Blood Level & Blood Points

[Birthright-L]

Hi there,

I have an idea for a new way of handling bloodline accumulation and
increase, hopefully better than the original one. To do this, I introduce
two new concept: Blood Level & Blood Points.

Each time you commit bloodtheft, are invested with someones bloodline, or
are born a scion to blooded parents, you get a number of Blood Points
(BP) equal to the Blood Level (BL) of the donor. Gather enough BP and you
raise a BL. In order to go from one BL to the next, you need BP equal
to the next BL. This results in the following table:

BLOOD LEVEL BLOOD POINTS
0 0
1 1
2 3
3 6
4 10
5 15
6 21
7 28
8 36
9 45
10 55
11 66
12 78
13 91
14 105
15 120
16 136
17 153
18 171
19 190
20 210

This table shows the total number of BP required to reach a BL, or in other
words, the number of BP a unblooded (BL 0) person needs to get there. This
number is 1/2 * n * (n + 1), where n is the BL you want to reach. It works a
bit like XP and CL, really.

Some short examples:

Unblooded person commits bloodtheft of BL 20 scion. He gains 20 BP. He has
0, because he`s BL 0. 0 + 20 = 20, so now he has 20 BP, which means he`s now
BL 5. The same would be true if he had been invested with the blood, instead
of stealing it.

BL 19 kills a BL 1. He had 190 BP and gains 1, so now he has 191 BP, which
doesn`t gain him anything, really. But if he were to kill another 19 BL 1s,
he would achieve BL 20. If if he had just killed a BL 20 in the first place,
he would`ve achieved it instantly. The same would be true if had gained the
blood through investiture, instead of theft.

Scion is born of two blooded parents. One is BL 10, the other BL 11. The
newborn gets 10 + 11 = 21 BP, which gives her BL 6. Later, both parents
invest her with their bloodlines, which gives her another 21 BP, which gives
her BL 8, at 41 BP, just 4 BP away from BL 9. If her parents would`ve been
BL 5 & 6, she would`ve been born BL 4, with 11 BP instead, and later
would`ve achieved BL 6, with 22 BP, through investiture. Or if one parent is
BL 1 and the other BL 0, the child is born BL 1, with 1 BP, and is later
invested to 2 BP, but still BL 1. With both parents BL 1, the child is born
BL 1, with 2 BP, and later invested to BL 2, with 4 BP.

Some obvious points here:

BL increase can go extremely fast at the lower levels, as you can see, but
as you progress in BL it slows down quite a bit. I would recommend to
usually keep bloodtheft and investiture at a maximum of 4 BLs difference
between donor and recipient, to both prevent too massive increases in BL at
the lower level, and also to keep things like bloodtheft and investiture a
bit more meaningful at the higher levels, though it`s of course by no means
required.

The higher your BL, the lower your children`s BLs will be in comparison.
Basically, this means that strong bloodlines are harder to keep at the same
level in the family than weak bloodlines are, which would seem to make
sense. However, a child is never born with a BL higher than either of its
parents, and can only be invested by its parents to a BL one higher than the
parent with the highest BL, and then only if the BL of the other parent is
of a comparable level.

Anyhow, remember that bloodtheft only succeeds if the target is killed with
a critical hit, and then only if the weapon dealing the lethal blow
physically connects the victim to a recipient. It doesn`t matter though
exactly how the critical hit is achieved.

Finally, if you commit bloodtheft with a tighmaevril weapon, you gain a 20%
bonus on the number of BP you gain.


Comments please,

- the Falcon


------------------------------------------
"I`ve got the Dungeon Master`s Guide
I`ve got a 12-sided die
I`ve got Kitty Pryde and Nightcrawler too
Waiting there for me, yes I do
I do"
- from "In The Garage", by Weezer
------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Birthright-L]

On Tue, 21 May 2002, the Falcon wrote:

> Each time you commit bloodtheft, are invested with someones bloodline, or
> are born a scion to blooded parents, you get a number of Blood Points
> (BP) equal to the Blood Level (BL) of the donor. Gather enough BP and you
> raise a BL. In order to go from one BL to the next, you need BP equal
> to the next BL.

I think this is a great idea. I had already started doing bloodtheft this
way, but I had not incorporated birth or investiture.

> This number is 1/2 * n * (n + 1), where n is the BL you want to reach.
> It works a bit like XP and CL, really.

BL as a function of BP is identical to CL - 1 as a function of XP/1000. =)
It is also identical to the number of RP needed to raise the bloodline up
from zero (a concept I like, though some here have complained about),
which is what first gave me the idea.

> The higher your BL, the lower your children`s BLs will be in comparison.

This is the one thing that worries me about your model. Two 5s have 4s;
two 35s have 11s; and a marriage of an Avan to a Boeruine (70 and 60)
produces children whose bloodline is only 15!

> Basically, this means that strong bloodlines are harder to keep at the
> same level in the family than weak bloodlines are, which would seem to
> make sense.

So what you`re saying is that marriage of a high noble to a low noble
produces children who are low nobles, rather than high ones. Some
inheritance systems have worked this way, and some the other. What
bothers me is that in your model, two high nobles still have only low
nobles for children! This might reflect a culture in which deeds are far
more important than birth, but I don`t think it fits Cerilia very well.
What I would be inclined to do instead is say that the child`s starting
blood points are the average of the parents` blood points. This produces
the same result as the "average the levels" approach of the standard rules
when the bloodlines are identical (whereas yours is roughly twice the
square root of the average), and when they are far apart tilts the result
in favor of the higher bloodline (a system of inheritance that treats
mixed marriages as closer to the higher class). For 70+0 (Prince Avan and
the milkmaid?) the standard method gives 35, whereas yours gives 11 and
mine gives 49; I can see all of these as reasonable answers. For 60+70,
my suggestion gives the children 65, same as the standard; your method`s
answer of just 15 strikes me as much too low, especially the way I
perceive Anuire as working. There also seems to be almost no way that, in
your model, there could be noble families with bloodlines of 60 or 70
after over 1,500 years (about 60 generations!) of mating.

> Anyhow, remember that bloodtheft only succeeds if the target is killed
> with a critical hit, and then only if the weapon dealing the lethal
> blow physically connects the victim to a recipient.

Then remember the utility of paralytic spells and poisons, so you can
auto-crit them later! Personally, I feel like encouraging the
"Highlander" aspect of the setting, so IMC the "must stab them through the
heart" thing is a myth (that the blooded prefer the commoners to believe,
to keep casual bloodline-seeking murder rarer), and any kill in melee
(including with a touch spell) is good enough. I`ve also envisioned (but
not run) a plot in which a commoner happens to be touching (dressing,
selling fruit to, being healed by, etc.) a blooded scion who is killed by
an assassin using a missile weapon, which inadvertently provides the
commoner with the slain noble`s bloodline through accidental "bloodtheft".

> Finally, if you commit bloodtheft with a tighmaevril weapon, you gain
> a 20% bonus on the number of BP you gain.

I`d make tighmaevril much more efficient -- give the slayer a fraction
(half, perhaps) of the victim`s BP to add to his/her own. This makes them
much more important when dealing with really powerful bloodlines, as seems
mythically appropriate to me.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Peter Lubke]

> This is the one thing that worries me about your model. Two 5s have 4s;
> two 35s have 11s; and a marriage of an Avan to a Boeruine (70 and 60)
> produces children whose bloodline is only 15!
>
> > Basically, this means that strong bloodlines are harder to keep at the
> > same level in the family than weak bloodlines are, which would seem to
> > make sense.
>
> So what you`re saying is that marriage of a high noble to a low noble
> produces children who are low nobles, rather than high ones. Some
> inheritance systems have worked this way, and some the other. What
> bothers me is that in your model, two high nobles still have only low
> nobles for children! This might reflect a culture in which deeds are far
> more important than birth, but I don`t think it fits Cerilia very well.

Well, not Anuire it doesn`t fit so well. I wouldn`t go so far as to
claim that for all Cerilia. But even in Anuire both of your arguments
have some serious holes.

Anuirean realms (if not domains) are passed on to a single heir intact
along with the original bloodline in most cases. Invested Inheritance.
This preserves the original bloodline and the domain intact. The
original bloodline of the heir (if any) is not relevant in determining
their fitness to the succession.

The concept that bloodline equals nobility is pretty damn worrying. Not
all blooded characters are nobles, nor are all nobles necessarily
blooded, nor need all nobles be regents. Certainly, landed regents who
are nobles must have bloodlines - but this does not imply that more
blood equals greater nobility either. (And most landed regents either
are given or take a title)

"These days a regent`s noble title does little more than reflect the
heritage of his kingdom." - RoE, p7.

It would be Anuirean culture (the "Book of Laws") that determines the
rules of succession - who inherits what title etc. e.g. In Ilien the
Count of the source book as adopted by the previous Count and as such
bears his name (he is a de-facto member of the Aglondier family). His
daughter, the Lady Alliene was born before the adoption and is thus a
member of her fathers old family (her father would have to adopt her to
make her an Aglondier too!). That Anuire is patrilineal is denoted by
the use of sire-names as the family name.


> What I would be inclined to do instead is say that the child`s starting
> blood points are the average of the parents` blood points. This produces
> the same result as the "average the levels" approach of the standard rules
> when the bloodlines are identical (whereas yours is roughly twice the
> square root of the average), and when they are far apart tilts the result
> in favor of the higher bloodline (a system of inheritance that treats
> mixed marriages as closer to the higher class). For 70+0 (Prince Avan and
> the milkmaid?) the standard method gives 35, whereas yours gives 11 and
> mine gives 49; I can see all of these as reasonable answers. For 60+70,
> my suggestion gives the children 65, same as the standard; your method`s
> answer of just 15 strikes me as much too low, especially the way I
> perceive Anuire as working.

> There also seems to be almost no way that, in
> your model, there could be noble families with bloodlines of 60 or 70
> after over 1,500 years (about 60 generations!) of mating.

Of course there is ! Direct investiture inheritance preserves the
bloodline totally - there is no loss in an unbroken line of lateral
descent even to the point of adopting an heir where no natural heir is
present. In the event of failure to designate an heir the land will
normally choose one, - given that the land`s choice reflects the will of
the people and the will of the gods (and the almighty DM too), such a
choice will normally follow the culturally established lines of
succession -- even to finding a distant and unknown seven-generations
removed natural heir.

>
> > Anyhow, remember that bloodtheft only succeeds if the target is killed
> > with a critical hit, and then only if the weapon dealing the lethal
> > blow physically connects the victim to a recipient.

Critical hit ! pshaw ! stuff and nonsense ! (don`t tell me that the 3e
authors are having their own attempt at a critical hit system - I`ll bet
it`s just as flawed as the last hundred or so attempts)

The rules as written for 2e only required that the killing blow be
through the heart. No official system at all allows for such a blow in
normal combat. So how was one to administer the killing blow ?

The answer my friend is simple. If you are using the 0 hit points equals
death rule you are out of luck - it can`t be done deliberately. (the DM
is then free to interpret whether or not the killing stroke may have
been a blow through the heart but no called shot or critical hit can do
it for you)

If you are using the optional rules, from either 2e or 1e (the 1e ones
are much better but 2e seems to be an abridged copy) - then as long as
you haven`t killed the victim outright and can safely administer a
killing blow, you can choose to stab them through the heart at will. (no
roll, no critical hit, nada, instant death!)

Any conversion to 3e should have created a parallel form, neither easier
nor more difficult.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:37 AM


> The concept that bloodline equals nobility is pretty damn worrying.

I think its one of the central concepts of the setting.

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.

[Peter Lubke]

On Fri, 2002-05-24 at 21:35, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Lubke" <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 12:37 AM
>
>
> > The concept that bloodline equals nobility is pretty damn worrying.
>
> I think its one of the central concepts of the setting.

One of the popular misconceptions you mean.
(if that was a troll then I apologize)

You can`t be seriously suggesting to this forum that ALL blooded
characters are inherently titled nobles. Quite apart from the
overwhelming evidence to the contrary in every single source book, and
the logical absurdity of such a statement from both the historical and
genealogical point of view, there is the direct statements to the
contrary in the rulebook.

Let`s start at p20 (Bloodlines, the first time it`s mentioned after the
intro) and I quote "great numbers of high-born nobles, courtiers,
advisers, and government officials come from mundane heritages." and
again "...hundreds of blooded characters also exist ... who aren`t in
line for the crown."

How do you work backwards from "All rulers of realms are blooded" and
(implied but not even necessarily true "Rulers of realms are nobles") to
"All blooded characters are nobles." ?

My dog is brindled. Dogs are animals. Therefore all brindled animals are
dogs.

Seriously, education these days isn`t what it used to be. There seems as
almost complete lack of set theory, logic, grammar, reading
comprehension and other disciplines in place of "equality of learning".
(that is, learning at the pace of the weakest member of the group)

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 24 May 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:

> Invested Inheritance. This preserves the original bloodline and the
> domain intact. The original bloodline of the heir (if any) is not
> relevant in determining their fitness to the succession.

This is what the standard rules say, but it is not what Falcon`s model
says. He does bloodline investiture the same way he does birth and
bloodtheft: bloodline score ("blood level") of donor is added to "blood
points" of recipient, whose new bloodline score is determined by reference
to the table (or formula). In Falcon`s model, if Prince Avan (BL 70) has
a child by an unblooded woman, that child has 70 blood points and thus a
blood level of 11. If Avan then invests that child with the entirety of
his bloodline, the child adds another 70 blood points, bringing the total
to 140 for a resultant blood level of 16 -- exactly what the child would
have had at birth if both its parents had blood levels of 70. If both
parents did in fact have blood levels of 70, and both invested their child
with their bloodlines, the child would have 280 blood points and therefore
a total blood level of just 23. In Falcon`s model, it is impossible to
keep bloodlines as high as are found in the source books without imagining
constant bloodtheft on a vast scale, or the expenditure of immense numbers
of RP (which ISTR he personally opposes).

> Not all blooded characters are nobles, nor are all nobles necessarily
> blooded, nor need all nobles be regents.

IMO, blooded characters are the very definition of having "noble blood",
whether or not they have a title. A blooded character is favored by the
gods, favored by them with the power to rule in a way that an unblooded
person simply has no ability to emulate. Birthright makes the doctrine of
"divine right of kings" into an undeniable truth (and, for that matter, a
game mechanic) -- certain people in Cerilia make inherently superior
regents simply by virtue of the blood they have inherited from their
parents. That doesn`t mean they all are regents, but they all are
descended from "noble stock".


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
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.

[ConjurerDragon]

Hello!

Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

>...
>
>>Not all blooded characters are nobles, nor are all nobles necessarily
>>blooded, nor need all nobles be regents.
>>
>
>IMO, blooded characters are the very definition of having "noble blood",
>whether or not they have a title. A blooded character is favored by the
>gods, favored by them with the power to rule in a way that an unblooded
>person simply has no ability to emulate. Birthright makes the doctrine of
>"divine right of kings" into an undeniable truth (and, for that matter, a
>game mechanic) -- certain people in Cerilia make inherently superior
>regents simply by virtue of the blood they have inherited from their
>parents. That doesn`t mean they all are regents, but they all are
>descended from "noble stock".
>
Maybe "noble" does confuse some people, who imagine a lord and his
family, or a knight when thinking of nobles.
However even a filthy thief might be blooded with Brenna´s bloodline
and a brutal barbarian mercenary with Azrais blood.
A blooded character is considered more than a normal human, even if he
is no regent, even if he holds no title at all
(Iron Throne had the half-elf son of the chamberlain who encountered a
great deal of respect AFTER the humans discovered he was blooded, before
he was a scorned half-breed).

Think maybe of HERCULES when it comes to blooded characters - they are
not sons of gods but have godly powers and the blood of gods in their
veins. Or at least the unblooded people should treat them similar.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 01:00, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2002, Peter Lubke wrote:
>
> > Invested Inheritance. This preserves the original bloodline and the
> > domain intact. The original bloodline of the heir (if any) is not
> > relevant in determining their fitness to the succession.
>
> This is what the standard rules say, but it is not what Falcon`s model
> says.
Aaah ... okay

> He does bloodline investiture the same way he does birth and
> bloodtheft: bloodline score ("blood level") of donor is added to "blood
> points" of recipient, whose new bloodline score is determined by reference
> to the table (or formula). In Falcon`s model, if Prince Avan (BL 70) has
> a child by an unblooded woman, that child has 70 blood points and thus a
> blood level of 11. If Avan then invests that child with the entirety of
> his bloodline, the child adds another 70 blood points, bringing the total
> to 140 for a resultant blood level of 16 -- exactly what the child would
> have had at birth if both its parents had blood levels of 70. If both
> parents did in fact have blood levels of 70, and both invested their child
> with their bloodlines, the child would have 280 blood points and therefore
> a total blood level of just 23. In Falcon`s model, it is impossible to
> keep bloodlines as high as are found in the source books without imagining
> constant bloodtheft on a vast scale, or the expenditure of immense numbers
> of RP (which ISTR he personally opposes).

Only Anuire and (sometimes Brechtur) are very high. The highest Vos from
memory is An44, and after that we are talking low 30`s max. But yeah, a
system must be able to explain even the high Awnsheghlien bloodlines to
get a vote from me.

>
> > Not all blooded characters are nobles, nor are all nobles necessarily
> > blooded, nor need all nobles be regents.
>
> IMO, blooded characters are the very definition of having "noble blood",
> whether or not they have a title.
Well that`s different. That may be, although the evidence would suggest
otherwise, it`s a harder case to prove against.

> A blooded character is favored by the
> gods, favored by them with the power to rule in a way that an unblooded
> person simply has no ability to emulate.
(that`s almost if not a tautology)

> Birthright makes the doctrine of
> "divine right of kings" into an undeniable truth (and, for that matter, a
> game mechanic) -- certain people in Cerilia make inherently superior
> regents simply by virtue of the blood they have inherited from their
> parents. That doesn`t mean they all are regents, but they all are
> descended from "noble stock".

Just as long as you distinguish between "ability" and "right". They may
be Noble-capable by blood, but this gives them no rights or titles -
just a god-given ability to forge a domain. In other words, they have
the innate potential to become Kings etc. the divine right of kings is
post the fact - and a trifle misplaced in renaissance or late medieval
kings (as James was soon to find out when he pressed the point).

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 01:09, Michael Romes wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>
> >...
> >
> >>Not all blooded characters are nobles, nor are all nobles necessarily
> >>blooded, nor need all nobles be regents.
> >>
> >
> >IMO, blooded characters are the very definition of having "noble blood",
> >whether or not they have a title. A blooded character is favored by the
> >gods, favored by them with the power to rule in a way that an unblooded
> >person simply has no ability to emulate. Birthright makes the doctrine of
> >"divine right of kings" into an undeniable truth (and, for that matter, a
> >game mechanic) -- certain people in Cerilia make inherently superior
> >regents simply by virtue of the blood they have inherited from their
> >parents. That doesn`t mean they all are regents, but they all are
> >descended from "noble stock".
> >
> Maybe "noble" does confuse some people, who imagine a lord and his
> family, or a knight when thinking of nobles.
> However even a filthy thief might be blooded with Brenna´s bloodline
> and a brutal barbarian mercenary with Azrais blood.
> A blooded character is considered more than a normal human, even if he
> is no regent, even if he holds no title at all
> (Iron Throne had the half-elf son of the chamberlain who encountered a
> great deal of respect AFTER the humans discovered he was blooded, before
> he was a scorned half-breed).
>
> Think maybe of HERCULES when it comes to blooded characters - they are
> not sons of gods but have godly powers and the blood of gods in their
> veins. Or at least the unblooded people should treat them similar.
> bye
> Michael Romes

exactly

************************************************** **************************
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.

[geeman]

At 12:14 AM 5/25/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:

> > > The concept that bloodline equals nobility is pretty damn worrying.
> >
> > I think its one of the central concepts of the setting.
>
>One of the popular misconceptions you mean.
>(if that was a troll then I apologize)
>
>You can`t be seriously suggesting to this forum that ALL blooded
>characters are inherently titled nobles. Quite apart from the overwhelming
>evidence to the contrary in every single source book, and
>the logical absurdity of such a statement from both the historical and
>genealogical point of view, there is the direct statements to the contrary
>in the rulebook.

There are several steps between the "one of the central concepts of the
setting" statement and the "All blooded characters are inherently titled
nobles" conclusion, so I don`t think that`s what was being
suggested. Bloodlines are one of the central concepts of the BR setting,
however, and I`m not sure what is so troubling about that concept, so maybe
you could extrapolate on what the problem is with that as you see it?

>Let`s start at p20 (Bloodlines, the first time it`s mentioned after the
>intro) and I quote "great numbers of high-born nobles, courtiers,
>advisers, and government officials come from mundane heritages." and again
>"...hundreds of blooded characters also exist ... who aren`t in line for
>the crown."
>
>How do you work backwards from "All rulers of realms are blooded" and
>(implied but not even necessarily true "Rulers of realms are nobles") to
>"All blooded characters are nobles." ?

None of the characters from the p20 quote need necessarily have a
bloodline. All nobles are not blooded--depending on what point in the
social hierarchy you`re defining as the nobility. It`s easy to imagine
non-blooded minor nobles and functionaries, all of whom participate at the
realm level in a kind of ancillary way, working for and below to the realm
level of nobility. The mayor of a town, selectman of a council, priest in
charge of a cathedral are all titled positions, all of which need not
necessarily require a bloodline. It`s also easy to picture the "second
son" syndrome in which people with bloodlines wind up "finding their level"
below the realm level nobility due to the weird interaction with BR
bloodlines with the use of RL titular inheritance. Scions could wind up
outside the titular nobility just because their families run out of titles....

If one were to design a society that had BR bloodlines, however, it`d
probably be more likely that blooded characters would get noble status,
even minor noble status, if they have bloodlines. Where RL nobility is
often posited on divine providence, in BR it really is, and that connection
to the gods is demonstrable. Nobility probably wouldn`t rely on patents,
genealogies and commission when it can be more accurately and functionally
described by a BR bloodline. Given that there are only so many realm level
nobles, wouldn`t it be more logical to place minor nobles in positions of
minor nobility so that they can not only participate in the realm, but will
be in some sort of line of succession in the noble hierarchy?

The BR setting jumps through several hoops in order to replicate certain
real world paradigms and ignores more than a few factors that would have a
drastic affect on the social systems of the various cultures. For
instance, it`s hard to imagine the existence of magic in the D&D sense not
having a much more significant influence on the social hierarchy of a
feudal society than it does in BR (or most D&D campaign settings, for that
matter) and many other aspects of society would be very different from real
world history given some of the differences between BR and RL.

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.