (though it`s not important
>> enough to merit a change), but I don`t agree that it should cost you
>> more to conduct offensive opperations agains several enemies. Perhaps
>> the cost of the action should vary depending on the number of troops
>> you employ? But then again, moving troops costs money in and of itself.
>
>
> I just use "War" as the name of the action myself. I like the idea
> that a War action (or whatever one wants to call it) allows the regent
> to cross more than one border, but I like it because I can`t really
> come up with a satisfactory rationale for why one wouldn`t be able to
> do exactly that after mobilizing the troops and all. What`s to keep
> borders sacrosanct? Presumably the original "Declare War" allowed one
> to cross the border of the nation one had declared war against, but
> since the whole issue with the diplomatic/legal nature of war implied
> by "Declare War" is even more ambiguous I figure it`s still a trade up
> to go with the less hinky action.
The real cost is the loss of "regency" (which is modelled by a loss of
RP and/or a domain action). If we accept that war is an undesirable
state, a declaration of war, no matter how much justified, shows an
inability to deal with the situation in a regal manner. The regent
becomes the aggressor, the bad guy (at least a tiny bit). I was thinking
that declaring war against more than one domain (or alliance)was worse
than against a single one.
>
>
> Anyway, as to the costs of military actions. I think it might make
> sense for each "body" of troops to have an individual cost whether
> they are crossing the same border (and moving into different
> provinces) or not, since each group represents its own administrative,
> supply and command. There might be an increased cost per "army" put
> into action rather than a cost per border. This is in addition to the
> standard costs for moving troops. Does that seem sensible?
That wasn`t quite what I meant by cost. But it`s not a bad idea. Could
get complex of course, does each group comprise a new front or offensive
or are they supporting another etc etc.
>
>
> Gary
>
> ************************************************** **************************
>
> The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
> To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
>
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
05-08-2002, 08:02 PM #14
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Columbus, Ohio, United States
- Posts
- 440
- Downloads
- 20
- Uploads
- 0
In a message dated 5/6/02 10:53:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kgauck@MCHSI.COM
writes:
<< Here are some things I`ve been setting up in that region -
There is a movement afoot in places like Stjordvik, Talanie, and Dhoesone
called Holn`s Companionship. <SNIP >>
Way cool! I`ll spring this on my group (includes a druid, Emerald Spiral
affiliate) soon-- can`t wait to see how they react!
Lee.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks