Blood Level & Blood Points

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 11:16 AM


> That is, who and when was a bloodline passed down? Bloodtheft
> might take the place of marriage links, investitures would take the
> place of new births, the various factors that increase bloodline
> strength could be noted with great care. Things like that.

Exactly, and so bards with the proper skills - Knowledge (Nobility) - would
be nearly as useful as priests in determining the power of another fellow.
Of course the hearlds speak from some uncertainly, but they can speak at a
remove of hundred of miles. Priests can speak with greater accuracy, but
must come withing spell range to settle such matters.

Off to the Imperial College of Heraldry to uncover the likely identity of
the Sword Mage!

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 Sun, 2002-05-26 at 01:35, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 11:37 AM
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I still think there would be an interest in genealogies as a mundane way to
> trace bloodlines, estimate the blood power of nobles, and distinguish
> between those who got their birthrigtht through acceptable means - birth,
> investiture, land`s choice - and those who stole it.

Absolutely, I`ve had a bit of a look at it. However the source books are
unreliable in that they don`t follow the rules in many cases. Still
there`s some data to be found. Know bloodline really isn`t enough. I
postulate that the bloodline rules in the rule book are a simple form.
Even the bloodline of Avan is distinguishable from that of Boeruine in
some way.

Bloodlines are strongest in Anuire, especially those of the "An"
derivation. This is probably the influence of the very strong Roele
bloodline.

Avan:
The current Avan bloodline is (postulated) from a minor line of Roele
joined to the original house of Avan with the "An" dominant. This is a
spurious postulation of mine (i.e. it is fictitious but supported by
some chain of reasoning).

Boeruine:
The current Boeruine bloodline is (postulated) also from a line of Roele
(but derived through a female), the argument is related to and
consistant with the argument for Avan. The "An" is again dominant, this
is likely from the An side, other branches of the Boeruine family could
be derived from the original Boeruine bloodline derivation (although
that could as easily be "An" as anything else.)

Aerenwe:
We are told outright that this "An" bloodline is indirectly from Roele.
LS does not have a claim on the Iron Throne though, so again I postulate
that it is through a female branch. This is not the original Aerenwe
house line though. There was no popular uprising against the
Swordwraiths however, so the original line is either dead or the claim
is insufficient.

Osoerde:
William Moergan is "An35". There`s a province called Moergan too, but
it`s not the capital province. Moergan is not the realm name either, so
even though he`s allegedly the rightful claimant, his heritage is cloudy
in bloodline terms.

Dhoesone:
This is the only other "An" line that we hear of in RoE that is
connected to realms. Daeric Dhoesone, an obvious member of the Dhoesone
family is "An20" - although how far away from the succession we do not
have any clear indication - far enough that a male claim could not
displace Fhiele. The "An" could have come down the Dhoesone line. The
current regent has a "Re" line, but this is explained due to her mother
being of the strong "Re" line from Tuarhievel. "Vo" is another candidate
for the original Dhoesone line. This is one case where invested
inheritance of blood is unlikely as the influx of power from Tuarhievel
would have left Fhiele with a stronger bloodline than her father.

Dosiere:
The chamberlain has "An64", yet his relation Helaene has no bloodline
mentioned at all. There are several possible explanations, all call for
some condition or event outside the normal rules.

Cariele/Coeranys:
This is a most interesting situation. Forget the realm switch, it`s a
red herring. Her great-great-grandmother founded Cariele ? Five
generations ago only ? Carrying the same surname ? At least two of these
generations must have had patrilineal cousin marriages, or we are
postulating matrilineal descent in two realms - (unlikely) - so maybe
it`s mandatory! (for female inheritors at least). It`s a "Ma" bloodline
of course and quite ordinary in power, so is this the actual Cariele
bloodline or did the inheritance breakdown and now it`s only about half
what it once was ?

************************************************** **************************
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 Sun, 2002-05-26 at 02:01, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> > On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 00:40, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>
> > Perhaps the argument is "divine right". This term is used in the rule
> > book. It`s a fictive term, as "divine right" never existed except in the
> > mind of James of England
>
> Actually its a continental import, having had a long and happy run in
> France. The doctrine of divine right is a formalization of the sacred
> nature of the monarchy which both France and England subscribed to since
> way, way back. The fact that both kings were said to able to cure scruffola
> by touch is an example of this. This idea of a divine right has roots both
> in the fact that the Roman Emperors formed a divine cult around the Emperor
> and the Church`s medieval reading of the stories of Saul, David, and the
> rest. Ultimatly, everything is part of God`s plan, so the fact that we have
> a king, and this guy is he, implies some divine sanction. You under rate
> the idea of sacred kingship and divine right.

Not at all. I think that it`s misplaced in this context. Early
(rudimentary) kings embodied the functions of high priest, judge, and
war leader. Saul and David are archetypal of this. There is no culture
in Cerilia that is this rudimentary.

The reading of the medieval church was really just a suck-up to gain
power themselves i.e. if they "authorized/endorsed" the king that
implies that they have power themselves. It`s a mistake to think that
they ceded this to the king at all. This subtle (or not so subtle)
sharing of temporal power shows that early medieval kings were not
despotic in their application of power. In fact their use of priests
(Christian priests especially) was to try and break free of the
constraints already on them, but all they succeeded in doing was
exchanging one for the other (and even that wouldn`t go away entirely).
This "divine right" was thus fictive, both in practice and doctrine - of
course a few miracles and the odd saint for king never hurt the
propaganda any.

James` attempt to claim "divine right" was an attempt to go back in
time. To a time where he didn`t need the approval of the church, i.e. he
wanted to refuse the authority of the protestant church, and choose one
that would support him. Here, he makes a claim to the RC faith, but it`s
the same ploy that the earlier kings used to try and displace their
councils in favor of their priests.

************************************************** **************************
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 Sun, 2002-05-26 at 02:11, Gary wrote:
> At 12:56 AM 5/26/2002 +1000, Peter Lubke wrote:
>

> >Okay, having established that Anuire is not a feudal society - if nothing
> >else the presence of free farmers precludes it absolutely - let`s find out
> >why the above mentioned system isn`t in place either.
>
> Actually, you can still have free farmers in a feudal society. In fact,
> "feudal" in the modern sense is often used to refer to a hierarchical
> system of military obligation rather than a social system as a
> whole. "Feudal" can also describe social factors, but I generally try to
> reserve it for the system of military obligation since other terms seem
> more apt to describe social issues.

That is one of the definitions of feudal certainly. It`s the definition
that applies to the beginnings of feudalism in late Roman times. I also
think it`s what is meant by semi-feudal as it applies to the
(Roman-inspired) Anuireans. As an ideal it seems a fine idea, but it
ignores the fact that changes to the society inevitably occur as a
result of such a system. However the progressive introduction of
feudalism at this time by the Romans tied the slaves of the time to a
patch of ground and most importantly changed the status of free farmers
to slaves. It didn`t start like that but that`s how it ended up as a
natural consequence of the introduction of feudalism - no feudal system
has ever had free farmers.

>
> >[snip analysis of Anurian society and empirial succession]
>
> Well, what I was getting at with my comments regarding how bloodline would
> interact with the social system in which it existed was more of a
> speculation on how a bloodline would be more significant any individual
> merit, ability or even network of relationships of the kind that most real
> world social and political systems are predicated. A character with a
> higher bloodline is demonstrably more able to rule than one with a lower
> one
Under standard rules ? How would you "demonstrate" this ? A blooded
character with a bloodline of 100 and a domain of 1 law holding does not
manifest in domain terms any greater ability to rule than a scion with a
bloodline of 10 and a domain of 20 pts. [ however, I`ll agree in
principle - it should be so - that it is not so is a flaw in the
mechanics ]

> and, in fact, a bloodline forms the basis of the ability to rule in
> BR. Of course, many other factors can influence individual regent`s
> rulership, but bloodline is an obvious, demonstrable and required
> ingredient. That would surely alter the nature of the socio-political
> system.
Not necessarily, at least -- from the point of view that *someone* will
rule in a society, the game postulates a *reason* why this is so. It
doesn`t postulate that it changes the nature of how society works, just
that there are reasons for why it does so. In other words, the bloodline
system doesn`t force a specific form of rulership, but any form of
rulership can be explained, organized, and simulated with the bloodline
system as its motive engine.

> How? Well, that`s pretty speculative. I`d guess it would lead to
> a caste-like system, with bloodline derivation and bloodline strength
> determining various rankings at the top of the social hierarchy. Blooded
> characters would use their bloodline as proof of their right to higher
> positions in society.
It`s your use of "their right" that I`m objecting to. They have the
"power" and "ability" through their bloodline to rule more effectively,
and this "power" and "ability" is relative to their bloodline strength.
They don`t need to "prove" anything except by doing it.

Socially however, even this "ability" and "power" won`t create a society
based on rank through bloodline alone.

************************************************** **************************
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: Saturday, May 25, 2002 12:33 PM


> Not at all. I think that it`s misplaced in this context. Early
> (rudimentary) kings embodied the functions of high priest, judge, and
> war leader. Saul and David are archetypal of this. There is no culture
> in Cerilia that is this rudimentary.

And no one said that their were, or that this ideology directly impinges on
anything Cerilian. I was explaining the backround to divine right. Sorry
to have been so difficult to decode.

> The reading of the medieval church [long off topic rant, possibly an
attempt to change subject]

Yeah, if you like. The absence of any controlling thesis leaves me unable
to comment further [perhaps the point]. I disagree with most of it, but
have other writing to do. Please clarify if you actually were disagreeing
with something specific.

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.

[Birthright-L]

Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-05-25 20.00:

> no feudal system has ever had free farmers.

You said this before, and I denied it before.

/Carl

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

[Trithemius]

Peter sez:
> Not at all. I think that it`s misplaced in this context. Early
> (rudimentary) kings embodied the functions of high priest,
> judge, and war leader. Saul and David are archetypal of this.
> There is no culture in Cerilia that is this rudimentary.

Er, what about the Lord Paladin of Ariya. He/she heads the Great Temple
of Avani and the realm of Ariya at the same time. He/she is also the
leader of the armies of Ariya. I think Thuriene Donnalls might fit the
bill as well, and probably Suris Enlien, although I think she is
unproven as a war-leader yet.

I wouldn`t class these cultures as "rudimentary" at all, especially not
Ariya, the jewel of Khinasi.

--
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.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sun, 2002-05-26 at 02:31, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
> Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2002 11:16 AM
>
>
> > That is, who and when was a bloodline passed down? Bloodtheft
> > might take the place of marriage links, investitures would take the
> > place of new births, the various factors that increase bloodline
> > strength could be noted with great care. Things like that.
>
> Exactly, and so bards with the proper skills - Knowledge (Nobility) - would
> be nearly as useful as priests in determining the power of another fellow.
> Of course the hearlds speak from some uncertainly, but they can speak at a
> remove of hundred of miles. Priests can speak with greater accuracy, but
> must come withing spell range to settle such matters.

IMO, the study of genealogy must include bloodlines not the other way
around. Just as genealogists use certain physical characteristics to
track members of a particular family they would also use certain blood
abilities and/or derivations.

Cultural laws or customs of succession, inheritance and family trees
would determine a characters "legal" rights to claims. Neither the gods
nor the people would accept anything else (unless of course forced). A
bloodline of the right sort may support such a claim. A strong character
with a bloodline might be able to usurp - and thus make a different sort
of claim creating their own line. Authority versus Power. Right versus
Might. Either could win out, but neither is mandated to do so.

In Vosgaard for example (and this is from TotHW) a bloodline is not
necessary to support your claim to be war chief. This is done by force
of arms alone. The strongest most able warrior is then supported by the
priesthood, which shows a strong division of power and the reliance of
Vos realm rulers on the temple tier. Of course, BR rules say you can`t
be regent without a bloodline - so how does that work ? - Well, the
priests find a bloodline for him. (That`s also there in TotHW)

So in Vos society, for the position of war leader - bloodlines are
completely irrelevant ! Yet there`s evidence for a hereditary priesthood
- this is no contradiction, it merely shows that the situation can be
quite complex even in so-called primitive societies.

[ There is numerous other evidence that the authors of the Vos were
drawing on a rulership model that did not endorse despotic power in the
torva Vos system. Nona Vos is even more so. ]

************************************************** **************************
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 Sun, 2002-05-26 at 04:20, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>
> Yeah, if you like. The absence of any controlling thesis leaves me unable
> to comment further [perhaps the point]. I disagree with most of it, but
> have other writing to do. Please clarify if you actually were disagreeing
> with something specific.

"divine right" wasn`t real. Did not exist when it was historically
claimed - such claiming resulted in downfall of royal houses involved -
proof after the fact if you like that they didn`t have "divine right".

It`s really the right of the state faith to endorse a ruler, i.e. it`s a
temple power not a realm ruler.

************************************************** **************************
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 Sun, 2002-05-26 at 10:03, John Machin wrote:
> Peter sez:
> > Not at all. I think that it`s misplaced in this context. Early
> > (rudimentary) kings embodied the functions of high priest,
> > judge, and war leader. Saul and David are archetypal of this.
> > There is no culture in Cerilia that is this rudimentary.
>
> Er, what about the Lord Paladin of Ariya. He/she heads the Great Temple
> of Avani and the realm of Ariya at the same time. He/she is also the
> leader of the armies of Ariya. I think Thuriene Donnalls might fit the
> bill as well, and probably Suris Enlien, although I think she is
> unproven as a war-leader yet.
>
> I wouldn`t class these cultures as "rudimentary" at all, especially not
> Ariya, the jewel of Khinasi.

Not the same thing. In these states kings have ceased to rule, the
church has taken primary control of government.

Ariya:
1299-1404 MA Golden Age of Ariya
1495 MA Ascension of Fatima bint el-Arrassi to the Ariyan throne. Ariya
becomes a theocracy.

The rulers of Ariya became high priests after they had ruled Ariya for
many years rather than being rulers because they ruled Ariya. This a
change to a more advanced state of government: (seen in more recent
times in modern day Iran)
Despotic priest-king (rules partly because he`s a god/descended from
etyc), (kingdoms cannot grow large and stable without distribution of
power)
=> kings governing with checks and balances, responsibilities and
obligations (this is often the high point or golden age for a culture)
=> more oligarchical forms such as theocracy, republics etc (while more
advanced these are less efficient in many ways)

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