Results 1 to 10 of 12
Thread: alternative inheritance
-
05-20-2002, 11:41 PM #1
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
While doing some research (for a Arthurian BR setting) I noticed that
the laws of inheritance can play a major part in determining who builds
and empire/kingdom and who doesn`t.
In Arthurian times there were a number of cultures inhabiting what is
present day Great Britain. The notion of inheritance, the model used by
BR, is not present in any of those cultures. BR is a gender-sanitized
politically correct modified anglo-saxon-norman model of inheritance.
Pictish society (in what is now Scotland) was matrilinear. The Irish
followed the Celtic law of Tanistry, and the Brythonic Britons divided
their kingdoms among all their sons, legal or bastard. The concept of
handing something down father to son was unique to the germanic
invaders.
In BR there are two important things that are investiture inherited, a
bloodline and a domain. In order to build a good Arthurian setting I`d
have to create specific bloodline rules for each of the human sub-races.
e.g.
Picts: (unfortunately there`s little we can find about the real name of
these people - pict comes from the roman "painted ones" due to their
custom of decorating their bodies with tattoos) These are organized into
7 royal houses, 7 tribes and 7 main provinces. The head of the royal
house would be a woman - she`s the one with the bloodline, this original
bloodline (we`ll call it a true bloodline) can be passed from mother to
daughter by investiture. The children male or female of each matriarch
receive a minor bloodline when born. The royal houses intermarry to keep
the bloodlines of their sons as high as possible. Only sons can be kings
(really they become high-kings, the head of each royal house is also a
king).
Legend has it that each of the royal houses is derived from a god
somewhere back in their history. This fits well with the standard BR
ideology, these houses are derived from their gods (still existent) as
mortal progeny. The houses (and these would be the derivations of the
pictish bloodlines) are :
Fib
Fidach
Foclaid (or Fotla)
Fortrenn
Caitt (or Cat)
Ce
Circenn
Note: Only true bloodlines can breed more blooded characters. i.e. A
great/major/minor bloodline cannot reproduce blooded offspring. The
bloodlines are trapped within seven families in this way. Only true
bloodlines can be invested as inheritances and only to a female.
Generally the strongest male of each house will be king of that house
(and it`s provinces). If you are a blooded male the only way to have
blooded children is to marry into another royal house (marrying the
matriarch or her heir), in which case your children belong to that house
- their family name is that of the mother.
Children`s Bloodlines:
The bloodline derivation of a child is the highest of the two score
generated by the bloodline of their parent(s). The bloodline score of a
child`s derivation is a linearly random value between 1 and the value of
the parent. No child will be born with a bloodline score higher than
their mother (who must be one of the seven matriarchs of course). A
child may by chance be born with his/her father`s derivation.
[Note: except for the "female line" thing, this isn`t much different
from English royalty today, with the gender swapped around, the recently
deceased Princess Margaret - sister to the Queen, had a daughter and a
son. The daughter does not gain a bloodline or title from her mother,
but (luckily or unluckily for her) did gain one from her father (because
he happened to be an Earl).]
************************************************** **************************
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.
-
05-21-2002, 12:27 AM #2
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 6:40 PM
> In order to build a good Arthurian setting I`d have to create specific
> bloodline rules for each of the human sub-races.
No you wouldn`t. The cultures you mention already created rules of
succession. And the inheritance rules in BR are not " gender-sanitized
politically correct modified anglo-saxon-norman model of inheritance." They
are intentionally vague to allow a variety of cultures to employ them.
Inventing more rules is the wrong approach. Using the vague rules under a
cultural template allows the greatest flexibilty and the least amount of new
rules verbage.
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.
-
05-21-2002, 12:42 AM #3
> No you wouldn`t. The cultures you mention already created
> rules of succession. And the inheritance rules in BR are not
> " gender-sanitized politically correct modified
> anglo-saxon-norman model of inheritance." They are
> intentionally vague to allow a variety of cultures to employ
> them. Inventing more rules is the wrong approach. Using the
> vague rules under a cultural template allows the greatest
> flexibilty and the least amount of new rules verbage.
Allow me to root for the "less rules means better rules" side for a
moment here.
There, done now.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
************************************************** **************************
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.John 'Trithemius' Machin
The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
"Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius
-
05-21-2002, 02:24 AM #4
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 10:18, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 6:40 PM
>
>
> > In order to build a good Arthurian setting I`d have to create specific
> > bloodline rules for each of the human sub-races.
>
> No you wouldn`t. The cultures you mention already created rules of
> succession. And the inheritance rules in BR are not " gender-sanitized
> politically correct modified anglo-saxon-norman model of inheritance." They
> are intentionally vague to allow a variety of cultures to employ them.
> Inventing more rules is the wrong approach. Using the vague rules under a
> cultural template allows the greatest flexibilty and the least amount of new
> rules verbage.
I agree.
Perhaps I shouldn`t have used the word "rule". However to get an
authentic flavor it would be prudent to ensure that regents of realms
follow the laws or customs of the people and the priests. Now while it`s
a fantasy game, the DM has the advantage of setting the ground rules.
What I`m suggesting is a specific campaign modification (for the purpose
of running in the example - a character with a pictish bloodline). I`m
using it to point out that the inherent implied law of succession as
used in BR is, as you suggest, very general - and therefore inadequate
by and of itself *in this case*.
However in this campaign (if I ever finish), it would not be possible
for a pictish character with a bloodline to do anything else - I would
enforce the cultural convention by way of DM fiat. A set of "rules" or
guidelines to what is *acceptable* for the PCs to follows seems
appropriate.
It`s interesting to note that historically at around the this time, an
Irish king (Erc) marries into the Royal lines of the Picts and one of
his sons becomes King of the Picts and Scots. His tribe was the Scotti,
and based probably in Strathclyde as well as. His son took up the
rulership of the kingdom of Dalriada (and high-king of the Picts as well
with some probability) in the area around Argyll. Of course an Irish
king cannot name his son heir either by the Celtic Law of Tanistry.
A custom among various Celtic tribes--notably in Scotland and
Ireland--by which the king or chief of the clan was elected by family
heads in full assembly. He held office for life and was required by
custom to be of full age, in possession of all his faculties, and
without any remarkable blemish of mind or body. At the same time and
subject to the same conditions, a tanist, or next heir to the
chieftaincy, was elected, who, if the king died or became disqualified,
at once became king. Sometimes the king`s son became tanist, but not
because the system of primogeniture was in any way recognized; indeed,
the only principle adopted was that the dignity of chieftainship should
descend to the eldest and most worthy of the same blood, who well could
be a brother, nephew, or cousin. This system of succession left the
headship open to the ambitious and was a frequent source of strife both
in families and between the clans. Tanistry in Scotland was abolished by
a legal decision in the reign of James I (1406-37) and the English
system of primogeniture substituted.
>
> 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.
-
05-21-2002, 02:24 AM #5
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Montebello, CA
- Posts
- 7
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
> > No you wouldn`t. The cultures you mention already created
> > rules of succession. And the inheritance rules in BR are not
> > " gender-sanitized politically correct modified
> > anglo-saxon-norman model of inheritance." They are
> > intentionally vague to allow a variety of cultures to employ
> > them. Inventing more rules is the wrong approach. Using the
> > vague rules under a cultural template allows the greatest
> > flexibilty and the least amount of new rules verbage.
>
>Allow me to root for the "less rules means better rules" side for a
>moment here.
>
>There, done now.
Guys, come on. The original poster already stated that to capture the
flavor he was looking for he wanted these additional rules added in. This
was a premise, not an argument; accept it in the model and work with it.
Whether you agree the flavor he`s looking for, or with the particular
interface that he and his players use to play the game is irrelevent.
Can`t you just comment on the ideas he`s trying to express without
automatically accusing him of playing the game wrong?
__________________________________________________ _______________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
************************************************** **************************
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."Chance favors the prepared mind." --Sir Isaac Newton.
-
05-21-2002, 02:24 AM #6
> Can`t you just comment on the ideas he`s trying to express
> without automatically accusing him of playing the game wrong?
It`s just that these ideas are in any book on the subject, you just need
to use them in the game. Rule tweaking is all but irrelevant. We really
can`t comment on RW inheritance models and say things like "They should
have done x" can we?
Kenneth`s point is that rules are non-specific enough, reformating the
bloodline system maybe not be an advantage. I agree, hence my post.
Systematically, I cringe from the notion of extensive rule alteration,
when I see no real setting benefit.
Creatively, I say go for it. But I can`t give more help than any one of
a number of books on the subject.
--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.
************************************************** **************************
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.John 'Trithemius' Machin
The Other John From Dunedin (now in Canberra)
"Power performs the Miracle." - Johannes Trithemius
-
05-21-2002, 03:14 AM #7
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lord Rahvin" <lordrahvin@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 8:47 PM
> Can`t you just comment on the ideas he`s trying to express without
> automatically accusing him of playing the game wrong?
Its not a matter of saying that its the wrong game. Its a matter of
observing that rules are a clumsy way of enforcing cultural standards. This
is the reason some of us, most notably Gary have chaffed at the way the
Paladin class assumes a cultural enviroment of Galahad-like knights doing
good. This is the reason I urged that precise descriptions of inheritance
practices be done in some form of "cultural description" and described to
players as the "Pictish tradition, dating back to when the Picts left the
bogs primeval and established the first society of men."
Players get the idea that inheritance will work as the DM has told them, and
there is no chance of an "effect" vs "affect" debate as we saw in this list
a few years ago. Players ought to know that when they swing a sword, or
jump a pit, they have some knowable chance for success. They need to know
the mechanisms to interact with the material world. Rules are good for
this. How leaders are chosen is something different, and mechanics should
be avoided. In general mechanics should be avoided for anything that isn`t
mechanistic.
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.
-
05-21-2002, 03:43 AM #8
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 12:21, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Lord Rahvin" <lordrahvin@HOTMAIL.COM>
> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 8:47 PM
>
>
> > Can`t you just comment on the ideas he`s trying to express without
> > automatically accusing him of playing the game wrong?
>
> Its not a matter of saying that its the wrong game. Its a matter of
> observing that rules are a clumsy way of enforcing cultural standards. This
> is the reason some of us, most notably Gary have chaffed at the way the
> Paladin class assumes a cultural enviroment of Galahad-like knights doing
> good. This is the reason I urged that precise descriptions of inheritance
> practices be done in some form of "cultural description" and described to
> players as the "Pictish tradition, dating back to when the Picts left the
> bogs primeval and established the first society of men."
>
> Players get the idea that inheritance will work as the DM has told them, and
> there is no chance of an "effect" vs "affect" debate as we saw in this list
> a few years ago. Players ought to know that when they swing a sword, or
> jump a pit, they have some knowable chance for success. They need to know
> the mechanisms to interact with the material world. Rules are good for
> this. How leaders are chosen is something different, and mechanics should
> be avoided. In general mechanics should be avoided for anything that isn`t
> mechanistic.
There`s a good setting-justified reason for (say in this case) only
allowing the true-blooded females to pass a pictish god`s bloodline to
their children. The BR rules and the Cerilia setting rules are horribly
intertwined. It`s often difficult to see where one ends and the other
begins. The precedent is set (by Cerilia) in many instances. Nothing
I`ve done invalidates or breaks any BR ruleset - it just restrains them
further - by adding additional setting-race-specific "rules".
But it begs the question: "Why aren`t there some Cerilia-race-specific
guidelines for inheritance ?" (and by innuendo bloodlines - bloodlines
being caught up in the nobility concept therein) All human Cerilian
races follow the broader generalization for rules of inheritance, based
on a open and modern set of mores that historically is not present in
earlier cultures. The sourcebooks show a distinct bias to primogeniture
(if not outright following it to the letter) that extends across all the
human Cerilian cultures, the diversity suggested by those that jumped in
against what I had to say (by arguing that the system was general enough
to take care of all possibilities) does not exist.
>
> 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.
-
05-21-2002, 05:45 AM #9
At 09:21 PM 5/20/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
I`m combining a couple of posts here.
> > In order to build a good Arthurian setting I`d have to create specific
> > bloodline rules for each of the human sub-races.
>
>No you wouldn`t. The cultures you mention already created rules of
>succession. And the inheritance rules in BR are not "gender-sanitized
>politically correct modified anglo-saxon-norman model of
>inheritance." They are intentionally vague to allow a variety of cultures
>to employ them. Inventing more rules is the wrong approach. Using the
>vague rules under a cultural template allows the greatest flexibilty and
>the least amount of new rules verbage.
Actually, I think that`s a contradiction. If the current rules aren`t "a
gender-sanitized politically correct modified anglo-saxon-norman model of
inheritance" then you would by definition need to modify them in order to
create such a system, wouldn`t you? If someone were trying to reflect some
sort of specific method of inheritance, more rules is really the only way
to go.
However, I`d suggest the current rules on investiture are much more of a BR
specific system, actually, meant to describe a relatively limited type of
political transfer of power, using RP, bloodlines, etc. A more generalized
rule for handing off a realm would probably make better sense.
> > Can`t you just comment on the ideas he`s trying to express without
> > automatically accusing him of playing the game wrong?
>
>Its not a matter of saying that its the wrong game. Its a matter of
>observing that rules are a clumsy way of enforcing cultural
>standards. This is the reason some of us, most notably Gary have chaffed
>at the way the Paladin class assumes a cultural enviroment of Galahad-like
>knights doing good.
Actually, what I object to is the way most people seem to interpret the
class that way when there`s really very little in the character class
description that supports that interpretation. It uses the word "squire"
at one point, and the 2e class description listed very knightly examples,
but there`s no reason why characters have to fit into that mold. It`s
absolutely possible to go with a knightly interpretation, but it isn`t
mandatory. If someone wanted to play a character class that was a more
Galahad-like knight there should be changes to the class that better
describe that paradigm.
That is, in fact, what happens in BR. Paladins of Haelyn have more
descriptive text to describe them. I don`t think it need necessarily be
knighthood in the Arthurian sense, but BR paladins do differ from standard
3e (or 2e) paladins. How do BR paladins differ from the core
classes? Well... with more rules, I`m afraid. Yup, more specific rules
that change the class itself to fit particular paradigms.
I generally agree with the sentiment that less rules are better, but when
one is actually trying to articulate something in particular, then one can
either go with some sort of ruling or one can do it on the fly, and there`s
nothing at all wrong with discussing rules issues beforehand so that they
exist in the archives and if at some point in the future a situation occurs
and you don`t have any idea how you might want to go about handling it in
the game, there is some sort of guideline for doing so. At the very least
it is no skin off anyone`s nose for other people to discuss such matters,
and I don`t find it reasonable that anyone could know what someone else is
going to need in their game, so the presumption that a particular rules
discussion is unnecessary seems both intrusive and unreasonable.
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.
-
05-21-2002, 10:33 AM #10
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Tue, 2002-05-21 at 14:33, Gary wrote:
> At 09:21 PM 5/20/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>
> I`m combining a couple of posts here.
>
> > > In order to build a good Arthurian setting I`d have to create specific
> > > bloodline rules for each of the human sub-races.
> >
> >No you wouldn`t. The cultures you mention already created rules of
> >succession. And the inheritance rules in BR are not "gender-sanitized
> >politically correct modified anglo-saxon-norman model of
> >inheritance." They are intentionally vague to allow a variety of cultures
> >to employ them. Inventing more rules is the wrong approach. Using the
> >vague rules under a cultural template allows the greatest flexibilty and
> >the least amount of new rules verbage.
>
> Actually, I think that`s a contradiction. If the current rules aren`t "a
> gender-sanitized politically correct modified anglo-saxon-norman model of
> inheritance" then you would by definition need to modify them in order to
> create such a system, wouldn`t you? If someone were trying to reflect some
> sort of specific method of inheritance, more rules is really the only way
> to go.
>
> However, I`d suggest the current rules on investiture are much more of a BR
> specific system, actually, meant to describe a relatively limited type of
> political transfer of power, using RP, bloodlines, etc. A more generalized
> rule for handing off a realm would probably make better sense.
>
> > > Can`t you just comment on the ideas he`s trying to express without
> > > automatically accusing him of playing the game wrong?
> >
> >Its not a matter of saying that its the wrong game. Its a matter of
> >observing that rules are a clumsy way of enforcing cultural
> >standards. This is the reason some of us, most notably Gary have chaffed
> >at the way the Paladin class assumes a cultural enviroment of Galahad-like
> >knights doing good.
>
> Actually, what I object to is the way most people seem to interpret the
> class that way when there`s really very little in the character class
> description that supports that interpretation. It uses the word "squire"
> at one point, and the 2e class description listed very knightly examples,
> but there`s no reason why characters have to fit into that mold. It`s
> absolutely possible to go with a knightly interpretation, but it isn`t
> mandatory. If someone wanted to play a character class that was a more
> Galahad-like knight there should be changes to the class that better
> describe that paradigm.
>
> That is, in fact, what happens in BR. Paladins of Haelyn have more
> descriptive text to describe them. I don`t think it need necessarily be
> knighthood in the Arthurian sense, but BR paladins do differ from standard
> 3e (or 2e) paladins. How do BR paladins differ from the core
> classes? Well... with more rules, I`m afraid. Yup, more specific rules
> that change the class itself to fit particular paradigms.
It`s a minor point to be sure, but the traditional "knighthood in the
Arthurian sense" is a Norman-French invention of the high medieval
period and no such paladin-like characters were present in true
Arthurian times. (In fact Lancelot doesn`t make an appearance until
dubbed in 800 years later)
On the other hand, during the period of English history often referred
to as the Age of Saints, there were a considerable number of warriors
who were renowned as much for their contribution to Christendom as their
military prowess. Again though, not at the standards of chivalry as
espoused by much later 13th and 14th century writers. However, Gary has
a point as these particular types could be one variant of a more generic
`paladin` as in fact their `history` (as recorded much later) has
transformed them (as with Arthur and his knights) into the ideals of a
society hundreds of years after the actual deeds.
I
If we stick to the paladin rules (as given in 2e for example) then we
make no allowance to play such characters as they actually were, but are
forced to play them as those deeds might be perceived by another culture
entirely.
************************************************** **************************
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